HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-20-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 20, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
September 6, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 September 6, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 6,
10 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
21 Chair McKee asked for a moment of silence for the loss of local student Frederick
22 Seymour.
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
26 - Green sheet: Revised- Item 6-j - Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2016-2017
27 - PowerPoint for item 7-a
28 - PowerPoint for item 8-a
29
30 PUBLIC CHARGE
31 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
32
33 2. Public Comments
34
35 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
36 Dr. Todd Wirt, Orange County Schools' (OCS) Superintendent, thanked the Board
37 of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the moment of silence. He thanked the Board of
38 County Commissioners and County staff for their support during the budget process. He
39 noted the increased compensation for employees, and that the majority of their
40 employees received a supplement increase. He said the BOCC's support of public
41 education is greatly appreciated.
42 Tinka Jordy (dressed as a hand-made frog puppet) said she is here to promote
43 the Hillsborough Art's Council parade in October, and to thank the BOCC for allowing
44 some of the puppets to be displayed in the meeting room.
45
46 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
47 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
48 below.)
49
50 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
2
1 Commissioner Rich said to County Manager Bonnie Hammersley that she tried to Skype
2 into a Planning meeting recently, and it did not go well. She asked if there is another way to
3 conference into a meeting, and to look at possible other options.
4 Commissioner Burroughs had no announcements or petitions.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he had petitioned years ago about Commissioner Rich's
6 previous point, and that there is no organized technology to accommodate this need.
7 Commissioner Jacobs requested information about who would handle mosquito
8 spraying without killing off bees, which recently happened in South Carolina.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said some research was done on this topic in reference to Rogers
10 Road in the spring, and staff will bring back information to the BOCC.
11 Commissioner Jacobs referred to a memo from Bob Marotto about honoring Pat
12 Sanford.
13 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned staff to bring back information about raising the living
14 wage to $15.00 per hour.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he had raised the idea two years ago about raising the
16 amount of funding that the ABC Board contributes back to the County's general fund, and he
17 would like to re-visit this idea.
18 Chair McKee said this topic can be raised at the next ABC Board meeting.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said at a work session in October the BOCC will be talking about
20 body cameras with the Sheriff's Department, and he would also like to look at the written
21 consent-to-search process.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said on September 8th the State Board of Elections will be having
23 hearings on counties' early voting plans. He said there are 38 counties that will have hearings,
24 which are in Raleigh and open to the public.
25 Commissioner Price echoed the Pat Sanford proposal.
26 Commissioner Pelissier had no announcements or petitions.
27 Chair McKee said the Morinaga candy factory became one of the Living Wage
28 employers in Orange County.
29
30 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
31
32 a. Resolution of Gratitude for Colonel William Hughes Breeze
33 The Board considered approving a resolution expressing gratitude and recognizing
34 Colonel William Hughes Breeze for his devotion and service to the people of Orange County,
35 and authorizing the Chair to sign.
36 Commissioner Jacobs read the resolution:
37
38 RES-2016-051
39 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
40 RESOLUTION OF GRATITUDE FOR
41 COLONEL WILLIAM HUGHES BREEZE
42
43 WHEREAS, Colonel William Hughes Breeze grew up in Orange County and throughout his life
44 worked tirelessly to improve the way of life for Orange County residents; and
45
46 WHEREAS, Colonel Breeze continually demonstrated himself to be a dedicated and effective
47 public servant, and a man of empathy, insight and integrity, who gained the respect of all who
48 knew him in both the public and military sectors; and
49
3
1 WHEREAS, Colonel Breeze served a distinguished thirty year career in the United States Air
2 Force, retiring at the rank of colonel with decorations including the Legion of Merit and
3 Distinguished Flying Cross; and
4
5 WHEREAS, on returning to Orange County, Colonel Breeze shared his talent for leadership
6 and public service through his work on numerous committees, boards, and task forces focusing
7 on agriculture, land conservation, the environment, and rural life; and
8
9 WHEREAS, he was a willing volunteer on County committees including the Orange County
10 Extension Advisory Board, the Orange County Hunting & Fishing Ordinance Committee, the
11 Road Naming Advisory Committee, the Orange County Board of Social Services, the Orange
12 County Planning Board, the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District Board, the North
13 Carolina Piedmont Resource Conservation and Development Area Steering Committee
14 (appointed by Orange County); and
15
16 WHEREAS, the W C Breeze Family Farm Agricultural Extension and Research Center was
17 bequeathed to the NC State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences by Orange
18 County farm family patriarch, Colonel William Breeze, with a desire to see the land used to
19 explore local options for organic and sustainable farming practices; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the Breeze Farm is now home to an enterprise incubator creating farming
22 apprentices and the annual Farm to Fork Picnic promoting local agriculture in and around
23 Orange County; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Colonel Breeze was also active in local, state and national electoral politics in a
26 supportive capacity;
27
28 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners, on behalf
29 of County officials and employees and the residents of Orange County, expresses its deep
30 appreciation, gratitude and respect for the services rendered by Colonel William Hughes
31 Breeze to the County over the course of his lifetime.
32
33 This the 6th day of September 2016.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
36 Board to approve the attached resolution expressing deep appreciation to Colonel William
37 Hughes Breeze for his service to the people of Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign
38 the resolution on behalf of the Board.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 Bill Breeze, Jr. thanked the Board for its support in honor of his father and the Breeze
43 Farm.
44
45 b. 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values —Submission
46 The Board received the proposed 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values (SOV),
47 reviewed a statutory-compliant timeline of the proposed adoption process, and scheduled a
48 public hearing on the SOV for the Board's September 20, 2016 regular meeting.
49
50 BACKGROUND: Per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-317(c)(1), "The [Tax]
4
1 [A]ssessor shall submit the proposed schedules, standards, and rules to the board of county
2 commissioners not less than 21 days before the meeting at which they will be considered by the
3 board. On the same day that they are submitted to the board for its consideration, the assessor
4 shall file a copy of the proposed schedules, standards, and rules in his [or her] office where
5 they shall remain available for public inspection."
6 In addition, NCGS 105-317(c)(2) states "Upon receipt of the proposed schedules, standards,
7 and rules, the board of commissioners shall publish a statement in a newspaper having general
8 circulation in the county stating:
9 a. That the proposed schedules, standards, and rules to be used in appraising real property in
10 the county have been submitted to the board of county commissioners and are available for
11 public inspection in the assessor's office; and
12 b. The time and place of a public hearing on the proposed schedules, standard, and rules that
13 shall be held by the board of county commissioners at least seven days before adopting the
14 final schedules, standards, and rules."
15
16 The timeline for the 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows:
17 • September 6, 2016: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners
18 • September 7, 2016: Advertise in newspaper
19 • September 20, 2016: Public hearing on SOV
20 • October 4, 2016: Adoption of SOV
21 • October 5, 2016: Publish 1st notice of adoption
22 • October 12, 2016: Publish 2nd notice of adoption
23 • October 19, 2016: Publish 3rd notice of adoption
24 • October 26, 2016: Publish 4th notice of adoption
25 • November 3, 2016: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV
26
27 Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
28
29 2017 Reappraisal schedules of rules, standards and values
30 T. Dwane Brinson, CAE
31 Tax Administrator
32
33 What is a Reappraisal?
34 • Systematic process of updating real property tax assessments for market value and
35 present-use value
36 • Appraisal of all properties in Orange County as of a single date
37 • Primary goal is to equalize tax base
38 • Effective date for Orange County's impending reappraisal is January 1, 2017
39
40 Where We Have Been
41 • Started field reviews in mid-2014
42 o Postcard left at residences after each visit
43 • 2017 Revaluation Partner Program
44 o Learn and Share revaluation video series (469 total views)
45 o 10-question interactive, educational quiz on website
46 • 34 quizzes taken, average score of 93
47 o Certificate of Achievement
48 • Summary mailing with 2016 listing forms
49 • Sales bank/appeals process on website
50 • Revaluation presentations
5
1
2 Where We Are
3 • Mostly complete with land pricing
4 • Mostly complete with verifying individual property characteristics and data
5 • Currently performing "Neighborhood Reviews"
6 o Current sales reports for statistics, edits as necessary
7 o Before and after report for quality control
8 • Commercial properties are being appraised by outside commercial appraisal company
9
10 Where We Are Going
11 • Schedules of Values submission September 6, 2016 and corresponding adoption
12 timeline
13 • Final revaluation presentations January 2017
14 o Challenges of the revaluation
15 o Tentative results at a high level by classification, district, and other categories as
16 requested
17 • Notices of new value mailed late-February 2017
18 • Deadline for informal appeals April 28, 2017
19 • Board of Equalization and Review to convene May 1, 2017
20 • Post-revaluation customer service, reporting
21 o Extended informal appeals process
22 o Collaborative approach to appeals
23 o Pooled resources with other county departments
24
25 The Schedules of Values (SOV)
26 • Tax Assessor must submit SOV to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
27 • "Upon receipt", the BOCC shall publish a statement that such has been submitted and
28 time/place of public hearing on SOV
29 • 52-day minimum for full adoption of SOV
30
31 What is the Schedules of Values?
32 • 4-year business plan
33 • An appraisal "toolbox"
34 • Explains methodology
35 • Shows appraisal system contents, i.e. calculation tables, codes, etc.
36 • Links to applicable case law
37 • Provides Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)
38 • Does not provide values for specific properties
39
40 The Adoption Process
41 • September 6, 2016: Submission of Schedules of Values to Board of County
42 Commissioners
43 • September 7, 2016: Advertising notice published in News of Orange, Chapel Hill News
44 & Durham Herald
45 • September 20, 2016: Public hearing
46 • October 4, 2016: Adoption of Schedules
47 • October 5, 2016: 1st advertising notice
48 • October 12, 2016: 2nd advertising notice
49 • October 19, 2016: 3rd advertising notice
6
1 • October 26, 2016: 4th advertising notice
2 • November 3, 2016: Last day for taxpayer appeal
3
4 For More Information
5 • Contact the Orange County Tax Office:
6 o 919-245-2100
7 o reval @orangecountync.gov
8 • Visit the revaluation section of our website
9 o http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/tax/
10
11 Commissioner Dorosin asked if adopting these schedules of values is required by
12 statute, before properties can be revaluated.
13 Dwane Brinson said yes.
14 Dwane Brinson said at the end of the day, the goal is to valuate properties at market
15 value.
16 Dwane Brinson said if someone is not satisfied with the Board of Equalization and
17 Review's (E&R) decision on an appeal, one can appeal to the State Board of E&R.
18 Commissioner Price referred to the public outreach, and asked if there are other ways
19 the revaluation information is being disseminated besides a YouTube video.
20 Dwane Brinson said there is a FAQ in the tax administration offices, public
21 presentations, mailings and PSAs.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if people have concerns, is there going to be any
23 straightforward guidance regarding what information residents need to bring with them if they
24 have questions about their revaluation/appeals.
25 Dwane Brinson said a document on "how to prepare a successful appeal" has been
26 created. He said the goal is make this a cooperative and painless process.
27 Commissioner Rich said she would still like to find other ways to get this information out
28 to the public by using social media. She also suggested putting the revaluation as the top topic
29 on the tax web page
30 Chair McKee asked Dwane Brinson if he would place the Schedules of Values in the
31 libraries.
32 Dwane Brinson said yes.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
35 the Board to receive the proposed schedules, standards, and rules from the Tax Administrator;
36 schedule the public hearing at the Board's September 20, 2016 regular meeting concerning
37 their adoption; and direct staff to publish the proper advertisements concerning the public
38 inspection and public hearing times in the Durham Herald Sun, News of Orange and Chapel Hill
39 News and to explore other types of media to get this information out to the public and to place
40 copies in the libraries.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 c. Presentation on the Bond Education Committee Communications Plan
45 The Board received a presentation on the communication plan and associated
46 educational materials developed for the 2016 Bond Referenda for school facilities and
47 affordable housing.
48 Travis Myren reviewed the background on the Bond Education Committee, and
49 introduced Joel Sheer with Sheer Associates, who is working on the communications plan for
50 the bond.
7
1 Joel Sheer reviewed the following information:
2
3 November 2016 Orange County
4 Bond Referendum: Educational Outreach
5
6 Target— Message— Channel - Frequency
7 The communication plan includes the identification and breakdown of the various target
8 audiences, the messages most suited to achieve voter awareness and education, the best
9 channel needed to deliver these messages and finally the timing and frequency for these
10 messages. (Audience, Message, Channel and Frequency)
11
12 Target Audiences:
13 General Orange County Voter when targeting is not possible
14 Northern Orange County Voters
15 Southern Orange County Voters
16 Civic and Community Organizations
17 Schools
18 OC — Flyers in backpacks Twice — K-8 + High Schools
19 CHCCS — No Flyers (PeachJar)
20 Senior Citizens
21 2nd Language Voters
22 UNC & UNC Hospitals
23 Major Orange County Employers
24 Non-Profit Organizations
25 Organizations That Request Information
26
27 Media/Communication Outlets Considered:
28 Consideration was given to the following media outlets for publicity and potential advertising
29 together with the additional collateral expressions that may be required to ensure the success
30 of this communication campaign.
31 • News of Orange/Northern Orange County
32 • Daily Tar Heel
33 • Chapel Hill Herald
34 • Chapel Hill News (N&O)
35 • Chapelboro & WCHL-FM
36 • Independent Weekly
37 • Chapel Hill Magazine (Electronic)
38 • WHUP Radio
39 • Editors and Local Journalist (All media)
40 • Peachjar Online School Management tool
41 • Time Warner Cable (Channel 18 & 1305)
42 • Orange County ListSery
43 • Social Media
44 • Orange County Website
45 • Special Events
46 • Bus Posters
47 • Bill Stuffers
48
49 Collateral:
8
1 Large Posters (8.5 x 14)
2 Insert Handouts (4 x 9)— English & Spanish
3 Bus Posters
4 PSA's (Cable TV)
5 Newspaper Ads (2)
6 Radio Sponsorship/PSA's
7 Radio Sponsorship/Interviews
8 Email Blast for ListServ(s)
9 Press Release
10 Talking Points
11 Video(s) — English & Spanish
12 Website Content— English & Spanish
13 Power Point Presentation
14 Signs
15 Social Media (Let Others Advocate)
16 County Publication Ad (Waste Matters)
17
18 • The next steps in their agenda packets are the messages, methods of reaching areas of
19 county, etc.
20 • Planned activities are on target for this communications plan.
21
22 Mr. Sheer provided some of the ads that will be used advocating for residents to vote,
23 as well as brochures and upcoming public relations and community events.
24
25 5. Public Hearings
26 None
27
28 6. Consent Agenda
29
30 (REVISED item 6-J- Change in Meeting Calendar for 2016)
31
32 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
33 6 k and 6 q by Commissioner Rich, and 61 by Commissioner Price.
34 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
37 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
42
43 6-k: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Rules and Procedures
44 The Board will consider an amendment to the OUTBoard-specific Rules and Procedures
45 to revise its meeting time.
46 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why the OUTBoard meeting time is being
47 changed, and if this is done for other boards.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said boards should be able to determine meeting times, and he
49 was surprised that this request had to come to the BOCC.
9
1 Commissioner Rich asked if other boards have made similar requests, and if boards
2 know making such a request is possible.
3 John Roberts said when the Board of County Commissioners adopted the individual
4 advisory policies, in about 50% of the cases, the BOCC determined a meeting time, and thus if
5 a different time is desired, a request must come back to the Board of County Commissioners.
6 Commissioner Rich said it seems inconsistent.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said not all advisory boards meet at 7:00 p.m.
8 Commissioner Rich said the Board may want to consider letting the boards pick their
9 own times, and make a policy change.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said this topic can be added to an upcoming work session.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
13 approve an amendment to the OUTBoard-specific Rules and Procedures to revise its meeting
14 time to 6:30 p.m.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 6-q: Performance Agreement Between the Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
19 The Board considered ratifying the Manager's signature approving the 2016-2017
20 performance agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the Visitors Bureau (VB).
21 Commissioner Rich requested that the Board thank the Town of Chapel Hill for their
22 contribution to the Visitors Bureau, and she thinks the Board should reconsider how the County
23 gets funds from the Towns and the Visitors Bureau is working on this, and the conversation is
24 on-going.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
27 approve ratifying the Manager's signature approving the 2016-2017 performance agreement
28 between the Town of Chapel Hill and the Visitors Bureau.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 6-I: Orange County/City of Durham Utility Service Agreement Amendment
33 The Board considered amending the deadline for construction to begin in the current
34 utility service agreement from January 31, 2017 to June 30, 2018 and authorize the County
35 Manager to sign.
36 Commissioner Price said she wanted to make sure that staff would bring this to the full
37 attention of the residents.
38 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said some preliminary surveying for
39 feasibility is being done, and the community meeting will be in roughly six weeks.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
42 approve amending the deadline for construction to begin in the current utility service agreement
43 from January 31, 2017 to June 30, 2018 and authorized the County Manager to sign.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 a. Minutes
48 The Board approved the minutes from June 9, 14, 16 and 21, 2016 as submitted by the Clerk to
49 the Board.
50 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
10
1 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
2 property tax value for ten (10) taxpayers with a total of twenty (20) bills that will result in a
3 reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
4 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
5 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
6 value for sixteen (16) taxpayers with a total of seventeen (17) bills that will result in a reduction
7 of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
8 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
9 The Board considered sixteen (16) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad
10 valorem taxation for sixteen (16) bills for the 2016 tax year.
11 e. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2015-16
12 The Board received the tax collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent taxes,
13 approved by resolution the accounting thereof, authorized the Chair to sign and upon
14 acceptance of the reports, issued the Order to Collect for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
15 f. Relief from Collecting Debts
16 The Board released ad valorem property tax and fee debts owed to Orange County in excess of
17 10 years that are no longer collectible.
18 g. Back-Up 9-1-1 Call Processing Equipment
19 The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign the contract and any other related
20 documents for the purchase of VESTA geo-diversify 9-1-1 call processing equipment (CPE) to
21 provide portable phone answering equipment which would operate in any facility in the event
22 that the primary 9-1-1 Center cannot be utilized.
23 h. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#1
24 The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17
25 for Department on Aging; County Manager's Office; Department of Environment, Agriculture,
26 Parks and Recreation; Library Services; Department of Social Services; Animal Service
27 Department; Health Department; School Capital Project Ordinances-Orange County Schools;
28 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund; and Sportsplex Enterprise Fund.
29 i. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill —Carrboro
30 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#1-A Related
31 to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
32 The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
33 (NCDPI) to release proceeds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2016-17
34 debt service payments for Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and to approve
35 Budget Amendment#1-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the
36 NCDPI's approval of the application and authorized the Chair to sign.
37 j. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2016
38 The Board changed the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2016 to add a
39 joint social event for an informal gathering/networking for the Board of Commissioners, Orange
40 County Schools Board of Education and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of
41 Education for Thursday, September 22, 2016 from 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. at the Blackwood Farm
42 Park, 4215 Hwy 86, in Hillsborough.
43 m. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline
44 and Schedule — Erosion Control & Stormwater
45 The Board approved process components and schedule for an upcoming government-initiated
46 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendment for the February 2017 Quarterly Public
47 Hearing that addresses necessary revisions to procedures and technical provisions in the UDO
48 pertaining to erosion & sedimentation control and stormwater regulations.
49 n. Rogers Road Sewer Project—Accepting Sewer Easement Across County-Interest
50 Property
11
1 The Board accepted an easement for sewer installation and maintenance on County-Interest
2 property (i.e., a prior granted public drainage easement) that will be part of the Rogers Road
3 Sewer Project and authorize the Chair to sign.
4 o. North Carolina Department of Transportation Rural Operating Assistance Program
5 (ROAP) Grant Application for FY 2017
6 The Board approved the annual FY 2017 ROAP grant application and certified statement and
7 accepted the funds and authorized the County Manager to sign.
8 p. Marketing Communications Management Agreement with Clean Design
9 The Board approved a professional services agreement for tourism marketing and advertising
10 with Clean Design and authorized the Chair to sign.
11
12 7. Regular Agenda
13
14 a. Agreement with United States Marshals Service on Federal Inmate
15 Reimbursement
16 The Board considered authorizing the County Manager and other appropriate County
17 officials to execute an agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service for housing federal inmates in
18 the Orange County Detention Facility from a current reimbursement rate of $66 per day to a
19 negotiated rate of$93 per day for a term of three years.
20
21 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Sheriff has historically provided secure housing for
22 federal inmates under a contract with the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service is
23 responsible for housing and transporting federal prisoners from the time they enter federal
24 custody until they are either acquitted or convicted and sentenced to a designated federal
25 Bureau of Prisons facility. During the time that court proceedings are underway, the Marshals
26 Service relies on state and local governments to provide secure housing for federal prisoners.
27 The Marshals Service reimburses these state and local detention facilities for the cost of
28 housing based on facility costs and other factors through a negotiated rate determination
29 process. A reimbursement rate of $66 per day has been in place since 2008. The County
30 engaged a consultant to determine the daily cost of housing an inmate in the Orange County
31 detention facility. That cost study calculated daily cost of housing an inmate to be $111.02
32 based on FY 2015 costs to operate the detention facility. This rate was submitted to the U.S.
33 Marshals Service to begin the negotiation process. Although the initial rate offer from the
34 Marshals Service was $77 per day, staff was able to negotiate a final rate of $93.00 per day for
35 a period of three years. Near the end of that initial three year term, the County may submit a
36 request to renegotiate the rate based on the cost of housing at that time. Given the current
37 construction schedule for the new detention facility, the County will likely have a different cost
38 profile by that time in the new facility. The primary reason the Marshals Service did not
39 authorize a full cost reimbursement rate is due to the rates being paid to other counties in the
40 region. Alamance County is receiving $66 per day. Person County is paid $55 per day. Caswell
41 receives $60.05 per day, and Durham is compensated at $52 per day.
42 The total amount of revenue collected from housing federal inmates depends on the daily rate
43 and the number of inmates housed during the fiscal year.
44
45 The number of federal inmates housed in the jail has been declining in recent years from an
46 average daily population of 66 in 2012 to an average daily population of 37 for FY 2015-16. The
47 Sheriff's Office believes that the average daily population will stabilize at approximately 35
48 federal inmates per day. Assuming an average daily population of 35 federal inmates, the
49 County will receive approximately $1.19 million in total revenue or an increase of$345,000 over
50 a 12-month period compared to the current rate of$66 per day.
12
1 Travis Myren reviewed the background information, and made the following PowerPoint
2 presentation:
3
4 Agreement with U.S. Marshals Service
5 on Federal Inmate Reimbursement
6 Presentation to the Board of Corange County Commissioners
7 September 6, 2016
8
9 Background
10 • Cooperative process with Sheriff's Office
11 • County detention facilities used for secure detention of federal inmates during federal
12 court proceedings
13 • Counties are reimbursed on a per inmate per day basis
14 • 2008 Agreement - $66 per day
15 • May be renegotiated every three years
16
17 County and Federal Average Daily Population (charts)
18
19 Daily Cost per Inmate (chart and graph)
20
21 Negotiated Rate
22 • Full cost per day - $111.02
23 • Regional Rates
24 o Alamance - $66 per day
25 o Person - $55 per day
26 o Caswell - $60.05 per day
27 o Durham - $52 per day
28 • Final Negotiated Rate - $93 per day
29 • Three year term — new rate request will be submitted
30
31 Sheriff Blackwood said this has been a complex process, and he thanked Travis Myren
32 for his work throughout. He said Orange County is uniquely situated, and he said this is an
33 acceptable negotiated rate for inmates.
34 Commissioner Pelissier said the rates in the surrounding counties are so much lower,
35 and asked if this will hurt the County's negotiation standing. She asked if the surrounding
36 counties are claiming full costs, or if these counties have not sought a rate adjustment in some
37 time.
38 Sheriff Blackwood said it is likely a combination of all the points made by Commissioner
39 Pelissier. He said the biggest variable is where Orange County is situated on the 1-85/1-40
40 corridor.
41 Commissioner Pelissier said costs in other counties may be higher, and it would benefit
42 all if counties claimed real costs and negotiated more appropriate rates.
43 Bonnie Hammersley said when this conversation started some benchmarking was done
44 by calling other counties and determining their rates. She said it was difficult for some of these
45 counties to give her an exact cost. She said some counties were not housing as many federal
46 inmates, thus the rate was not as high of a priority.
47 Commissioner Burroughs said the costs are more than the negotiated rate, and she
48 spoke with Travis Myren about various aspects of this topic, including if housing the inmates is
49 worth the expense.
13
1 Sheriff Blackwood said the jail has to operate everyday no matter the rate. He said,
2 knowing this, it is better to get a slice of the pie than none.
3 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the inmates are being held for deportation, and if
4 Orange County wants to be in the incarceration business. He said he does not.
5 Lieutenant Selew said most of these inmates are being charged for violations of the
6 federal code, and not deportation.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if the Marshal's office would move the inmates to a cheaper
8 option.
9 Sheriff Blackwood said the number of inmates is fairly consistent, and he has never had
10 an inmate moved for a cheaper rate.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
13 Board to authorize the County Manager and other appropriate County officials to execute a
14 contract with the U.S. Marshals Service to house federal inmates at a daily rate of $93 for a
15 term of three years pending final contract review by the County Attorney.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 8. Reports
20
21 a. School Impact Fee Studies — Receive Draft Reports
22 The Board received the draft School Impact Fee Studies for both school districts, heard
23 a presentation by the consultant and staff, and authorized the next steps towards adopting
24 updated school impact fees.
25
26 BACKGROUND: In the summer of 2015, Orange County contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to
27 perform school impact fee studies for both school districts. TischlerBise completed its work in
28 the summer of 2016 and the resultant draft reports are in the agenda packets.
29
30 The draft reports were sent to school district and municipal staffs on August 17, 2016. Impact
31 fees were last updated in 2008 and were adopted at the levels shown in Attachment 4.
32
33 The recently completed studies disaggregate dwelling types by the number of bedrooms a unit
34 contains and also break out smaller sized (less than 800 square feet) detached units.
35 Additionally, the study includes information on Age Restricted Units, which was a topic of
36 discussion at the May 12, 2015 BOCC work session. Attachment 3 summarizes the maximum
37 supportable impact fees (MSIF) calculated for each school district, shows potential fee levels at
38 various percentages of the MSIF, as well as the percentage change from the current fee levels,
39 if the updated fees were adopted at 60% of the MSIF (as has been the case in the past two
40 update cycles).
41
42 It should be noted that the Student Generation Rates (SGR) calculated in the current studies
43 are different from the rates adopted for Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
44 purposes. This is because the rates adopted for SAPFO purposes are based only on ten years
45 of recently constructed housing while the rates for the impact fee studies must be based on the
46 entire housing stock. There is no proposal to change the SAPFO-adopted SGRs as a result of
47 these studies.
48
49 Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school
50 impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY2009-10 through FY2015-16, $606,318
14
1 in collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and
2 one apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period.
3
4 Ordinance provisions, including fee levels, pertaining to the educational facilities (aka, "school")
5 impact fee are found in Article 2 of Chapter 30 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances (the
6 Ordinance). Updating the provisions would require that the BOCC hold a public hearing to
7 provide interested parties an opportunity to be heard. After the public hearing, the BOCC can
8 adopt updates to the Ordinance.
9
10 Proposed Steps in Process
The following progression illustrates the
potential steps in the process of
updating the Code of Ordinances, as it
pertains to school impact fees:
August 17, 2016 Draft reports sent to School Districts, BOCC,
municipal Managers, and municipal Planning
Directors.
September 6, 2016 Draft reports on BOCC agenda for formal receipt
of reports and authorization of next steps.
September 21, 2016 Display ad to run in Chapel Hill News and News
of Orange to advertise public information meeting.
September 21 and 28, 2016 Legal ad runs in News of Orange and Durham
Herald-Sun advertising October 4 public hearing.
September 26, 2016 Public Information Meeting to be held at the
Whitted Meeting Facility. 6:00 p.m. start time.
Consultant and Planning staff to present
information.
September 29, 2016 School Impact Fee Studies scheduled to be a
topic for discussion at the Joint BOCC/School
Boards meeting. Consultant to be in attendance
to address any technical questions.
October 4, 2016 Public Hearing on proposed Ordinance
amendments. Consultant to finalize studies,
incorporating any relevant information received
during the meetings held from September 6
through the public hearing. Possible adoption of
Ordinance amendments.
October 18, 2016 BOCC considers adoption of Ordinance
amendments, including updated impact fee
levels, if not adopted on October 4.
11 Malcolm Munkittrick, TisherBise consultant, presented the following PowerPoint
12 presentation:
13
14 TischlerBise, Inc.
15 • National Practice
16 • Impact Fees (850+)
15
1 • Fiscal Impact Evaluations (700+)
2 • Infrastructure Needs & Revenue Strategies
3 • Public and Private Sector Experience*
4
5 Impact Fees
6 The purpose is to:
7 ". . . Help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital improvements,
8 the need for which is created in substantial part by the new development that takes place within
9 the County."
10 • Represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facility needs
11 • Used for capacity expansions
12 • Not a revenue raising mechanism but a way to provide growth-related infrastructure
13 • Three requirements must be met:
14 o Impact: Growth is generating need for infrastructure
15 o Benefit: Timing of improvements; accounting and expenditure controls
16 o Proportionality: Fair share of cost
17
18 Process For Study
19 • Interview key staff
20 • Analyze demographic data
21 • Consider methodologies and determine levels of service
22 • Determine capital costs
23 • Evaluate inclusion of credits
24 • Determine maximum supportable fee amounts for each school system
25 • Staff review
26 • Presentations to the public
27 • Decision by elected officials
28
29 Methodologies
30 • Cost Recovery (past)
31 o Oversized and unique facilities
32 • Incremental Expansion (present)
33 o Formula-based approach documents level-of-service with both quantitative and
34 qualitative measures; common for schools
35 • Plan-Based (future)
36 o Common for utilities but can also be used for other public facilities with non-
37 impact fee funding (e.g., roads)
38
39 Impact Fee Formula Overview
40 • Basic formula is shown.
41 • Demand by type of development
42 • How much infrastructure is required to serve that demand
43 • Cost to City to provide that infrastructure
44 • Basic example: students per housing unit x square feet per student x cost per square
45 feet = capital cost per housing unit for new school space.
46
47 Orange County Schools (OCS) Student Generation Rates
48 Student generation rate: # of public school students per housing unit in the OCS system.
49 -Public school students are a subset of school-aged children, which includes students in private
50 schools and home-schooled children.
16
1 -Rates calculated w/ 2013-2014 student address data geocoded to Orange County land records
2 tracking HU types.
3 -Data analyzed for units built during 2 different time periods: before 2004 and 2004-2013.
4 -Collated for these 2 periods to evaluate if new development patterns and demand trends in the
5 res. market impacted student SGR for recently built units.
6 -SGR for HUs constructed 2004-2013 from an earlier TB study, finished in May 2015.
7 -In some cases, data from these two periods are combined due to availability limitations.
8 -TischlerBise, in consultation with County staff, recommends using local data on recently built
9 units (with bedroom counts) and geocoded students data for Multifamily and Single Family
10 Attached rates.
11 -For Single Family Detached, Single Family Detached <800 Sq. Ft., and Manufactured Homes,
12 students in units with unknown bedroom counts reflect less than 10 percent of the total.
13 Therefore, pre-2004 and 2004-2013 data were combined to derive the student generation rates.
14 -For Single Family Detached, students from unknown units were allocated based upon the
15 breakdown of students generated from units with known bedroom counts.
16 -TB calculated a rate for age-restricted units (those units in developments that restrict the
17 number of units with occupants aged under 55 years old) based on data provided by Epcon
18 Communities.
19 -Type of community is relatively new to the development landscape in the Raleigh-Durham-
20 Chapel Hill region.
21 -SGR of 0.019.
22 -As these developments reach maturity and other age-restricted communities come to market,
23 TischlerBise recommends updating the student generation rate calculation for age-restricted
24 units.
25
26 OCS Cost Per Student Summary
27 - SUMMARY of costs —Gross
28 Then —>
29 - Adjusted for local share
30 - MINUS principal payment credit for past debt issued of capacity projects for OCS
31 - Net capital cost per student derived
32
33 OCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees
34 - Max supportable fees per unit calculated by multiplying SGR x net capital cost per
35 student
36 - For example: Elementary 0.166 (0-3 bedroom SFU) x net cost of $27,123 per
37 student = $4,502 per unit for elementary capital facilities
38 - Another Option: County could adopt fees that consolidate bedroom count subcategories
39 within a broader housing unit category.
40 - Single Family Detached homes, currently divided into two subcategories (0-3
41 Bedrooms and 4+ Bedrooms), could be single fee regardless of size.
42 - If the County decides to pursue option, average impact fee by type of unit
43 provided would be used.
44
45 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) Student Generation Rates
46 Rates calculated w/ 2013-2014 student address data geocoded to Orange County land records
47 tracking HU types.
48
49 -Data analyzed for units built during 2 different time periods: before 2004 and 2004-2013.
17
1 -Collated for these 2 periods to evaluate if new development patterns and demand
2 trends in the res. market impacted student SGR for recently built units.
3 -SGR for HUs constructed 2004-2013 from an earlier TB study, finished in May 2015.
4 -In some cases, data from these two periods are combined due to availability limitations.
5 -TischlerBise, in consultation with County staff, recommends using local data on
6 recently built units (with bedroom counts) and geocoded students data for Multifamily and
7 Single Family Attached rates.
8 -For Single Family Detached, Single Family Detached <800 Sq. Ft., and Manufactured
9 Homes, students in units with unknown bedroom counts reflect less than 10 percent of the
10 total. Therefore, pre-2004 and 2004-2013 data were combined to derive the student
11 generation rates.
12 -For Single Family Detached, students from unknown units were allocated based upon
13 the breakdown of students generated from units with known bedroom counts.
14 -TB calculated a rate for age-restricted units (those units in developments that restrict the
15 number of units with occupants aged under 55 years old) based on data provided by Epcon
16 Communities.
17 -Type of community is relatively new to the development landscape in the Raleigh-Durham-
18 Chapel Hill region.
19 -SGR of 0.019.
20 -As these developments reach maturity and other age-restricted communities come to market,
21 TischlerBise recommends updating the student generation rate calculation for age-restricted
22 units.
23
24 CHCCS Cost of Student Summary
25
26 - SUMMARY of costs —Gross
27 Then —>
28 - Adjusted for local share
29 - MINUS principal payment credit for past debt issued — capacity improvements for
30 CHCCS
31 - Net capital cost per student derived
32
33
34 CHCCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees:
35
36 - Max supportable fees per unit calculated by multiplying SGR x net capital cost per
37 student
38 - For example: Elementary 0.150 (0-3 bedroom SFU) x net cost of$36,871 per
39 student = $5,530 per unit for elementary capital facilities
40 - Another Option: County could adopt fees that consolidate bdrm count subcategories
41 within a broader housing unit category.
42 - Single Family Detached homes, currently divided into two subcategories (0-3
43 Bedrooms and 4+ Bedrooms), could be single fee regardless of size.
44 - If the County decides to pursue option, average impact fee by type of unit
45 provided would be used.
46
47 Perdita Holtz, Planning Department, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
48
49 2016 School Impact Fee Studies
50 September 6, 2016 BOCC Meeting
18
1
2 Refined Housing Type Categories
3 • Disaggregated data down to number of bedrooms per unit (SFD, SFA, MF)
4 • Calculations for smaller-sized single-family detached (<800 square feet)
5 • Age-Restricted Units
6
7 Illustration of Fees - CHCSS
8
9 Illustration of Fees - OCS
10
11 Proposed Steps to Update School Impact Fee Levels
12
13 Recommendation for Tonight
14 • Receive the draft studies.
15 • Hear the presentation by the consultant and Planning staff.
16 • Discuss the topic as desired.
17 • Direct staff to proceed with the outlined schedule and Ordinance updates.
18 • Set a public hearing for the October 4, 2016 BOCC meeting.
19
20 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this applies solely to new construction.
21 Perdita Holtz said yes.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said there was an issue years ago, where someone purchased a
23 unit, paid an impact fee, moved the house to a new lot, and was charged another impact fee.
24 Malcolm Munkittrick said in his opinion another impact fee should not be paid.
25 John Roberts said he presented this to the Board in 2012, and the BOCC did not
26 approve the amendment. He said the reason behind the additional impact fee is that, if
27 development on the prior property is not restricted in any way, then it has an impact as a new
28 building could be constructed on that property. He said to avoid a second impact fee there
29 would need to be an easement or some development restriction placed on the prior location of
30 the moved structure. He said the BOCC did not approve the amendment and made no other
31 change.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said he was one Board member that did not like the attorney's
33 previous opinion.
34 Perdita Holtz said North Carolina does not have specific impact fee legislation, but
35 rather enabling legislation that was drafted for Orange and Chatham counties. She said this is
36 based in land use laws, and the practices follow the law the land use ordinance.
37 John Roberts said the Orange County Impact Fee ordinance was authorized under the
38 County's land use authority, which is why a public hearing is required to amend the ordinance.
39 He said the fee likely should be tied to the parcel of land, but this has not been tested in the
40 courts.
41 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the recommendation is for a more disaggregated fee
42 than currently exists. He asked if it should be disaggregated by bedroom size, and overall size,
43 with 800 feet being the cut off.
44 Perdita Holtz said yes, and if 800 feet were not the cut off then more research would
45 need to be done.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said this recommendation would not be disaggregating for
47 Orange County Schools.
48 Perdita Holtz said yes, just for the single-family detached house.
49 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this is due to the anomaly where the four bedroom
50 home is cheaper that the three bedroom.
19
1 Perdita Holtz said yes.
2 Commissioner Dorosin said another anomaly that concerns him is that the
3 manufactured housing impact fee is about $5,000, which is a much higher percentage of the
4 purchase price of the manufactured home, in comparison to other homes. He asked if the
5 Board has any latitude of adjusting these fees, or if there must be a static formula.
6 Malcolm Munkittrick said a lot of manufactured homes are considered affordable
7 housing for young families in other parts of the country, and can produce a lot of student
8 generation. He said there is often little difference between manufactured and stick built homes,
9 and is treated in the market as such if they are titled properly. He said fees are not calculated
10 by purchase price, but rather by the demand placed on the system by a type of unit based on
11 the student generation rates, and the capital cost per student. He said there are policy options
12 in order to lower the fees, such as waiving impact fees for affordable housing properties.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County waives fees for non-profit and housing
14 authority housing.
15 Craig Benedict said the fee is not waived, but rather is paid from a different pot of
16 money. He said the fee structure is very strongly based on the student generation rate, and not
17 the cost of housing.
18 Commissioner Dorosin said the problem with fees is that they are inequitable.
19 Craig Benedict said the fees are not related to the cost of the housing. He said there
20 are other mechanisms to help with reimbursements.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said manufactured housing can generate as many or more
22 students as a more expensive home, and there is no reimbursement process for impact fees for
23 manufactured housing owners. He said it would take an agreement by the schools, along with
24 Orange County, to do this.
25 Commissioner Jacobs asked if a report about parks and recreation fees is scheduled.
26 Craig Benedict said as soon as the analysis of levels of services is developed.
27 Commissioner Jacobs said this discussion about parks and recreation fees has been
28 going on for a very long time.
29 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
30 Director, said there is funding in this year's budget to do the study process described by Craig
31 Benedict. He noted there are still levels of services issues.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the number of units in each school system that have
33 been approved, but not built, is known.
34 Craig Benedict said, the last time a fee schedule was adopted, these were phased in
35 and can add a range of possibilities from 40 to 60.
36 Commissioner Price said the hearing in October will gather public input, and the BOCC
37 will use that input to formulate a decision. She asked if there will be another public hearing for
38 the public to hear the BOCC's decision and make comments.
39 Chair McKee said the public can provide input, and there is always opportunity for the
40 public to make comment.
41 Commissioner Price said the public will only be able to comment on a work in progress.
42 Chair McKee said there is a public meeting after the public hearing for the comments to
43 be shared, if desired.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said it is important to explain what an impact fee is, the history of
45 the impact fee and what it is used for at the public hearing.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
48 direct staff to proceed with the schedule outlined above and Ordinance updates; and set a
49 public hearing for the October 4, 2016 BOCC meeting.
50
20
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 b. County Landholdings Without Public Access
4 The Board reviewed a list of County landholdings that are not currently open for public
5 use, review actions that would be required before allowing pubic access and provide feedback
6 and direction to staff as needed.
7 David Stancil reviewed the following information:
8
9 BACKGROUND:
10 This spring a Board petition requested information about the status of County-owned properties
11 that are not open for public access. The petition asked staff to review the status of these
12 properties, determine opportunities and/or obstacles for public access and whether there is
13 adequate and appropriate signage for public access. Over the summer DEAPR and Solid
14 Waste Management staff reviewed a list of County owned lands to identify those of sufficient
15 size and potential interest by members of public to enter for such things as walking, hiking,
16 nature study, etc. In addition to the properties landbanked for future parks and preserves
17 through the Lands Legacy program, staff included the Greene Tract (104 acres; owned jointly
18 with Carrboro, Chapel Hill), the adjacent Neville Tract (15 acres; associated with the former
19 County landfill), and the County's 60-acre portion of the former Greene Tract (with a proposed
20 new name of"Headwaters Tract" to distinguish it from its former designation).
21
22 DEAPR met with the County Attorney and Risk Manager to discuss the potential opportunities
23 and obstacles (including legal and risk issues) for public access to these properties. For each
24 site, staff outlined the status of the property and listed the changes that would be needed to
25 either a) make the property available for use by the general public (which may require both staff
26 and financial resources), or b) allow access (without invitation)with signs posted warning of the
27 site conditions and that persons "enter at your own risk," or c) identify the property as closed to
28 the public with adequate signage indicating the reason for it being closed.
29
30 Most sites will require additional posting of property boundaries and the design and installation
31 of carefully-worded signage at likely entry points to warn people of what to expect and not
32 expect and to reduce the risk of injury. DEAPR staff will work with the County Attorney and Risk
33 Manager with the anticipation of having signs posted by fall or early winter. Some locations may
34 not be appropriate for public access because they pose hazards (known or unknown) or they
35 are being used for special purposes, such as the Neville Tract (Eubanks Road) that is used for
36 soil excavation and storage associated with landfill operations, and the future Northeast District
37 park property (Schley Road) that is leased for agricultural use by the adjacent farm operation.
38
39 David Stancil put the map in the Board's packet on the screen, and reviewed a
40 PowerPoint presentation for the Board's discussion, noting that a list of these properties, etc., is
41 in the agenda packet. He said staff did discover that more signage is needed whether public
42 access is opened or not. He said there are three categories:
43 - places where there is an open park/facilities/amenities, and signage exists. Here the public is
44 invited, and there are operational and maintenance costs
45 - properties are land banked for future use, but are being accessed by the public. Here
46 acknowledgement of the use needs to occur, and signage prepared
47 - land where public access is not recommended
48
49 David Stancil asked the Board for its thoughts on these properties.
21
1 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a process to manage the lands that are being
2 accessed by the public that do not have signage, and are not recommended for public access.
3 David Stancil said staff will likely recommend "at your own risk" signage on properties
4 such as this. He said this signage should point out what the public can expect to encounter on
5 such lands, such as barbed wire, abandoned house, etc. He said personnel and maintenance
6 will not be provided for these lands.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said there was two instances that made him raise this issue: 1.)
8 the Greene Tract and 2.) the Seven Mile Creek Trail. He said the public accesses these
9 lands, and he said signage would improve knowledge about these areas, and their ownership.
10 Commissioner Rich said she liked the idea of having contact information posted at these
11 sites.
12
13 9. County Manager's Report
14 Bonnie Hammersley said there are a number of information items in their packet tonight,
15 and reminded the Board that there will be a work session at Southern Human Services Center
16 on September 8th.
17
18 10. County Attorney's Report
19 NONE
20
21 11. Appointments
22
23 a. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment
24 The Board will consider making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
27 appoint the following to the Agricultural Preservation Board:
28
29 • Appointment to a second full term (position #13) "At-Large" for Noah Ranells expiring
30 06/30/2019.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 b. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointment
35 The Board will consider making an appointment to the Animal Services Hearing Panel
36 Pool.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
39 appoint the following to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool:
40
41 • Appointment to a partial term (position #7) "At-Large Public Health Field" for Tony
42 Whitaker expiring 03/30/2017.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Commissioner Rich said there are still several vacant positions, and asked if there have
47 been many applicants.
48 Donna Baker said there is a pool of people from which to draw, and some hearings were
49 held this summer. She added that there are several positions still open, and a few people have
50 expressed interest, but no one has officially come forward.
22
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he recalled that the BOCC said it would fill positions if the
2 positions remained vacant for more than six months. He said there is an applicant from
3 Carrboro, and there are positions in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill that have been vacant for
4 seven months.
5 Donna Baker said it is at the Board's discretion.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
8 appoint Carrboro resident Daniel Ryan to the "At Large Town of Chapel Hill" (positon #4) since
9 this position has been vacant for more than six months.
10
11 Donna Baker asked the attorney if the Board was able to make this nomination, given
12 that this is part of the Animal Ordinance.
13 John Roberts said the six months is applicable to all advisory boards. He said the
14 hearing panel is technically not an advisory board, so the six-month time limit does not strictly
15 apply, but it could apply.
16 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board should add the six-month policy to the
17 hearing panel.
18 John Roberts said the six-month provision can be used for this panel, as the BOCC
19 sees fit. He said it is not an advisory board and is purely quasi-judicial. He said there is no
20 advisory function to the hearing panel.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said he will let his motion stand.
22 Chair McKee said he would oppose this motion for two reasons: 1.) this is a hearing pool
23 that currently has enough people from which to draw and conduct the hearing process; and 2.)
24 he said this at-large position is for the Town of Chapel Hill, and due to the lack of an urgent
25 need to fill the position, he would prefer to wait until there is an applicant from Chapel Hill.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said there are two Chapel Hill positions in the pool, thus allowing
27 another Chapel Hill resident to come forth and be in the pool. He said he deliberately
28 nominated a person for the shorter-term vacancy.
29 Chair McKee said he appreciates those points, but feels that there have been
30 appointments made in the past that had to be undone.
31
32 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair McKee)
33 Motion passes
34
35 c. Arts Commission —Appointments
36 The Board considered making appointments to the Arts Commission.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
39 appoint the following to the Arts Commission:
40
41 • Appointment to a partial term (position #4) "At-Large" for Daniel Mayer expiring
42 03/31/2017.
43 • Appointment to a first full term (position #6) "At-Large" for Lynne Albert expiring
44 09/30/2019.
45 • Appointment to a second full term (position #7) "At-Large" for Doris A. Friend expiring
46 09/30/2019.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 d. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment—Appointment
23
1 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
4 appoint the following to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment:
5
6 • Appointment to a second full term (position #2) "Alternate Hillsborough ETJ" for Dustin
7 Williams expiring 09/30/2019.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 e. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
12 The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
13 Advisory Committee.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
16 appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
17
18 • Appointment to a one year training term (Position #7) "At-Large Nursing Home
19 Administration" position for Jacqueline Podger expiring 09/06/2017.
20
21 12. Board Comments
22 Commissioner Pelissier said the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) passed
23 a resolution on the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) in Orange County.
24 Commissioner Price said she attended the Orange County Schools' convocation, and
25 noted the positivity and enthusiasm of all involved.
26 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
27 Commissioner Jacobs said there will be an affordable housing tour this Saturday,
28 September 10th.
29 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
30 Commissioner Rich reminded everyone that the large Community Home Trust
31 fundraiser is happening on September 9tH
32 Chair McKee said Chatham-Orange Work Group is in the process of being
33 reconstituted, and requested that the Board appoint Commissioner Pelissier to be a part of the
34 reconstitution of this group.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for
37 Commissioner Pelissier to join the reconstitution of the Chatham-Orange Work Group.
38
39 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this is a wise choice since she is rolling off the Board.
40 Bonnie Hammersley clarified that staff is requesting Commissioner Pelissier's help in
41 planning the reconstitution and determining who should be at the table, rather than be an actual
42 member.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said she would do that.
44 Chair McKee said three volunteers are needed for the retreat planning committee. He
45 said he would like to sit on this committee, and asked for two more volunteers.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said he would volunteer.
47 Commissioner Price said she would volunteer.
48 Commissioner Jacobs he would step back if Mark Marcoplos, who is running unopposed
49 in the November election for Commissioner Pelissier's seat, would like to be on this committee.
50 Chair McKee said he would talk with Mark Marcoplos and report back to the Board.
24
1
2 13. Information Items
3
4 • June 21, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
5 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
6 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
7 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
8 • Single Occupancy Restroom Improvement Project Update
9 • Safe Routes to School Plan Update
10 • Creation of Pat Sanford Animal Welfare Grant Program
11 • Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Local Input
12 Point Assignment for Division Needs Tier Projects
13 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from June 21, 2016 Regular Meeting
14
15 14. Closed Session
16 NONE
17
18 15. Adjournment
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
21 adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 Earl McKee, Chair
26
27 Donna Baker
28 Clerk to the Board
29