Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-21-2016 1 APPROVED 2/16/2016 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING January 21, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. He noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: -yellow sheet, for item 4-b: Extension of Tax Listing Period Resolution (approval) -white sheet, PowerPoint presentation for item 4-b - turquoise sheet, additional information for item 4-b: Historical Perspective —2017 Revaluation - email from Commissioner Jacobs containing questions for item 7-a -white sheet, additional information for item 8-a A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to add a closed session for the purpose of: "143-318.11(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. In re Sloane." VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs will not be in attendance tonight. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Rich petitioned about voting information, noting it would benefit the community to have more information about the new voting rules for 2016. She asked if the communications team could partner with Board of Elections to educate the public. Chair McKee asked if the County Manager would take the lead on this. Commissioner Rich said she is hearing a lot about "The Barn" event center, and she is concerned about not being able to give a response to the public on this issue. She said there should be a one-voice response when inquiries are made. Chair McKee said he had been invited to a community meeting about this item, and asked if staff would lay out appropriate response options to share with the public. Commissioner Dorosin said he has concerns about having one unified response, as all Commissioners may not agree on a response due to a lack of information. Commissioner Rich said she does not know what the Board's response should be, as she is unsure as to what falls under the Board's purview. Commissioner Dorosin suggested adding this topic as an information item on the next agenda. Chair McKee agreed with this suggestion, and said he will report this plan at the upcoming community meeting. Commissioner Burroughs said she is interested in learning more about the County's relationship with Cardinal Innovations, and she requested a presentation regarding the County's funding of, and relationship with, them. Commissioner Burroughs said it is her understanding that the Town of Hillsborough has withdrawn funding to non-profits this year, and requested more information on this. Bonnie Hammersley said staff will be able to provide information about Cardinal Innovations for the Board. Commissioner Dorosin referred to an article from the NC Budget and Policy Center of the NC Justice Center, regarding income inequality in North Carolina. He said statewide the top 5% of earners take home nearly 27 times the average income of the bottom 20%, a 27 to 1 ratio. Commissioner Dorosin said the counties that have the greatest disparities from top to bottom includes Orange County. He said as the Board goes to its retreat next week, it is important to keep in mind that income disparities within the County are a significant reality. Commissioner Price said in response to Commissioner Rich that Democracy NC and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have created brochures about the new voting laws. Commissioner Price said she too would like a presentation regarding Cardinal Innovations and the Stepping Up Initiative. She said the My Brother's Keeper project has been in effect for a year and hoped to have a progress report ready this month. She said the report is not quite completed, but she will email it to the Board when it is, and asked if it could be posted on the web. Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions. Chair McKee had no petitions. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Human Relations Month Proclamation 3 The Board considered officially proclaiming the month of February 2016 as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign the Proclamation. Rollin Russell, Human Relations Commission (HRC) member, introduced Desaray Rockett, HRC Youth Ambassador, who read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners established the Human Relations Commission in June 1987 with the desire to "encourage mutual understanding and fair treatment of all citizens"; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that in order to achieve justice and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to create an atmosphere where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated, and therefore continue to promote the ideal of social justice for all; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has diligently served Orange County since 1987 and remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity and understanding throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's Civil Rights Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, veteran status and familial status; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange County residents, as individuals, to take a stand against social injustice and continue to work together to make freedom, justice, and equal opportunity available for all; and WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made thus far towards equality and leading the challenge for equal opportunity using all the means at our disposal; NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim February 2016 as "HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH" in Orange County and challenge our residents to promote the ideology of social justice for all by celebrating and encouraging multiculturalism in the County and encouraging all residents to embrace diversity and equal access in Orange County. THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to adopt the Proclamation and authorized the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. 2017 Countywide Revaluation Update The Board received an update on the Orange County Tax Office's administration of the 2017 countywide revaluation of real property. 4 Dwane Brinson, Orange County Tax Administrator, reviewed the following background. BACKGROUND: North Carolina State Law, North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105- 286(a), mandates that counties conduct a countywide revaluation of real property at least once every eight (8) years. Orange County's last revaluation took effect January 1, 2009. All current property tax assessments in the County reflect each property's market value as of the last revaluation date. The 2017 revaluation will capture eight (8) years of market changes, and it will involve reviewing the most current market information available to produce an estimate of market value. Dwane Brinson made the following PowerPoint presentation: 2017 Revaluation Item 4-b January 21, 2016 BOCC Meeting T. Dwane Brinson Orange County Tax Administrator What is a Revaluation? • Revaluation is the process of updating all real property countywide to its current market value as of a single appraisal date • Real property includes both land and the attached improvements Why Have a Revaluation? • North Carolina General Statute 105-286 requires all counties to conduct a revaluation at least once every eight years • A primary goal in conducting a revaluation of all real property is to equalize the tax base ➢ Over time most properties change in value, but they often do so at different rates • Our last revaluation was effective January 1, 2009 ➢ 2013 delayed revaluation ➢ 2015 delayed revaluation What is market value? • North Carolina General Statute 105-283 defines market value as "the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used." Applicable Laws • Dillon's Rule state ➢ NCGS 105 —283: Uniform Appraisal Standards Property to be appraised at market value • NCGS 105 —286: Time for general reappraisal of real property ➢ Must conduct revaluation at least once every eight years • NCGS 105 —287: Changing appraised value of real property in years in which general reappraisal is not made ➢ (b)(2) cannot adjust for economic changes (paraphrased) 5 Timeline April 2014 -January 2016: Field visits to verify property record cards January 2016: Mail summary description of properties with listing forms January 2016 -April 2016: Initial field review of sales used in models February 2016 - May 2016: Review grade, depreciation, etc. field reviews April 2016 -July 2016: Development of new rates for Schedule of Values (SOV) and testing July/August 2016: Finalize SOV September 2016: Public hearing on SOV October/November 2016: Adoption of SOV December 2016: Final, holistic review December/January 2017: Send out value change notices January 2017 - March 2017: Informal appeals April 2017 -June 2017: Board of Equalization and Review hearings The Process • Appraisers visiting properties, talking with residents • Land being valued as if vacant • Models being tested in the office • Revaluation presentations in the community Data Anomalies • Field reviews/Data Correction Forms ➢ Property characteristic data changes for current year and future years ➢ Examples of exceptions: new home constructed that is not on tax records (discovery), house fire resulting in total loss that is still being taxed (refund) Current Tax Assessments • Last appraisal date was January 1, 2009 ➢ Adopted schedule of values for 2009 revaluation ➢ Current tax assessments reflect value as of that date • Based on sales from 2007 and 2008 • Per NCGS 105 —287, cannot change 2009 tax assessments until date of next revaluation, January 1, 2017 • Current sales ratio is .993, 1.007 in 2014 and 1.04 in 2013 Appeals • Taxpayers may appeal their assessment every year • Stage 1 - tax office review in-house with an appraiser • Stage 2 — hearing with Orange County Board of Equalization and Review (third party members) • Stage 3 — North Carolina Property Tax Commission • Stage 4 —Appeal courts Community Outreach • 2017 Revaluation Partner Program ➢ Review of information on website 6 ➢ Learn and Share revaluation video series (225 total views as of 1/19)-10- question interactive, educational quiz on website--16 quizzes taken, average score 93 ➢ Certificate of Achievement • Summary Description Mailing with 2016 listing forms ➢ Partnering with the community to gather the most accurate data possible ➢ 636 electronic forms returned, 2,100 hard copies • Sales Bank/Appeals Process on website ➢ Win-win appeals process ➢ Sample adjustment grid Commissioner Rich referred to the first slide in the PowerPoint presentation, and asked if examples of attached improvements of real properties could be given. Dwane Brinson said it is the house and its components and gave the example of a detached garage. Commissioner Rich referred to the yellow forms that were sent to residents, and asked if the Tax office is relying on the community to come forward and provide information. Dwane Brinson said asking residents for this information is new for this revaluation. He said he is unaware of any other county doing this process. Commissioner Rich said the information provided by citizens may correct previously held information by the tax office. She asked if there is a plan in place to insure that citizens will not get penalized for bringing forward new discoveries. Dwane Brinson said when there is information that changes the property value, the tax office is sending a change of value notice to the property owner. He said there are four people in the tax office receiving these forms. He said all forms are reviewed individually and responses are given when requested. Commissioner Rich asked if residents are aware that the information they provide may affect their 2017 tax bill. Dwane Brinson said yes. Commissioner Rich said she is concerned that residents understand that new discoveries will affect the tax bill moving forward, but that they will not be penalized in arrears for discoveries. Dwane Brinson said the more information the tax office has, the better and more accurate the revaluation will be. Commissioner Rich said there must be trust built with the community. Commissioner Price asked if the revaluation will impact properties that have undergone absolutely no changes. Dwane Brinson said property values are determined based on sales, and the valuation of a house that has not sold in 25 years would be based on sales of similar properties. He said notices of value will be sent out between December 2016 and January 2017 along with information about the appeals process. Commissioner Price asked if most property values are anticipated to rise. Dwane Brinson said the sales that will be used for the revaluation have yet to occur and will do so in 2016. He said there will be some properties that will drop in value. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the presentation could be broken down into layman's terms. Commission Dorosin reviewed his understanding of the presentation: the tax office will create a schedule of values based on all the sales in Orange County in 2016; categorize the 7 sales based on types of houses; tax staff will go to every neighborhood and assess the properties without entering the homes. Dwane Brinson said the tax office currently has construction grades on every house in Orange County. He said the schedule of values will go a bit deeper than as described by Commissioner Dorosin, but his general overview of the process is accurate. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the County should return back to the four-year cycle for revaluation. Dwane Brinson said the Board adopted that resolution in 2013, with the next revaluation being done in 2021. Commissioner Rich said communication about this topic is vital. She asked if there is a plan for how the County is presenting the revaluation, and not just the tax department. She asked if the communication team and social media are being utilized. Dwane Brinson said all media outlets are being pursued and will work with the County's communication team. Commissioner Rich said she is concerned about how this is presented, noting the revaluation is important, and that the County is not trying to penalize anyone. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is a timeline for when the County will talk with the public about the implications of the revaluation. Dwane Brinson said the final product will be the tax bill. Commissioner Pelissier said during the last revaluation, the public did not understand its effects. Dwane Brinson said this evening's presentation will evolve and will be available to present to anyone and any group, along with answering questions. He said in the spring of 2017, the tax office will deliver the total tax base figure to County management, at which point the tax rate will be determined. Commissioner Pelissier said the concept of revenue neutral is what the public does not understand. Chair McKee said he has received more calls in the last week about the upcoming revaluation, than he has received in the last five years. He said all the calls expressed concern regarding possible penalties. Chair McKee suggested extending the listing period for an additional 30 days, to give the public more opportunities to correct their tax listing. Chair McKee suggested the County put out a full force media blitz about the revaluation, and also encourage people to update their listing. Commissioner Rich said she has also spoken with several citizens, and asked if cases that are outside of the box could be reviewed individually and excused for their penalties. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to adopt the EXTENSION OF TAX LISTING PERIOD RESOLUTION below: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY EXTENSION OF TAX LISTING PERIOD RESOLUTION (Approval) Whereas, North Carolina General Statutes 105-307(b) allows the Board of County Commissioners to extend the time during which property is to be listed for taxation for up to 30 additional days in a nonrevaluation year; and Whereas, the Board has found it reasonable and prudent to extend this period for 2016. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT the time during which property is to be listed for taxation in 2016 be extended until February 29, 2016. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes: Ayes: Commissioners Noes: I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been carefully copied from the recorded minutes of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a regular meeting of said Board held on , said record having been made in the Minute Book of the minutes of said Board, and is a true copy of so much of said proceedings of said Board as relates in any way to the passage of the resolution described in said proceedings. WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County, this day of , 2016. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan to inform the public about this extended listing. Bonnie Hammersley said she and the communications team would put out the information. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Recreational Land Uses - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and voted on a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the Planning Director to revise existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses. Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will be receiving the Planning Board recommendation, and he would like to review what this ordinance does and does not do. Michael Harvey said this UDO amendment began in the spring of 2015, when staff identified a need to revise the existing methodology by which recreation land uses are classified. He said the existing ordinance was arcane, confusing, and very difficult to enforce. He said this ordinance will provide a definitive line of demarcation between private recreational amenities and recreational facilities. He said these types of activities are currently processed through the review and approval of a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP), which are reviewed and acted upon by the Orange County Board of Adjustment. He said this amended ordinance is also an attempt to address long-standing issues with establishing development criteria for certain identified recreational uses. He said the process and discussion was dominated by one use specifically, which was the discharge of firearms from both a private and potential public standpoint. 9 Michael Harvey said this ordinance eliminates the County's arcane and outdated definitions; it establishes a more definitive methodology for staff to determine what constitutes private and public recreation; it establishes guidelines for the discharge of firearms from both private and public property; it establishes and incorporates regulations that were developed and used by staff to address other recreational activities on private property, specifically motorized go-carts; and it tries to provide a framework for individuals wishing to open and operate a public recreational facility with definitive regulatory standards. Michael Harvey said there are things that this ordinance does not do: it does not ban shooting activities from private properties; it does not seek to regulate hunting; it does not establish noise limits that are enforced through the land use administration process; and it does not seek to regulate the caliber of weapon or bullet type. He said it is hoped that the ordinance will be a reasonable attempt to allow for protected freedom while insuring that one's choice in how to engage in a recreational activity on one's property does not have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. Michael Harvey noted that the Planning Board has recommended approval of the amendment. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the reason that firing guns on private property cannot be eliminated is due to laws outside of the County. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked if Michael Harvey could walk him through a hypothetical situation if one hears gunfire while at home and is concerned. Michael Harvey said there are two mechanisms to register complaints: the Sheriff's office, who will do an independent investigation, and complaints to the Planning Department. He said Planning Department staff will investigate the details of the complaint. He said one is able to discharge a firearm on one's property not more than twice a month without creating a zoning violation. He said if one is seeking to establish a target shooting activity, one must go through the zoning compliance process to establish the backstop and required setbacks, and receive authorization to proceed. Commissioner Dorosin said his questions are for the benefit of the public to highlight the difference between registering a complaint about the discharge of firearms versus the need for the Planning Department to get involved in a land use violation. Michael Harvey said this is an important distinction. He said the proposed amendment seeks to provide a mechanism to insure that the activities are being conducted as safely as possible. Commissioner Dorosin asked if a municipality can regulate the discharge of a weapon within the city limits. John Roberts said cities have specific authority to enforce such regulations within the city limits, but the County does not have that type of authority. He read from GS 153-A129 giving a county's specific abilities to regulate the discharge of firearms. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the BOCC wanted to adopt an ordinance that prevented the discharge of firearms, could it do so. John Roberts said the BOCC can put restrictions on the discharge of firearms and gave several examples. Michael Harvey said this proposed text amendment is not designed to affect or regulate hunting activities. Commissioner Rich said her concern is about enforcement and the safety of staff enforcing the UDO. She clarified that the Sheriff would be called first, and then a follow up from zoning staff to make sure that all is in accordance with the ordinance. 10 Michael Harvey said the ordinance does not state that the Sheriff will go out first. He said Planning and the Sheriff work closely together, but the ordinance does not mandate that the Sheriff go first. Commissioner Rich said she is concerned for the safety of County employees that are charged with enforcing these codes. John Roberts said it is his recommendation to pull this shooting activities section out of the UDO, and put it in the General Ordinances. He said it can be left as it is or added to. He offered an example from Lenoir County. He said if an investigation occurs while firearms are still being discharged, it may be prudent to have a trained law enforcement officer present. He said if this is the Board's desire, he could bring it back at the second meeting in February. Commissioner Rich said she agrees with John Roberts' recommendation. Chair McKee clarified that there can be incidental shooting on a property no more than twice a month. Michael Harvey said yes. Chair McKee asked if enforceability is realistic, given that people hunt or may just fire guns randomly. Michael Harvey said there must be a willing participant to submit a complaint and supply enough specifics for the Sheriff or the Planning Department to follow up. He said if one is hunting, then there is no land use violation. He said if one is engaging in incidental shooting in excess of the twice monthly maximum, the County would speak with the property owner about the zoning compliance process and establishing the appropriate backstop. Chair McKee expressed concern about the safety of County staff, and agreed that law enforcement should be involved with any type of follow up. John Roberts referred back to Commissioner Dorosin's question about one shooting randomly from one's porch. He said the County can ban such activity, but the County has additional restrictions that it cannot interfere with, such as hunting. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that John Roberts is advising that the BOCC could adopt regulatory general ordinances, and enforcement would be separate. He said he would be interested in developing this and looking at some different alternatives. Michael Harvey said from a land use standpoint there is case law addressing what the County can and cannot do. He said the idea being discussed is the adoption of a police power regulation which is enforced by the Sheriff's office. He said the proposed amendment is a reasonable regulatory standard that could be enforced. He said determining who does the enforcement is the issue at hand. Chair McKee asked if there is a technical procedure to remove part of the amendment and pass the rest of the recommendation. John Roberts said yes, the Board must be clear in what is being removed and can then pass the rest of the ordinance as recommended. Michael Harvey said shooting regulations are contained on page 43 of the text amendment, in section 5.7.1 a2a. He said this is for private recreational activity. He said regulatory requirements on recreational facilities are found page 45, and regulations governing shooting ranges are found on page 46. Michael Harvey said a commercial shooting range is only allowed with the issuance of a SUP, where the applicant has the burden to provide competent material evidence and sworn testimony to prove they meet with the standards of the UDO. Commissioner Dorosin said he would prefer not to carelessly pull items out of the proposed amendment, and is willing to have staff to review and bring it back in February. Michael Harvey said the BOCC could approve the Statement of Consistency as contained in Attachment 8, and then approve the Ordinance amendment revised as 11 Attachment 9 by eliminating the provisions dealing with private recreational shooting facility regulations or eliminating both private and the recreational provisions. Commissioner Dorosin asked if eliminating a portion will remove the ability to regulate one who wants to set up a shooting range. Michael Harvey said he recommends keeping the commercial portion intact and to eliminate the private recreational portion, having the County Attorney bring that back in a future amendment packet to go into the general code of ordinances. John Roberts said he would recommend removing section 5.7.1 a2a found on page 43. Michael Harvey said he has no problem removing this. Chair McKee asked if the Board chooses to do this is, it then able to discuss putting it into general ordinances and also to incorporate the language from Lenoir County. John Roberts said he can work on this for the February meeting. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the very last line of the shooting activities could be reviewed regarding allowing two days of incidental shooting. She said the wording may not reflect the actual desire of that which the County seeks. A motion made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adopt the Statement of Consistency as contained in Attachment 8 and to adopt the revised UDO amendment package as contained within Attachment 9 consistent with the recommendation of the County Attorney's office. The revised UDO amendment eliminates the proposed language currently contained within Section 5.7.1 (A) (2) (a) establishing land use regulations governing the discharge of firearms on private property. The Attorney's office will be incorporating regulations governing the discharge of firearms on private property within a future amendment to the General County Code of Ordinances to be enforced by the Sheriff's Office to be presented at the February 2, 2016 regular meeting for consideration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Bonnie Hammersley said under 6-g there was an error, and the abstract should have stated both Commissioner Price and Commissioner Pelissier for this item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 23 and December 15, 2015 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 12 The Board adopted of a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for six (6) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with the NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for eleven (11) taxpayers with a total of fourteen (14) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved untimely applications from eight (8) taxpayers for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for thirty-five (35) bills for the 2015 tax year. e. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#5 The Board approved budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2015-16 for the Health Department, and Animal Services. f. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System The Board made a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NC BOT), concerning a petition to add Crabapple Lane in Birchwood Lake Estates Subdivision to the State Maintained Secondary Road System. g. Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Policies and Procedures The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, amending OUTBoard Policies and Procedures to add a seventh (7th) at-large position to encourage membership with expertise or interest in Public Health. h. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule — Mailed Notification Requirements The Board approved process components and schedule for an upcoming government-initiated amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding mailed notification requirements. 7. Regular Agenda a. Unified Animal Control Ordinance The Board considered voting to approve the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance ("UAO") and adopting of the Resolution of Amendment "Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances". Bob Marotto, Orange County Animal Services Director, said at its December 15, 2015 meeting the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) considered adopting the proposed UAO. He said after a lengthy discussion, the BOCC requested that based on the discussion staff make several changes to the proposed UAO. He said staff has made the changes to the proposed UAO. Annette Moore, County Attorney, reviewed the changes below: 1. Section 4-31 Authority and Purpose (Page 3). The Board requested that a "purpose" be added to the UAO. The following language was added to Section 4-31: "The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare of Orange County residents and the animals residing within the County and to regulate and control the conduct, keeping and care of those animals." 13 2. Section 4-37 Definitions (Page 7). The BOCC requested further clarification of an act defining Cruel and Cruel Treatment found in Section 4-37(j) of the proposed UAO. The term "outdoor" was added to the phrase: "confining in a closed vehicle without functioning air conditioning or ventilation whenever the ambient outdoor temperature exceeds seventy (70) degrees Fahrenheit." 3. Section 4-41 Mistreatment of Animals (Page 14). To be consistent with Section 4-37(j) the term "outdoor" was also added to Section 4-41(h) as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person to transport an animal in the closed trunk of a vehicle, or closed compartment on a vehicle or trailer when the ambient outdoor temperature in the vicinity of the vehicle or trailer is greater than or equal to 70 degrees Fahrenheit." 4. Section 4-45 Public Nuisance (Page 22). The BOCC requested further clarification of the term "odor" found in Section 4-45(b)(2). The following sentence was added Section 4-45(b)(2): "For purposes of this subsection odor shall include, but is not limited to, a distinctive or particularly unpleasant smell of animal urine or feces, that is lingering or lasting in nature." 5. Section 4-53 Appeals (Page 27-28). The BOCC requested a number of changes to the appeal process including providing the Board with a separate policy governing the appointment of pool of members to serve on an appeals panel. Staff has made the changes to the Section 4-53 of the proposed UAO as follows: Sec. 4-53. -Appeals. Except as provided herein any appeals provided by this Chapter shall be to a three member hearing panel comprised of two members of the Orange County Animal Services Hearing Panel and one member of either Carrboro, Chapel Hill or Hillsborough so designated by the respective Town or a member of the public designated by the Board of County Commissioners for this purpose within 5 days of the final decision made in the action. (a) A person who has been found to be in violation of this Chapter may appeal the final decision made by the Animal Services Director to the appeal board by filing a notice of appeal containing a concise statement of the reason for the appeal and delivering it to the Animal Services Director within five (5) days of receipt of the final decision. (b) A hearing shall be scheduled within ten (10) days of the receipt of notice of appeal. (c) Neither a party nor the Department shall be represented by an attorney. A party alleged to be in violation of this Chapter may be accompanied by an individual of their choosing. Such individual may be an attorney and may communicate with the party but the attorney may not participate in the appeal. (d) The chair of the hearing panel shall administer oaths to all witnesses and make any ruling necessary to preserve fairness, order and proper decorum. (e) A person appealing a decision may present competent, relevant and material evidence or testimony, cross-examine witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence or testimony in explanation or rebuttal. (f) Any member of the hearing panel may call as a witness and question any interested party who has competent, relevant and material comments about the matters contained within the appeal. 14 (g) Members of the hearing panel may exclude and not factor into their decision any evidence, testimony, or statements deemed incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious and therefore fail to reasonable address the issues before the hearing panel. (h) Within seven (7) days of the hearing the hearing panel shall issue a decision and cause that decision to forward to the person making the appeal and all other interested parties. (i) Appeal under Section 4-42 of this Chapter (Vicious Animals and Dangerous Dogs) shall be to a three member hearing panel consisting of one member of the Animal Services Advisory Board, who shall serve as Chair, and two members drawn from the remainder of the pool. At least one member of the panel shall be from either the Town or County where the incident occurred. The Animal Services Advisory Board may make additional rules Board of County Commissioners shall adopt a policy, which may be amended from time to time, governing the appointment of appeals panel members and any additional processes necessary to carry out appeals in fair and equitable manner. The Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough may appoint one person from their respective jurisdictions to serve in the pool of prospective hearing board members. (Does not apply in the Town of Carrboro) In addition to the changes made above, a separate document was created entitled "Animal Services Appeal Board Policies and Procedures" (see attached) to include changes made by the BOCC. The Resolution of Adoption proposes an effective date of March 1, 2016 for the proposed UAO. This timeframe allows for implementation of the public awareness plan in all of the jurisdictions in which it would apply. A revised timetable for the public awareness plan is attached. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the section about the appeals panel, and asked for clarification regarding what happens after the hearing. He asked if the person allegedly in violation of the chapter can appeal to the District Court if need be. Annette Moore said a dangerous dog complaint could be appealed to the District Court. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are other appeals heard by this panel would, that would not have this provision. Annette Moore said a nuisance issue or a kennel issue would not have the provision to appeal to District Court. John Roberts said if citizens wanted more relief, an injunction could be filed with the court. Commissioner Price referred to the appeals panel and expressed concern regarding the consistency of decisions. She asked if the member of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) serving on the appeals panel would remain the same for an extended period of time. Annette Moore said all members of the appeals panel will receive the same training, and there is more than one person from the ASAB that can sit on the panel. Bob Marotto said on the current potentially dangerous dog appeal board, there is an annual appointment to this board from members from the ASAB with primaries and alternates chosen. He said there is consistency across the board, and he is sure this would be the same for this new panel. Commissioner Price referred to the issue of the sole discretion of the director and asked if it is possible that an investigating officer, or an attorney, can sign off on decisions. She said she is concerned with one person being solely responsible for this. Annette Moore said that is why the appeals process exists. She said the director is highly trained, and the animal control officers are under his/her direction. She said the director 15 is in the best position to make a decision. She said if an appeal is filed and the appeals panel reaches a different conclusion, the director's decision can be overturned. Bob Marotto said the director makes no decisions until a thorough investigation has been completed. He said any conclusions drawn from investigations are reviewed several times before the director makes a final decision. He said the nature of communication at Animal Services, along with the appeals process, allows for great accountability and transparency. Commissioner Price asked if the investigation report contains a recommendation from the investing officer. Bob Marotto said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Elmore said she is a member of the ASAB, and the work on the revised ordinance is for the Board's approval tonight. She said she wanted to remind the Board that the original goal of this ordinance was to merge the three existing ordinances with the towns, to fill any gaps, and to clarify legal language as needed. She noted that stakeholders have been consulted throughout this process. She said she serves as Chair of the current appeals board, and gave the example of an appeal of decisions regarding a dangerous dog citation from Chapel Hill and Orange County. She said citizens do not understand why they have two documents, and that is because the current system does not make sense. She said it is extremely confusing, and the system is broken. She said it is unfair to citizens, and the ASAB is looking forward to the new ordinance, noting it is not perfect but it is a living document. She said the ASAB did have a concern about adding additional people from the townships, but this is no longer a concern. Maureane Hoffman is a new member of the ASAB, and she wanted to emphasize to the Board how diligent the ASAB has been to meet its responsibilities. She said the ASAB is advisor to the Board of County Commissioners as well as Animal Services. Mike Stewart said five hearings were held in December, with another one expected this week, and deep pools of volunteers will be needed to supply the appeals panel. Commissioner Rich expressed thanks for all the work put into this project, but she still has some concerns about page 28, which says attorneys can attend appeals but cannot be part of the process. She said she is still not clear about this issue, asking if an attorney cannot be a part of the process, why would one bring an attorney. Annette Moore said a commissioner asked for the inclusion of this language, as it is similar to the personnel ordinance requirements. She said an attorney can advise, but the dynamics change when an attorney gets involved in the conversations. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not clear about the description of the appeals panel, asking if all members of the panel are residents of the County, why include the language that says there will be a resident of the municipality or the County present. Annette Moore said the goal is to have a panel member who is a citizen of the area where the alleged incident occurred. She said this goal arose from the desire of the towns to have representation of one who understands the town, and its values and culture. Commissioner Pelissier asked what will happen if a person is not available from the particular municipality. She asked if multiple people from each town would need to be available to insure that one can serve in a timely fashion, or if using representatives from another town may suffice. Annette Moore said having a provision that allows for a resident of another town to serve may be beneficial, allowing for an urban representation on the appeals board when the incident has occurred in an urban setting. 16 Commissioner Pelissier asked if a member of Carrboro's panel could be available to serve creating a greater pool of urban representation. Annette Moore said it may not be wise to tell Carrboro from where they must pick a person to serve. She said Carrboro wants to remain separate at this time, with the potential for working together in the future. Commissioner Pelissier said she would only propose adding in the last sentence of her memo: "in the event that the representative of the Town in question is not available to serve within the required period of time, a representative of one of the other towns will be selected." Commissioner Dorosin asked if the intent is for the BOCC to adopt both the ordinance and the panel policy this evening. Annette Moore said yes. Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 88 and suggested upping the numbers of the pool. He said 12 members are currently listed, with the townships each appointing one member, and three at-large members. He suggested that the townships each appoint three people, and have six-at-large representatives. Commissioner Dorosin said he is less persuaded about having an attorney attend an appeals process, if the attorney cannot participate. He said as an attorney represents the panel, thus the resident who is appealing should also be allowed representation. He would be willing to open this up, and if it is determined that doing so undermines the process then the decision can be revisited. John Roberts said the panel is advised on procedure, but counsel does not represent the department. Commissioner Dorosin said if there is a Board of Adjustment (BOA) or a quasi-judicial hearing, the applicant requesting a decision to be made is represented by an attorney, as is the County. He said this example seems to be more analogous to tonight's discussion. John Roberts said in a BOA hearing, the BOA has an attorney present to advise on procedure. He said the Planning Department and the applicant may elect to hire an attorney to pursue their interests. John Roberts said the appeal hearings, under review this evening, are just administrative and not quasi-judicial. Chair McKee said since Commissioner Jacobs could not attend, he submitted the following questions: 7a. Page 2, Appeals • b) To be clear about the 5 days to appear and the 10 days to schedule a hearing, can we make those business days? • d) Can we please see the oath folks are asked to take, and does this have any real legal value? • i) Very inexact language, suggesting multiple counties might be involved, and leaves out Mebane. I suggest : "At least one member of the panel shall be either from the town where the owner resides, or from the non-municipal portion of Orange County, as appropriate." Annette Moore said if the language was changed to say business days, a new section would have to be created in the ordinance for dangerous dog appeals versus the County's appeals. Chair McKee asked if changing the wording would have an adverse effect on the County. Annette Moore said the wording could not be changed for dangerous dog appeals as the general statute sets that timetable. 17 Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs questioned if there is a reason why Mebane is left out of the list of municipalities. Annette Moore said Mebane has its own animal control. Bob Marotto said the townships that are included in the policy are ones to whom his department provides services. He said Mebane Township does not utilize services and declined the invitation to participate in this current process. Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs asked if the oath has any legal value. John Roberts said the oath makes the process more formal, and it is a general oath to tell the truth. Annette Moore said the oath is included at the request of a commissioner. Chair McKee said he is concerned about the attorney issue, noting that the entire process is already adversarial. He suggested that this section be tweaked, and the wording be "accompanied by a person of their choosing who may represent the person." He also suggested including in writing the ability to appeal to the court. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Board could vote on each of the proposed suggestions. John Roberts said this would be acceptable. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to amend section 4-53c on page 31 to read, "a party alleged to be in violation of this chapter may be represented by an individual of their choosing, including an attorney." VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Price) MOTION PASSES A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to amend section IV— 1 c, on page 88, and to the corresponding ordinance (453i) to read, "In the event that a representative of the town in question is not available to serve within the required period of time, a representative of one of the other towns will be selected." Commissioner Rich asked if this change would need to be taken back to the towns. Annette Moore said staff would notify the towns about the change. Commissioner Dorosin asked if a corresponding change to the ordinance would be necessary. Annette Moore said to add that same sentence to the end of section 453i as well. Commissioner Pelissier said she would add this to her motion as well. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to amend the policy, section 3b, on page 88 so that B1 reads that the animal services hearing board is composed of 18 members (from 12); and amend section B2a to read that each of the towns to have 2 members; and amend section B2d to read 6-at-large representatives, three of which reside in the unincorporated. Commissioner Burroughs said she understands it is challenging to find people to serve in these roles, and asked if increasing the numbers will increase the burden. 18 Bob Marotto said the challenge is not finding people, but that many of the people are employed full time and finding a time when all can meet is sometimes difficult. Commissioner Pelissier said she has that same concern, but assumes if there are not enough people willing to serve, the process would function with those who are willing to serve. Annette Moore said yes. Commissioner Rich asked if the balance will be affected, if all spots are not filled. Bob Marotto advocated moving forward with the applicants that come in and review and revise as necessary. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to add another sentence to section 4-53, stating that any decision of the appeal panel may be appealed to the District Court, or Superior Court of North Carolina, sitting in Orange County, or appealed as otherwise provided by law. John Roberts requested the ability to tweak the language of the motion, if necessary, to accomplish the intent. Chair McKee said his main concern is that this be a progressive, step-by-step procedure, which insures that the ability to appeal to the court system is never prohibited. Annette Moore said the language could be similar to that in the general statute regarding dangerous dog appeals; thus the avenue to appeal is the same, regardless of that which is being appealed. Chair McKee said this is satisfactory. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Rich asked if any changes are made to the ordinance in the future, will it be brought to the Board of County Commissioners. Annette Moore said if changes are necessary, community partners would be consulted first, followed by the Board of County Commissioners, and then the Board of County Commissioners would vote on any changes. Commissioner Rich agreed and said this allows for ongoing positive relationships between all stakeholders. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance with previously approved amendments above, and approve the Resolution of Amendment "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances". VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool Policies and Procedures, with suggested changes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Mountains-to-Sea Trail — Master Plan for Segment 11 19 The Board considered a proposed process for the planning and identification/creation of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) "Segment 11," from Occoneechee Mountain to the Alamance County Line and providing input on the proposed plan for identifying, securing and building the MST Segment 11. David Stancil made the following PowerPoint presentation: Proposed Process for "MST Segment 11" January 21, 2016 Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) Mountains to Sea Trail- -Part of the N.C. State Parks System -NC/TN Border to Outer Banks Some MST Segments (mainly State and federal lands, city greenways) Currently Exist Eastern Piedmont Segment— Challenging • Moderate to Heavily-Populated • Cross-Country Segments, Crossing River Basin Ridges MST "Segment 11" • Begins at Alamance/Orange Line (Haw River) • Ends Occoneechee Mtn State Natural Area • Would connect Haw River Trail to Hillsborough Riverwalk and Eno River State Pk The Phases of Building a Trail (from the MST Master Plan) • Visioning (completed) • Planning • Design and Construction • Opening • Maintenance and Operations The Task Before Us TRAIL PLANNING Identify/refine corridor Solidify partnerships Involve the community Identify funding strategies DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION Refine alignment/design Work with landowners Acquire permits and approvals Construct the trail The Proposed Process Invite stakeholders and public to series of community meetings to: Learn about what the MST is/isn't Discuss the task and identify issues/challenges Map a route (or alternative routes) Complete a plan and move to construction 20 Who Should Be Involved • Landowners Along the Corridor • Interested Residents • OWASA • Friends of the MST (FMST) • State Parks • NC DOT • County Departments (DEAPR, Planning, ES, Sheriff) Possible Next Steps • Complete information gathering • Notify stakeholders • Schedule first community meeting (February?) PUBLIC COMMENT: John Silva read the following letter: Orange County Commissioners Thursday January 21, 2016 Opposition to the Mountain-to-Sea Trail through the Cane Creek Watershed If a motion is being considered this evening for segment 11 of the Mountain-to-Sea Trail, which would go through Bingham Township, the Thunder Mt. (TM), Mitchell Mt. (MM) communities in the Cane Creek Watershed, I respectfully request a tabling of the motion. The residents of TM and MM, the two communities in the township most impacted by such a motion, did not know a motion was being considered, and did not have an opportunity to review and discuss the motion. Just yesterday (January 21, 2016), Phil Duckwall and Brenda McCall of MM and Christine and John Silva of TM became aware that a request to reconsider the Cane Creek Watershed area has been initiated by a couple of individuals including one person who is not even a resident of either TT or MM (a Mr. Green). This process was not done in a democratic manner and was not open to TM and MM residents. A few years ago a similar attempt to locate a Mountain-to-Sea Trail through the TM and MM communities was vigorously opposed by the Citizens United to Protect the Cane Creek Watershed and this group will once again vigorously oppose any attempt to run the trail through the rural communities and the Cane Creek watershed. I am not opposed to the concept of the Mountain-to-Sea Trail. I have personally hiked the Appalachian Trail from Northern Virginia to Maine. I propose that the Orange County Commissioners require the presentation of alternate trail routes for segment 11 of the Mountain-to-Sea Trail that do not go through the TM and MM communities. It is my understanding that one alternate option would allow Orange County the immediate ability to put the Seven Mile Creek area (and points north and east) into service and continue the Mountain-to-Sea Trail on its current route along 1-85. That brings immediate value to Orange County residents and connects existing recreational areas and trails - including trails into Hillsborough and to the Mountain-to-Sea statewide trail. I am sure other viable routes can be determined that will be embraced by impacted residents or have minimal impact on sensitive residential and watershed areas. Thank you. 21 Respectfully submitted, John M. Silva Thunder Mt. 35-year Orange County Resident Christine Silva said she is a long-time Orange County resident, and she is opposed to having the MST behind her neighborhood. She recognizes that there are people in her neighborhood that do desire the trail, but she hopes all opinions will be respected. She advocates for moving forward with the trail systems that already exist in Orange County, and using potential MST funds for the many other needs that exist in Orange County. Allan Green said he had sent a letter to Commissioner Dorosin in response to a previous discussion regarding the MST. He said a group of local residents on Thunder Mt. met to put together a plan for this section of the MST, but found out their plan is redundant in comparison to the Department of Environment Agriculture Parks and Recreation's (DEAPR) excellent plan. He asked them to support getting the master plan completed in the first half of 2016 and to being work on the trail by the end of 2016. Allan Green referred to a document from Charles Gregory Smith at the November meeting, which was a description of the support for the trail from some of the Thunder Mountain residents. He noted that the five landowners closest to the proposed MST are in favor of it. Kate Dixon is the Executive Director of the Friends of the MTS, and she appreciates the Board's support for the plan. She reviewed the history and current status of the MTS. Chair McKee noted that no decisions are to be made this evening rather this is an opportunity for an update. He said no formal decisions are expected until May 2016. Commissioner Price said asked if funds are currently available to move forward with the trail. David Stancil said funds for the acquisition of trail easements are available now, and he said the current Capital Investment Plan (CIP) has the funding for construction in 2018. He said this funding is being reviewed in preparation of the new CIP. He noted that the Friends of the MST will do a lot of the construction. Commissioner Pelissier said the stakeholders include landowners, and asked if all of the landowners in the one-mile swath have been notified about the community meetings. David Stancil said those residents, as well as many more outside of the one-mile swath, will be notified of the community meetings. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the landowners will get a specific letter. David Stancil said yes. Commissioner Pelissier asked if an individual does not want to donate land, will there be any imminent domain. David Stancil said no; the process is entirely voluntary. David Stancil asked if the Board would like DEAPR to proceed as indicated. Chair McKee said the Board is in support of this. Commissioner Pelissier asked if more detailed maps can be provided. David Stancil said yes. c. Creation of a Criminal Case Assessment Specialist Position The Board considered voting to approve the creation of a new 1.0 full time equivalent (FTE) position titled Criminal Case Assessment Specialist to conduct mental health and substance abuse assessments and treatment coordination for individuals in the jail and those who are participating in jail alternative programming. 22 Travis Myren and Caitlin Fenhagen, Orange County Criminal Justice Resource Manager, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: In October 2015, the County appointed its first Criminal Justice Resource Manager to manage and coordinate jail alternative programming. The vision for the new Manager was to internalize jail alternative programming that had previously been contracted out and to broaden opportunities for jail diversion and interventions intended to reduce recidivism. The new office has recently completed its initial charge of internalizing the Pretrial and Drug Court programs through the recruitment of two new County employees to administer those programs. The Criminal Justice Resource Manager has also conducted a needs assessment for future programming. This research relied on best practices in other jurisdictions as well as interviews with partners in the Orange County criminal justice system. The assessment revealed a need to supplement and enhance assessment and treatment services for individuals in the system that are experiencing mental health and substance abuse issues. This need is consistent with a policy goal of the Board of County Commissioners as codified in a Resolution Supporting "Stepping Up Initiative to Reduce the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jails" which was adopted in September 2015. Through that Resolution, the Board signed on to a call to action to reduce the number of people with mental illness in county jails and to share lessons learned with other counties in North Carolina. One of the strategies identified to satisfy the need for enhanced mental health and substance abuse services in the criminal justice system is to create a position responsible for providing these services. In an effort to promote pretrial release, the position would conduct evaluations, assessments, and referrals for treatment for individuals awaiting trial or disposition of criminal charges. These additional services would provide greater assurance to the judiciary that individuals can safely remain in or return to the community while accessing necessary treatment resources. Allowing an individual to remain in the community will increase employment stability, avoid disruptions in treatment and education, preserve family stability, and as a result, reduce the likelihood of re-arrest. For individuals participating in the pretrial release program, the position will also provide case management support in treatment or diversionary programs with the expectation that this higher level of therapeutic support will increase successful outcomes in these programs and reduce recidivism. Finally, this position will support inmates remaining in the jail with counseling for ongoing mental health issues and will create discharge plans for those being released. The goal of these efforts is to promote immediate engagement in community resources upon release in an effort to reduce rates of recidivism. Funding for this position will be supported through reimbursement from Cardinal Innovations. Annually, the County provides maintenance of effort funding to Cardinal Innovations to support selected mental health, substance abuse, and intellectual/developmental disability services. In Fiscal Year 15-16, Orange County allocated $1.3 million to its maintenance of effort payment, which includes a $107,500 reserve to support unforeseen needs. The County would use $31,200 of this reserve to finance the costs associated with Criminal Case Assessment Specialist. The position started in January as an un-benefited, temporary position but would be converted to a full time, benefitted position upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 23 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The expenses for the Criminal Case Assessment Specialist are estimated to be $31,200. This includes funding for a temporary position for 60 days and funding for a full time, benefitted position for the balance of the fiscal year. These costs would be fully offset by reimbursement from Cardinal Innovations of$31,200, resulting in no net cost to the County. Commissioner Dorosin asked Caitlen Fenhagen if she could clarify how she and the Criminal Case Assessment Specialist will interact. Caitlen Fenhagen said this person will be in her office, and will be working to insure that those with mental health needs within drug court and pretrial services do not get overlooked. She added that this position will work closely with the jails, and has the full support of the jail administrators to conduct limited mental health assessments when offenders enter the jail. Commissioner Pelissier said all the stakeholders are very committed to these new positions. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to approve the creation of a 1.0 FTE Criminal Case Assessment Specialist, and accept revenue from Cardinal Innovations to offset the cost of the position. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports a. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice The Board received a report and considered voting to approve the FY 2015-2020 Analysis of Impediments to fair housing choice, and authorizing the Manager to certify the necessary documents. Audrey Spencer Horsley, Orange County Housing, Human Rights, and Community Development Department Director, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: As the lead agency of the Orange County HOME Consortium, the County administers funding allocated through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). The County also occasionally receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As such, the County is a Participating Jurisdiction (PJ). In addition to the allocation of these block grants, the County's Housing, Human Rights and Community Development Department operates as a Public Housing Authority (PHA) through its administration of the federal Housing Choice Voucher program. All PJ's and PHA's are required to engage in activities that "affirmatively further fair housing". To meet this long-standing obligation, the County completes and submits an Analysis of Impediments (A.I.) to identify barriers to fair housing choice and for planning an approach to take meaningful actions to overcome these barriers. This analysis is completed every five (5) years, consistent with the County's quinquennial submission of its Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing. The County's objectives parallel HUD's objectives to: • Promote fair housing choice for all persons; • Provide opportunities for inclusive patterns of housing occupancy regardless of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability and national origin; 24 • Promote housing that is structurally accessible to, and usable by, all persons, particularly persons with disabilities; and • Foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. A draft A.I. was made available for public comment beginning Friday, August 14, 2015 and continuing until 5 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 2015. Electronic copies of the draft plan were available to the public via the County's website. Hardcopies were made available at the County's Department of Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, the Townships of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough, the Chapel Hill Public Library and each branch of the Orange County Public Library. In addition, a newspaper posting soliciting comments was issued in the News of Orange, the Durham Herald Sun and La Noticia, a Spanish bi-lingual newspaper. There were additional surveys returned by non-English speaking community members and one public comment received. These surveys and the public comment were inserted in the Final A.I., which is available on-line at the following URL: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/hhrcd/Final_Orange_County_2015_Al.pdf Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 5 of the summary hand-out from Audrey Spencer-Horsley, and asked why more than one person per room is considered a housing problem. Audrey Spencer Horsley said she can get the definition and reasoning for one person per room and report back to the Board. Commissioner Pelissier referred to impediment#5 on page 6, that notes a need to improve public policies that affirmatively further fair housing, and asked if there are any examples or ideas of what this may be for the County. She asked if this document covers the towns as well as the County. Audrey Spencer Horsley said the document does cover the towns as well. She said flexible land use and zoning policies would be an example of addressing housing needs. She said this summary does not contain many examples, but the full document does. Commissioner Dorosin said there are two separate issues: providing affordable housing, but also to affirmatively further fair housing. He said the summary is very troubling. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the Orange County 2015-2020 Analysis of Impediments, and authorize the Manager to certify the same. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bonnie Hammersley asked Audrey Spencer-Horsley if the numbers include students. Audrey Spencer-Horsley said no. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley said in the Board's agenda packet, under Information Items, is a new budget schedule, including her presentation of the annual budget May 5th, which is two weeks earlier than normal. 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 25 11. Appointments a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee: Appointment of Willian Lang to a one year training term (Position #9) At-Large expiring 01/21/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Arts Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint the following to the Arts Commission: Appointment of Jen Rogers to a first full term (position #1) At-Large expiring 03/31/2018. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Pelissier had no comments. Commissioner Price had no comments. Commissioner Dorosin had no comments. Commissioner Burroughs complimented the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee, noting she has recently experienced their excellent work firsthand. She hopes the Board can advocate supporting this Committee and its work. Commissioner Rich said Robert Seymour spoke at their Visitor's Bureau meeting, where he shared many great ideas. She said the Visitor's Bureau is doing well. Commissioner Rich asked if any follow up is done with citizens that share public comments at meetings, and asked if they are informed when topics are going to recur in agendas. Chair McKee said he has asked staff to draw up an OpEd on the revaluation for media blitz. He encouraged the Board to forward any other ideas for publicity of the revaluation to the Manager. 13. Information Items • December 15, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100 • Memo from County Manager Regarding Budget Schedule Changes • Memo Regarding Health in All Policies Pilot Project with Criminal Justice Resource Office and Jail Alternatives Work 26 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from December 15, 2015 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to go into closed Session at 10:45 p.m. for the purpose of: "143-318.11(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. In re Sloane." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to reconvene back into regular session at 11:05 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board