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