HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-06-20181
APPROVED 3/8/2018
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
February 6, 2018
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 6,
2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
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 Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
The following items were noted at the Commissioners’ places:
- PowerPoint for item 4-b
- PowerPoint and script for item 5-a: SUP public hearing
- PowerPoint for item 6-b: NCHIP
- PowerPoint for item 6-c
- PowerPoint for item 7-a: 2045 MPO Plan
- Revised abstract for item 7-b
- PowerPoint for item 7-b: Broadband
- 11-a- GoTriangle Applicants
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
Arts Moment- Pam Baggett
Chair Dorosin read the introduction for Pam Baggett:
Pam Baggett's chapbook, Wild Horses, was a runner-up for the 2017 Cathy Smith Bowers
Chapbook Contest and will be published by Main Street Rag in 2018. Recent poems appear in
Atlanta Review, Cold Mountain Review, Crab Orchard Review, Greensboro Review, and Tar
River Poetry. Work also appears in anthologies, including Forgetting Home: Poems About
Alzheimers and The Southern Poetry Anthology Volume VII: North Carolina. Ms. Baggett is a
Pushcart Prize nominee, a recipient of the 2017 Ella Fountain Pratt Emerging Artists Grant,
and a 2017 recipient of an Artist Project Grant from the Orange County Arts Commission. She
co-hosts the Second Thursday Reading series at Flyleaf Books in Chapel Hill, and teaches
free poetry workshops at the Orange County Main Library in Hillsborough.
Pam Baggett read two short poems.
2
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Billie Holloway said he lives on Highway 70, adjacent to the proposed site for a
County detention center and agricultural building. He said his property has a jut out, and
the proposed buildings would go all the way around his property. He suggested making
his property line straight, and installing a buffer, as opposed to going around the jut out
of his property. He said he would be happy to talk with staff about how to make this
happen.
Chair Dorosin said staff would be in touch with Mr. Holloway.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Price said she attended the “Connecting to Opportunities” summit in
Durham today. She said she appreciated comments from the new Durham Mayor, but there
was little mention of Orange County in the presentations. She said there was discussion about
zoning changes to make it easier for developers to build affordable housing. She said on a
recent National Association of Counties (NACo) telephone call, she learned of a town in El
Paso County, Colorado, which has passed an ordinance for tiny homes.
Commissioner Price said there is another kick off for Black History Month, and the
Burwell School is celebrating the bicentennial of Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley with a program on
Sunday.
Commissioner Price said they have started doing stories on the radio about the
Veterans Memorial, to help with both public education and fundraising.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he would like the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) to consider a third filter on its abstracts, which look at environmental impact in addition
to the existing financial and social justice impact filters. He asked if this could be discussed at
a future work session.
Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
Commissioner Rich congratulated all the groups that are doing Frederick Douglas
celebrations.
Commissioner McKee had no comments.
Commissioner Jacobs spoke in support of Commissioner Marcoplos’ petition.
Commissioner Jacobs said he and Laurie Paolicelli, Visitors’ Bureau (VB) Director,
spoke at NC A&T State today. Laurie Paolicelli spoke on culinary tourism, noting that Orange
County is in a good position to promote and partake. He said in 1999, Orange County had
$20,000 in direct sales from farm to consumers, which rose to $1.4 million in 2001. He said it
was an encouraging experience, as Orange County is seen as a leader in this form of
economic development.
Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the officers of the board to respond to the
unfortunate letter from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) about the Millhouse
Road property. He said he felt CHCCS overstepped its place in telling the BOCC how to do it
business.
Chair Dorosin said a response is being drafted.
3
Commissioner Jacobs proposed that the BOCC withdraw the item about the Economic
Development District (EDD) expansion on Davis Road, and he said he had talked to Craig
Benedict about this. He said residents in this area are beleaguered, and this topic is not a high
priority. He said if this item comes back, it would be wise to have an information session prior
to taking any action.
Chair Dorosin said in an effort to be more collaborative about meetings he has
attended, he will be sending out an email with updates. He said the schools facilities work
group, which is meeting around the issue of school construction bids, met last week. He said
there are some interesting new questions to consider regarding timing, when the bonds get
drawn down, and how construction is paid for. He said he will share his notes with the BOCC.
He said bids for Chapel Hill High School are expected at the end of March.
Chair Dorosin said the Food Council met last night, and it plans to follow up, from the
Assembly of Governments (AOG) meeting, with smaller groups of elected officials. He said
there are some new ideas from the food economy work group about possible new ways that
the BOCC can be supportive.
Chair Dorosin said there are two housekeeping items:
Chair Dorosin asked if a Commissioner would volunteer for the North/South Bus Rapid
Transit (N/S BRT) Policy committee.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested adding this need to the list of boards that the Board
of County Commissioners will choose on February 15th.
The BOCC agreed by consensus.
Chair Dorosin said there is a lavender sheet at the Commissioners’ places with a list of
all the applicants for Go Triangle Community Advisory Committee. He asked if all BOCC
members would pick four people, and rank them as follows: 1st choice = 4 points, 2nd choice =
3 points, 3rd choice = 2 points, and 4th choice 1 point. He said staff will tally the points, and the
top four point getters will be put forth during the appointments portion of the meeting later this
evening.
Commissioner Rich said Orange County has 7 appointed individuals: 4 nominated by
the BOCC, and 3 that GoTriangle picks. She said to put forth the top 4 vote getters as the
BOCC recommendation, but also provide GoTriangle with the names of the next three vote
getters, as well.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Resolution Acknowledging February 27, 2018 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange
County
The Board considered voting to officially resolve that February 27, 2018 is “Spay
Neuter Day” in Orange County, authorize the Chair to sign the resolution and briefly review two
new initiatives in the County’s Community Spay and Neuter Program.
Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, and Maureane Hoffman, Animal Services
Advisory Board (ASAB) Chair, reviewed the background information and following PowerPoint
Presentation.
Animal Services Spay Neuter Program
Making sense and savings cents in Orange County
Animal Services
February 2018
Targeted Spay and Neuter: The Theory (chart)
4
Animal Services Spay Neuter: What it is and how it works (chart)
New Developments
• Growing spay and neuter in the County: thanks to a grant of $16,500 from the Margo
T. Petrie Foundation, we have been able to make free spay and neuter services
available to more County residents than ever before. They are now available to
residents with a household income of up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty level
rather than only 200 percent, as well as residents who receive public assistance.
• Working (Barn) Cat program: With a $5,000 grant from the Trad Foundation made via
friends of Orange County Animal Services, we launched the Working (Barn) Cat
program as part of a broader effort to more humanely manage free-roaming cats. This
program helps County residents have working cats spayed or neutered, vaccinated,
licensed, and micro-chipped at no charge.
Don’t delay? Spay or Neuter Today!
Working Barn Cat Program
Animals Admitted 2005-2017 (graph)
Animal Outcomes 2005-2017 (graph)
Targeted Spays and Neuters 2008-2016 (graph)
Total Cats Sterilized 2015-2017 in OCAS Spay/Neuter Program (graph)
Opportunities and Challenges
• Increasing the number of sterilized dogs and cats to 500+ via enhanced communication
and new initiatives
• Outreach to virtually all sectors of the community about the availability of free spay and
neuter services
• Growing the Working (Barn) Cat Program and expanding the program to include other
cats that are loosely affiliated with residents.
• Encouraging community involvement and support in managing free roaming cats in
new ways using spay and neuter services.
• Sustaining financial support from multiple sources to ensure that Community Spay and
Neuter is an ongoing and growing part of Animal Services.
Commissioner McKee read the resolution:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SPAY NEUTER DAY RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, cats and dogs provide companionship to and share the homes of thousands of
individuals in Orange County; and
5
WHEREAS, the problem of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers of Orange County
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through animal control and sheltering programs
aimed at coping with unwanted and homeless cats and dogs; and
WHEREAS, humane societies and shelters throughout the country have to euthanize
approximately four million cats and dogs each year, although many of them are healthy and
adoptable, due to the lack of critical resources such as money, space, and good adoptive
homes; and
WHEREAS, the Animal Services Advisory Board and the Animal Services Department have
made correcting pet overpopulation a priority, and prepared Managing Pet Overpopulation:
A Strategic Plan for Orange County and Managing Free-Roaming Cats in Orange County
North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, spaying and neutering cats and dogs, among other animal companions, has been
shown to drastically reduce overpopulation; and
WHEREAS, Animal Services has partnered with community partners including AnimalKind, the
Department of Social Services and Spay Neuter Assistant Program-North Carolina to offer “low
cost” and “no cost” spay and neuter to households who are economically disadvantaged or
who receive public assistance; and
W HEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations, national and local animal
welfare organizations, and private citizens have joined together again this year to advocate
and support the spaying and neutering of companion animals on “Spay Day USA 2018”;
Now, therefore be it RESOLVED by Orange County that February 27, 2018 is declared “Spay
Neuter Day”, and the Board of County Commissioners calls upon the people of the County to
observe the day by having their own cats or dogs spayed or neutered or by sponsoring the
spaying or neutering of another person’s cat or dog.
THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
adopt the proposed resolution and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Body-worn Cameras for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office
The Board received a presentation from a representative of Wireless, NC regarding a
digital evidence management proposal for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
Sheriff Blackwood and vendors from Motorola presented this item:
BACKGROUND:
At the October 6, 2016 Board of Orange County Commissioners meeting, Orange County
Sheriff Charles S. Blackwood and the Board discussed the possibility of equipping Sheriff’s
Deputies with body-worn cameras (BWC). Subsequent to the meeting, various vendors of
BWC met with Sheriff’s Office staff about their offerings. The Sheriff’s Office identified four
BWC models of interest and placed them into limited use by Deputies. Through this pilot
6
testing, the Deputies determined that products offered by Motorola Solutions are best suited
for use by the Sheriff’s Office. Amanda Barringer with Wireless, NC will make a presentation to
the Board on Motorola’s Digital Evidence Management Solutions (DEMS), which includes the
SI-500 Body Camera and Command Central Vault.
Sheriff Blackwood said Amanda Barringer is very ill, and unable to attend, but she laid
the foundation for this presentation. He said he is very pleased with the options available to
the County. He said technology moves so quickly that the solution being presented this
evening was not available when this discussion started. He said the cost is expected to be
$200,000 less than budgeted. He said initially this was a partial implementation, but now a full
implementation and back up is expected to be more financially attainable, which is very
pleasing. He said a test of the solution was conducted, and input was gathered from various
stakeholders. He said many previous concerns have been satisfied. He showed a video of
law BOCC of law enforcement describing its experience with the equipment.
Sheriff Blackwood said the vetting process was well worthwhile, and the residents
stand to benefit the most from this equipment.
Scott Hurt, Mobile Communications America, introduced his team: Mike Costa, Solution
Expert Specialist, and Joe Freedman, Solution Architect.
Mike Costa thanked the BOCC for its time, and highlighted the unique features and
capabilities of the product. He reviewed the following PowerPoint presentation:
Orange County Sheriff’s Office
Si500
Command Central Value
• Situational Awareness
• Analytics and Investigation
• Records and Content Management
Si500 Video Speaker Microphone
SSI 500 and Command Central Vault- products being shown to the Board of Commissioners
Si500 Multiple Devices
Si500: 3 in one device consolidating officer hardware
• Body worn camera
• Advanced noise cancelling microphone
• Smart hand held device
Motorola Rugged Purpose Built
User interface and Work Flow
Wearability Options
Sample District or Precinct Deployment
Command Central Vault
Operations Simplified
Simplified Management:
• Advanced end-to-end content management
7
• Content Storage
• Predictable costs (OPEX)
• Cloud offering – no complex IT
Simplified Workflows:
• Integration with Si500 VSM
• Metadata extraction
• Advanced retrieval, review and management
• Automated redaction
• Streamlined evidence sharing
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan in place to deal with the Wi-Fi-dead spots in
the County.
Vendor said the device is flexible to use any Wi-Fi, and can store up to 128 networks.
Commissioner Rich asked if it is constantly uploaded.
Vendor said no. He said the deputy can select to upload at the end of a shift, or it
happens automatically when the device is in the dock.
Commissioner McKee said his question was answered above.
Commissioner Jacobs congratulated Sheriff Blackwood for getting to this point.
Commissioner Jacobs said when the BOCC previously talked about this, there was
discussion regarding the public record component, and there were some different opinions as
to how to proceed. He asked if there was an update on this topic.
Sheriff Blackwood said he will be handing out his Department’s adopted policy, which
reflects the State law. He said there are different ways the content can be released, and the
most important thing to remember is that anyone who feels they were mistreated will not be
given the video, but are able to view it.
Commissioner Price asked if this equipment will substitute for the regular radios.
Sheriff Blackwood said it is in addition to the regular radios. He said instead of the
officer having a body mic and a camera, he/she will have one device that does both functions.
He said he really cares about the way the officers look, and this equipment allows function
without a lot of extra stuff being added to the uniform.
Commissioner Price asked if an officer is in a rural area with no Wi-Fi, will there still be
a regular radio frequency, by which to communicate.
Sheriff Blackwood said the radio frequency and the downloading of information are two
separate things. He said the radio works off the radio, and the camera downloading happens
at access points at certain times.
Vendor said the radio will be able to work on the radio system, regardless of Wi-Fi.
Commissioner Price asked if maintenance of records have been considered.
Sheriff Blackwood said all of this is addressed in their policy. He said his IT team has
met with Motorola, as well as County IT, to work out all questions. He said maintenance will
cost about $300,000.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the hypothetical situation of a child who reports
police mistreatment to his/her parent, and the parents look at the video and are disturbed. He
asked if there is a process from that point forward.
Sheriff Blackwood said these steps are covered in the state statute, but HB 972 is not
perfect. He said this statute is always being talked about, with possible tweaking of the statute
moving forward.
8
Chair Dorosin said he would like to know when the cameras will be turned on or off,
and how this decision is made. He clarified that the $300,000 is the cost of the equipment,
and asked if there is a cost estimate for the data storage.
Vendor said the $300,000 includes both the device and the back end storage for 5
years.
Chair Dorosin asked if the policy will address how long information be kept, and how
and when things are deleted.
Sheriff Blackwood said the policy will address this, and it is open for discussion.
Chair Dorosin said it is a complicated situation.
Sheriff Blackwood said sometimes it takes months for concerns to come to light, and
the policy addresses this.
Chair Dorosin asked if the BOCC would review the policy, and if there are questions or
concerns, Sheriff Blackwood can come back for further discussion. He said this is an
expected budget request for FY2018-19.
c. FY2018-19 Orange County Schools Continuation Budget
The Board received an update on the current continuation budget projections for the
FY2018-19 Orange County Schools (OCS) budget.
Chair Dorosin reviewed the background information below:
BACKGROUND:
During the last collaboration meeting of the three Boards, Orange County Schools requested
the opportunity to appear before the Board of County Commissioners prior to the official start
of the budget process. The request is an effort to be transparent with information early in the
process so that the Board of County Commissioners is aware of the current reality in Orange
County Schools. Orange County Schools faces a budget shortfall due to declining enrollment,
state mandated salary increases, and state mandated changes to class size ratios at
kindergarten through third grade.
Dr. Todd Wirt, OCS Superintendent, said he is glad to be able to give the Board an
early overview of where OCS is now. He said there is a handout in the abstract and he walked
the BOCC through this sheet. He reviewed the per pupil amounts, and fund balance
appropriations that his Board has made.
Dr. Todd Wirt said it is possible that Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections
for enrollment may be received by the end of the week. He said charter school enrollments
have increased, and OCS is working hard to counter this change.
Dr. Todd Wirt referred to the bottom 1/3 of the page:
HB 13 Class Size
Mandate
$870,000 (12 teachers)
State Mandated
Increases
$1,200,000
Loss of State
Teacher Funding
-
725,000 (10
positions)
Total Continuation
Budget
33,280,226$ 36,075,226
Estimated Local
Revenue Shortfall
(3,401,396)
Charter School Funding - (602,641)
9
Gap
Total Estimated Funding Gap (2,798,755)
Dr. Todd Wirt said there is a $3.4 million shortfall, which does not include keeping pace
with $15/hour living wage, which would add an additional $350,000. He said OCS has frozen
many positions throughout the year as cost cutting measures, which resulted in a savings of
about $350,000 for this year. He said some of these positions will have to be filled moving
forward.
Dr. Todd Wirt said OCS felt it was important to bring this information forward as the
County approaches its budget season.
Commissioner McKee asked if there could be greater clarification regarding the charter
school funding gap.
Dr. Todd Wirt said OCS is funded based on the previous year’s enrollment of 617
charter school students, when there are actually 768 students enrolled in charter schools this
year. He said there is a gap between the funding that OCS must find.
Dr. Todd Wirt said there could be a gap again, and maybe it will be better to fund
charter students on a conservative projection, as the number of charter students continues to
increase.
Commissioner McKee said he would have assumed it would have increased the deficit
rather than decrease it.
Dr. Todd Wirt said what is being taken out is what that gap feeds in.
Commissioner Price asked if OCS could indicate in its budget the positions that will not
earn the living wage of $15.00.
Dr. Todd Wirt said he expects this would be included that in their budget presentation.
Commissioner Jacobs said the new federal tax law also pays for private school for
students, and asked if OCS is tracking all of these changes that are draining off the funds for
the public schools.
Dr. Todd Wirt said OCS does track that data, and can present it to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Commissioner Rich asked if all of the charter school students attend charter schools in
Orange County.
Dr. Wirt said the vast majority goes to charter schools in Orange County.
Commissioner Rich asked if the same amount of money is sent to charter schools
outside of Orange County.
Rhonda Rath, OCS Chief Financial Officer, said yes. She said about 25% of OCS
students attend charter schools outside of Orange County.
Dr. Todd Wirt said a charter school in another county receives more funding for an
OCS student, than it does for students from its own county.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the economic effects of homeschooling are known.
Dr. Todd Wirt said the main economic effect is that OCS does not receive state or local
funding for students who are homeschooled.
Commissioner Marcoplos said families that homeschool their children, still pay taxes,
and thus this should have a positive economic effect.
Dr. Todd Wirt said the schools benefit from local taxes being paid by homeschooling
families, but the state does not provide any funding for these students.
Commissioner Marcoplos said taxes are generated to pay for other kids.
10
Dr. Todd Wirt said that is true for any tax paying resident without children in the school
system.
Chair Dorosin said thanked Dr. Todd Wirt and OCS for their foresight.
Chair Dorosin referred to the numbers at the top of chart, and said the OCS enrollment
is declining, but the overall amount of school-aged children is increasing, but more children are
going to charter schools.
Dr. Todd Wirt said that is correct.
Chair Dorosin said he heard a rumor that the General Assembly will bring in the special
session, and potentially offer a resolution for the class size issue.
Dr. Todd Wirt said there are varying reports out of Raleigh. He said there are various
strategies being proposed: delay the mandated class size; provide additional funding stream to
pay for specials (art, music, PE); etc.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it will be necessary to consider how SAPFO works in
this new environment. He said many projected students are not attending traditional public
schools, and he asked if there is a way to address this issue of class size and predict the
necessary number of classes, all the while not knowing if students will actually enroll. He said
it is unclear to know whether or not to build classrooms.
Dr. Todd Wirt said OCS is analyzing the building capacity of the two largest charter
schools have, and how much capacity those schools have left. He said OCS has a working
relationship with the Charter Schools.
Commissioner Jacobs said maybe staff from the County, OCS, and CHCCS need to
meet and have a reality check, as the federal tax changes will likely kick in next year. He said
if people are encouraged to go to private or charter schools, it is difficult to know how to project
numbers for the public schools.
Commissioner McKee said he is glad to hear that there is communication with the
charter schools.
5. Public Hearings
a. Class A Special Use Permit – Solar Array off US Highway 70 in Cheeks Township
The Board held a public hearing, review, and make a determination on a Class A
Special Use Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) application proposing the development of a solar array in
accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public
Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SOLAR APPLICATION –
FEBRUARY 6, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING:
NOTE – Blue text denotes BOCC Chair/Member required action
1. Meeting progresses …….
2. Chair Dorosin informed those in attendance the next item on the agenda (ITEM 5 -A) is
a PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Dorosin read:
To review a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar
array/public utility station on a 52 acre parcel of property further identified utilizing PIN
9835-02-9137, which is accessed via an easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West
within the Cheeks Township.
11
The purpose of this hearing will be to gather evidence to determine whether the
ordinance’s standards have been met. The Board must base its decision with respect to
the approval or denial on the application solely on the competent, material and
substantive evidence presented during the hearing. The Board must exclude from
consideration both their personal and the public’s opinions with respect to the
disposition of this request.
3. Chair Dorosin declared the public hearing open and asked all parties intending to offer
testimony and/or evidence to come forward and be sworn by the Clerk.
The Deputy Clerk administered the oath indicating that the testimony the individual is
about to give is the truth, the whole, truth, and noting but the truth to their knowledge.
Any individual offering testimony (i.e. staff, the applicant, members of the public,
Planning Board, etc.) has to be sworn.
** NOTE : Unlike public hearings on legislative matters there is no time
limit as individuals are presenting sworn evidence/testimony on the
merits of the application.**
Three individuals were sworn in: Applicant, Michael Harvey, Supervisor/Planner III, and
Patrick Mallett, Planner II
4. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record.
a. Questions will be asked of staff.
Patrick Mallett: Good evening, Commissioners. Pat Mallett, Current Planning. I’ve been duly
sworn. Before I go through the presentation, I am going to walk you through
the large stack of what you’re dealing with. With a special use permit, you tend
to have a lot of paperwork. You should have at each of your places: a hard
copy of the PowerPoint presentation; a larger stack that is the abstract on the
front end, and all the ten attachments; 11x17 version of the site plan; and then
the script that follows through the process for a special use permit. I’d like to
enter all of those items into the record.
Patrick Mallett made the following PowerPoint presentation:
PUBLIC HEARING –
AGENDA ITEM: 5.a
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
Orange County Board of Commissioners
February 6, 2018
PROPERTY INFORMATION
• PIN(s): 9835-02-9137 (site); and 9835-10-3858 (access)
• Size : Approximately 52 acres (leased area +/-27 acres)
• Zoning: R-1 (Rural Residential)
• Overlay(s): Back Creek Protected Watershed/ Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Overlay
District
• Future Land Use Map Designation: 10-Year Transition Area
12
• Growth Management System Designation: Urban Designated
REQUEST:
• Erection of panels on 27 acres of 52 acre parcel;
• Typical array between 7-9 ft. in height, between 2-3 ft. of ground clearance; and 50-75
ft. in length;
• Arrays screened by existing vegetation (stream and floodplain buffers) and Type D
Land Use Buffer;
• An 8’ high chain link security fence around perimeter;
• Gravel paths/drives around solar arrays to permit access;
• Depending on the soil and topography, areas around the panels will be combination of
natural groundcover, grass, and/or paths;
REQUEST:
• Vehicular access restricted by an entry gate and gravel drive and 30-50 foot wide
easement (via PIN 9835-10-3858) to an existing driveway onto US Highway70.
• STAFF COMMENT - This request seeks to re-approve a Class A SUP originally
approved by the BOCC on September 12, 2016;
• Approval expired in September of 2017;
• This request is the same as previously approved with one exception. The
language and condition of approval requiring a recorded Conservation Easement
has been changed to read preservation of Natural Buffer Area.
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
SITE PLAN:
the black rows at are the solar panels; and chain link fence; applicant is providing a 100 ft set
back; a lot of existing trees; average height is 40-60 ft tall
REVIEW PROCESS:
STEP ONE – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
STAFF COMMENT: The required NIM was held on November 13, 2017 from 6:30-7:30
p.m. in accordance with the UDO. They had two residents that attended.
STEP TWO – PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: Review the request and make a
recommendation to the BOCC on the project’s compliance with specific development
standards (Section 5.9.6) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO.
STAFF COMMENT: Item reviewed at the January 10, 2017 meeting. Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval.
STEP THREE – PUBLIC HEARING: The BOCC holds a public hearing to allow the applicant
and other interested parties to provide sworn testimony related to the proposal.
STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing will be held at the February 6, 2018
BOCC Meeting.
STEP FOUR – DECISION: The BOCC will review the Planning Board and Staff
recommendations as well as any other evidence presented at the hearing, deliberate, certify
the record, close the public hearing, and then render a final decision.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the application;
13
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive sworn testimony and evidence as well as the
Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) on the application;
3. Close the public hearing;
4. Review and make a decision on the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as
contained in Attachment 9.
** Once the public hearing is closed there can be no further questions asked/answered
by the staff, the applicant, or other party and no additional evidence can be placed into
the record. If additional information is needed, the BOCC should continue the public
hearing to a date/time certain in order to hear the information in a quasi-judicial setting.
**
Patrick Mallett: I’ll briefly walk you through the packet. This is everything that’s required for a
special use permit, per our ordinance. On page 1-4, you’ve got the abstract,
with all the overview information. On page 5-138, is their actual application.
That’s rather lengthy, but there are a lot of pieces that have to be submitted by
the Applicant to support the findings of fact. Page 140 is the site assessment,
that’s Attachment 3. Attachment 4, page 141-150 are the findings of fact.
Those are the staff recommendations – all the applicable findings of fact are in
the affirmative, both from the staff perspective and the Planning Board. Then
we have Attachment number 6; the neighborhood information materials,
documenting that neighborhood meeting. Attachment 7- page 215 - public
hearing mailing certifications, which are required. Attachment number 8 is the
expert of the Planning Board minutes. Attachment number 9 is the Board of
Commissioners findings of fact. And Attachment number 10, on page 227, is
the legal advertisement.
I would draw your attention, obviously, to Attachment number 9, which is the
item that, once the hearing is closed, you will go through each of those findings,
and make your determinations. With that I’m free to answer any questions you
may have.
Questions from Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Price: In the handout, you mention the chain link security fence, and then on
this map, it says it has barbed wire. So which is it?
Patrick Mallett: It would be chain link with barbed wire on the top around the whole thing.
Chair Dorosin: I just have one: Attachment 9 that says “BOCC Findings of Fact,” that’s from
the last time, that’s from the February meeting when we heard this the first
time. Is that right?
Patrick Mallett: That’s an updated version of that. You had findings of fact that you originally
considered when you originally approved this.
Chair Dorosin: These are the blank ones that we have to find tonight.
Patrick Mallett: That’s right. That’s where you go through and reapprove each one of those
findings of fact. And I would note that at the end of that are the conditions of
approval. You would include those as part of your decision, and all of those –
14
conditions 2-11 – are the same as they were in September 2016. The one
exception is the conservation easement language that was changed to replace
it with the word natural buffer.
Chair Dorosin: And that’s number one of those 11.
Patrick Mallett: Yes.
Chair Dorosin: Great.
5. Chair will ask the applicant to make their presentation on the application.
6. The applicant will make their presentation and provide testimony and evidence as to
the project’s compliance with applicable land use regulations.
Brian Quinlan: Brian Quinlan, and I’ve been duly sworn in. We’ve got a packet of information;
a lot of it is similar to what you’ve already got from the County. There is a
presentation in the back that I can go through. I didn’t want to take too much
time, since everyone has seen it, but it really just goes through three findings of
fact: the project maintains/enhances public safety; the project maintains/
enhances adjoining property values; and the project is in harmony with the
area, and in compliance with the County plan. It provides significant detail
around why we feel that this is the case, and the County and the Planning
Board have been in concurrence with that. If you want me to go through it I
can. It’s really up to you guys.
Chair Dorosin: What is the will of the Board? Do we want to hear the presentation, or just see
if we have any questions? I just want to know that we are saying that this is
being submitted to be put in to the record, as part of the record of the hearing.
The Oakwood Solar Farm binder will be part of the record. Are there any
specific questions for the Applicant?
There were no questions.
Brian Quinlan submitted the Oakwood Solar Farm LLS SUP Binder Table of Contents
into the record.
a. Questions will be asked of the applicant.
8. Chair will ask if there are any other individuals intending to provide testimony and
evidence on the project.
NONE
a. Questions can be asked of the speakers as appropriate.
9. Chair will ask staff to review the recommending findings for the project (Attachment 4
beginning on page 141 of Item 5-A of the February 6, 2018 BOCC meeting packet).
Patrick Mallett: I think what I will do is go through these in groupings. Basically the findings of
fact are grouped into basic categories. You have your basic findings of fact,
15
which start on Attachment 9, on page 220. The items in the green document
are that they have met the requirements of our ordinance, state law, etc. And
then the items in orange are the legal advertisements required by our
ordinance and state law. That’s on page 221. The specific standards, which
are required for this type of issuance of the SUP: waste disposal safety,
vehicular access, on page 222. Then you have your standards of evaluation,
which run through page 223. I believe that you can have a consideration and a
motion to affirm those findings. And then on the last page, those are the ones
with each special use permit, our recommendation that you will or will not
approve or deny each one of those, and make those three separate
recommendations.
Chair Dorosin: Great. We will note for the record that in the column that says “Planning
Board/ staff recommendations” on all of these, it’s a yes, that they’ve been met.
Patrick Mallett: It is, yes. And that’s attachment number 4.
10. Chair will ask the Planning Board Chair/Vice-chair (if present) to offer any additional
comment(s) on the Planning Board’s review/recommendation.
NONE
11. Chair will ask if there are any other questions for staff, the applicant, or other
individual(s) who have offered testimony/evidence.
NONE
John Roberts: If we could just get an affirmative statement from the Applicant that the
Applicant has been presented with, and understands the conditions that are being
recommended here.
Brian Quinlan: We’ve seen the conditions attached to the permit, and we acknowledge them.
12. A motion will need to be made to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE – once this is done there can be no additional public comment made. Staff,
the applicant, Planning Board member(s), or others offering evidence during the
hearing cannot answer questions or provide additional detail.
13. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The
findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions
to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
a. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
Price to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning
the application’s compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the
16
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9
(page 220) of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material
and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
b. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning
the application’s compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page
221) of the abstract package
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material
and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
c. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich
to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the
application’s compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page
222) of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material
and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
d. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the
application’s compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page 223) of
the abstract package. Second. Vote.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
17
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material
and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
e. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Price
that the applicant is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as
detailed in Attachment 9 (page 224) and this is supported by the uncontroverted
evidence presented in the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(NOTE – Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the ‘evidence’ in the
record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 4 contains
the recommendations of the Planning Board and staff including the evidence
utilized to reach the conclusion. This ‘evidence’ must be spelled out explicitly by
the Commissioner making the motion.
If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to
spell out the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative finding):
i. A motion was made by seconded by Motion finding either there is or is
not sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the
public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
the record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE – the following represents the findings of the Planning Board and
staff. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to
find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read
verbatim so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the February 6, 2018 Public
Hearing.
• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
• Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
• Attachment 1 of the February 6, 2018 Public Hearing package
including the following:
o Detailed project narrative (pages 22 through 26)
o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
demonstrating there are no environmental impacts
associated with the project (pages 27 through 99)
o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals
LLC indicating the project would not impact
adjacent property values (pages 104 through 127)
o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn
(page 128)
18
o Site plan.
• Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general
public.
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence
entered into the record demonstrating the project’s lack of
compliance with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (a).
ii. Motion finding there is or there is not sufficient evidence in the record
the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the
use will maintain the value of contiguous property.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
the record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE – the following represents the findings of the Planning Board and
staff. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to
find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read
verbatim so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the February 6, 2018 Public
Hearing.
• Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
• Attachment 1 of the February 6, 2018 Public Hearing package
including the following:
o Detailed project narrative (pages 22 through 26)
o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals
LLC indicating the project would not impact
adjacent property values (pages 104 through 127)
o Site plan.
• Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general
public.
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence
entered into the record demonstrating the project’s lack of
compliance with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (b).
19
iii. Motion finding there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use
is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
the record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE – the following represents the findings of the Planning Board and
staff. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to
find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read
verbatim so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the February 6, 2018 Public
Hearing.
• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
• Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
• Attachment 1 of the February 6, 2018 Public Hearing package
including the following:
o Detailed project narrative (pages 22 through 26)
o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
demonstrating there are no environmental impacts
associated with the project (pages 27 through 99)
o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn
(page 128)
o Site plan.
• Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general
public.
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence
entered into the record demonstrating the project’s lack of
compliance with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (c).
14. Motion to either approve or deny the Special Use Permit
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
approve the Special Use Permit.
John Roberts: You need to add to the motion to include language indicating the BOCC
imposes the recommended conditions as detailed within Attachment 4 of the
abstract package (pages 225-226).
20
Commissioner Price and Commissioner Burroughs agreed to this amended language.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
approve the Special Use Permit and the Board of County Commissioners imposes
recommended conditions as detailed within Attachment 4 of the abstract package (pages 225-
226).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Approval of Transfer of Rental Property from CASA to the Town of Chapel Hill for
Continued Affordable Housing Use
The Board considered approving CASA’s transfer of four (4) scattered site condos in
Chapel Hill to the Town of Chapel Hill for continued affordable housing use. The request is
being made based on CASA’s current Agreement with the County and its requirement for
having the Board of County Commissioners’ (BOCC) approval when transfers to entities other
than a non-profit occur.
Sherrill Hampton reviewed the background information below:
BACKGROUND:
In 2009, CASA assumed ownership of 20 units of scattered-site housing in Orange County
when a local non-profit dissolved. CASA collaborated with Orange County to ensure that the
units remained in use as affordable housing. CASA undertook extensive interior rehab work on
all the units. At the present time, CASA feels that individual condos are not a sustainable
model for affordable rentals. In the condo model, the owner does not control the costs of the
HOA dues and special assessments or the schedule of preventive maintenance and capital
replacements.
The current status of the 20-unit portfolio is as follows:
• 1 unit, a single-family home in Hillsborough at 2308 Redbird Lane, was sold to
EmPowerment in 2017. As the transfer was to another non-profit, per CASA’s current
Agreement with Orange County, the Board of County Commissioners did not need to
approve the transaction.
• 1additional scattered site condo was also transferred to EmPowerment in 2016.
• 3 scattered site condos in Carrboro are proposed to be sold in 2018.
• 4 additional scattered site condos in Chapel Hill are to be sold in 2018. EmPowerment
is considering the acquisition of these units.
• 4 scattered site condos in Chapel Hill are proposed for transfer to the Town of Chapel
Hill and are the subject of this Abstract.
• 7 units will continue to be held by CASA, including:
o 2 duplexes in Chapel Hill (4 units)
o 2 homes on one lot in Carrboro (3 units)
All properties that are being considered for disposition are small, aging and/or scattered site
and are not consistent with CASA’s current business model. The proposed disposition allows
CASA to capture the value in the properties and reinvest in other rental properties that are
more cost-efficient to manage. The disposition also allows for other entities with the correct
business model and capacity to take ownership and maintain the units as affordable housing.
21
The proposed disposition of the four (4) scattered site condos to the Town of Chapel Hill is
only a transfer in ownership - no sale proceeds will be generated. If the proposed transfer is
approved, restrictions regarding “affordability” under the current Agreement will be assumed by
the new owner. The units are occupied and the Town intends to keep all current tenants in
place. However, when vacancies occur, the Town will utilize the units as transitional housing
for families preparing to move out of Public Housing as their economic situation improves. The
maximum allowable income for an individual or family occupying the units would be 50% of the
area median income (AMI). The Town of Chapel Hill will manage the units, perform annual
tenant certifications and conduct routine maintenance.
The Town had the units inspected by a licensed home inspection company. All units are in
need of some level of rehabilitation, ranging from light/moderate to substantial. The Chapel Hill
Town Council has adopted a resolution accepting the transfer of the four (4) units, and
authorizing up to $65,000 to be used toward renovation costs and the satisfaction of a private
mortgage on the units, if the BOCC approves the transfer.
Commissioner Price asked if there was any other rationale for the second part of the
recommendation.
Sherrill Hampton said this was before her time, and she said expediting these
processes can assist these non-profits in pursuing properties.
Commissioner Price asked Commissioner Jacobs if he remembered.
Commissioner Jacobs said he assumed that it was just a tracking process.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to approve CASA’s request to transfer the four (4) scattered site condos to the Town of
Chapel Hill. The Manager also recommends that the Board allow CASA to make future
transfers of any remaining units to Orange County local jurisdictions without subsequent Board
review and approval. Furthermore, the transfer of ownership must allow for continued
affordable housing use or meet another identified community need.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Resolution Authorizing the Participation in the North Carolina Health Insurance
Pool (NCHIP)
The Board considered approving the Manager’s recommendation to join the North
Carolina Health Insurance Pool (NCHIP) effective July 1, 2018. NCHIP is a new health risk
pool coordinated through Gallagher Benefit Services, which provides economies of scale and
risk pooling to provide greater financial stability among participating North Carolina counties,
cities, and towns, and authorize the Chair to sign. C
Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources Director, said Wes Grigston and Gregg
Aleman, Gallagher Benefit Services, will make the following PowerPoint presentation:
North Carolina Health Insurance Pool (NCHIP)
February 6, 2018
What is NCHIP?
• Intergovernmental agreement
• Allowed by the State, Regulated by the DOI.
22
• Member Driven
• Financial vehicle
• Conservatively funded and reserved
• Preserve plan design and vendor selection freedom
• Managed by the State’s preeminent public sector vendors
• Fully-transparent
• Stable, Budgetable, and Predictable
Wes Grigston presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
Making the unpredictable…predictable (graph)
Gregg Aleman presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
Banded Layer (chart)
Individual member 5-year history (chart)
Financials for Orange County
What’s in it for Orange County
• Ownership
o Help drive the decisions of NCHIP. Become owner/partner of NCHIP.
• More buying power
o Enhanced PBM contracts. Enhanced stop-loss. Buying power on non-medical
lines.
o Orange will have access to deals of 5,000+ life groups as opposed to 1,000+
life stand- alone
• Predictable budgets
o Volatile claims over $40K become a fixed cost – the banded layer.
o Annual spend determined before plan year
• No reserves/internal service fund
o $2 million in reserves goes back into General Fund.
• No penalties to withdraw, only requires 1 year commitment
• Retain your plan design
• Your peers
5-Year Projections – 7.5% (chart)
Commissioner Burroughs referred to slide 10, where it says $2 million will go back into
the general fund. She asked if this could be explained a bit further.
Gregg Aleman said after the County runs out the United Health Care contract, there will
be monies freed up to go in other areas. He said these funds were identified out of the
County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Bonnie Hammersley said if these funds are available, they would only be so one time,
and the BOCC would identify use for these one time funds. She said based on the CAFR, and
what it actually is, staff would let the Board know what that is.
Commissioner Price asked if Gallagher already has contracts.
Gregg Aleman said they already have commitments from communities, and are working
on more to come. He said Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) will be the medical provider to this
23
cooperative for a minimum of three years. He said the goal is to eventually be able to get best
in show on everything you do, with this pool being as large as some of the largest private
sector employers in North Carolina. He said this leads to greater leverage in the marketplace,
and better deals year after year.
Commissioner Price asked if this is already in existence now.
Gregg Aleman said it will start on July 1, 2018.
Commissioner Price asked if the plan design would change.
Gregg Aleman said the plan design would not change as it is written.
Brenda Bartholomew said the County is with United Healthcare now, and changing is a
big decision. She said a few years ago this decision arose, and the County remained with
United Healthcare. She said staff has run a disruption report, and there will be very little
disruption if the County moves to BCBS. She said the County would still have the ability to
speak and advocate on anyone’s behalf if there is a disruption in service. She said it is not just
United Healthcare to BCBS, it is also taking the Envision Rx back to Prime Therapeutics, all
under the umbrella of BCBS. She said the staff has stressed to Gallagher Services that the
BOCC is concerned about not disrupting access to care, and making sure benefit plans stay
intact. She said Gallagher has provided assurance that the process will be smooth.
Commissioner Rich referred to page 1-2, where it says each local government member
has representation on the board, and asked if this board and its process could be explained.
Gregg Aleman said groups usually appoint a County Manager/HR/Financial Director,
who review financials and vendors, to see what can be improved, etc. He said this will be an
evolution, and his company is merely there to offer pros and cons, and will not have a vote; the
decision lies in the hands of the communities.
Wes Grigston said the group would meet on a quarterly basis.
Commissioner Price asked Bonnie Hammersley if the BOCC voted in favor of this
change, would it go into the budget in June.
Bonnie Hammersley said as of July 1st the County would become a member of the
pool, and the next item this evening is the approval of their plans, which would also begin July
1. She said this change should be seamless to employees, but there is a disruption plan in
place, and the County can terminate on an annual basis.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
the Board to:
1) Approve Orange County to join the North Carolina Health Insurance Pool (NCHIP)
effective July 1, 2018, allowing long-term stability and predictability in future health
insurance budgets, greater buying power, continued ownership in plan design and the
opportunity to capture savings through dividends. This will allow Orange County to
demonstrate how, by working together, governments across North Carolina may
collaborate to create a stable, predictable, and sustainable health program;
2) Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution for Participation in the North
Carolina Health Insurance Pool (Attachment 1); and
3) Authorize the County Manager to sign the applicable bylaws/contract and subsequent
vendor contracts when applicable following the County Attorney’s review.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH
INSURANCE POOL
WHEREAS, North Carolina local governments, including any North Carolina county,
city, or housing authority, may enter into contracts or agreements under Article 23 of Chapter
24
58 of the North Carolina General Statutes (the “Local Government Risk Pool Act”) to establish
pools providing for life or accident and health insurance for their employees on a cooperative
or contract basis with one another;
WHEREAS, this local government anticipates the creation of the North Carolina Health
Insurance Pool (NCHIP), a pool providing for accident and health insurance for employees of
North Carolina local governments in accordance with the Local Government Risk Pool Act; and
WHEREAS, this local government wishes to become a member of the NCHIP on
certain conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE February 6, 2018 as follows:
If the conditions described in Section 2 of this Resolution are satisfied, this local
government, as of July 1, 2018, will become a Member of the North Carolina Health Insurance
Pool (NCHIP), an intergovernmental cooperative to pool health insurance risks with other North
Carolina local governments.
This local government will participate in NCHIP effective July 1, 2018, only if the
following conditions are satisfied no later than May 31, 2018:
(A) NCHIP is properly formed under the laws of the State of North Carolina and the
provisions of the Local Government Risk Pool Act and a board of trustees
meeting the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 58-23-10 is properly empaneled.
(B) The board of trustees of NCHIP adopts bylaws and/or a form of agreement or
contract that meets the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 58-23-15 and other
applicable provisions of the Local Government Risk Pool Act.
(C) The NCHIP risk pool includes commitments for participation on July 1, 2018,
from local governments that together will consist of no fewer than two thousand
five hundred (2,500) lives in the risk pool.
The terms and conditions of membership in NCHIP will be such terms and conditions as are
imposed by the board of trustees of NCHIP in the acceptance motion, and the contractual
obligations under the terms of the contract and by-laws of NCHIP as such document is
adopted by the board of trustees of NCHIP and as it may be amended in accordance with its
terms.
If, on May 31, 2018, all of the conditions identified herein are satisfied, then, in
accordance with N.C.G.S. § 58-23-5(e), County Manager of this local government, or such
other officer, as shall be authorized, is directed to give notice (or cause notice to be given) to
the North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance no later than June 1, 2018, in a form prescribed
by the Commissioner that this local government intends to participate in NCHIP as of July 1,
2018.
If, on May 31, 2018, all of the conditions identified herein are satisfied, then, the County
Manager of this local government, or such other officer, as shall be authorized, is directed to
execute, after review and approval by the County Attorney or his designee, any documents
necessary to complete the membership of the local government in NCHIP.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and
publication in pamphlet form, if required by law.
PASSED this 6th day of February, 2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Rich said this is the first time in 6 years that she has voted in favor of the
County’s health care plan, as it is not associated with the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC).
25
Commissioner McKee said to bring this item back in a year, in order to review the
financials.
c. Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits
The Board considered approving the Manager’s recommendations regarding employee
health and dental insurance and other employee benefits effective July 1, 2018 through June
30, 2019. The Manager is recommending no increase in premium equivalent for employees or
participating pre-65 retirees for FY2018/2019. All other health benefits, co-pays, co-insurance
and deductibles will remain the same.
Brenda Bartholomew reviewed the following information and PowerPoint presentation:
BACKGROUND: The County provides employees with a comprehensive benefits plan,
including health, dental and life insurance, an employee assistance program, flexible
compensation plan and paid leave for permanent employees. Additionally, the County
contributes to the Local Governmental Employee’s Retirement System and a supplemental
retirement plan.
The County has been self-funded since January 1, 2014 for medical and pharmacy plans
and continues to be self-insured for the dental plan. The County transitioned from a twelve-
month calendar plan year to a twelve-month fiscal plan year in 2015 aligning with the
County’s fiscal year. In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Gallagher Benefit Services (GBS) as Broker of Record for the administration of the benefit
programs, which include health, dental, vision, and other voluntary programs for employees
and retirees.
In FY2016/2017, the Board of County Commissioners approved the recommendation of the
County Manager to continue with UnitedHealth Care (UHC) as the County’s Third Party
Administrator for health insurance programs and granted authority to the County Manager
to renew the Third Party Administrator contract with UnitedHealth Care. UnitedHealth Care
will also fund $25,000 for FY 2017/2018 for wellness programs.
For FY2017/2018, the Board of County Commissioners approved “carving out” pharmacy
coverage from UnitedHealth Care and contracted with Envision Rx as the County’s
Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM). This resulted in an expenditure reduction of $141,000
for FY2017/2018. The FY2017/2018 total adopted budget was increased by $524,433 or
5.05 percent for the County’s health insurance appropriation. The FY2017/2018 total
County budget for health insurance for employees and pre-65 retirees is approximately
$11.6 million dollars.
Health Insurance
The total FY2018/2019 health insurance expenditure is projected to be approximately $13.3
million (including health savings account contributions) based on increases to current
enrollment of 1,068 employees and pre-65 retirees. The County contribution is projected at
$11.9 million assuming that no changes are made to the current employee contribution
structure. This represents a 5.9 percent increase in the projected FY2018/2019 budget; or
approximately $750,000 (County share).
Dental and Vision Insurance
Delta Dental is the County’s Dental provider and Community Eye Care provides the
County’s vision plan. The County will continue to provide coverage with Delta Dental and
26
Community Eye Care. In FY2018/2019 no increases in dental premiums for employees is
recommended by the Manager. Vision premiums are paid 100 percent by employees and to
date no increase has been proposed by Community Eye Care. The current fiscal year
budget for dental coverage is $305,856. Based on current enrollment, the County share for
the FY2017/2018 budget is projected year end at $420,952; representing a budget shortfall
of $115,096. The County’s expenditure for the FY2018/2019 dental budget is projected at
$431,377. The additional funding is partly driven because of an increase in the enrollment
for dental coverage. By accounting for the increased enrollment and the current budgetary
shortfall for FY2017/2018, an increase of $125,521 is projected for the FY2018/2019
budget.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed FY2018/2019 Health Insurance appropriation increase
is $750,000, and the proposed FY2018/2019 Dental Insurance appropriation increase is
$125,521.
Brenda Bartholomew presented the PPT below:
Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits
Action Agenda Abstract
Item 6 -c
February 6, 2018
BOCC Meeting
Manager’s Recommendations for the FY2018/2019 Budget
No increase in premium equivalent for medical coverage or increase in dental
premiums.
Increase County cost for medical coverage by $725,000.
Increase County cost for dental coverage by $125,521.
Re-Cap of Actions:
The County has been self-funded since January 1, 2014 for medical and pharmacy
plans and continues to be self-insured for the dental plan.
FY2016/2017 –
o BOCC approved UnitedHealth Care (UHC) to continue as the Third Party
Administrator (TPA) for the County’s Medical Plan. The TPA renewal was
negotiated from $41.50 per employee per month to $29.50 per employee per
month. (Budget savings of $149,000)
o County participated in a stop-loss marketing comparison and moved the specific
stop-loss to a $150,000 deductible from $100,000 deductible and contracted
with Symetra (previously UHC). (Budget savings of $120,000)
o Dental plan benefits were enhanced by removing diagnostic and preventative
services from the annual maximum of $1,200 of covered services to promote
preventative oral health care.
FY2017/2018 –
o BOCC approved “carving out” pharmacy coverage from UnitedHealth Care and
contracted with Envision Rx as the County’s Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM).
(Budget savings of $141,000)
BOCC approved no increase in premium equivalents for medical coverage or increases
in dental premiums for multiple budget years.
27
Request for Approval by BOCC
Approve increasing the funding for the FY2018/2019 Health Insurance appropriation
$750,000; and
Approve increasing the FY2018/2019 Dental Insurance appropriation $125,521; and
Approve maintaining current premium equivalent rates for health insurance and dental
coverage for employees and pre-65 retirees.
Commissioner Jacobs clarified that the deductibles will stay the same.
Brenda Bartholomew said yes, nothing changes.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is knowledge about the BC/BS provider
coverage.
Brenda Bartholomew said BC/BS is similar to United Healthcare. She said there may
be a few unexpected disruptions, but staff will be proactive in resolving these.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff has had any conversations with like governments
about BC/BS’s responsiveness to concerns or questions.
Brenda Bartholomew said BC/BS’s customer service is rated well. She said she will
be on top of this process, and will report any problems to the BOCC.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there would be benefit to having an internal clinic for
employees.
Brenda Bartholomew said she will send the BOCC the report from two years ago
about putting in a clinic. She said Gallagher did a study on this, which she will also send out to
the BOCC.
Bonnie Hammersley said this amount is assumed in the FY18-19 budget as part of the
employee compensation plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
the Board to approve the Manager’s recommendations regarding employee health and dental
insurance and other employee benefits effective July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, which
will require a $750,000 funding increase funding for the FY2018/19 Health Insurance
appropriation, and a $125,521 funding increase the FY2018/19 Dental Insurance
appropriation; and maintaining current premium equivalent rates for health insurance and
dental coverage for employees and pre-65 retirees.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Reports
a. Connect 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
The Board received a presentation on the Connect 2045 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP) for Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) from Orange County
Transportation Planning staff and provide any comments.
BACKGROUND:
DCHC MPO and CAMPO are concluding their two-year long planning process, the Connect
2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). DCHC MPO and CAMPO approved the
transportation projects, financial plan and socioeconomic data for the Connect 2045 MTP at
their December 13, 2017 meeting. DCHC MPO released the full 2045 MTP report for public
28
comments at its January 10, 2018 meeting for a public comment period that will end on March
2, 2018. The DCHC MPO Board will adopt the Connect 2045 MTP and full report at its March
14, 2018 meeting, following CAMPO’s adoption on February 21, 2018.
The MTP helps guide transportation investments that address the growth expected in the
Research Triangle region. The plan covers an area encompassing both DCHC MPO and
CAMPO. It does not simply address current issues but anticipates the future growth of the
Region. Both MPOs share a common vision in the Connect 2045 MTP:
A seamless integration of transportation services that offer a range of travel choices to support
economic development and are compatible with the character and development of our
communities, sensitive to the environment, improve quality of life and are safe and accessible
for all.
There has been extensive public and local jurisdictional involvement in developing the plan,
starting from CAMPO releasing the Goals and Objectives for public review in November 2015,
followed by DCHC MPO three months later. The MTP has been presented to the Orange
County Board of County Commissions and Orange Unified Transportation Board at various
stages of the planning process including Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Option. As part of
the MPO’s Public Involvement Policy, this is the last opportunity for the public and local
jurisdictions to provide comments on the Connect 2045 MTP.
Key highlights of the plan include:
• Single set of Performance Measures agreed upon by both MPOs and in accordance
with
Federal requirements under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
• Incorporation of all local jurisdiction plans within DCHC MPO and CAMPO.
• Anticipates over $1.2 billion (in 2016 dollars) in bicycle and pedestrian investments in
the
region from 2018 to 2045.
• Transit investments geared towards: increased frequency, expanding service,
redesigning networks, new services, improved infrastructure, electric busses, and last
mile connections.
• Takes into account improvements to Freight, Transportation Demand Management
(TDM), Rail, Air, and Transportation System Management (TSM)
• Discusses autonomous vehicle through improvements in the regions Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS).
• Critical Planning Factors including Air Quality, Environmental Justice and Safety and
Security.
• See Attachment 2 for additional items of Regional Interest in the Connect 2045 MTP.
The Connect 2045 MTP can be found at: http://www.dchcmpo.org/programs/transport/2045mtp
and http://www.campo-nc.us/transportation-plan/draft-2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan
Next Steps
• February 21, 2018 – CAMPO adopts Connect 2045 MTP
• March 14, 2018 – DCHC MPO adopts Connect 2045 MTP
29
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Connect 2045
Metropolitan Transportation Plan
For DCHC MPO and CAMPO
Outline
Regional Growth
Shared Vision
Coordinated Planning & Public Involvement
Regional Coordination
Project Highlights
Financial Plan
Critical Planning Factors
Regional Growth - graph
Regional Growth – graph
Largest cross county pattern is 82,000 daily between Orange/Durham County and Wake
County
Shared Vision
A seamless integration of transportation services that offer a range of travel choices to support
economic development and are compatible with the character and development of our
communities, sensitive to the environment, improve quality of life and are safe and accessible
for all.
Coordinated Planning & Public Involvement - graph
Coordinated Planning & Public Involvement - graph
Regional Coordination
• County Transit Plans -Durham County & Orange County Plan in 2017. The Capital
area MPO & Wake County approved in 2016.
• Alternatives – jointly defined, evaluated and selected the same land use alternative for
development into the final Plan.
• Joint Policy Board Meeting – joint MPO Policy Board meetings on November 30,
2016 and November 30, 2017
• Financial Plan – same financial methodologies and cost and revenue basis for all
aspects of the plan.
• Triangle Regional Model (TRM) – same planning tool, version 6.
• Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures – same set of Goals, Objectives and
Performance Measures to guide land use scenario
Project Highlight
DCHC MPO -
• $7.5 Billion Road, Bike & Ped
• $4.7 Billion Transit
30
CAMPO -
• $27.7 Billion Road, Bike & Ped
• $6.7 Billion Transit
• Includes transit investments geared towards: increased frequency, expanding service,
redesigning networks, new services, improved infrastructure, electric busses, and last-
mile connections.
• Discusses autonomous vehicle through improvements in the regions Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS).
Financial Plan - graph
Critical Planning Factors
• Air Conformity – The region no longer has any conformity requirements but continues
monitoring emissions using the latest Environment Protection Agency’s air quality
model, MOVES.
• Environmental Justice – Both MPOs identify Community of Concern (CofC) that
meets various thresholds in determining transportation investments impacts.
• Safety and Security - Both the MPOs are proactive in addressing safety and security
of our overall transportation processes.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked when the BOCC will next be able to make comment on
this item.
Nishith Trivedi said CAMPO will be adopting this plan on February 24th, and DCHC-
MPO on March 14th. He said the date for public comment for DCHC-MPO is March 2nd.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there will be opportunity for comment thereafter.
Nishith Trivedi said this process comes up every 5 years or so.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the presentation (Attachment 1);
2. Provide any final comments the Board may have on the Connect 2045 MTP.
b. Broadband Initiatives and Event Timeline
The Board received an update on the County’s current broadband initiatives and
received a timeline of relevant events.
Jim Northrup, Chief Information Officer, reviewed the following information and
PowerPoint presentation:
BACKGROUND:
Since 2014, Orange County Information Technologies (IT) has been tasked with working
toward improving broadband technology for Orange County residents. Many of the tasks below
were accomplished through collaboration with residents, business partners, State and local
representatives, government agencies, and towns.
• The largest current initiative currently underway is the $500,000 Broadband Incentive
Request for Proposals (RFP) whereby the County is soliciting Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) for proposals on how to improve broadband in both unserved and
31
underserved areas in Orange County. This Request for Proposal was released in
January of 2018. The intention is to find a vendor that can improve broadband speed
and services in the rural areas of the county.
• A larger initiative in terms of dollars, but at this time only tangentially related to
broadband, is the County’s Fiber Project Phase 1. Currently, the County is partnering
with the Town of Hillsborough in order to reduce costs for both parties. The County and
Town are currently in the process of vendor section after successfully releasing an RFP
in November of 2018. Phase 1 is currently funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18, and Phases
2 & 3 are planned in upcoming fiscal years. Once complete, this project will connect
County buildings from Cedar Grove to Carrboro and have fiber running east-west along
the Highway 70 corridor connecting from the Efland Cheeks Community Center to
points close to the Durham County line. The excess dark fiber will be available to other
organizations and individuals outside of Orange County Government for both
broadband and economic development purposes.
• Orange County Chief Information Officer (CIO) Jim Northrup has attended and
presented at multiple community meetings. Most recently, Orange County IT presented
at the Schley Grange along with Internet Service Providers and State representatives,
including NC House Representative Graig Meyer.
• Orange County Information Technologies has been acting as a clearinghouse for all
resident broadband service issue concerns. Typically, the CIO responds to every
Orange County resident email and call personally and tries to facilitate solutions
between residents and ISPs while at the same time setting realistic expectations. Often
this is simply a matter of connecting residents with the right person in the ISP’s
organization and, after making introductions, checking back in to ensure that all parties
are communicating effectively.
Broadband Timeline of Relevant Events
• June 2017 – $500k for broadband incentives approved in County budget
• Late 2016 – County works with Representative Craig Meyer to set meeting with
CenturyLink. This meeting paved the way for CenturyLink to provide budgetary
numbers for improving broadband in its service area and those numbers were used as
a base number for the FY 2017-18 $500,000 Broadband Incentive.
• September - December 2016 – IT met with Federal Engineering and Emergency
Services to discuss the positive impact proposed telecommunications towers may have
on broadband services in rural Orange County. It was requested at that meeting that
approximately 15’ of vertical strata be reserved for placement of 3rd party wireless
broadband equipment on any new towers to be constructed by Orange County.
Discussions also included how both the County’s telecommunication and fiber plans
have synergies that may decrease long range costs and offer a more secure and
reliable fiber connection to each proposed tower location.
• July 2016 – Former Governor Pat McCrory released the NC broadband strategy report.
No funding identified within this report for broadband improvements.
• May 2016 – The County’s public network buildout was completed in downtown
Hillsborough and all County-occupied buildings.
• March 2016 – WiFi-to-Go pilot began via collaboration by IT and the County Library.
• March 2016 – The State assisted Orange County with identifying vertical assets -
understanding the location and availability of county-wide vertical assets is important to
businesses that want to bring wireless internet services into Orange County.
• December 2015 – An ISP meeting on State/County collaboration occurred.
32
• Late 2015 – The Orange Public + Education Network (OPEN) formed to foster
collaboration and cost-sharing among Orange County and its municipalities.
• August 2015 – The County’s Broadband Survey closed.
• June 2015 – The County’s Broadband Survey was released.
• Apr. 2015 – The Broadband Initiative resident group was formed.
• November 2014 – The Manager directed County staff to make a concerted effort to
engage residents in broadband discussions.
• June 2014 – January 2016 – Orange County leveraged its relationship with Time
Warner resulting in Time Warner extending its wireless hotspots network throughout
downtown Hillsborough and into Fairview and Cedar Grove Parks. Prior to the County’s
contact, Time Warner reported it was only going to deliver hotspot services to Durham
and Chapel Hill. This service allows any individual to connect wirelessly throughout
downtown Hillsborough and the parks for free.
• 2011 – North Carolina House Bill 129 barred governments from using public funds to
become Internet Service Providers.
• 2010 – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) publishes its National
Broadband Plan.
• 2010 – MCNC awarded federal funds for middle-mile network in rural NC.
• 2009 – The US Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill included a provision to
make loans to states for the purpose of broadband.
Broadband Initiatives & Event Timeline
Item 7 -b
2009 Stimulus Act Starts the Ball Rolling
• MCNC receives funds to improve their middle-mile network ~ 2010
• FCC publishes National Broadband Plan for every American to have “access to
broadband capability.” ~ 2010
• NC House Bill 129 bars local governments from providing broadband using public
funds. ~ 2011
Orange County Action
• All public buildings have free WiFi Orange_Public_WiFi ~ 2013
• Time Warner installs free wireless in Hillsborough and points north ~ 2014
o Downtown
o Cedar Grove Community Center
o Fairview Park
More Orange County Action
• Manager directs staff to engage with the State and our residents to find broadband
solutions ~ 2014
• Ad hoc Broadband Initiative Group formed ~ 2015
• Orange County Broadband Survey ~ 2015
• State solicits broadband providers to come to Orange County ~ 2016
Meanwhile….
Orange County solidified and expanded its relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and
agencies
33
• Hillsborough
• Chapel Hill
• Carrboro
• Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
• Orange County Schools
• UNC
• UNC Hospital
• Piedmont Electric
• Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
• Duke
2016
Wi-Fi to go
Orange County Plans
• Federal Engineering communications tower planning to include space for broadband
providers to attach
• Fiber Plan
o Cedar Grove to Carrboro
o East West along Rt. 70
Current Initiatives
• Maintaining all of the previous stuff just covered
• Fiber Project with Hillsborough ~ 2017
• Broadband RFP / Grant ~ 2018
Commissioner Price asked about Durham Tech.
Jim Northup said staff has not met with Durham Tech, but will add them to their
meeting list.
Commissioner Price said what about the students.
Jim Northup said he would invite Durham Tech to their meetings.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the cost of the Wi-Fi to go could be identified.
Jim Northup said $35/unit monthly for unlimited broadband, and it is available for any
library patron.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the County pays for the unit itself.
Jim Northup said the County does not buy the unit; rather the unit comes with a
$35/monthly charge. He said the units fail fairly often, and replacement units are provided for
free.
Commissioner McKee thanked Jim Northrup for his work in, and outreach to, the
community.
Chair Dorosin said the request for proposals (RFP) was released in January, and asked
if there is a timeline for getting responses back.
Jim Northup said it went out for 30 days, and there is a timeline within the RFP. He
said he hoped to turn this around within a few weeks, and then start the longer process of
developing a contract with a vendor(s).
c. Quarterly Update on the Orange County Transit Plan and the Durham-Orange
Light Rail Project
34
The Board received a quarterly update from GoTriangle on the status of the
implementation of the Orange County Transit Plan and more specifically on the status of the
Durham-Orange Light Rail Project. This quarterly update is prescribed by the Cost Share
Agreement between Durham County, Orange County, and GoTriangle.
BACKGROUND:
On April 27, 2017, the Board of Orange County Commissioners adopted the Interlocal Cost
Sharing Agreement for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project as well as the Orange
County Transit Plan. These agreements allowed GoTriangle to provide updated financial
information to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in support of GoTriangle’s application
to enter the engineering phase of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project. On July 28, 2017,
GoTriangle received approval from the FTA to enter the New Starts Engineering phase of the
Capital Investment Grant Program. This project is now underway, and the engineering
component of the project is expected to reach the fifty percent (50%) completion milestone in
February.
The Cost Sharing Agreement requires GoTriangle to provide quarterly reports to the FTA,
Durham County, Orange County, and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (DCHC MPO). This quarterly report will update the Board on Transit Plan
implementation activities, contracting agreements that are in place for the Durham-Orange
Light Rail Transit Project, the status of funding sources for the light rail project, and the Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) planning work that is currently underway.
John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development Director, made the
following PowerPoint presentation:
GoTriangle
Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit Project Quarterly Update
February 2018
Status of the Transit Plans
• GoTriangle Annual Report
• Bus and Infrastructure Improvements
• Short-range Transit Planning
• Public Involvement
• Durham-Orange Staff Working Group
• New Administrator Mo Devlin
Matthew Clark, GoTriangle Government Affairs Manager, presented this portion of the
PowerPoint:
Light Rail Overview and Update
• Region is still on track for a federal investment of over $1.23 billion.
• Budget for the capital cost of the project is still set upon entry into engineering at
roughly $2.47 billion.
• Light rail engineering approaches the 50% design milestone in February.
Contracts and DBE Participation
35
• General Engineering Consultant (HDR)
• Program Management Consultant (HNTB)
• Construction Management Consultant (Gannett Fleming/WSP joint venture)
• DBE goals and workforce development
• GEC contract valued at $81.3 million. 93% remains.
• PMC contract valued at $28 million. 96% remains.
• DBE participation goals set at 14% and 15%. So far 24 DBE firms have participated.
Funding and Contingency
• The project remains eligible for roughly $1.238 billion in federal grant funds.
• Durham County has committed $738.4 million or roughly 30% of the capital budget.
• Orange County has committed $149.5 million or roughly 6% of the capital budget.
• We are seeking $247 million from North Carolina and roughly $102.5 million from other
sources.
• At entry to Engineering, contingency was $531 million, which includes $168 million
unallocated.
• GoTriangle carefully manages financial risk through its FTA mandated Risk and
Contingency Management Plan.
Schedule and Design Progress
• Critical paths are advancing design and initiating certain right of way acquisition
activities (ROMF).
• ROMF acquisition, annexation, and rezoning
• 50% Design complete in March 2018.
• Current schedule goal is execution of FFGA in September 2019.
• GoTriangle is working with various stakeholder groups and local governments to
receive feedback on 50% design.
• GoTriangle is working with the FTA to determine if additional work is needed regarding
proposed engineering updates.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
• TOD is an opportunity to move planning and infrastructure in sustainable and equitable
ways.
• GoTriangle and Triangle J Council of Governments hosted opportunity summit on 2/6.
• Work with consultants and stakeholders is underway to further analyze joint
development opportunities.
Public Involvement
• GoTriangle hosted a very successful visioning workshop at the Hayti Heritage Center
on 1/16.
• Due to inclement weather, Chapel Hill workshop will be rescheduled with details to
come.
• GoTriangle public involvement team continues to track and respond to stakeholder
inquiries in accordance with the Public Involvement Plan.
Questions
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the funding and contingency page, and said there
is $102.5 million from other sources, which is 4%.
36
Matthew Clark said it is 4% of the overall budget for the capital costs of the project.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he thought it would be 1.5%, which is what the outside
agencies said.
Matthew Clark said that does not just include private donations. He said he has pie
chart that he will be handing out, but the best way to think about it is as a whole pie. He said if
one takes 50% out of it, which is about $1.238 billion, there is $1.238 billion left. He said
$738.4 million is the Durham County share, and $148.5 million is the Orange County share,
and roughly $247 million is the State share, leaving $102.5 million to come from other sources.
He said these other sources include what Commissioner Marcoplos mentioned, as well as
other things, like joint development.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a formal process for the 1.5%, which was the
community collaborative effort.
Matthew Clark said there is now a non-profit organization, called GoTransit Partners,
has been formed. He said he is not the best person to explain this to the Board, as this non-
profit has a separate Board of Directors, and is separate from GoTriangle. He said
GoTriangles’s General Counsel would be the best person to speak to, and he is happy to
connect the BOCC to her.
Commissioner McKee referred to the acquisition of the maintenance facility, and asked
if there is a timeline for this process.
Matthew Clark said he would get back to the BOCC with correct information. He said
property acquisition, especially in the case of eminent domain, is always difficult. He said
GoTriangle wants to reserve the use of eminent domain as the last resort, and is working with
the property owners to come up with a solution. He said he hopes all will be acquired,
annexed, and rezoned in a timely fashion and get it before the Durham Planning Commission
some time in the September 2018 time frame.
Commissioner McKee said he is an employee of Summit Engineering, who is a
subcontractor to this project.
Commissioner McKee said he is asking about the property acquisition is because it is
now a possibility that the federal funding will be 20% instead of 50%. He said that possibility
should be in the back of their minds when discussing this acquisition.
Matthew Clark said this property is in Durham County, and they will be moving forward
on this, trying to avoid eminent domain. He said the property owners would be able to remain
on the land until September 2019.
Commissioner McKee asked if there is another vote on transit in 2018.
Bonnie Hammersley said she did not know, and would check on that.
Commissioner McKee asked if there is a formal contingency plan in place, should
federal funding be less than the full 50%. He said it was his understanding that federal
funding, at anything less than 50%, would make the project unviable.
Matthew Clark said the project cannot be completed without a full funding grant
agreement from the federal government.
Commissioner McKee said he agrees, but has yet to hear of a fallback plan should this
occur. He said he wants to know how monies would be spent should the federal funding be
less than 50%.
Matthew Clark said the BOCC would have to come back together, speak with Durham
County, and decide how to proceed.
Commissioner McKee said GoTriangle is a major player, and would be the one to put a
plan together, not the counties. He said he is apprehensive to buy the aforementioned
property in 2018, if there is no guarantee of the 50% of federal funding. He said he does not
know what would be done with the property is the project fails to proceed due to lack of federal
funding.
37
Commissioner Price said it is important to look at the development that already exists
around the rail stations, to make sure that these residents can get to the stations.
Matthew Clark agreed.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the Fast Act could be clarified.
Matthew Clark said it authorizes the Capital Investment Grants program (CIGP), which
has strong bipartisan support in congress. He said this is the program from which the full
f unding grant would come.
Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that the Fast Act authorizes this process, but not the
funding amount.
Matthew Clark said yes, but it also provides guidance on the levels of funding. He said
there is strong bipartisan support to fund the CIGP at current, or above current, levels.
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
8a by Minutes by Commissioner Marcoplos
8-f - by Commissioner Price
8-g by John Roberts
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board will consider correcting and/or approving the minutes from January 23, 2018
as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
Commissioner Marcoplos said that he would like to amend the minutes of January 23,
2018 on the section on Settler’s Point, in reference to the conversation surrounding solar
panels. He said he would like the wording to state that the business owner would not just meet
with a solar company to understand the benefits of solar power, but rather to understand the
benefits of solar power to the owner’s particular business. He said it is important that this does
not just drift away.
Donna Baker asked if Commissioner Marcoplos would send her the exact wording that
he would like.
Commissioner Marcoplos said that he would.
Donna Baker asked if the BOCC would approve the minutes as amended, and
Commissioner Marcoplos could follow up with his desired wording.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the proposed amended minutes for January 23, 2018.
38
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction Implementation
The Board will consider adopting a Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction
Implementation, and authorize the Chair to sign.
Commissioner Price said this resolution is based on what was received from the two
school boards, but when she attended the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) public education steering committee, the general consensus was to
ask for full repeal of HB 13, because they want to look at other factors, such as does class
reduction by 2 or 3 really make a difference. She said it was determined that a delay would
not really change anything, and a full repeal is preferable.
Commissioner Price said she would feel awkward amending the resolution without the
approval of the two school boards, but she wanted to bring the NCACC feedback to the
BOCC. She said members of the North Carolina School Board Association were also present.
She said it may be the pleasure of the Board to amend the resolution.
Commissioner Burroughs said she cannot imagine the school boards objecting to this
change.
Commissioner Price said Chair Rani Dasi sent an email indicating she thought a full
repeal was a good idea, but there was no more formal discussion.
Chair Dorosin said the two options are: “therefore we respectfully request that they full
fund the classes, slow down the implementation through a multi year phase….” or “repeal
HB13 in its entirety.”
Commissioner Price said she would support amending it to repeal HB 13 in its entirety.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
change amend the Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction Implementation to request
the full repeal of HB 13.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt
the amended Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction Implementation, and authorize
the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
g. Declaration of Public Nuisance
The Board will consider approving a resolution declaring prescription opioids a public
health nuisance in Orange County, and authorize the Chair to sign
John Roberts said the Board has a revised abstract and resolution for this item and for
the motion to state, if the Board chooses, to approve the amended information
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
approve the amended resolution declaring prescription opioids a public health nuisance in
Orange County, and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from January 23, 2018 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 values for eight taxpayers with a total of nine bills that will result in a reduction of
revenue, in accordance to NCGS.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for one taxpayer with a total of one bill 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 four untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for four bills for the 2017 tax year.
e. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens
on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-369 and
considered a request for March 21, 2018 as the date set by the Board for the tax lien
advertisement, and authorized the Chair to sign the order.
f. Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction Implementation
The Board adopted an amended Resolution Regarding K-3 Class Size Reduction
Implementation, and authorized the Chair to sign.
g. Declaration of Public Nuisance
The Board approved an amended resolution, which is incorporated by reference, declaring
prescription opioids a public health nuisance in Orange County, and authorized the Chair to
sign.
9. County Manager’s Report
Bonnie Hammersley said the Board will have a work session on February 15th, where
the Board will discuss boards and committees. She said the Commissioners will choose their
boards that evening. She said there is a budget agenda item regarding liaisons to report to the
full board and parks timetable and funding. She said this meeting will occur at the Southern
Human Services Center.
10. County Attorney’s Report
John Roberts said, today, the Supreme Court partially allowed the special masters
maps to go forward, and partially granted a stay for the legislative Republicans who had asked
for that stay. He said one can see the actual map that is going to go forward, if one searches
f or it on Google.
Chair Dorosin asked if there will be a new map for this year.
John Roberts said yes, for 2018 elections. He said, for now, some of it will be what the
Republicans in the legislature want, and some of it will be drawn as the special master drew
those maps.
11. *Appointments
a. Go Triangle Transit Community Advisory Committee – Recommendations
40
The Board considered making four (4) recommendations for appointment to the
GoTriangle Transit Citizen Advisory Committee and to select one (1) liaison from the 7 BOCC
members.
****Lavender sheet-applicants for Go Triangle Citizens Advisory Committee – 4
nominations
Your first choice = 4 pts, 2nd choice-3 pts, 3rd choice – 2 pts and 4th choice 1 pt- staff will
tally.
The GoTriangle Board of Trustees will appoint 30 people to the committee, with fourteen (14)
from Wake County, nine (9) from Durham County and seven (7) from Orange County. The
Orange County Board of Commissioners will recommend four (4) applicants to Go
Triangle and Go Triangle will select the three (3) additional members for a total of seven (7).
The BOCC will select one (1) liaison to represent Orange County.
The committee will meet six times a year. Members will be allowed to serve two two-year
terms.
The Board agreed by consensus (highest two voting totals) to appoint the following two
applicants to the Go Triangle Transit Community Advisory Committee:
• Recommendation for appointment to a full term (Position #1- John Rees) “At-Large
Orange County Resident” for (To Be Determined) expiring (To Be Determined).
• Recommendation for appointment to a full term (Position #2- Tom Farmer) “At-Large
Orange County Resident” for (To Be Determined) expiring (To Be Determined).
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
appoint the following to the Go Triangle Citizens Advisory Committee:
• Recommendation for appointment to a full term (Position #3- Jayse Sessi) “At-Large
Orange County Resident” for (To Be Determined) expiring (To Be Determined).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
appoint the following to the Go Triangle Citizens Advisory Committee:
• Recommendation for appointment to a full term (Position #4- Heather Brutz “At-Large
Orange County Resident” for (To Be Determined) expiring (To Be Determined).
VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Price, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos,
Commissioner Rich); Nays, 3 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Jacobs)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
The Board voted to strongly recommend the following applicants (in order of priority) to
Go Triangle for their consideration for the remaining three seats from Orange County to this
Committee:
Molly DeMarco
Jason Baker
Alison Stuebe
Commissioner Price volunteered to be the BOCC liaison to the Committee.
The Board agreed by consensus.
Donna Baker asked Commissioner Jacobs if GoTriangle has recommended a staff
person to be the staff support for this committee yet, outside of the Attorney.
Commissioner Jacobs said not that he is aware of.
b. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community
Advisory Committee.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
• Appointment to partial term (Position #5) “At-Large” position for Michael Zuber expiring
10/31/2019.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Agricultural Preservation Board – Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
appoint the following to the Agricultural Preservation Board:
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) “White Cross Volunteer Ag. Dist.”
representative for Portia McKnight expiring 09/30/2020.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Arts Commission – Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Arts Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
appoint the following to the Arts Commission:
• Appointment to a partial term (position #13) “At-Large” for Frederick Joiner expiring
03/31/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Commission for the Environment – Appointment
42
The Board considered making an appointment to the Commission for the Environment.
Chair Dorosin said there is a seat that has been vacant since May 2017, and the
Commission has repeatedly asked the Board not to fill this vacancy. He proposed that this be
the last time that the Board honors that request.
The Board agreed by consensus.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
appoint the following to the Commission for the Environment:
• Appointment to a first full term (position #1) “At-Large” for Jody Eimers expiring
12/31/2020.
• Appointment to a first full term (position #10) “At-Large” for Laura Doherty expiring
12/31/2020.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Human Relations Commission – Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
appoint the following to the Human Relations Commission:
• Appointment to a partial term (position #2) “At-Large” for Rebecca High expiring
06/30/2018.
• Appointment to a partial term (position #3) At Large for Alicia Reid expiring 9/30/2018.
• Appointment to partial term (position #13) Town of Hillsborough for Allison Mahaley
expiring 6/30/2020 (is being appointed without a resolution from Town of Hillsborough
because they have not submitted anything over the past 8 months).
Commissioner Price asked if the Board should be filling the position.
Commissioner Jacobs said it has been open for eight months, and the BOCC decided
previously to only wait so long to fill positions, and the applicant lives in Hillsborough.
Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Hillsborough was supposed to put someone
forward.
Donna Baker said the Town has failed to do so, despite repeated requests.
Chair Dorosin said there is a second Hillsborough position, which the Board is not
filling.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs said Hillsborough has two positions to appoint; Carrboro has
two positions to appoint; and Chapel Hill has one position to appoint. He said this was
apparently a data entry mistake, which has been corrected.
Commissioner Price referred to item 11-a, the Go Triangle Transit Community
Advisory Committee, and said their bylaws state that each member would be responsible for
their own expenses. She said if the Board desires people to serve that typically use public
transportation or rides a bus, then some reimbursement should be provided.
12. Information Items
43
• January 23, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis
• Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100
• Memorandum – NC-54 West Corridor Study
• Memorandum – County Government Academy Update
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from January 23, 2018 Regular Meeting
13. Closed Session
NONE
14. Adj ournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by adjourn the meeting at
10:40 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Mark Dorosin, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board