HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-19-2018 8-a - Minutes1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 19, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board’s
proceedings.
May 17, 2018 Budget Public Hearing
May 24, 2018 Budget Work Session
June 5, 2018 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
Attachment 1 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING 5
May 17, 2018 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May 17, 9
2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry 12
Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich 13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Dorosin 14
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: None 15
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 16
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified 17
appropriately below) 18
19
Vice Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m., and said Chair Dorosin is out of 20
town. 21
22
1. Opening Remarks 23
24
PUBLIC CHARGE 25
Vice Chair Rich summarized the public charge. 26
27
2. Presentation of County Manager’s Recommended FY 2018-19 Budget 28
29
Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation: 30
31
FY2018-19 32
COUNTY MANAGER 33
RECOMMENDED BUDGET 34
35
Continuation budget 36
Debt Service 37
Personnel Cost 38
Contract Obligations 39
Reserve Levels 40
CHCCS and Orange County School Funding 41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGETED EXPENDITURES & REVENUES
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGETED REVENUE
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
1 2
3
4
5
FY2018-19 Recommended Budget Assumptions 6
7
Tax Growth = 3.0% 8
Sales Tax Growth = 2.4% 9
General Fund Reserve = 16% 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:08 p.m. 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Phase In Tax Rate Increase $0.0142 to $0.8519
$0.01 on county tax rate = $1,838,250
$0.0142 on county tax rate = $2,610,315
$0.01 on county tax rate = $1,838,250
$0.0142 on county tax rate = $2,610,315
$0.0142 Tax Rate Increase Impact
Property
Value
FY2017-18
Tax Rate
($0.8377)
FY2018-19
Tax Rate
($0.8519)
Increase
$100,000 $837.70 $851.90 $14.20
$200,000 $1,675.40 $1,703.80 $28.40
$300,000 $2,513.10 $2,555.70 $42.60
$400,000 $3,350.80 $3,407.60 $56.80
$500,000 $4,188.50 $4,259.50 $71.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the sales tax increase through GoTriangle’s projections 36
has been calculated. 37
Travis Myren said it is in the 4% range, and is backed into the transit plan. 38
Commissioner Rich asked if this is just for Orange County, or Durham and Orange 39
Counties combined. 40
Travis Myren said this is just for Orange County, and Durham County’s is higher. 41
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the presentation: 42
43
44
45
Functional Leadership teams 46
Community Services 47
Increase Solid Waste Program Fee $4 to $132 per year 48
General Government 49
Food Council Coordinator - 1.0 FTE (contingent on cost share) 50
EMS Billing Collections - 1.0 FTE (additional revenue) 51
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET REQUEST COMPILATION
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
1- Increase living wage for temporary employees to $14.25 on July 1, 2018
2- Increase living wage for non-competitive contracts = $37,150
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET
COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Racial Equity Training (REI) - 1st year of 3 year plan (fund reallocation) 1
Human Services 2
Dental Hygienist - 1.0 FTE (new revenue and fund reallocation) 3
Implement pilot for “Local Housing Voucher” program 4
Public Safety 5
Criminal Justice Resources - 0.5 FTE (Contingent on new ABC revenue) 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET EDUCATION
*Funded by Article 46 Sales Tax
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET OUTSIDE AGENCIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Advisory Board scoring was used to recommend funding amounts
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET OUTSIDE AGENCIES
$1,401,173 is consistent with the target established by the BOCC to allocate 1.2% of
general fund expenses, not including education, to outside agencies.
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET FIRE DISTRICTS
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Clerk to Board of Commissioners 8
County Finance & Administrative Services Office 9
Orange County Library 10
Chapel Hill Public Library 11
Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library 12
Orange County Website - http://orangecountync.gov 13
14
Commissioner Jacobs said he does not recall if the tax increase, which will be 15
implemented due to the voter approved bonds, will remain in effect after the bond has been 16
repaid. He asked if any commitment was made to the public, and if the increase will just 17
become embedded in the County budget. 18
Bonnie Hammersley said she does not recall that conversation, but it is the will of the 19
board to determine what is best at that time. 20
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board can discuss this question during budget work 21
sessions. 22
Commissioner Price said the previous Manager said such an increase remains, and 23
becomes an embedded part of the budget. 24
Commissioner Burroughs said she does not think the current Board can bind a future 25
Board. 26
Commissioner Jacobs said when the Board passed bonds in 2001, the Board made a 27
pledge to the public to not keep the tax increase once bonds were paid off. He said future 28
Boards were not bound, but Commissioners that adopted the pledge did feel bound. 29
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Board at that time held to the pledge by dropping 30
the 7 cent tax increase once the bonds were paid off. 31
Commissioner Jacobs said he could not remember. 32
Bonnie Hammersley said there was nothing in the education campaign that addressed 33
this question for the bond. She said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) can raise and 34
lower taxes at its discretion, whoever it sitting at a particular time. 35
36
3. Public Comment 37
Elizabeth Welsby said she has three teens in the CHCCS system, and she thanked the 38
Manager for presenting a conservative budget. She said she is grateful for the funds being put 39
aside for deferred maintenance, but fears it is not enough. She is here to talk about the safety 40
of the students, and some of the expansion budget items are really important for the safety of 41
the students; specifically the middle and high school psychologists. 42
Carlyn Welsby (her daughter) said she is in the 10th grade at East Chapel Hill High 43
School, and has been participating in recent demonstrations against gun violence in schools. 44
She said she is asking the BOCC to stand with the students to support mental health 45
professionals in the middle and high schools. 46
Elizabeth Welsby said she hoped that the BOCC would fund the entire expansion 47
budget, but funding the psychologists is $377,000. She also expressed support for the 48
Compass Center’s request, of which she is part of as well. 49
Cordelia Heaney said she is the Director of the Compass Center, and she thanked the 50
Board for its consideration of the outside agency proposed funding for the Center. She 51
FY2018-19 RECOMMENDED BUDGET DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
described the services provided by the Compass Center. She said their objective is to serve 1
more residents, and she hoped the Board would increase the Center’s funding this next year. 2
Gillian Hare said she is the Board Vice-Chair of the Compass Center, and she asked for 3
the Board’s support through the $7000 additional funding through the outside agency process. 4
Denise Moody said she works for OE enterprises and thanked the Board for its funding 5
allotment to OE, which provides services to the developmentally disabled. She introduced 6
Aaron, who works at OE. 7
Aaron said he works at OE, and his job is in Durham for two days a week. He picks up 8
trash. He said he likes being outside, and he gets a paycheck every two weeks. 9
Denise Moody read a statement from Aaron’s mom, who shared how OE has been an 10
answer to her prayers; has helped Aaron find a place in the world; and enables her to continue 11
to work full time. 12
Norma White said she represents rural seniors, through the Orange County Rural 13
Alliance (OCRA). She said, as of 2010, there are about 4000 seniors who live in rural Orange 14
County, and they are only reaching about 1000 seniors at this time. She said OCRA’s mission 15
is to keep seniors in their own homes as safely as they want to be, allowing them to age in 16
place. She said OCRA helps seniors with safe homes, nutritional food, social interaction, and 17
access to services. She said many of the residents do not eat good food for a variety of 18
reasons, and thus OCRA is now an affiliate with Meals On Wheels, and serves 93 people 19
weekly. She said isolation is hard on the seniors, and breeds all of kinds of depression. She 20
said OCRA has and a social interaction program, and from that information it is learned who has 21
nutritional needs. She said OCRA has many alliances with churches and businesses in the 22
area, as well as the Department on Aging. She thanked the Board for its support this past year. 23
Stephanie Kilpatrick said she is the Residential Services Director for the InterFaith 24
Council (IFC), and she encouraged the Board to consider IFC’s request for increased funding 25
this coming year. She said IFC appreciated the Board’s financial support last year too. 26
Elvira Mebane thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its service to Orange 27
County residents. She shared a letter that she sent to the Manager and some staff, from the 28
United Voices of Efland Cheeks, of which she is the president. She read the following letter: 29
30
April 18, 2018 31
32
Dear Ms. Hammersley: 33
34
On behalf of the Efland-Cheeks community we thank you for your vision to empower 35
community-based entities like United Voices of Efland Cheeks with financial resources to 36
play an active role in the operation of the Efland Cheeks Community Center. Our ability to 37
offer various programs· and activities for the youth, senior citizens, community at-large, has 38
reaffirmed to us that a Community Center without well designed and delivered programs 39
and activities is simply an empty building. In addition to our Summer Youth Enrichment 40
Program, we have also been able to offer special events such as the Art Show featuring 41
two local community artists, and the Pencil Head Society, a teen writing group lead by a 42
renowned poet, Jaki Shelton-Green. 43
44
The programs and activities we have been able to offer the community has enhanced 45
many lives. 46
47
Our budget request for FY 2018-19 was based on our critical review of each program, activity, 48
and existing human resources. We currently have a full-'time Center Manager, an 49
administrative assistant (or back-up staff) 12 hours per week, and program coordinator for 24 50
hours a week for seven weeks, primarily during the summer. Because of the need the program 1
coordinator continued on a voluntary basis through February 2018. 2
3
Based on our experience, it became clear early on that the Center Manager can't keep the 4
Center open while trying to coordinate programs and activities with other groups. The 5
administrative assistant's hours are insufficient for the clerical and records management 6
workload; and we proposed increasing this positon to 20 hours per week. To ensure that the 7
Center is staffed fully at all times we proposed increasing the program coordinator hours to at 8
least 20 hours a week year-round. This would relieve the Center Manager of trying to be in two 9
or more places at a time. 10
11
We tried to make these human resource changes within the existing allocation by reducing other 12
areas in the budget. However, we were not able to accomplish this, which resulted in a budget 13
request of22% or $18,714 above the current allocation. The other budget line items are fairly 14
self-explanatory. We may be able to reduce these items ftu1her if we can maintain the proposed 15
staffing, contract services, and summer program budgets. 16
17
18
We recognize the many demands on the County and the limited resources available to meet 19
these demands. We understand that the County cannot continuously support initiatives like this 20
forever; nor do we expect this. To this end, we have established a Fundraising Committee that is in 21
the process of developing various fundraising strategies to move United Voices of Efland Cheeks 22
toward a more financially sustainable future. 23
24
We look forward to further discussions with you on our budget request for FY 2018-19 and how we 25
can make the Efland Cheeks Community Center the jewel it was envisioned to be for the community. 26
27
Sincerely, 28
Elvira Mebane 29
President 30
31
Robert Dowling said he is with Community Home Trust (CHT), and he thanked the 32
Board for all of its support for the non-profits in Orange County. He said he is grateful for all of 33
the support CHT gets from all of the government entities, and CHT will have 10 sales this year. 34
He said there is a new home closing on Homestead Road very soon, which is in an over 55 35
development. He said CHT has a benefactor that donated $400,000 along with some 36
fundraising, and CHT can now purchase 2 affordable homes in this development. He said CHT 37
has 257 homes in its home ownership inventory, and 59 rental homes. He said CHT purchased 38
a rental development in Carrboro last year, called The Landings. He said CHT took ownership 39
of this property in December 2017, and is working to turn it around. He said there have been 40
expected bumps along the way. He said CHT will continue its work, and is grateful for the 41
ongoing support of the BOCC. 42
43
4. Adjournment 44
45
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 46
adjourn the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. 47
48
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49
50
Penny Rich, Vice-Chair 51
1
2
Donna Baker 3
Clerk to the Board 4
5
1
Attachment 2 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
BUDGET WORK SESSION 5
May 24, 2018 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May 24, 9
2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, 12
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich 13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 14
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: 15
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 16
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified 17
appropriately below) 18
19
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 20
21
1. FY 2018-19 Budget Discussions with: 22
• Durham Technical Community College, Pg. 152 and Attachment G 23
24
Matt Williams, Durham Tech Vice-President of Finance and Administrative Services, 25
introduced Tom Jaynes, Executive Director, and Jaclyn Krohn, Director of Orange County 26
Campus. 27
28
County Support of Orange County Campus of Durham Technical Community College 29
(DTCC) 30
The recommended funding for the Orange County Campus of Durham Technical Community 31
College, located at the Waterstone Development in Hillsborough, provides current expense 32
funding of $655,144, recurring capital of $75,000, and debt service payments of $251,080. In 33
addition, the recommended budget includes $200,000 for 200 scholarships (student tuition for 34
Orange County Residents), which will be paid from Article 46 Sales Tax proceeds instead of 35
through Current Expenses. 36
37
As with local school districts, counties in North Carolina are responsible for supplementing state 38
and federal appropriations to community colleges. For the most part, counties are responsible 39
for day-to-day operating costs such as utilities, security and custodial services. The Counties 40
are not responsible for funding of teaching staff. 41
42
Details regarding recommended funding levels for local school districts and Durham Technical 43
Community College are located in the Education section of the budget document, beginning on 44
Page 152. 45
46
Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:05 p.m. 47
48
49
50
2
Matt Williams made the following PowerPoint presentation: 1
2
Durham Tech 3
2018 – 19 Orange County Budget Presentation 4
5
Orange County Campus Enrollment 6
Highest Enrolled Programs 7
Durham Tech’s Orange County Campus programs with the highest enrollment include our Arts, 8
Sciences, and University Transfer programs; Public Safety programs; and our Health programs. 9
We also serve a large group of students who come to take one or two courses (visiting 10
students). 11
12
Recent High School Graduates 13
Enrollment of recent high schools graduates has increased dramatically since Orange 14
ConnectFunds became available. For 2016-17 academic year, a total of 167 Orange Connect 15
fund scholarships were awarded totaling $83,500. In the 2017-18 academic year, 298 16
scholarships were awarded totaling $149,000, not including summer 2018 term. 17
18
Dual-Enrollment Students 19
Durham Tech continues to experience enrollment increases for students who are dually-20
enrolled in high school and Durham Tech. In the Fall Semester 2016, 56 Career and College 21
Promise (CCP) students enrolled at Durham Tech from Orange County. In the Fall Semester of 22
2017 we had 78 CCP students from Orange County. In addition, there are 51 high school 23
students from the two school districts in Orange County currently enrolled in our Middle College 24
High School program. Early Fall Semester 2018 enrollment data indicate this number will 25
increase again. 26
27
Orange County Enrollment (table) 28
Note: Total Seats Used represents the overall number of students enrolled in all the curriculum 29
and Con Ed classes each academic year. 30
Unduplicated headcount for curriculum students also indicates significant growth as there were 31
611 OCC students in 2008-2009 compared to 1,066 OCC students in 2016-2017. 32
33
ConnectFunds Recipients Demographics (table) 34
A total of 178 students have received Orange County ConnectFunds this academic year. 35
Orange ConnectFund recipients represent graduates from Orange county high schools, with 36
the largest groups coming from Orange High School, Chapel Hill High School, and East Chapel 37
Hill High School. 38
39
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why more males are receiving 40
scholarships. 41
Matt Williams said it is not that more males are receiving scholarships, but just that 42
more males are coming from the high schools to Durham Tech. 43
44
Student Retention – Term to Term (table) 45
Durham Tech provides a range of supports so that our students stay in college and complete 46
what they start. These data represent the retention rates for three groups of students: a) first-47
time Durham Tech enrollees (all ages) for a given fall term; b) first-time recent high school 48
graduates enrolled at the college; and c) first-time Orange ConnectFunds recipients. 49
50
3
1
2
Student Retention – Year to Year (table) 3
Durham Tech provides a range of supports so that our students stay in college and complete 4
what they start. These data represent the retention rates for three groups of students: a) first-5
time Durham Tech enrollees (all ages) for a given fall term; b) first-time recent high school 6
graduates enrolled at the college; and c) first-time Orange ConnectFunds recipients. 7
8
Orange County Education Navigator 9
A pilot project between Durham Technical Community College and Orange County Department 10
of Social Services (DSS) was initiated in December, 2016. The initiative provides an Education 11
Navigator,(EN) onsite in Orange County to work with Food and Nutrition Service’s Employment 12
and Training (FNS E&T) team and participants. The EN recruits, counsels, prepares and enrolls 13
participants in classes ranging from GED/HSE, short term credentials, essential/soft skills and 14
associate degree programs. The EN also coaches students to completion and connects them to 15
employment opportunities through DSS, OrangeWorks and NCWorks. 16
17
Outcomes from December 2016 to present: 18
189 FNS E&T participants provided career counseling, career pathways and labor market 19
information. 20
60 participants have enrolled each semester in stackable credential programs 21
that lead to living wage employment 22
16 Curriculum students 23
50 Short term credential students 24
10 GED/HSE students 25
52 Essential/soft skills students 26
14,510 hours of Durham Tech courses, classes and workshops. 27
28
Durham Tech and DSS’s pilot is being used as a role model and will be rolled out across NC’s 29
Community Colleges and their Social Service partners as it has proven to successfully in 30
alleviating poverty and providing sustainable career pathways for FNS E&T participants. 31
32
Orange County Public Safety Training 33
Emergency Medical Science Training in 2016-17 34
156 EMS Courses Offered 35
4,003 Students Enrolled 36
Fire Protection Technology Training in 2016-17 37
48 FIP Courses Offered 38
757 Students Enrolled 39
Basic Law Enforcement Training Initiatives in 2016-17 40
55 CJC Courses Offered 41
1,360 Students Enrolled 42
3 BLET Academies with Orange County Sheriff’s Office since 2015 43
48 Cadets Graduated 44
14 Cadets Currently Enrolled in 4th Academy 45
46
Orange County Campus Partnership Highlights 47
UNC Air Care 48
Paramedic Competition-May Day Trauma 49
50
4
Orange County Department of Social Services 1
Education Navigator Position and Navigator Training 2
3
Orange County Government 4
Planning and Inspections 5
Government Academy 6
7
Town of Hillsborough 8
Citizens Academy 9
10
Local Chamber Events 11
12
Orange County Schools 13
Accounting Competition 14
CTE Regional Meetings 15
Senior Information Days 16
17
Morinaga Hiring and Training Events 18
19
AKG of America 20
21
West Rock Computer Training 22
23
Summit Engineering 24
25
FY 18-19 Operating Budget Request 26
FY 17-18 request $641,751 27
FY 18-19 request $655,144 28
• $13,393 or 1.59% increase in operating funds 29
• $7,779 (2.5%) for salaries and benefits to match the expected increases for state paid 30
employees and to pay all employees a livable wage. Recognized as an Orange county 31
living wage employer. 32
• $3,114 projected increase of 3% for utilities. An increase of $2,500 to cover the 33
increased costs of operating supplies. 34
35
Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: 36
37
Budget Work Session #1 38
Education and Outside Agencies 39
May 24, 2018 40
Whitted Meeting Facility 41
42
Durham Technical Community College 43
• Operating Costs (non-instructional) – page 152 44
Recommended Change 45
Current expense $655,144 $13,393 46
Recurring Capital $75,000 $0 47
Debt Service $251,080 ($9,304) 48
Total $981,224 $4,089 49
5
• Recurring Capital Detail 1
$75,000 consistent level of investment 2
Retention Pond Upgrade – fencing, silt removal, swale repair 3
Replace brick pavers at crosswalk 4
• Capital Investment Plan – page 136 of CIP 5
o Health Technology Building Expansion 6
Estimated at 56,000 square feet 7
Additional 250 parking spaces 8
o Project Design in FY2021-22 - $714,290 9
County match for the $1 million 2016 State Connect Bond 10
o $23.6 million total estimated project costs 11
o Current Debt Service Satisfied in FY2027 12
• Orange Connect Scholarship Program – page 63 13
o $200,000 recommended appropriation for FY2018-19 14
o Funds annual scholarship of $1,000 per student 15
o Recent high school graduates and GED recipients qualify 16
o Paid through Article 46 Sales Tax revenue 17
18
Commissioner Price said DTCC means a lot to the community. 19
Commissioner Jacobs expressed his appreciation to DTCC for working with the Board 20
of County Commissioners on programs like the Navigator and Connect Programs. 21
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 22
23
Chapel Hill High School Project Updates 24
• Critical Path Approvals (table) 25
26
• Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and Project Budget- table-page 6 27
28
Debt Service Requirements and Incremental Tax Increase - graph - page 7 (long term 29
debt service) 30
31
Recommended School Funding 32
• Operating Budget School Funding – page 152 33
FY 2018-19 Operating Budget- Total Recommended School District Funding- table 34
35
Current Expense $84,957,670 36
Total Projected Students 20,398 37
Total Per Pupil Allocation $4,165 38
39
Commissioner McKee asked if this number excludes the charter students. 40
Travis Myren said no, this number includes the charter students. 41
42
• Operating Budget Funding Target - graph 43
• Capital Budget School Funding - page 97 CIP- 44
Long Range Capital moved to CIP in FY2017-18 45
Recurring Capital moved to CIP in FY2018-19 46
47
Chair Dorosin asked if Travis Myren could explain the difference between something 48
falling in to the long-range capital, versus the older school improvements, versus the recurring 49
capital. 50
6
Travis Myren said the recurring capital items are smaller items, and the long-range 1
capital/older school improvements are the larger items. 2
Todd LoFrese, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools’ (CHCCS) Assistant Superintendent, 3
said recurring capital is for smaller ticket items such as service contracts on HVAC; 4
improvements to playgrounds; mulch; painting projects, etc. He said CHCCS uses article 46 5
dollars to support technology. 6
Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS could use long-range capital dollars for an improvement 7
project in an older school. 8
Todd LoFrese said yes. 9
Orange County School (OCS) agreed. 10
Chair Dorosin asked if there is a reason that there are two pots of money, as opposed to 11
one. 12
Travis Myren said these two pots of money probably came into existence at different 13
times, and are, thus, two separate pots. 14
Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct, and the capital for older schools is the $5 15
million added to the bond, and was an intended $1 million for five years. She said the $3 million 16
deferred maintenance plan will also be used for older schools. 17
Chair Dorosin said the aging facilities are a frequent concern, and if one looks at the 18
budget, it appears that some money is dedicated to these needs, while other funds are not. He 19
said it could look like the County is not prioritizing the needs of the aging facilities, which is 20
inaccurate. He said the Board may want to discuss this in the future, and unless there is an 21
accounting reason to keep the pots separate, it may be wise to combine them. 22
Travis Myren said the other difference is the funding source. He resumed the 23
PowerPoint presentation: 24
25
Total Recommended School Funding FY2018-19 - graph 26
27
Combine Operating and Capital Budget= $120,000,000 available - graph 28
29
Total Recommended School Funding History- table- page 12 - graph 30
31
Total Recommended School Funding History-table- page 13 - graph 32
33
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Funded Students - table- page 14 34
35
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Funded Student History - table- page 15 36
37
Commissioner Price asked if there is a process for when a student comes from Durham 38
County to Orange County charter. 39
Travis Myren said if a Durham County resident comes to an Orange County Charter 40
School, Durham County would pay for that student. 41
Commissioner Price asked if this would remain the same, if the student came into the 42
traditional public school first, and paid tuition, and then went to a charter school. 43
Todd Wirt, OCS Superintendent, said he is unsure if this situation has ever occurred, 44
but the billing takes place based on the student’s residency. 45
Travis Myren asked if an out-of-County student, who is not a child of an employee, is 46
allowed to attend OCS and pay tuition. 47
Todd Wirt said yes, this is called discretionary admission, and if it is an open school, 48
then the student can attend. He said employees do not pay tuition. 49
7
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the demographic breakdown of the charter students that 1
attend charter schools in Orange County is known. 2
Todd Wirt said the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) data indicates that the two 3
largest charter schools in Orange County are 88% are white, and both are 5% free and reduced 4
lunch. 5
CHCCS said its data is similar. 6
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 7
8
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Charter Students by Grade Level – table - page 16 9
10
Orange County Total Funded Students - table – page 17 11
• School Facility Enrollment Decreased by 2.6% 12
• Charter Students Increased by Nearly 25% and Comprise 9.6% of Total Funded 13
Students 14
• Overall 0.8% Decrease in Funded Students 15
• Percentage of Total Enrollment Decreased by 0.63% 16
• Lower Proportion of Funds Allocated by Average Daily Membership 17
(ADM) 18
19
Orange County Funded Student History - table 20
21
Commissioner Rich asked Travis Myren if he could explain charter school funding. 22
Travis Myren said as part of the ADM calculation, the charter student is funded as if 23
he/she is in the school, and the funds follow the student to the charter school. He said if the 24
student was not included in the funding formula, then the school districts would have to take 25
that out of their current expense budget, and have a lower effective ADM for everybody else 26
who is left in the school facilities. 27
Commissioner Rich said there is confusion of how the money is funneled into the 28
charter schools. She said Orange County is paying for the students, and the school districts 29
are not being penalized for these students leaving. 30
Travis Myren said yes, the per pupil is funded by the County, so that the school districts 31
do not have to take it out of their current expense budget. 32
Commissioner Rich asked if the County is paying double for the charter school students. 33
Travis Myren said there is $4,165 given to the schools, which is then given to the charter 34
school; $8,330 is not given to the schools. 35
Commissioner Price clarified that the County reimburses the schools for the Charter 36
students. 37
Travis Myren said the County gives the schools $4,165 per student, and the school 38
districts pay that to the charter schools. 39
Commissioner Price asked if “hold harmless” could be defined. 40
Travis Myren said if the County did not pay the $4,165 per student, then the school 41
districts would have to take it out of their current expense budget, and, therefore, the money 42
available for all other students in the district would be less. He said there is no state 43
requirement that any County must provide school districts funds for charter students. He said 44
in every other district around the state, the superintendent must take money from the current 45
expense budget to pay for charter students. 46
Todd Wirt said Orange County gave OCS $3991 per student this past year, which 47
includes students in the seats at OCS, as well as those at charter schools. He said the $3991 48
received per charter student is passed through OCS to the charter schools. He said all other 49
counties do not receive the $3991 for charter school students from their local government, but 50
8
rather have to pay the charter schools out of current expense budget, thus reducing the 1
remaining funds available for students in the seats of the traditional public schools. 2
Chair Dorosin said all other counties do not give the monies for the students that go to 3
charter schools. 4
Chair Dorosin said holding the schools responsible for the charter school funds not only 5
means less per pupil for the remaining students, but there is often less allocation for teachers, 6
resulting in larger classes, and a reduction in quality curriculum. 7
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 8
9
Orange County Charter Students by grade level – table - page 19 10
11
Commissioner Rich asked if the charter school students are coming back to graduate 12
from traditional public schools. 13
Todd Wirt said no. He said the greatest return of charter school students does happen 14
at the high school level, but the lower high school numbers in the graph reflect a phased in 15
growth approach at Eno River Academy, where a grade has been added per year. He said 12th 16
grade will be added by 2020. 17
Commissioner Rich said the number of charter students at the high school level could 18
change dramatically as the charter schools add those remaining upper grades. 19
Todd Wirt said it is possible, but OCS hopes to avoid increasing numbers going to 20
charter schools. 21
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 22
23
Recommended School Funding 24
• Current Expense – page 152- ( page 20 – slide) 25
• Recommended Current Expense- $84, 957, 670 26
Current Expense Increase of $4,211,823 27
28
Per Pupil Allocation History-table- page 21 29
30
CHCCS Per Pupil Allocation History with District Tax – table - page 22 slide 31
32
Annual Changes in Per Pupil Allocation-graph 33
• $102 average annual increase since FY1984-85 34
35
Per Pupil County Comparison 36
37
State and County School Funding 38
Annual Changes in Per Pupil Equivalent – graph 39
40
State and County School Funding 41
Annual % Changes in Per Pupil Equivalent – table – page 26 42
43
Recommended School Funding 44
• Discussion Topic: Orange County Schools Reserve Policy – page 27 slide 45
o Increase Allowable Unassigned Reserve Above 3% 46
o Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Allowable Reserve – 5.5% 47
o No Additional Funding Requested 48
49
9
Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for providing additional information about State and 1
county funding. He said it may be useful next year to fill in the recessions on the recommended 2
school funding and average changes, as it makes the picture clearer. 3
Commissioner Jacobs said he was previously unable to remember the issue about the 4
differing reserve funds, but he was reminded that it was a period under a different CHCCS 5
superintendent where CHCCS had a different pool of money above the 5.5%, and the County 6
wanted to get this number to come down. He said those funds were a slush fund to allow the 7
superintendent to do as he pleased with County money. 8
Commissioner Jacobs said the County was funding more than it was getting, and there 9
was a long discussion that Orange County was the guarantor should the school districts’ money 10
run dry. He said the County would guarantee a certain minimum beyond the fact that the 11
County is the backstop for the schools, and the schools would guarantee that if funds ran dry, 12
no money would be held back in reserve, just in case. 13
Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a reason why OCS is thinking about raising 14
the unassigned reserve fund balance. 15
Todd Wirt said there are several reasons, with one being that, over time, the free and 16
reduced lunch percentage has grown (43% overall), and OCS becomes more dependent on 17
Title 1 funds. He said these federal funds can be delayed, so in order to get at least the four 18
Title 1 schools up and running at the start of the year, sometimes a supplement of fund balance 19
is needed. He said he does not anticipate needing 5.5%, but rather would like to flexibility in 20
case there are circumstances like he just mentioned. 21
Commissioner Burroughs said this proposal seems reasonable to her. 22
Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline for the BOCC to decide on the reserve 23
balance proposal. 24
Chair Dorosin said they need to decide on it right now. 25
Travis Myren said staff can prepare an amendment for the Board package on June 12th. 26
Chair Dorosin suggested taking the OCS reserve fund balance to 5.5%. 27
The Board of County Commissioners agreed by consensus. 28
Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that this change will have no impact on expenditures. 29
Todd Wirt said in the past, OCS has used its general fund for various reasons: to 30
balance the budget, pay for charter students, etc. He said OCS has stayed around 3%, and 31
has this used to fund for one-time expenses, or to balance its budget in the last 3 years. 32
Commissioner Jacobs asked Travis Myren if he would add an outline of the purposes for 33
spending/not spending the fund balance to the agenda abstract. 34
Chair Dorosin asked the school districts if there were any additional comments this 35
evening. 36
Todd LoFrese said the Chapel Hill High Project will begin with a groundbreaking 37
ceremony on June 12th, and all are very excited to get this project started. 38
Todd Wirt said charter students numbers have risen a lot, and OCS is taking what it is 39
experiencing very seriously. He said it is difficult to predict why families are making the choice 40
to pursue charter schools, but nearly 60% of the OCS eligible students that are enrolled in 41
charter schools have never set foot into an OCS school. He said OCS is also getting some 42
students back from charter schools. 43
Todd Wirt said some of the information out there is not based on fact, and he read some 44
statistics about OCS and charter schools. 45
Todd Wirt said OCS is not failing, and the staff is doing very good work. He said he 46
does not know why families are choosing other school options, but he said he does not believe 47
families are running from a system that is doing well for 91% of families that make OCS their 48
first choice. 49
10
Chair Dorosin said he hoped that no one takes the Board’s questions about charter 1
schools as criticism of the school districts. He said he opened the Pandora ’s Box because he 2
just did not understand the charter school process. He said both school districts are excelling, 3
and are at the top of the best schools lists in N.C, and this is a powerful message. He said 4
there is an equally powerful coordinated, well-funded attack on traditional public schools that is 5
supported by corporations that are hired to run the charter schools, and by legislators who are 6
well supported by those corporations. 7
Todd Wirt says he knows he is “preaching to the choir”, and shared the statistical 8
information for the benefit of the public. 9
Commissioner Price suggested that OCS promote itself even more than it does. 10
Todd Wirt said OCS is working on this, and letters/releases are sent to the media 11
regularly. 12
Commissioner Price said she gets regular reminders of events that are going on in 13
CHCCS, but does not receive the same information from OCS. She encouraged OCS to 14
include the BOCC on emails about events, accomplishments, etc. 15
Commissioner Rich said the Board of County Commissioners is asked questions about 16
charter schools all the time, and thanked OCS for all the information that it shared this evening, 17
as it is helpful for the public. 18
19
• Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Pg. 152 & 158 20
• Orange County Schools, Pg. 152 & 244 21
22
2. Discussion of Outside Agencies Funding for FY 2018-19, Pgs. 399-411 23
24
BACKGROUND: 25
Each fiscal year, non-profit organizations that deliver community services have the ability to 26
apply for program funding from Orange County. In December 2016, the Orange County Board 27
of Commissioners adopted a funding target of 1.2 percent of the county’s general fund 28
expenditures, less the appropriation for education expenses, for the purpose of funding outside 29
agency operations. Historically, the county had a funding target of 1.0 percent. 30
31
Applications are reviewed by staff members for completeness and eligibility. The applications 32
are then presented to a specific advisory board, depending on the subject matter. Each 33
advisory board is responsible for scoring each application based on an application scorecard. 34
The application scorecard is comprised of five weighted categories with a total possible score of 35
100. The five categories and the total possible points are: Mission (10 points), Collaboration 36
Efforts (15 points), Customer Impact/Value (25 points), Results (25 points), and Plan for 37
Implementation (25 points). The County Manager presents recommendations to the Board of 38
County Commissioners, which approves the final allocations. 39
40
Recipients are required to submit written program reports that include: goals, description of 41
activities/challenges, revisions of timelines/budgets, and other relevant information. Funded 42
projects are monitored for progress and performance, financial and administrative 43
management, and compliance with the terms of Performance/Development Agreement(s). 44
Monitoring may involve site and/or office visit(s). 45
46
For fiscal year 2018-19, Orange County received applications from 59 agencies. The requests 47
totaled $1,828,491, an increase of $462,750 above fiscal year 2017-18. The FY 2018-19 48
County Manager’s Recommended budget includes funding awards for 50 agencies with a total 49
of $1,401,173; an increase of $35,432 from FY 2017-18 Commissioner Approved Budget. The 50
11
County Manager’s recommended funding levels are based on scoring completed by each 1
advisory board. Agencies scoring between 90% and 100% received 30% of their requested 2
increase. Agencies scoring between 80% and 89% received 15% of their requested increase, 3
and agencies scoring between 70% and 79% received 10% of their requested increase. 4
Agencies with scores of 69% and below are not recommended for an increase in funds. 5
Consistent with the continuation budget approach, no new agency requests were 6
recommended for funding. Based on the County Manager’s Recommended Budget, less the 7
appropriation for education expenses, 1.2 percent equates to $1,400,896. 8
9
Please refer to the Outside Agency section (Pages 399-411) of the FY 2018-19 Manager’s 10
Recommended budget for discussion of Outside Agency funding. In addition, see Attachment 1 11
for an Outside Agency Funding Requests Book, which includes the Purpose/Mission, Program, 12
Proposed Services, Performance Measures, and Agency Budget for each Outside Agency. 13
Furthermore, see Attachment 2 for an Outside Agency Funding Report, which is organized by 14
each agency’s primary function area. The following are the primary function areas: Arts, 15
Community Services, Food/Nutritional Services, Health, Housing, Human Services, 16
Juvenile/Adult Justice Services, Mental Health, Senior Services, and Youth Services. 17
18
Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the changes in the Outside agency hand out book. 19
Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation: 20
21
22 23
12
1 2
3
4 5
Commissioner Price asked if the scoring process could be explained. 6
Bonnie Hammersley said, in this case, the Arts Commisions provided oversight of this 7
group. 8
Commissioner Price asked if the other agencies were scored similarly. 9
Bonnie Hammersley said there is an advisory board that oversees each part of County 10
government, and if an outside agency falls within that function within government, the advisory 11
board will oversee it. She resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 12
13
14
13
1 2
Chair Dorosin asked if the recommended increases reflect the scoring chart. 3
Bonnie Hammersley said yes. 4
Chair Dorosin clarified that no one got more than a 30% increase. 5
Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct. 6
Commissioner Jacobs said he was at a meeting last week in Hillsborough, and many 7
outside agencies there did not realize that Orange County was the only government funder for 8
many of these agencies in Hillsborough. He said it should be acknowledged that the County is 9
helping to support some significant historical organizations in Hillsborough. 10
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 11
12
13 14
Bonnie Hammersley said Our Wild Neighbors is a new agency, and this is their first time 15
requesting funding. She said to be consistent with a no expansion budget, she did not 16
recommend any funding for this agency; however, the Animal Services Department has an 17
annual contract with a similar agency that offers some of the same services as Our Wild 18
14
Neighbors. She has directed the Director of Animal Services to do a Request for Proposal 1
(RFP) with both services to give them an opportunity to get a contract. She said Our Wild 2
Neighbors will no longer appear as an outside agency. 3
Bonnie Hammersley said the Tide Center did not get funded this year, because they did 4
not score well. She said one reason for the lower score was due to a change in their vision 5
from working with youth to providing training for outside agencies. She said this is not a service 6
that the County provides, and the reviewing advisory board did not deem this as a needed 7
service to fund. 8
Bonnie Hammersley said the Refugee Center requested less than it did last year, and 9
were fully funded at the reduced amount. 10
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 11
12 13
Bonnie Hammersley said all of these organizations scored well because they do 14
important work for Orange County residents. She said all of these agencies are open to 15
work ing together collaboratively. 16
Commissioner McKee clarified that all of these are working toward better collaboration. 17
Bonnie Hammersley said yes. She said Nancy Coston, Department of Social Services 18
(DSS) Director, pulled together these groups for two meetings, and they will hold more 19
meetings going forward. She said she hopes there will be collaboration with some of these 20
agencies by this time next year. 21
Commissioner McKee asked if staff could speak to these agencies about aligning their 22
qualifications for service. 23
Bonnie Hammersley said that is one of the goals. 24
Commissioner McKee said there are differentials on eligibility requirements. 25
Bonnie Hammersley said staff is aware of this issue, and is working on solving it. She 26
resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 27
28
15
1 2
Bonnie Hammersley said the Board of Health reviewed the health agencies. She said 3
none of them are new, and all ranked quite highly. She resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 4
5
6 7
Bonnie Hammersley said the Centre for Homeownership was contracted with the 8
Housing Department, and then requested funding as an outside agency. She said the County 9
will continue to work with the Centre for Homeownership on a contract with the Housing 10
Department. She said when staff met with the outside agencies in housing, staff heard that 11
there is some redundancy in the Centre for Homeownership, who is doing training for new 12
home ownership people. She said staff will look at this more closely for collaboration 13
opportunities. She said there are different populations being served at different levels, and 14
Sherrill Hampton, Housing Director, will contact the Centre for Homeownership to continue 15
working with them. 16
16
Chair Dorosin said the Centre for Homeownership received a low score, and if the 1
County plans to continue working with them on a contractual basis, he hopes there will be some 2
discussion of how the low score can be improved. 3
Bonnie Hammersley said some of the low scoring pertains to, “does the mission align 4
with what the County needs?” He said this agency does other things that the County may need 5
through the Housing Department. 6
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 7
8
9
10 11
12
Bonnie Hammersley said Nancy Coston has identified some existing funds to assist the 13
Diaper Bank. 14
Chair Dorosin asked if the Diaper Bank is a statewide organization. 15
Bonnie Hammersley said yes, but it started in Orange County. 16
Bonnie Hammersley said the Ronald McDonald house was not funded because it is not 17
something the County typically funds, and she is not recommending funding for new programs. 18
She said this is not a reflection on the good work being done by this organization. 19
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 20
21
22
17
1 2
Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the programs above. She said Josh’s Hope Foundation 3
was not funded as it is a new request, but Cait Fenhagen will try and work with this organization 4
to see if it may be able to supplement some of the work Orange County is doing. 5
6
Commissioner Rich referred to the Dispute Settlement Center’s lower score this year, 7
and asked if the review boards tell these agencies why it received a lower score. 8
Bonnie Hammersley said the Directors that sit in on meetings with the Manager are 9
asked to share this information with the agencies. She said sometimes the rankings are based 10
on the individuals who are doing the ranking, and a change in philosophy, but the goal is to help 11
the agencies succeed in this process. 12
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 13
14
15 16
17
18
18
1 2
3 4
Bonnie Hammersley said the karate agency did not score well, but there may be an 5
opportunity to participate in youth enhancement services with DSS. She said Orange County 6
will reimburse the agency if any DSS kids want to participate. 7
Chair Dorosin said it seems like there are some questions about the scoring, and if 8
agencies are consistently scoring low, then staff may want to revisit if these agencies should 9
receive any funds at all. He said the County’s needs evolve over time, and maybe some of 10
these agencies’ services no longer match the County’s needs and should not be funded at all. 11
Bonnie Hammersley said the agencies need to be doing what is good for Orange 12
County, instead of the other way around. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the advisory board assignment page, and said 14
there is a point person at the top, and asked if this same person attends all of the meetings and 15
witnesses all of the evaluations. 16
Bonnie Hammersley said yes, and the Department Head is not scoring, but rather 17
assisting the advisory board that is reviewing, etc. 18
19
Bonnie Hammersley said the Orange Partnership for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth was 1
a new request, and therefore did not get funded. She said Orange County is providing meeting 2
space for this group, as well brochure printing via the Health Department. 3
Chair Dorosin said it would be good to have a dollar amount for these in kind 4
contributions. 5
Bonnie Hammersley said the SKJAJA is one that seeks to help the less fortunate. She 6
said the County’s Youth Enhancement Services program already does this, and so SKJAJA did 7
not receive funding, but there may be an opportunity for SKJAJA to coordinate with the County 8
to be made aware of children who may have needs. 9
Commissioner Price said she echoed Chair Dorosin’s concerns about low scoring 10
agencies continuing to receive funding. 11
Commissioner Price referred to the Food/Nutritional Services agencies, and asked if 12
failing to fully fund these organizations will leave a lot of people hungry. 13
Commissioner Price said it seems odd that Orange Congregations in Missions (OCIM) is 14
getting an increase of $6300, but Orange County Rural Alliance (OCRA), who had a large 15
increase in its request, is only receiving $8250 (for a total of $20,750). She said there is a 16
clearly a need for food, and she worries how many meals are being missed due to a lack of 17
funding. 18
19
Bonnie Hammersley said OCRA’s large jump in its requested amount was in order to 20
fund a staff position as well as some more meals. She said the total budget for an agency is 21
also considered, and OCRA is a new organization with a much smaller budget. She said the 22
more established agencies have funding sources other than the County, which is what the 23
County wants to see occurring. 24
Commissioner Price asked if staff can find out how many meals are being delivered 25
through these Food/Nutritional services agencies. 26
Bonnie Hammersley said the performance measures show how many people and meals 27
are being served. She said this information can be found on page 20. She said this 28
information may relate more to capacity than demand. 29
Commissioner Price said she is more interested in the demand, and another issue is 30
meal deliveries on holidays and weekends. 31
Commissioner McKee said OCRA provides meals for those that are not on the Meals on 32
Wheels route, or do not meet eligibility requirements of other agencies. He said OCRA also 33
works in cooperation with a few local businesses and churches to increase the serviceability of 34
these residents. 35
Commissioner Price said she would like some numbers. 36
Bonnie Hammersley resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 37
38
20
1 2
Bonnie Hammersley said there were two outstanding issues that did not come through 3
the normal outside agency process, however she did receive requests. She said the Inter-Faith 4
Council (IFC) capital campaign was not funded, as the Board does not fund capital campaigns, 5
unless specifically voted upon by the BOCC. She said the Northside neighborhood request 6
came outside of the agency process. 7
Commissioner McKee said he appreciated the Manager’s direction on IFC capital 8
campaign, since the Board has a policy on outside capital projects. He said the Board should 9
insist that all providers need to follow the process, or else there is no point in having the 10
process. 11
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Northside neighborhood understood the County’s 12
process, but waited too late to make a submittal. 13
Bonnie Hammersley said one of the group’s major funders unexpectedly reduced its 14
funding. She said the group did not receive this information until after the outside agency 15
process had closed. 16
Commissioner Jacobs said he is more sympathetic to that type of request, as it is due to 17
a crisis. He said he does like the Board’s policy about capital campaigns, but as he said in his 18
email to all Board members, he is open to the possibility of a no interest loan for agencies that 19
already receive funds for operating expenses. He said that may be a viable way to assist some 20
agencies such as Club Nova, IFC and the Rape Crisis Center. He said he does not want to do 21
anything that would adversely affect the County’s finances, but would like to promote the long 22
term benefit of Orange County residents through these organizations that the County already 23
recognizes as worthy of funding. 24
Chair Dorosin said the Northside Initiative did not know that Chapel Hill was going to pull 25
its funding, and if the County had received a timely outside agency request, it would have likely 26
funded it. He said it is worth recognizing the work that the Northside Initiative is doing. He said 27
this group has been able to leverage other funds, and have done well with other funding 28
sources. He said this is an unusual scenario because of the timing, and he believed that this 29
Initiative is an invaluable investment. 30
Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is known why Chapel Hill did not fund this Initiative. 31
Chair Dorosin said part of the reason is, because the organization is providing services 32
more broadly, the Town wanted to see a commitment from other local governments. 33
Commissioner Burroughs said she would support this request 34
21
Commissioner Burroughs said she also liked the no interest loan idea presented by 1
Commissioner Jacobs. She said at any given time, agencies will be doing capital campaigns 2
and the no interest loan would be a viable option. 3
Commissioner Burroughs thanked Bonnie Hammersley and Travis Myren for organizing 4
this process so well. She said the process respected these agencies, and has been taken to a 5
whole different level. She said she cannot thank the staff enough for this process. 6
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a way to bring forward this Northside Initiative 7
request. 8
Bonnie Hammersley said she has it on the amendment list for the Board to vote on at 9
the June 12th meeting. 10
Commissioner Jacobs echoed Commissioner Burroughs’ comments about the outside 11
agency process. He applauded Bonnie Hammersley, Travis Myren and all of the department 12
heads that took the care to work with the agencies to find out what they are doing and what 13
they need. 14
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that when Paul Laughton, Finance and Administrative 15
Services, sent this document to the BOCC, he sent a link to the actual applications. He 16
suggested including this in the book, and also to have each agency’s website on their individual 17
pages. 18
Commissioner Rich echoed all these comments. She said when she f irst came on the 19
Board, this process was very random, and it was like an auction for County funding. She would 20
like to make sure that staff follows up with agencies when scores get off balance. 21
Bonnie Hammersley said Allen Coleman is the person that drives this whole process, 22
and nothing would happen without him. 23
Commissioner Price referred to IFC’s request for capital funding, and asked if the 24
Manager has a follow up plan. 25
Bonnie Hammersley said she will check with the new IFC director to see if the agency 26
has any interest in the interest free loan. 27
Chair Dorosin said he appreciated Commissioner Jacobs’ suggestion about this interest 28
free loan, but sometimes the Board needs to go outside of its policy. He said this IFC project 29
will serve so many people, and he thinks it warrants the Board going outside of its policy to help 30
fund the project. 31
Commissioner Price agreed. 32
Chair Dorosin said the Board should recognize that the IFC project meets so many of 33
the Board’s goals. 34
35
3. Policy on Board Petitions and Board Members Requests to Staff 36
37
BACKGROUND: 38
At the Board of Commissioners’ March 20, 2018 regular meeting, a petition was submitted that 39
the Board review its policy on Board petitions, requests from a single Board member, and the 40
staff time commitment associated with the request. 41
42
Members of the Board of Commissioners voice petitions for information, reports to be 43
developed, letters to be written, etc. as part of regular Board meetings. The Manager 44
documents these petitions and then reviews them with the Board Chair and Vice Chair for any 45
additional information, concerns, and direction. The Manager then directs the subject matter to 46
the appropriate County staff for follow-up, and the designated staff member(s) sends an 47
acknowledgement to the entire Board confirming that the matter is being addressed. The staff 48
member(s) subsequently reports back to the full Board with conclusions, outcomes, or other 49
22
information with a presentation at a Board meeting, an Information Item included on a regular 1
meeting agenda, and/or via email. 2
3
Members of the Board may also individually, or in conjunction with other members of the Board, 4
be in contact with County staff outside of Board meetings and make requests to staff for 5
information, reports to be developed, letters to be written, etc. Staff members move forward to 6
address those requests and subsequently report back to the Board member(s) with 7
conclusions, outcomes, or other information. Staff sharing the results sometimes occurs with a 8
presentation at a Board meeting, an Information Item including on a regular meeting agenda, 9
and/or via email. It also sometimes occurs only with the individual Board member or those 10
members who joined in the request. 11
12
In both instances above, the petitions and requests have an impact on staff responsibilities, 13
priorities, and time. To address this concern, the Board of Commissioners adopted the attached 14
“Guidelines for Commissioner Requests for Information from County Staff” in 2002. The 15
Guidelines provide a framework to assess requests and a review process, especially as it 16
relates to established priorities and duties and the staff time required to address a request. The 17
process entails the Manager and the Board Chair reviewing the request and addressing any 18
concerns identified. 19
20
This item gives the Board the opportunity to discuss the Board’s process for addressing 21
petitions made by Board members at regular meetings and requests that individual Board 22
members may make to staff for reports, research data and/or information outside of regular 23
Board meetings. The Board likely also needs to review the attached Guidelines for any updates 24
or revisions. 25
26
Chair Dorosin said he petitioned for this item, as he had some questions. He used 27
Commissioner McKee as an example, since Commissioner McKee had asked if staff would look 28
at other locations for a detention center, and how much staff time would be needed to do so. 29
Chair Dorosin referred to a policy that addressed this issue, which was adopted in 2002, 30
and provided delineation between less than 2 hours worth of work, and more than 2 hours 31
worth of work. He asked if there is a formula for determining how long work will take. 32
Bonnie Hammersley said if there is a request that is going to take a lot of time, then a 33
department head will contact her to discuss it further, but that has not happened since she has 34
been employed at the County. She said most Commissioners check with her before contacting 35
staff. 36
Commissioner Jacobs agreed, and said requests should include the Board Chair in the 37
conversation. He said this policy came about due to Commissioners wanting to edit documents 38
line by line, and staff waiting at the fax machine for the Commissioners’ final draft to come in. 39
He said it would take hours. He said the policy took Commissioner personalities out of the 40
process, and directed requests through the Manager and the Board Chair. 41
Chair Dorosin said he is comfortable with that process, and did not know there was an 42
existing policy when he first raised the petition. He said he has not received any requests, but if 43
he did, he would bring the request to the full Board for input. 44
Commissioner Rich referred to the example of Commissioner McKee wanting to look at 45
other locations, noting that an email had been sent out at the staff level, but the rest of the 46
board had not weighed in on the request. She asked if there is a process to handle this. 47
Chair Dorosin said staff could produce two hours of work, and pass on any results to the 48
Board. 49
23
Commissioner Rich clarified that staff and the Board will go by the timeframe of two 1
hours. 2
Chair Dorosin said the timeframe is a good check to see whether the topic is even worth 3
being brought to the Board. 4
Commissioner McKee said the Board was so close to making a decision, that there was 5
no time to formally petition the Board. He said a possible alternate piece of property came to 6
his attention, but it was not viable; but if it had been, he would have brought it back to the full 7
Board. 8
Commissioner Jacobs referred to his idea about interest free loan, and said he sent an 9
email to the Board via the Manager. He said the Manager then proceeded with further 10
investigation into the topic, of her own accord; and if it were to prove a timely endeavor, she 11
could consult with the Chair and the Board about continuing further. He said the policy is in 12
place to serve as a check and balance, and to avoid sending staff down rabbit holes. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos said the main aspect is does a request fit into an already 14
agreed upon process. He said if it is too big a request for the process, it will likely be obvious. 15
He said the process seems to be working as is. 16
Commissioner McKee said he has seen this only happen just a few times in his tenure 17
on the Board, but should he have another request in the future, he will let the whole board know 18
what he is requesting, and keep everyone in the loop. 19
Chair Dorosin said he wanted to make sure that staff understands that a request from 20
one Commissioner may not have the full support of the Board. 21
Commissioner Price said there is a group called Artists United, and they are doing a 22
month long series of events during Art Walk. She said on June 5th there will be a pride piper 23
walk, taking the ram from the Arts Center to the Century Center in Carrboro. 24
Chair Dorosin said there will be a closed session at the end of the June 7th meeting on 25
the appointed employees’ evaluations. 26
27
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. 28
29
Mark Dorosin, Chair 30
31
32
Donna Baker 33
Clerk to the Board 34
1
Attachment 3 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
REGULAR MEETING 5
June 5, 2018 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 2018 9
at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, 12
Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich 13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 14
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 15
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 16
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified 17
appropriately below) 18
19
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 20
21
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 22
Commissioner Rich asked if item 8-h could be pulled from the consent agenda, since 23
many people are here to speak tonight. 24
Chair Dorosin said to change 8-h to item 4-c. He suggested moving item 11-b up in the 25
agenda, and making it item 4-d 26
27
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner to move 28
items 11-b and item 8-h up on the agenda. 29
30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31
32
Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners’ places: 33
- PowerPoint for Item 4-a: VAD 34
- PowerPoint for Item 4-b: Bike Safety Campaign 35
- PowerPoint for Item 5-a: Public Hearing 36
- PowerPoint for Item 5-d: Public hearing 37
- PowerPoint for Item 7-b: Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update 38
- Manager Report 39
- Aqua handout: Net Neutrality- proposed petition from Commissioner Rich for May 19th 40
consideration 41
- Light Blue sheet: Chapel Hill’s Proclamation- National Gun Violence Awareness Day- 42
Commissioner Rich 43
44
PUBLIC CHARGE 45
46
Katie Murray, Arts Commission Director, introduced the Arts Moment: 47
48
Arts Moment - Ashley McIlwain Nissler holds an MFA in Creative Writing from Warren Wilson 49
and teaches at the Duke Creative Writers’ Workshop. Her work has been in Cricket, Ladybug, 50
2
Strange Horizons, Tar River Poetry, Literary Mama, poemeleon, The Black Boot, Vestal 1
Review, The Mom Egg New World Writing , Dogplotz, Nailpolish Stories, and most recently in 2
the anthology Red Sky. In addition to her story “Lungs once pink and fragile” being nominated 3
for a Pushcart Prize, she received an Emerging Artist’s Grant from the Durham Arts Council in 4
2005. She has served on the Orange County Arts Commission Advisory Board since 2013. 5
6
Chair Dorosin introduced Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, who recognized 7
the “graduates” from the first County Government Academy. 8
9
2. Public Comments 10
11
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 12
Susan Walser read the following comments: 13
14
Good Evening, 15
I’m Susan Walser. Thank you for your time this evening. I’d like to thank the County for 16
coordinating the Keith Arboretum Community Meeting last Wednesday, May 30th. 17
18
Ms. Livingston presented information from the County at this meeting, and David Harper 19
presented information from Unique Place to Save – his presentation lasted about 45 20
minutes. The community found Ms. Harper’s presentation not relevant to our goals for 21
the meeting. Instead we were subjected to a lengthy presentation on what Unique 22
Places to Save is, what projects they have completed throughout the state, possible 23
future programs on arboretum property, and requests for the audience to join the 24
arboretum and financially support Unique Places to Save. The community, at several 25
points, asked for clarification on the corporate structure of the arboretum and why they 26
were presenting instead of the owner. The explanations were always lengthy, 27
convoluted, and confusing. 28
29
A reference to debt restructuring was made in relation to the corporate restructuring. We 30
looked into some of this. There are 3 note holders on the 143 acres and the Keith 31
Arboretum jointly – with Pickoretum, LLC, registered as a real estate and rental business, 32
as the borrower, with deeds of trust totaling over $845,000. The total purchase price of 33
all these parcels was $770,000. 34
35
During the County’s presentation, we heard that no violations of the Keith easement were 36
found. However, as you can see in the presentation the community made: 37
• The deck (with no permitting) was built to support wedding events – see page 6. 38
• As shown on page 13 of our presentation, in April the County believed that ROMR 39
was inactive or gone…yet ROMR is still active and is now an approved activity. 40
• The Easement Amendment submitted to you in April requested permission to 41
have bees on the property. However, bees had already been on the property for 42
months, and are a commercial venture, which isn’t allowed under the easement. 43
See page 15. 44
• The Keith home is used as an Airbnb, but the easement states that the property 45
can only be used for recreational, educational, and scientific purposes, under 46
non-commercial use – this commercial Airbnb use may fit under the Pickoretum 47
LLC’s business purpose of real estate and rental. See page 5 of our 48
presentation. 49
50
3
Additionally, the property owner listed part of the arboretum for sale for a few months that 1
included separating out a home site on Tract A – please see your packet of information. 2
Was the County aware of this? 3
4
As you will hear from the speakers following me, there has been community mistrust 5
building with the property owner over the past several years. Now there is a level of 6
mistrust building with the County over what is seen as non-enforcement of easement 7
violations. This is concerning to citizens and easement holders throughout the County, 8
as a precedent could be set for potential weakening of current easements, non-9
enforcement of easements, or lack of incentive for property owners to continue to put 10
land into conservation easements. 11
12
Please listen carefully to the upcoming concerned citizens. 13
Thank you for your time. 14
15
Pamela Bayne read the following comments: 16
17
Statement by Charles R. Keith, M.D. 18
19
By 2000, the Charles R. Keith Arboretum had become the largest collection of tree and 20
shrub species in America. Visitors came from all over the U.S. and Europe to visit. Over 21
many years, I had conserved section after section of the arboretum and surrounding land 22
through Orange County and Triangle Land Conservancy, in order to preserve a total of 23
82 acres from future development. I was in total agreement that there be no commercial 24
activity that was not directly related to the mission of the arboretum. 25
26
In 2015, Unique Places purchased the arboretum. In order to assist the transition, I 27
agreed to manage the arboretum along with my one part-time employee for one more 28
year. (Aside from occasional other businesses that came in to perform specific fucntions 29
like maintaining the ponds, my only help over the years was a part-time contract 30
employee.) At the end of 2016, we left, as per our agreement with Unique Places. I left 31
a detailed emailed and hard copy care plan to multiple people for care of the arboretum, 32
including the ponds, fish, plants, etc. Prior to my departure, I urged that the next step 33
should be to hire a part-time horticulturist to preserve and care for the collection and 34
provide supervision to employees. 35
36
I believed that Unique Places had the financial resources to hire at least minimal staff and 37
would be responsible stewards of the arboretum. At the time of sale, we had been 38
excited about the direction they had wanted to take the arboretum as they laid out their 39
vision in keeping with the written mission statement. In particular, they wanted to expand 40
the educational mission, and also enlarge the plant collection itself. 41
42
I suggested they turn the King-Garrett historical homestead into a visitor’s center and 43
office space for staff. Repeatedly, I told them not to cut down any arboretum species to 44
make way for commercial activity, e.g.: parking spaces, even if related to the mission of 45
the arboretum without first consulting the horticulturalist director. 46
47
Sadly, none of these recommendations have been followed: 48
• There is no horticulturalist 49
• Weeds, vines, and suckers are covering smaller plants 50
4
• Lack of systemic watering is resulting in the death of some valuable larger 1
species 2
• Labels are falling off plants 3
• Though there has been some mowing of larger areas between plants, no 4
mulching not basic plant care has occurred… 5
• Rare species have been removed to make way for commercial activities, e.g.: a 6
turnaround in the driveway, the veranda 7
• The King-Garrett house has become an Airbnb 8
9
It appears that available resources have been diverted from the arboretum to these 10
commercial activities. The arboretum has been badly neglected and it shows. It is no 11
longer a place where I would be proud to have my horticultural colleagues visit. 12
13
Elise Alexander read the following comments: 14
15
Hello, 16
My name is Elise Alexander, and I am an adjoining landowner to the Keith Arboretum. I 17
am also the HOA representative for the Brights Way Residential community that also 18
adjoins the arboretum. 19
20
Thank you for all of your diligent work. 21
22
I would like to make three points. 23
24
FIRST: 25
Residential communities surround the Keith Arboretum. I would like to make it clear that 26
it was only with the realization that open fires were permitted on any location on the 220 27
acres of the Keith Arboretum and the Pickfords Forest that the Brights Way HOA 28
representatives requested to meet with the property owners. I quote from the emails 29
from February 5, 2017: 30
31
Request: 32
“What would be a good time to meet this week. The Brights Way HOA has some 33
questions/concerns regarding ROMR camping/camp fires. We would be happy to meet 34
you on site. Please me via email options. Thanks.” 35
36
Reply: 37
“Please put your concerns in writing. The 220 acres I own is a farm. People burn wood. 38
And they will camp on the land. That will not change. I do not ask my neighbors when 39
and how they burn wood or allow campers on their land, and the fact that you would 40
question camping and burning wood on my land is baffling to me.” 41
42
These comments and multiple negative interactions over the years have created 43
community mistrust. We are not skeptical of policies going forward. 44
45
SECOND: 46
The Keith Arboretum incorporates 2 lots of the Brights Way residential community. The 47
Brights Way Covenants, Article V, Section 2, states that, “ No lot shall be used except for 48
residential purposes.” Section 13 of Article V further provides that, “No noxious or 49
offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon 50
5
tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance or nuisance to the 1
neighborhood. There shall not be allowed on the aforesaid property any other things of 2
any sort whose normal activities or existences is in any way noxious, dangerous, unlikely, 3
odoriferous, noisy, unpleasant, or of a nature as may diminish, destroy the enjoyment of 4
other property in the neighborhood by the owners thereof.” 5
6
The property owners of Keith Arboretum acted without regard to the covenants or the 7
well-being of the residents of the Brights Way residential community. 8
9
THIRD: 10
The current landowners and their investors purchased the Keith Arboretum with full 11
knowledge of the conservation easements and covenants. 12
13
Thank you very much for your time. 14
15
Brian Dobyns said he has worked with many Orange County landowners and 16
residents, putting easements on their properties, and he has concerns about the 17
language in the conservation easements. He said easements need to be updated at 18
times, and there are ways that enforcement can be improved. He suggested that Orange 19
County and the landowner look at the easements, and monitor them better. 20
Marilee McTique read the following comments: 21
22
Good Evening, my name is Marilee McTigue, and I’ve lived in Bingham Township for over 23
25 years. 24
25
The community surrounding the Keith Arboretum and Pickard Mountain became aware of 26
proposed amendments to the Keith Arboretum Conservation Easement hours before the 27
April 17th BOCC meeting. We were shocked that potential amendments were being 28
considered that would weaken the conservation value of the easement just 12 years after 29
it had been established. We were also shocked that the proposal was put on the consent 30
agenda without adequate documentation, discussion, or community engagement. In 31
response, we mobilized the community and have reported our findings and issues to you 32
in a series of messages over the last few weeks. Suffice to sat, the issues we have 33
identified over the last three years are deeply disturbing to the local community and have 34
led to an environment of mistrust. 35
36
I remember when Commissioner Jacobs, Dave Stancil, Dr. Keith and many of our 37
neighbors gathered at Susan Walser’s home about 20 years ago to begin planning for 38
how to protect this regionally significant land. Bob Nutter kicked things off by putting 39
conservation easements on his property, and that was followed by Bill Burlingame, Hazel 40
and Everett Cheek, Nick and Carolyn Sartor, Tim Toben, and Dr. Keith. We are all 41
extremely grateful for their individual efforts to preserve this land that is a regionally 42
signif icant stand of chestnut oaks, wildlife habitat, and source of drinking water for 43
Chapel Hill. The County, and other easement holders, promised to protect the land and 44
enforce the easements “in perpetuity.” These properties are now changing hands as the 45
original owners move on with their lives, and the properties are being acquired by new 46
owners and real estate developers. I don’t think anyone anticipated the challenges these 47
ownership changes would rain down upon us, but the question of the level of 48
enforcement of these easements can no longer be ignored. It is unclear to us whether 49
the County is prepared to honor their promises to landowners and strictly enforce the 50
6
terms of the conservation easements as real estate developers come into this part of the 1
County looking for development opportunities. We worry that turning a blind eye to 2
easement violations and lax enforcement will set a precedent that leads to undesired 3
consequences in the near future. We also believe it will significantly impact the ability of 4
the County to attract new properties into the Lands Legacy program as landowners see 5
developers abused existing easements. If we are to protect this land into the future, the 6
County must now take up the challenge and defend these conservation easements with 7
strict interpretation and enforcement…even if it means litigation. 8
9
We believe the definition of the level of enforcement of the Keith Arboretum Conservation 10
Easement is a policy decision that falls squarely on the shoulders of the County 11
Commissioners….not the County Attorney, the County Manager, or the County staff. We 12
ask that you fully embrace this policy-making role, and direct the County Attorney and 13
staff to implement a conservative interpretation and strict enforcement of the terms of the 14
Keith Arboretum conservation easement. 15
16
We have been informed by the County Attorney that you are not able to meet id speak 17
with us, “due to the possibility that this issue may end up in litigation.” We find this 18
directive to be unacceptable. You are our elected representatives, and we have every 19
right to discuss topics of interest and concern in our community with each and every one 20
of you. We have seen meeting notes of at least one meeting between Commissioners 21
and the property owner, and the community requires the same level of access. We look 22
forward to this directive being reversed. 23
24
I’d like to close by letting you know that we are a very active and committed group of 25
community members who have frown up around the Keith Arboretum and Pickard 26
mountain, raised families here, and been the stewards of this land for decades. We are 27
tenacious and do not shy away from challenges. We will continue to monitor, investigate, 28
and report issues and advocate for the strict enforcement of all conservation easements 29
in this area. It is our goal to protect the conservation value of this area…and we will 30
continue to be good stewards of the land for decades to come. 31
32
George Buelher reviewed the following comments: 33
34
The Community requests Orange County to: 35
• Ensure that the conservation values of the original May 19, 2006 Keith Arboretum 36
Conservation Easement are strictly interpreted and enforced, now and in the 37
future, with NO changes. 38
• Proactively inspect the property and investigate all reports of potential 39
conservation easement violations submitted by the community. If it is determined 40
that a violation of the conservation easement is found, the County must ensure 41
that the conservation value of the property is restored and the property is put 42
back in its original state. 43
• Improve communication by: 44
o Engaging the community in a period of public comment when changes are 45
proposed for conservation easement properties. 46
o Improving communications between County departments so the 47
conservation values of the property are always known and of primary 48
interest….no matter which department is approached by a property 49
owner/developer. 50
7
o Creating a public web page listing all conservation easements in the 1
County. This searchable site should contain a copy of the warranty deed, 2
inspection reports, violation citation, maps, and all official forms of 3
communication with the property owner. 4
Nan Fulcher read a petition requesting the repeal of the resolution designating 5
section of highway as part of the “Jefferson Davis National Highway” in Orange County. 6
She asked if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) would consider this request 7
prior to its summer break. 8
Commissioner Jacobs said petitions are referred to agenda review with the Chair, 9
Vice-Chair, Manager, and Clerk to determine the process for consideration. 10
Terri Buckner said she is here to speak on behalf of the Orange County branch of 11
the Friends of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). She reviewed a petition that the Friends 12
of the MST presented to the Board on May 6. She said an email was sent by staff with 13
some updates, and said tonight she is asking if more action could occur. She said staff 14
estimates 2-3 years before trail building can begin, and experts say the trails will take 15
another 2-3 years to complete. She asked if the requests made at the May 6th meeting 16
could be added as an agenda item to the BOCC meeting on June 19th. 17
Allan Green was signed up to speak, but declined to do so. 18
Commissioner McKee referred to the petition about the Jefferson Davis highway, 19
and asked John Roberts if this resolution would have died on its own due to being over 20
50 years old. 21
John Roberts said the memorial highway never came into being, and the 22
proclamation was an act by the BOCC, and the current Board of County Commissioners 23
can retract this original proclamation. He said the original proclamation has no legal 24
effect today, as the project was abandoned. 25
Commissioner McKee asked if John Roberts was aware of this resolution from 26
1959. 27
John Roberts said he was made aware of it about a month ago, but had not heard 28
of it previously. 29
30
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 31
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda 32
below.) 33
34
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 35
Commissioner Marcoplos said GoTriangle will make free youth passes (13-18 years old) 36
available as of July 1st, which can be used anywhere in the GoTriangle system. He said 37
Orange County should publicize this information. 38
Commissioner Marcoplos spoke to Durham Tech President Bill Ingram about the 39
paramedic training course, and Durham Tech is planning to institute accredited and non- 40
accredited courses for paramedics. He read an email to this effect, and said this is underway at 41
Durham Tech and Orange County will continue to monitor this. 42
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is proposed legislation on building inspections, 43
which states if a local inspection cannot happen within two days, the builder can hire an 44
inspector from a statewide pool. He said the builder would pay for the inspector, but the local 45
fee for the inspection would be refunded. He said there is some grey area about whether an 46
engineer or an architect can inspect the foundation and footings, in lieu of local inspectors, if 47
they did the engineering for said foundation and footings. He said it is a strange bill, and he 48
would like to know what this bill would mean to the inspections department. 49
8
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is a member of the Government Affairs Committee for 1
the Homeowners Association, and attended a meeting last week with Chapel Hill planners 2
regarding future land use initiative, Chapel Hill Charting. He said the recommendations made 3
by the joint Homeowners Association and Chamber of Commerce Committee involved a lot of 4
issues of interest to the County, such as the Greene Tract, rural buffer, etc. He said the County 5
may wish to reach out to this group. 6
Commissioner Jacobs said three members of the Board of County Commissioners 7
attended a Keith Arboretum community meeting recently and there were issues raised about 8
how the County handles conservation easements. He said this plays into the issue of people 9
exploiting farm uses to put commercial enterprises into non-commercials areas of the County. 10
He suggested having the Attorney look into whether the presence of a conservation easement 11
on a property precludes some of the things that seem to many people to be circumventing rules 12
and regulations regarding the difference between agricultural and commercial areas. 13
John Roberts said a conservation easement and a property status as agricultural/farm is 14
two separate things, and the terms of a conservation easement takes priority over the farm 15
status, and must be honored and abided by. He said he attended the community meeting 16
referenced by Commissioner Jacobs. He said this meeting contained what was directed by the 17
Board of County Commissioners, which was to provide information about the proposed 18
conservation amendment easement, reiterating that this amendment had been withdrawn. 19
John Roberts said the property was inspected, and no violations were found, but a week 20
before this meeting Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) 21
Staff discovered a potential violation with a deck. He said staff contacted the property owner, 22
as is appropriate when a concern arises, and the property owner indicating a willingness to get 23
the deck into compliance, and seek the appropriate permits. 24
John Roberts referred to the assertion that the Board was advised not to meet with the 25
individual community members regarding this issue, and said he advised the BOCC not to meet 26
as a board with a community group on this issue. He said he stands by this advice, due to 27
potential litigation; however, it is appropriate for the BOCC to hear and engage individually with 28
constituents on multiple issues. 29
Commissioner Jacobs said perhaps the Manager and the Department of Environment, 30
Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) staff could look at the issues raised, and see if 31
any remedies exist that are necessary to be pursued. 32
Commissioner Price said students at Cedar Ridge High School (CRHS) had a 33
photography contest last week, and many students are here tonight in regards to another 34
project. She said she wanted to commend the students for their work and art show. 35
Commissioner Price said two students from C.W. Stanford Middle School, who won an 36
art contest sponsored by Food Lion, are giving their prize money to a local food pantry. 37
Commissioner Price attended the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 38
(NCACC) County Assembly Day, where there was a former commissioners’ panel, including 39
Senator Valerie Foushee. She said the most common issues across the State are education 40
and broadband. 41
Commissioner Rich said the bags at the Commissioners places are available at Food 42
Lion, and she purchased them for a dollar a piece. She said for each bag sold, Food Lion will 43
provide 6 meals. 44
Commissioner Rich said the Food Council met this week, and the Council will be 45
partnering with UNC Hospitals through a program called NowPow, which puts all providers’ 46
information into one app so families can see where to get food during the summer while school 47
is not in session. 48
9
Commissioner Rich said the aqua resolution, at the Commissioners’ places, came out of 1
agenda review and is about Net Neutrality. She said this will be on the agenda for the June 19th 2
meeting, and asked if any comments could be forwarded to her. 3
Commissioner Rich said last Friday was National Gun Violence Awareness day, and the 4
light blue petition at the Commissioners’ places refers to this. She said Chapel Hill, Carrboro, 5
and Orange County are part of this petition, which the Chair will sign. She petitioned for the 6
Town of Hillsborough to be asked to join next year. 7
Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. 8
Commissioner McKee said given the action of the Legislature on the light rail funding, 9
he asked if the Chair would request a response from Go Triangle by June 19th on how this 10
legislative action affects the plan; the purchase of the maintenance facility property; and 11
whether there is a plan B going forward. He said would also like to request a monthly financial 12
report from Go Triangle 13
Commissioner McKee said, about a year ago, there was petition about district elections 14
and making them more equitable. He said he is issuing this petition that by one of the fall 15
agendas, that staff bring forward the process by which the County could move to district-16
nominate, district-elect. 17
Chair Dorosin referred to, and read, the statement below: 18
19
Statement from Orange County Board of Commissioners concerning the North Carolina 20
state budget language that could eliminate state and federal funding for the Durham-21
Orange Light Rail project. 22
The Durham-Orange Light Rail Project was endorsed by county voters in 2011 and 2012. 23
In April of 2017, the County Commissioners of Durham and Orange County, along with Go 24
Triangle, agreed to a cost-share agreement that allowed the project to move forward to the 25
design and engineering phase. Along the way, it twice received high scores from the NCDOT 26
as well as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Currently about half of the design and 27
engineering work has been done and the project is on schedule to qualify for and receive a 28
50% share of project costs from the federal government. 29
30
We are disappointed that, after clearing multiple hurdles in an understandable, data-31
driven, non-political process, the North Carolina State Legislature has included language in its 32
current budget that would prevent the project from meeting federal guidelines, effectively 33
terminating the project. The language provides that state funding would not be released until all 34
other funding sources, including federal, have been secured. The FTA requires that all other 35
funding sources be secured before it releases funds. 36
37
If the intent of the legislation is to ensure that no state funds are spent before the federal 38
funds are granted, which is a reasonable requirement on behalf of the taxpayers of our state, a 39
revision to the wording of the budget in a technical corrections bill can clarify that matter and 40
allow the project to proceed. 41
42
The cost-share agreement provides that if either the state or federal funding is not 43
forthcoming, the parties to the agreement must meet and confer to modify the agreement. 44
45
The Orange County Commissioners pledged at the beginning of this process that we 46
would not spend more than the $149.5 million that we committed in the cost-share agreement. 47
As we consider the prospect of having to rework the cost-share agreement, we want to 48
reassure the residents of Orange County that we remain committed to this spending limitation. 49
50
10
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price, to 1
approve the statement. 2
3
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4
5
Chair Dorosin said the issue of charter schools is very relevant to the BOCC, and the 6
state budget includes the provision for municipalities to provide municipal tax funds for 7
education including for charter schools. He said there is also a bill in the works that will allow 8
municipalities to set up their own charter schools, and it is likely to pass. 9
10
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 11
12
a. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation – Multiple Farms 13
The Board considered approving applications from eight (8) landowners/farms to certify 14
qualifying farmland within the Caldwell, Cedar Grove, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural 15
Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Farmland Preservation; Voluntary and 16
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District programs. 17
18
BACKGROUND: 19
Orange County’s Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program was started in 1992. To date, there 20
are 93 farms in both the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary 21
Agricultural District (EVAD) program totaling 12,450** acres. If the BOCC approves the 22
additional eight (8) farms with 893 acres proposed below, there will be 101 farms in both the 23
Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District 24
(EVAD) program totaling 13,343** acres, equal to 5.2% of the 256,595 total acres in Orange 25
County. 26
27
The County’s Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance (VFPO) outlines a procedure for the 28
Agricultural Preservation Board to review and approve applications for qualifying farmland, and 29
to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the establishment and 30
modification of agricultural districts. Section VII of the VFPO contains the requirements for 31
inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district. To be certified as qualifying farmland, a farm must: 32
a) Be located in the unincorporated area of Orange County; 33
b) Be engaged in Agriculture as that word is defined in NC GS 106-581.1 34
c) Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United 35
States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two-thirds of the land 36
is composed of soils that are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, 37
forestry products, horticultural crops and oil seed crops; 38
d) Be managed in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and NC 39
Soil and Water Conservation Service defined erosion-control practices that are 40
addressed to said highly-erodible land; and have a current conservation farm plan 41
and/or forestry management plan associated with the current usages and owner; and 42
e) Be the subject of a non-binding conservation agreement, as defined in N.C.G.S. §121-43
35, between the County and the owner that prohibits non-farm use or development of 44
such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than 45
three lots that meet applicable County zoning and subdivision regulations. 46
47
The Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board reviewed the findings of the staff 48
assessments for the attached applications for the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District 49
program at its March and May 2018 meetings. All farm applications were reviewed and verified 50
11
to have met or exceeded the minimum criteria for certification into the program. The Agricultural 1
Preservation Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the certification for eight (8) 2
farms and their inclusion in the Voluntary and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District 3
program. The certification documentation is on file in the DEAPR/Soil and Water Conservation 4
District office. 5
6
Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 7
8
Orange County Voluntary 9
Farmland Preservation Program 10
Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary 11
Agricultural District Program 12
Orange County Board of Commissions Meeting 13
June 5, 2018 14
15
Orange County VAD/EVAD Program Benefits of Agricultural Districts 16
Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) is a 10 year commitment for farm to be in active 17
farm production, but the landowner can withdraw from the VAD at any time, for any reason, 18
with a 30 day notification to the Agri. Preservation Board. 19
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) is an irrevocable 10 year commitment 20
to be in active farm production, therefore the “enhanced” qualifies farm for up to 90% cost 21
share rates and a priority for state and federal grants funds. 22
23
Benefits include: (listing a few) 24
Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of 25
the county; 26
Recorded notice of agricultural district property is recorded at County Land Records 27
office; 28
Land search on all properties within a ½ mile radius has notification of the agricultural 29
status, therefore, the agricultural landowner has increased protection from nuisance 30
lawsuits. 31
Agricultural Preservation Board can request public hearings for proposed condemnation 32
of VAD land and utility assessments may be suspended or waived on EVAD land if not 33
connected to the utility. 34
Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still 35
maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only) 36
VAD District signs are placed on farms, for public to know location of VAD/EVAD farms 37
38
Mary Sue Woods Johnson (Agreement Revocable Trust) 39
• VAD – 90.44 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 1 parcel of land 40
• Corn, grain, soybean, hay crops, and managed woodland 41
• Currently has additional parcels of land in the VAD program 42
43
Vaughn and Marcia Compton – Compton Farms 44
• VAD – 44.3 acres- Cedar Grove Agricultural District – 2 parcels of land 45
• Tobacco, grain, hay crops, and managed woodland. 46
• Currently has additional parcels of land in the VAD program 47
48
Diane A. Pope, Baynes Anderson, Cindy Anderson 49
(Anderson family property) 50
12
• VAD – 41.0 acres – Cedar Grove Agricultural District - 1 parcel of land 1
• Tobacco, grain, hay crops and managed woodland 2
• Property farmed by Compton Farms 3
4
Frank and Susan Hollowell --Garrett II Limited Partnership 5
• VAD – 170.91 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 3 parcels of land 6
• Beef cattle, pastures, hay crops, and managed woodland 7
8
Debra W. Thornton and Pamella W. Patterson 9
• EVAD- 55.6 acres – White Cross Agricultural District -1 parcel of land 10
• Managed woodland with a Forestry Management plan 11
• Property borders Morgan Creek, and other Conservation Easement parcels 12
13
Phillip Walker 14
• VAD- 72.1 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 2 parcels of land 15
• Grain, sorghum, pasture and hay crops, beef cattle, and managed woodland. 16
17
Vernon Davis 18
(includes Davis Properties of Chapel Hill, LLC) 19
• VAD- 158.56 acres – White Cross Agricultural District – 7 parcels of land 20
• Beef cattle, pasture, hay crops, and managed woodland 21
• Farm is same family ownership for 100 + years) 22
23
Felicity Farms: Michael and Patricia Criscito 24
• EVAD/VAD - 259.71 acres – Caldwell Agriculture District –4 parcels of land 25
• EVAD = 245.71 acres ; VAD = 14.0 acres 26
• Livestock, pasture, hay crops, vegetables, and managed woodland 27
28
Orange County Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program 29
The Agricultural Preservation Board has approved the farm as presented. 30
31
Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept eight (8) farms into the VAD/EVAD 32
program. 33
591 acres* in the Voluntary Agricultural District 34
302 acres* in the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District 35
36
Total of acres in both programs= 893 acres* 37
* = rounded acres 38
39
Overall Map Acres in Programs 40
June 2018 41
VAD = 10,777 acres 42
EVAD = 2,566 acres 43
44
Total Acres* = 13,343 45
46
*rounded acres 47
48
Commissioner Jacobs said the map is indicative of one of the goals of having the VAD: 49
to accumulate clusters of farms in parts of the County that will be mutually supportive of each 50
13
other, as well as businesses that serve the agricultural community. He said when one adds the 1
VAD to the conservation easements; it is impressive work by staff and the agricultural 2
community. 3
Commissioner Price agreed, and thanked Gail Hughes. 4
Commissioner McKee said kudos to his sister, Gail Hughes, for jump-starting this 5
program. 6
Commissioner Rich said it would be nice to get an information item in the agenda about 7
the century farms. 8
Gail Hughes said staff will work on this. 9
10
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the 11
Board to certify the eight (8) farm properties noted above totaling 591 acres* (VAD) and 302 12
acres* (EVAD); designate the properties as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural 13
District farm within the Caldwell, Cedar Grove, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; 14
and enroll the lands in the Orange County Farmland Preservation Program; Voluntary and 15
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD and EVAD) programs. With approval of these 16
additional acres, the Orange County Farmland Preservation program will have enrolled 101 17
farms, totaling 10,777 acres** in the VAD and 2,566** acres in the EVAD for a total of 13,343 18
acres** (rounded) in the program. 19
*acres are rounded numbers 20
**acres have been corrected to reflect accurate acres, adjustments for enrollment changes and ownership 21
changes 22
23
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24
25
b. Bicycle Safety Campaign Presentation 26
The Board received a presentation from Planning staff regarding initial activities of the 27
Bicycle Safety Campaign, review several video public service announcements (PSAs) 28
completed by the Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club; and recognize the Videography 29
students and their instructor. 30
Abigaile Pittman, Planner, Land Use and Transportation, reviewed the following 31
information: 32
33
BACKGROUND: 34
The Board of County Commissioners received a Bicycle Safety Campaign Information Item at 35
its May 1, 2018 meeting. Tonight’s presentation is an update of the Campaign work. 36
37
The Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) of the OUTBoard was formed by the 38
OUTBoard in June 2017 to begin implementation of the “Drive Safely, Ride Safely” Campaign 39
developed by the Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) through its work in 2016-2017. The 40
Campaign is designed to foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety between 41
motorists and cyclists. 42
43
Initial Campaign Launch Activities 44
• The following activities have been, or are in the process of being completed in 45
collaboration with the Community Relations Department: 46
o The creation of the slogan ‘Ride Safely Drive Safely’ and logo; 47
o Design and distribution of brochures and posters; 48
o Social media ads and posts, and radio ads; and 49
o The design and launch of the orangecountyncbicyclesafety.com website; in 50
collaboration with the Community Relations Department. 51
14
• Production of four (4) video PSAs; purchase of branded marketing items, in 1
collaboration of the Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club and numerous 2
community volunteers and OUTBoard members. A list recognizing all Video PSA 3
volunteers is provided in Attachment 1. 4
• Bike rodeo/helmet initiative in collaboration with the Sheriff’s Department; and 5
• The design and installation of road signs in collaboration with the North Carolina 6
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Department of Environment, 7
Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) (for sign installation). 8
9
Next Steps 10
• Staff and the BSIS will continue to work on: 11
o The design and production of brochures and posters; 12
o W ebsite design and launch, and 13
o Circulation of the video PSAs. 14
• Attendance at local events will begin on July 1 at the Picnic in the Park at the Farmers’ 15
Market Pavilion in Hillsborough. 16
• The exact date for a Bike Rodeo will be coordinated with the Sheriff’s Department. 17
• Social media ads and posts, and radio ads will be underway by late summer. 18
• Road sign installation will occur in late summer or early fall, following completion of 19
encroachment agreements with NCDOT. The encroachment agreements will come to 20
the BOCC for approval on June 19. 21
22
Abigaile Pittman made the following PowerPoint presentation: 23
24
Bicycle Safety Campaign 25
Launch Activities 26
June 5, 2018 27
Item 4-b 28
29
Background: 30
Campaign designed to foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety between 31
motorists and cyclists. 32
Funds in FY 17/18: $10,000 from the General Fund and $5,000 from the Visitors Bureau 33
Occupancy Tax. 34
BOCC received an Information Item at its May 1, 2018 meeting. 35
36
Bicycle Safety Campaign Logo Versions 37
38
Bicycle Safety Campaign Road Signs 39
40
Video Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 41
The Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club and several media professionals from the 42
community have worked with the Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee to produce four 43
(4) video PSAs. Left to right: Jim Fink, Media Producer; Dario Muller, Rivers Andrews, Luis 44
Guiterrez, Zeke Cambey, Cameron Chaney, Madelyn Compton – Cedar Ridge Videography 45
Club members 46
47
Introduction of Videography Club Students and others from Cedar Ridge High School 48
that are here tonight 49
Andrea DeGette, Videography Instructor 50
15
Dario Muller 1
Cameron Chaney 2
Rivers Andrews 3
Madelyn Compton 4
Tyler Statkevicus 5
Zeke Cambey 6
Declan Cambey 7
William King 8
9
Video PSAs- shown 10
Riding Two Abreast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnKy5PxdVz0 11
4 Feet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dff7zPOmZ8k 12
Emergency Vehicles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsdgkQAY88 13
Reluctant Driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PsSy5CBGAo 14
15
Upcoming Campaign Launch Activities 16
orangecountyncbicyclesafety.com website 17
Social media ads and posts, print and radio ads 18
Brochures and posters distributed 19
Tabling at events with promotional marketing materials – 1st event will be 7-1 Picnic in 20
the Park in Downtown Hillsborough 21
Bike Rodeo/Helmet Initiative 22
Installation of bicycle safety road signs 23
24
Many Thanks for the Collaborative Assistance from Orange County Agencies 25
Community Relations Dept. (Todd McGee & Melissa Blackburn) – Design assistance, 26
website advice, and lots of patience! 27
Orange Grove Fire Co. Station 2 – hosted us for a video shoot, and provided traffic 28
control. 29
Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. – participated in a video shoot, and provided traffic 30
control. 31
DEAPR – agreed to assist with the installation of Campaign road signs. 32
AMS – Stored road signs in a secure location 33
Visitor’s Bureau (Laurie Paolicelli) – Funding, event information and distribution 34
BOCC – Thank you for funding us! 35
36
Commissioner Rich asked if links to these PSA videos will be on the Town websites as 37
well. Abigaile Pittman staff certainly plans to offer. 38
Chair Dorosin said he will reach out to the local mayors as well. 39
40
c. (was 8-h) Joining the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy 41
The Board considered voting to authorize the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange 42
County’s commitment to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested 43
by the Orange County Commission for the Environment. 44
Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, reviewed this item. 45
46
PUBLIC COMMENT: 47
Kathy Kaufman said climate change is costly, and change does not happen from federal 48
government, but starts at the local level. She said the Board of County Commissioners’ actions 49
are important, and she encouraged all to go fossil-free. She said Duke Energy is not going to 50
16
do anything, and there is a lot that the County can to do to make buildings more efficient and 1
there is a lot of committed expertise in the local community. She said the Clean Path 2025 plan 2
is an alternative plan to Duke Energy’s plan for new gas plants, as a way to achieve renewable 3
energy. 4
Kim Piracci said the Board of County Commissioners signed a resolution last September 5
for Orange County to be fossil-free by 2050, and she said the Commission for the Environment 6
is very active in this area, and Brennan Bouma, Sustainability Coordinator, said the Covenant of 7
Mayors lays out how to proceed. She said she hopes the BOCC will approve this. 8
Bill Black said he supported the other two speakers. He said this Global Covenant of 9
Mayors brings different solutions to this problem that they are willing to share, and by joining 10
this, Orange County would join a community seeking to address a common problem. He 11
encouraged the Board of Commissioners to support this. 12
Suzy Lawrence said she is in strong support of this letter, and joining this covenant will 13
make tools available. 14
15
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to 16
authorize the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange County’s commitment to the Global 17
Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested by the Orange County Commission 18
for the Environment. 19
20
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 21
22
John Roberts said two members of the public here tonight to speak to Item 8-d. He 23
asked if the Board would consider moving this item up. 24
The Board agreed by consensus. 25
26
8d. Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc. 27
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution regarding denial of a refund request 28
submitted by Sports Endeavors, Inc. 29
John Roberts said taxpayers are permitted to make refund requests for taxes believed 30
to have been collected for unlawful purposes, or where clerical error has occurred. He said 31
Sports Endeavors, Inc. has made such a request, which is before the BOCC now. He said staff 32
has studied the issue closely, and made a recommendation to deny the request. 33
John Roberts asked the BOCC to consider the Manager’s recommendation to deny. 34
Chair Dorosin clarified that the Manager’s recommendation is to deny this refund 35
request. 36
37
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to 38
approve the Manger’s recommendation, denying the refund request. 39
40
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 41
42
d. (was 11-b) Economic Development Advisory Board – Appointments 43
The Board considered making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory 44
Board. 45
46
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to 47
appoint the following to the Economic Development Advisory Board: 48
49
17
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #1) “Non-Profit Agency” for Barbara Jessie-1
Black expiring 06/30/2021. 2
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #2) “Tourism” for Anthony Carey 3
expiring 06/30/2021. 4
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #5) “Agriculture” for James Watts 5
expiring 06/30/2021. 6
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) “Core Business Community” for John Morris 7
expiring 06/30/2021. 8
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #8) “Core Business Community” for 9
John Anderson expiring 06/30/2021. 10
• Extension Reappointment of one year (Position #10) “Core Business Community” for 11
Mark O’Neal expiring 06/30/2019. (Extension of a term, is at the BOCC discretion 12
provided for in the “ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS 13
ADVISORY BOARD POLICY, Section III, Item D6. REFER TO RECOMMENDATION 14
MEMO). 15
16
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 17
18
5. Public Hearings 19
20
a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and Zoning Atlas Amendments – 21
Modification of Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements 22
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development 23
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment updating existing requirements for holding Neighborhood 24
Information Meetings (NIM) to be held a minimum of 14 days before said meeting and decide 25
on one of the following options: 26
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 27
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date 28
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 29
30
BACKGROUND: 31
NIMs are required for several types of projects (i.e. special use permits, conditional use 32
districts/conditional zoning applications, minor subdivisions proposing more than 33
5 lots through flexible development, major subdivision concept plan, government land uses, 34
etc.) and are typically required to occur before formal review commences (i.e. staff, Planning 35
Board, or BOCC). A synopsis of the current requirements is as follows: 36
37
1. Section 2.7.5 Special Use Permits (Class A or B not including telecommunication 38
facilities): NIM held a minimum of 45 days prior to public hearing. 39
STAFF COMMENT: Class A permit requests are reviewed by the BOCC during a 40
previously advertised public hearing, with review/recommendation made by the 41
Planning Board. The Planning Board typically reviews the item anywhere from 30 42
to 40 days prior to the anticipated public hearing. Class B permit requests are 43
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment during a previously advertised public 44
hearing with no recommendation/review required by the Planning Board. 45
46
2. Section 5.10.8 (B) (2) Telecommunication Facilities: 47
a. For Class A permit applications (i.e. 200 ft. and taller) a balloon test is held a 48
minimum of 11 weeks (77 days) prior to the public hearing. Staff attends the balloon 49
test and conducts the NIM on-site. 50
18
STAFF COMMENT: This request would be reviewed by the BOCC during a 1
previously advertised public hearing with a recommendation made by the 2
Planning Board. The Planning Board typically reviews the item anywhere from 30 3
to 40 days prior to the anticipated public hearing. 4
b. For Class B permit applications (i.e. 76ft to 199.9 ft.) a balloon test is held a minimum 5
of 6 weeks (42 days) prior to the public hearing. Staff attends the balloon test and 6
conducts the NIM on-site. 7
STAFF COMMENT: This request would be reviewed by the Board of 8
Adjustment during a previously advertised public hearing with no 9
recommendation/review required by the Planning Board. 10
11
3. Section 2.9.1 (D) Conditional Use District (CUD): NIM held a minimum of 45 days prior 12
to the public hearing. 13
14
4. Section 2.9.2 (D) Conditional Zoning District (CZD): NIM held a minimum of 14 days 15
prior to the public hearing. 16
17
5. 2.14.2 (B) Minor Subdivisions. For a minor subdivision utilizing the flexible development 18
option with more than 5 lots, a NIM is required once the concept application is accepted 19
for review (i.e. after determined to be complete) by staff. 20
STAFF COMMENT: Minor subdivisions utilizing the flexible development option 21
are acted upon by staff with no review made by either the Planning Board or 22
BOCC. 23
The UDO does not establish a specific timeline as to when this meeting is held. 24
Standard practice has been the NIM is held after the application is accepted but before 25
staff takes formal action on the application. 26
27
6. 2.15.2 (D) Major subdivision: NIM held a minimum of 14 days prior to the review of the 28
Concept Plan by the Planning Board. 29
30
7. Section 2.24.2 (A) Government Uses: Has to occur prior to the formal submittal of the 31
Zoning Compliance Permit/Site Plan application to the Planning Department for 32
processing. 33
34
Current regulations typically require a NIM to be held 45 days before a public hearing. For those 35
projects requiring review/recommendation by the Planning Board, this translates to a NIM being 36
held within a few days/a week before the Planning Board meeting where the project is slated for 37
review. Staff has heard from some members of the public, Planning Board members, and 38
elected officials that NIMs are typically occurring too close to the Planning Board meeting to be 39
of any real benefit. 40
41
To address these issues staff is recommending the following: 42
a. NIMS for: 43
• Non-telecommunication facility Class A Special Use Permits, 44
• CUD, and 45
• CZD applications 46
shall be required a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board’s scheduled review of 47
the item. Per the UDO notices of the NIM shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the 48
date of the meeting. 49
50
19
STAFF COMMENT: This is consistent with current regulations concerning the 1
holding of a NIM for a Major Subdivision Concept Plan and will maintain current 2
practice of ensuring the NIM is a minimum of 45 days before a scheduled public 3
hearing. 4
Staff is not recommending any change to the balloon test/NIM timeframe for 5
a. Class A Special Use Permit proposing a telecommunication facility 200 ft. and 6
taller, which is currently 77 days. 7
8
b. Amend Section 5.10.8 (B) (2) to require balloon test/NIM for Class B special use permits 9
to occur a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing rather than 42 days. Please 10
note the balloon test/NIM is still required to be held on a Saturday to ensure maximum 11
attendance. 12
STAFF COMMENT: Staff is recommending changing the timeframe to ensure 13
consistency with established practice that a NIM is held a minimum of 45 days 14
before a public hearing. 15
16
Staff believes these amendments will address some of the concerns staff has heard over the 17
turnaround time between NIMs and Planning Board meetings, establish desired uniformity 18
within the UDO where possible, and still allow for adequate time for local residents to become 19
informed of projects and required review processes. 20
21
For more information on NIMs please refer to Attachment 1. 22
23
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the 24
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment, as 25
contained within Attachment 4. 26
27
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to 28
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An 29
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are 30
included in Attachment 2. 31
32
Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Current Planning Supervisor/Planner III, 33
made the following PowerPoint presentation: 34
35
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM 5 (A) 36
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - Modification of Neighborhood 37
Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements 38
Orange County Board of Commissioners 39
June 5, 2018 40
Background 41
• A NIM is a public meeting where interested parties can review/discuss a project with 42
applicant/staff 43
• Required for several projects: 44
– Special Use Permits (non-telecommunication): Minimum of 45 days prior to a 45
public hearing. 46
– Telecommunication Facilities: 47
• Class A (i.e. 200 ft. and taller) balloon test/NIM held 11 weeks (77 days) 48
prior to a public hearing. 49
20
• Class B (i.e. 76ft to 199.9 ft.) balloon test/NIM held 6 weeks (42 days) 1
prior to a public hearing. 2
– Conditional Use District (CUD): 45 days prior to a public hearing. 3
– Conditional Zoning District (CZD): 14 days prior to a public hearing. 4
– Minor Subdivisions (flexible development more than 5 lots) before staff action on 5
request. 6
– Major subdivision: 14 days prior to Concept Plan review by Planning Board. 7
– Government Uses: Has to occur prior to the formal submittal of the Zoning 8
Compliance Permit/Site Plan application. 9
10
Issue: 11
• NIM typically 45 days before a public hearing. 12
• Projects requiring review/recommendation by Planning Board, NIMs being held within a 13
few days/a week before meeting. 14
• Members of the public, Planning Board members, and elected officials have expressed 15
concerns NIMs are occurring too close to the Planning Board meeting to be of benefit. 16
17
Proposal: 18
To address these issues staff is recommending: 19
• NIMS for: 20
– Class A Special Use Permits (Non-telecom facility), 21
– CUD, and 22
– CZD applications 23
be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board’s scheduled review of the item. 24
– STAFF COMMENT: Notices of NIM required to be mailed a minimum of 14 days 25
prior to the date of the meeting. 26
• Subdivision stays as is (already 14 days prior to Planning Board) 27
• Balloon test/NIM for Telecommunication Class B Special Use Permits occur 45 days 28
prior to the public hearing (rather than the current 42 days). 29
– STAFF COMMENT: Ensure consistency with established practice that NIM is 30
held minimum 45 days before a public hearing. 31
Amendments address concerns about time between NIMs and Planning Board meetings, and 32
works to establish desired uniformity. 33
34
Recommendation: 35
The Manager recommends the Board: 36
1. Receive the proposed amendments; 37
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment; 38
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional 39
comments at a later date are permitted); and 40
4. Decide on one of the following options: 41
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 42
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4). 43
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. 44
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 45
46
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the purpose statement on page 3, which states, “shall 47
be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the meeting.” He said this language was 48
not as clear as it might be, and he wondered to which meeting the language referred. 49
21
Michael Harvey said the amendment is to move the items before the Planning Board 1
meeting, so that becomes the effective component of this. He said, currently, it is measured 2
from the public hearing. He said the purpose statement reflects that the public hearing is the 3
operative meeting upon which date the meeting time frame has to be measured from. He said 4
the notices will still be mailed 14 days prior to the meeting, and if the BOCC approves this 5
ordinance amendment package, the 14 days will be measured from the Planning Board 6
meeting, as opposed to the public hearing. 7
Commissioner Jacobs said he understands that, but finds the written language seems to 8
refer to the public hearing, and it does not refer to the Planning Board meetings at the top, or 9
within the subject. 10
Commissioner Jacobs said to change the wording to make the reference to the specific 11
meeting. 12
Chair Dorosin said to change the purpose to read, “14 days before the Planning Board 13
meeting.” 14
Michael Harvey said he would do so. 15
Commissioner Price referred to the balloon tests, and asked if they would occur in 16
January or February. 17
Michael Harvey said no; the balloon test is typically held calendar days before a public 18
hearing. He said the ordinance used to require an annual telecommunication meeting, where 19
local telecommunication providers would meet with the County in January to certify what 20
problems needed to be reviewed. He said the ordinance also used to limit when Class A 21
Special Use Permits (SUP) could be reviewed. He said the ordinance was amended to provide 22
more flexibility, as well as to address the conflict between not being able to hold one class of 23
SUP and treat it differently than other classes of SUP. 24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for 26
the Board to open the public hearing. 27
28
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29
30
NO PUBLIC COMMENT 31
32
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the 33
Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional 34
comments at a later date are permitted). 35
36
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37
38
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the 39
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 40
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4). 41
42
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the change in language, as articulated by the Chair, is 43
included in the resolution. 44
Chair Dorosin said the word change is just in the abstract. 45
Michael Harvey said it is correct in the attachments. 46
47
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 48
49
22
b. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) – Home Park Conditional Zoning District 1
(HP-CZD) Acreage and Land Use Modifications 2
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development 3
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment modifying acreage requirements, specifically increasing the 4
maximum allowable size of the district from 50 to 100 acres, and including new permitted land 5
uses (i.e. public parks and government land uses) within the Home Park Conditional Zoning 6
District (HP-CZD) and decide on one of the following options: 7
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 8
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date 9
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 10
11
Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the information below: 12
13
BACKGROUND: 14
The County has begun investigating opportunities and constraints associated with the 15
development of affordable housing. This includes potentially allowing for development of 16
affordable housing units on County owned property in addition to existing, or proposed, 17
government facilities (i.e. offices, parks, etc.). 18
19
One opportunity being reviewed is the development of Manufactured Homes (i.e. Mobile 20
Homes) through the Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD) rezoning process. 21
Current regulations limit HP-CZD to a maximum allowable area of 50 acres. Staff is 22
recommending increasing the maximum allowable land area for said district be increased to 23
100 acres. 24
25
Further, staff has determined that parks and government facilities are not listed as permitted 26
uses of property within the HP-CZD. If the properties under consideration were rezoned, other 27
uses such as a public park could not be developed. The proposed amendment will address this 28
issue by allowing for the development of parks and government facilities within the District. 29
30
For more information please refer to Attachment 1. 31
32
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the 33
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment, as 34
contained within Attachment 4. 35
36
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to 37
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An 38
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are 39
included in Attachment 2. 40
41
Commissioner Price asked if any thought has been given to allowing parks in all 42
districts, such as commercial parks; and if blanket coverage can be done. 43
Patrick Mallet said this item refers to this particular district. 44
Chair Dorosin said maybe the Board can have more discussions about Commissioner 45
Price’s questions at a later date. 46
47
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for 48
the Board to open the public hearing. 49
23
1
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2
3
NO PUBLIC COMMENT 4
5
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to 6
for the Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, 7
additional comments at a later date are permitted). 8
9
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10
11
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the 12
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 13
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4). 14
15
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16
17
c. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments – Home Park Conditional 18
Zoning District (HP-CZD) Corrections 19
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development 20
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment correcting references to the Home Park Conditional Zoning 21
District (HP-CZD) within the UDO and decide on one of the following options: 22
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 23
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date 24
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 25
26
Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the information below: 27
28
BACKGROUND: 29
In January 2017 the BOCC approved a text amendment changing the name of the Mobile 30
Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD) to Home Park Conditional Zoning District 31
(HP-CZD). Unfortunately, there are still references to the MHP-CZD within the UDO thereby 32
creating conflict(s). The proposed amendments seek to correct these oversights and ensure 33
uniformity within the UDO. 34
35
For more information please refer to Attachment 1. 36
37
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends the approval of the 38
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment 39
contained in Attachment 4. 40
41
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to 42
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An 43
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are 44
included in Attachment 2. 45
46
Commissioner Rich referred to the wording changes from “mobile home park” to “home 47
park,” and asked if micro homes on wheels would be allowed to remain in the newly zoned 48
“home park.” 49
24
Patrick Mallett said there is just one category, and the micro homes on wheels would 1
classify as a temporary residential unit under that zoning district. 2
Commissioner Rich asked if the micro homes on wheels would still have to move every 3
180 days. 4
Patrick Mallett said yes, and these homes would be designated as temporary residential 5
units without permanent plumbing, wiring, etc. 6
7
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for 8
the Board to open the public hearing. 9
10
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 11
12
NO PUBLIC COMMENT 13
14
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to for the 15
Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional 16
comments at a later date are permitted). 17
18
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the 21
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 22
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4). 23
24
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25
26
d. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments – Subdivisions 27
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development 28
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment revising regulations governing the processing of subdivision 29
applications to incorporate recent changes in State law and decide on one of the following 30
options: 31
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 32
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date 33
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 34
35
Michael Harvey reviewed the following information: 36
37
38
• If the Concept Plan is approved, the property owner submits the Final Plat application, 39
which is completed by a land surveyor. 40
41
This Plat is reviewed/signed by Environmental Health (verifying septic areas have been 42
identified), Planning staff (certifying the project complies with applicable regulations), 43
and the appropriate School System (per the adequate public facilities ordinance). 44
45
There is a $140.00 application fee for this process as well. 46
47
The new law means a 3 lot division of property, meeting all criteria as contained herein, 48
is only obligated to submit a Final Plat containing the information required under NC 49
General Statute 47-30. 50
25
1
Staff cannot require they go through the Concept Plan application process or even apply 2
for Environmental Health (i.e. septic and well) review. 3
4
All staff can do is verify is that they meet the aforementioned applicable criteria. 5
6
Staff is proposing to amend the UDO to incorporate these changes in order to ensure local land 7
use regulations are consistent with applicable State law. Please note if the amendment is not 8
adopted, the County is still obligated to process requests consistent with applicable State 9
standards. Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of 10
the Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 4, and the UDO Text Amendment, 11
as contained within Attachment 5. Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 12
meeting, the Board voted unanimously 13
14
Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation: 15
16
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM 5 (D) 17
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Modification of Subdivision 18
Requirements per State Law 19
Orange County Board of Commissioners 20
June 5, 2018 21
22
Background 23
• On May 4, 2017 State law was modified (Session Law 2017-10) changing review of 24
subdivision proposals. 25
• Specific Changes: 26
1. Created a new category of Exempt Subdivision. 27
• STAFF COMMENT: Currently 4 categories of exempt subdivision 28
(Combination/recombination of existing parcels ; Division of land into 10 29
acre parcels ; Public acquisition of land for widening/opening streets ; and 30
Division of land in single ownership, parcel no greater than 2 acres, into 31
not more than 3 lots with no street dedication involved). 32
New category allows a division of property in accordance with the terms of a probated 33
will, or in accordance with intestate succession under Chapter 29 of the General 34
Statutes. 35
36
2. Limit local governments to requiring Final Plat (per State law) for division of land 37
meeting the following criteria: 38
– Proposal is not considered an exempt subdivision; 39
– Property has not been divided within the last 10 years; 40
– Parcel is greater than 5 acres in area; 41
– No more than 3 parcels are created; and 42
– Resultant lots comply with local dimensional/land use requirements and road 43
access is recorded/established. 44
45
Impacts 46
• Current regulations establish 2 tiered application process (Minor – 5 lots and under): 47
– Concept Plan: 48
• Scaled drawing showing proposed development (does not have to be 49
produced by surveyor). 50
26
• Allows staff (i.e. Planning, Environmental Health, etc.) to review and 1
comment on the proposal. 2
• There is a $140.00 application fee. 3
– Final Plat: 4
• Completed by surveyor. 5
• Approved by Planning, Environmental Health, and signed off by School 6
Board (CAPS). 7
• There is a $140.00 application fee. 8
• New law means a 3 lot division of property, meeting criteria, is only required to submit a 9
Final Plat containing the information required under NC General Statute 47-30. 10
• Staff cannot require they go through the Concept Plan application process or even apply 11
for Environmental Health (i.e. septic and well) review. 12
• All staff can do is verify is that they meet the aforementioned applicable criteria. 13
14
Proposal: 15
Staff is proposing to amend the UDO to incorporate these changes in order to ensure local land 16
use regulations are consistent with applicable State law. 17
18
Please note if the amendment is not adopted, the County is still obligated to process requests 19
consistent with applicable State standards. 20
21
Recommendation 22
The Manager recommends the Board: 23
1. Receive the proposed amendments; 24
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment; 25
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional 26
comments at a later date are permitted); and 27
4. Decide on one of the following options: 28
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 29
(Attachment 4) and Ordinance (Attachment 5). 30
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. 31
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. 32
33
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if well and septic systems still go through the process. 34
Michael Harvey said under the current regulator process, the County can compel people 35
to go through the process as part of concept plan review. He said applicants seeking an 36
expedited process are encouraged to voluntarily go through the process before they record, so 37
if there are any modifications to the plat, it is better to know this prior to paying fees to have the 38
document recorded. He said Environmental Health has tried its best to accommodate the fact 39
that State law says the process can be skipped, to a certain degree. 40
Commissioner Marcoplos said the intent here is to help people go through the process 41
more quickly. 42
43
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 44
for the Board to open the public hearing. 45
46
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 47
48
NO PUBLIC COMMENT 49
50
27
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to for 1
the Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, 2
additional comments at a later date are permitted). 3
4
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5
6
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs or 7
the Board to: 8
9
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency 10
(Attachment 4) and Ordinance (Attachment 5). 11
12
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich) 13
14
e. Orange County Consolidated Plan – Revised Annual Action Plan Update and 15
Proposed Uses of the FY 2018-2019 HOME Funds 16
17
Sherrill Hampton, Housing Director, reviewed the information below: 18
19
The Board received input from the public regarding the revised proposed Annual Action Plan 20
and update of the FY 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development 21
Programs in Orange County, as well as the revised proposed uses of FY 2018-2019 HOME 22
Funds and vote to close the public hearing. 23
24
BACKGROUND: 25
Orange County completed the required notice and public hearing process earlier and the Board 26
of County Commissioners approved, by resolution, the FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Update 27
and proposed uses of funds on May 1, 2018. However, HUD allocated a funding increase of 28
$111,647 from the anticipated HOME budget advertised on March 13, 2018 and discussed at 29
the Board’s public hearing held on April 3, 2018. Due to the substantial increase in funding, the 30
County is holding another public hearing on the use of the additional funds, and staff will 31
present the revised budget and proposed use of funds to the Board of County Commissioners 32
for final approval at the Board’s June 19, 2018 meeting. 33
34
The public hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested 35
parties to provide input as it relates to the revised annual update of the Consolidated Plan and 36
proposed Annual Action Plan. In addition, the public is asked to comment on the revised 37
proposed use of FY 2018-2019 Program Year funds. The Orange County HOME Consortium, 38
known as the Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing Collaborative, anticipates 39
the following Federal financial resources: 40
41
FY 2018 HOME Funds $401,340.00 42
HOME Program Income $ 13,306.00 43
HOME Match $ 90,302.00 44
Total $504,948.00 45
46
The above amounts are estimates only and may still be adjusted according to the exact 47
allocation received from HUD. 48
49
The HOME Consortium, known as the Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing 50
28
Collaborative, comprised of one (1) elected official and staff members from Orange County, the 1
Town of Carrboro, Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Hillsborough reviewed the applications 2
received and made recommendations regarding funding for consideration by local elected 3
officials in May 2018 as follows: 4
5
Community Home Trust -- Homeowner Assistance $ 60,201.00* 6
Empowerment, Inc. – Rental Acquisition $145,000.00 7
Habitat for Humanity – Homeownership $ 60,000.00 8
Orange County – Housing Rehabilitation $ 49,211.00 9
Orange County – County-wide TBRA $150,402.00 10
Administration $ 40,134.00 11
Total $504,948.00 12
(*-Denotes Orange County HOME Consortium’s CHDO Set-Aside) 13
14
See Attachment 2 for a revised summary description of the aforementioned projects and their 15
geographic locations. In addition, on May 22, 2018, the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service 16
(IFC) submitted a written request to withdraw its application for FY2018-2019 HOME funding. 17
IFC will no longer serve as the contract provider for the Rapid Re-Housing Program. Orange 18
County will assume responsibility once again for the program. The Housing and Community 19
Development Department will collaborate with the Orange County Department of Social 20
Services (DSS) to directly provide these services. DSS was the applicant for the funding 21
received under the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The Collaborative voted to accept IFC’s 22
request to withdraw its application and awarded those funds to Orange County as the County 23
will assume responsibility for providing the Rapid Re-Housing Program. 24
25
The requested amounts above may still be adjusted based on the exact allocation the HOME 26
Consortium receives from HUD. 27
28
The FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before July 2, 2018. This 29
Public Hearing is one of three (3) public hearings held as a part of Orange County’s 30
engagement of residents concerning local housing and community developments needs and 31
the HOME Program. For a proposed revised timeline of the complete process, see Attachment 32
3. 33
In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation, notice of 34
the public hearing and locations at which the public can review a draft of the revised proposed 35
Annual Action Plan have been placed in The Herald-Sun, News of Orange and La Noticia, as 36
well as sent to public libraries, local non-profit agencies and placed on Orange County’s 37
website. 38
39
Sherrill Hampton said the InterFaith Council (IFC) submitted a letter in May, asking that 40
its previous application for funds to be withdrawn. She said, since the County was assuming 41
control of the program again, she asked the Collaborative to allow the $25,000 to roll in to the 42
funds designated for countywide, tenant based, rental assistance. She said the Collaborative 43
concurred with that request, and that is the major change seen here. 44
Sherrill Hampton said a very minor change was also made. She said every year, under 45
HOME, the consortium is required to set aside 15% of the funds (minus administrative costs) 46
received to community housing development organizations (CHDO). She said Community 47
Home Trust is a CHDO, and she said the collaborative voted to accept their recommendation to 48
increase their award to $60,201, which takes care of the required set aside for the CHDO. 49
50
29
NO PUBLIC COMMENT 1
2
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner 3
Marcoplos for the Board to close the public hearing. 4
5
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6
7
6. Regular Agenda 8
9
a. Request for Approval of the HOME Community Housing Development 10
Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award 11
The Board considered voting to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution 12
approving the HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award 13
to Community Home Trust (CHT); and authorize the County Manager to execute the necessary 14
agreement(s) with Community Home Trust (CHT) after consultation with the County Attorney. 15
16
Sherrill Hampton reviewed the information below: 17
BACKGROUND: 18
The Orange County HOME Consortium, now known as the Local Government Affordable 19
Housing Collaborative, consists of Orange County, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and 20
Hillsborough. The County serves as the lead member of the Consortium. 21
22
The Orange County HOME Program has $63,200.30 in remaining FY 2016 and FY 2013 23
HOME funds, which are available for eligible activities to be administered by a Community 24
Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Of the aforementioned total available funds, 25
$46,529.40 is available for project activities and $16,670.90 is available for CHDO operating 26
funds. 27
28
In an effort to ensure that all remaining funds from the applicable fiscal years are obligated 29
and/or spent by the August 31, 2018 deadline, a request for proposals (RFP) was released on 30
April 13, 2018, requesting applications from nonprofit housing providers eligible as CHDOs. 31
Community Home Trust (CHT) responded to the RFP and submitted an application to provide 32
assistance for up to five (5) first-home homebuyers whose total household income does not 33
exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income. In addition, CHT also requested 34
CHDO operating funds to defray expenses associated with the sale of the units. 35
The Collaborative met on May 22, 2018 and voted to recommend approval of the award to 36
CHT. 37
38
Sherrill Hampton said Robert Dowling from CHT was unable to attend tonight but he is 39
appreciative of this opportunity. 40
41
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for 42
the Board to: 43
44
1) Adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution approving the HOME 45
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award to Community 46
Home Trust (CHT); and 47
2) Authorize the County Manager to execute the necessary agreement(s) with Community 48
Home Trust (CHT) after consultation with the County Attorney. 49
50
30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1
2
Bonnie Hammersley asked if the Board would move up item 7-b, upon the conclusion of 3
items 6-b and c. 4
The Board agreed by consensus. 5
6
b. General Obligation Bond Sale for Chapel Hill High School and Approval of Budget 7
Amendment #9-A Related to the FY 2017-18 Capital Investment Plan 8
The Board considered voting to approve Budget Amendment #9-A related to the FY 9
2017-18 Capital Investment Plan and adopt the attached General Obligation (GO) bond 10
resolution for Chapel Hill High School for the following purposes: 11
1) Formally authorize the sale of $64,400,000 in school bonds; 12
2) Formally pledge the County’s taxing power to provide for payment on the bonds; 13
3) Approve the proposed form of the bonds; 14
4) Approve the form of the draft official statement for use in offering bonds to investors; 15
5) State the County’s agreement to comply with the relevant provisions of federal tax law 16
and the federal rules for continuing disclosure to the securities markets; and 17
6) Authorize County staff to complete the process of issuing the bonds and authorizing 18
the final principal payment schedule. 19
20
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the information below: 21
22
BACKGROUND: 23
On November 8, 2016 voters approved $120 million in School Bonds of which the CHCCS GO 24
bond allocation is $72.1 million based on Average Daily Membership. 25
26
The current GO Bond Financing Plan includes the issuance of $64.4 million in School General 27
Obligation Bonds for a scheduled June 26, 2018 Bond Sale to be administered by the Local 28
Government Commission. The County issued $5 million in November 2017 for CHCCS of which 29
$3.6 million was used for the Chapel Hill High School and $1.4 million for the Lincoln Center. 30
The School GO bond funds earmarked for Chapel Hill High School is $68 million. 31
32
The Local Government Commission has approved the Financing Plan based on a Guaranteed 33
Maximum Price/Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) and satisfaction of key permitting 34
requirements prior to the issuance of General Obligation Bonds. 35
36
The CHCCS CMAR Agreement is similar to the County CMAR for the Sportsplex Fieldhouse. 37
38
The County and CHCCS have worked to develop a Financing Plan that meets the CHCCS 39
Cash flow requirements, County Debt Affordability, and Local Government Commission bond 40
approval requirements. 41
42
In accordance with the County Capital Investment Program and in advisement with the County’s 43
bond counsel and financial advisor, the County staff recommends that the County proceed with 44
the General Obligation Bond sale. 45
46
The actual interest rates on these bonds will be set when the Local Government Commission 47
takes competitive bids on June 26, 2018, and the bond closing is scheduled for July 12, 2018. 48
49
31
The Budget Amendment will allow the County to proceed with a General Obligation Bond sale 1
and closing. The original CHCCS School GO bond issuances included three tranches of bonds 2
every other year for CHCCS in the amount of $24 million with the last issuance in FY 2021-22. 3
This Budget Amendment allows the County to advance those bond issuances, and there will 4
only be $2.7 million of remaining CHCCS School Bonds to be issued in FY 2021-22. 5
6
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the 7
Board to approve the attached GO Bond resolution and related Budget Amendment #9-A for 8
Chapel Hill High School for the following purposes: 9
1) Formally authorize the sale of $64,400,000 in school bonds; 10
2) Formally pledge the County’s taxing power to provide for payment on the bonds; 11
3) Approve the proposed form of the bonds; 12
4) Approve the form of the draft official statement for use in offering bonds to investors; 13
5) State the County’s agreement to comply with the relevant provisions of federal tax law 14
and the federal rules for continuing disclosure to the securities markets; and 15
6) Authorize County staff to complete the process of issuing the bonds and authorizing 16
the final principal payment schedule. 17
18
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19
20
c. Limited Obligation Series 2018 Bonds 21
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution for the issuance of Series 2018 22
Limited Obligation Bonds (LOBS) with a not to exceed amount of $8.8 million to support the 23
County’s FY 2017-18 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The financing resolution: 24
1) gives final approval to allow the financing to proceed; 25
2) approves the form of the official statement; 26
3) states the County's commitment to comply with federal tax and securities laws; and 27
4) authorizes staff to complete the financing. 28
29
Gary Donaldson reviewed the information below: 30
BACKGROUND: 31
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 160A-20, the County seeks to issue approximately 32
$8.1 million in Series 2018 Limited Obligation Bonds. 33
34
The County conducted a public hearing at its May 15, 2018 Board of County Commissioners 35
(BOCC) meeting and received approval from the BOCC to proceed with the financing. The 36
notice of public hearing was advertised in The Herald Sun and The News of Orange. 37
38
If the Board adopts the resolution, the County plans to close on this financing on June 19, 2018. 39
Key terms of the financing include: 40
1) Issuing approximately $8.1 million to finance capital investment projects, equipment and 41
vehicles for the current fiscal year; 42
2) Estimate of maximum debt service applicable to these CIP projects would require the 43
highest debt service of $1.2 million in FY 2019-20; and 44
3) The tax rate equivalent for the estimated highest debt service is approximately .67 cents 45
46
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for 47
the Board to approve the attached financing resolution which gives: 48
1) final approval to allow the financing to proceed; 49
2) approves the form of the official statement; 50
32
3) states the County's commitment to comply with federal tax and securities laws; and 1
4) authorizes staff to complete the financing. 2
3
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4
5
7b. (moved up) Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update 6
The Board received a progress report on the 78-acre Millhouse Road Park site feasibility 7
analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and provide feedback to the Manager 8
and staff on the analysis and potential next steps. 9
10
Michael Fiocco, Civil Consultants, reviewed the information and brief PowerPoint 11
presentation below: 12
13
BACKGROUND: 14
At its January 23, 2018 meeting, the Board of Orange County Commissioners requested 15
information regarding the feasibility for the development of affordable housing options on two 16
County owned parcels totaling approximately 78 acres known as the Millhouse Road Park site 17
(note Attachment 1-“Aerial Site Illustration & Fact Sheet”). Staff collaboration has been working 18
on this analysis over the last several weeks, studying the parcels as a potential site for up to a 19
34 unit manufactured home park, given the growing community challenge with the availability of 20
safe, affordable housing units due to mobile home park redevelopment. For the purpose of this 21
analysis, either permanent or temporary housing units may be considered. The same site 22
feasibility parameters would apply to either temporary or permanent housing units. 23
24
The potential use of this site for housing would be in addition to the site’s potential use as a 25
soccer park in partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill according to the 2014 Orange County 26
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The property was acquired in 2004 and 2007 with 2001 27
Orange County Parks and Open Space bond funds. 28
29
Staff and Civil Consultants, the Site-Civil Engineering Firm engaged to assist in the feasibility 30
analysis, has examined the physical, land record, land-use, operational, and financial 31
characteristics that would support the dual use. Representatives from Civil Consultants will 32
present summary findings (note Attachment 2 – “Civil Consultants Feasibility Summary”) of the 33
feasibility study to the Board. All primary feasibility reports and analysis can be found at: 34
http://www.orangecountync.gov/Millhouse%20Road%20Park%20Housing%20Options%20Feasi35
bility%20Information.pdf 36
37
Transportation Infrastructure, Circulation, and Land Records Assessment. Adequate 38
onsite traffic circulation and off-site transportation infrastructure considerations appear feasible 39
and reasonable for a potential housing development. Land records assessments yielded no 40
findings that would inhibit the proposed development. 41
42
Environmental Considerations. An extensive set of environmental criteria have been 43
considered in this initial feasibility analysis, and would also apply to any design and operation of 44
a potential development. Initial environmental and cultural/archaeological assessments yielded 45
findings that would not inhibit the proposed development. 46
47
Soils, Hydrology, Public Water Supply Well, Wastewater, and Storm Water 48
Considerations. The most limiting set of factors emerging from this study involve soils, on-site 49
public well and wastewater capacity and wetlands. The available quantity and quality of on-site 50
33
soils for sanitary septic compatibility, in addition to the wells and wetlands pose significant 1
challenges to the development of a manufactured home park on this site. Based on a 2
preliminary site evaluation by a licensed soil scientist, there is insufficient area of usable soils 3
for a subsurface wastewater treatment and disposal system of adequate capacity to support the 4
contemplated development. An on-site septic system, if possible, would include a containment 5
lagoon for either a surface drip or surface irrigation system. 6
7
Delineation of jurisdictional and isolated wetlands onsite introduces considerable site planning 8
challenges and preliminary site grading analysis requires some soil import for site balancing. 9
10
Although constructing (multiple) public water supply wells is theoretically possible on the site, 11
County environmental health representatives opine that obtaining the flow volume required for 12
the contemplated development (minimum of 7,000 gallons per day for a 28 lot manufactured 13
home park alone) is questionable. The only definitive method for measuring water flow volume 14
is to dig test wells at a cost of approximately $45,000. Moreover, the North Carolina Public 15
Water Supply Section, as well as the Orange County Environmental Health Services Division, 16
must permit public water supply wells. The close availability of Orange Water & Sewer Authority 17
(OWASA) public water (within an estimated 500 feet) may be a negative factor in obtaining the 18
required state permit(s). 19
20
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Options. Because of the lack of adequate subsurface soil 21
to support a sanitary septic system, pre-treatment surface drip or spray irrigation system with a 22
containment lagoon or a state-approved innovative package sewer system could be considered 23
for this site. Stream discharge, which is required for the innovative package sewer type system, 24
is physically possible, but requires an exhaustive permitting process by the North Carolina 25
Division of Water Resources (“NCDWR”). The proximity of existing sanitary sewer mains (within 26
an estimated 1,200 feet) at the Town of Chapel Hill Town Operations Center would likely be a 27
strong contributing factor against NCDWR issuing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 28
System (NPDES) discharge permit for a free-standing innovative package treatment facility on 29
this site. Significant ongoing operation, maintenance, and reporting are required for this type of 30
treatment facility, should such a permit be obtained. 31
32
Conceptual Land Planning. Attachment 3, ”Conceptual Land Plans”, illustrates two “bubble 33
plan” options for the layout of the site. These illustrations depict areas that would support 34
approximately 28 mobile home park lots, a soccer park area generally contemplated by the 35
Orange County-Town of Chapel Hill partnership, and required development features supporting 36
these uses. Note that the delineated wetlands in plan option 3b would reduce the acreage 37
available for soccer use by approximately 30%. 38
39
Availability of OWASA Water and Sewer Service. Adequate water and sewer capacity is 40
located on the adjacent parcel east of the County parcel assembly; however, current land use 41
and utility extension policies prohibit the extension of these facilities. 42
43
Land Use Considerations; Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”); 44
Joint Planning Area Assessment. The parcels are located within the Rural Buffer as 45
designated in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and on the County’s Future Land Use Map and 46
Zoning Atlas. 47
Site-built residential uses in the Rural Buffer must adhere to a minimum lot size of 2 acres per 48
unit. Housing units may be clustered while still adhering to a 2-acre per unit density requirement 49
which would yield up to 34 housing units on the site. Development of a home park will require a 50
34
rezoning to the Home Park – Conditional Zoning (“HP-CZ”) district and the standards for home 1
parks in section 5.5.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”) will have to be met. 2
3
The Joint Planning Land Use Plan designates the area in which the parcels are located as the 4
“Joint Courtesy Review Area” which means that the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro must be 5
provided the opportunity to review and comment upon development proposals. Final approval 6
authority rests solely with Orange County. 7
8
On-site Public Well Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Limiting Factor 9
Comparison. Note Attachment 4, “Infrastructure Limiting Factor Comparison”. This summary 10
provides a comparative view of the feasibility of the Millhouse Road Park site across four 11
constraining factors for the development of a manufactured home park on this site: 1) 12
community public well water supply; 2) subsurface septic installation; 3) innovative sewer 13
treatment package installation with discharge; and 4) extending OWASA water and sewer 14
services. The comparative illustration also provides estimated timelines for entitlement and 15
construction as well as associated costs. 16
No issues with cultural resources. 17
18
Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Analysis 19
June 5, 2018 20
21
Purpose 22
• For the Board to receive a progress report on the 78 acre Millhouse Road Park site 23
feasibility analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and 24
• Provide feedback to the Manager and staff on the analysis and potential next steps. 25
26
Background: 27
28
• Property acquired in 2004 and 2007 for a potential soccer park in partnership with the 29
Town of Chapel Hill 30
• Acquisition funded with 2001 Orange County Parks and Open Space bond funds 31
• Board requested feasibility study for affordable housing as an additional use to soccer 32
park 33
• Collaborative Feasibility Study process 34
– Civil Consultants, Site-Civil Engineering and Land Planning 35
– Orange County Staff: 36
• County Manager’s Office 37
• Asset Management Services 38
• Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation 39
• Environmental Health 40
• Housing and Community Development 41
• Orange County Planning 42
– 3rd party consultants for environmental, cultural/archaeological, land record 43
research 44
45
Aerial Site Illustration and Fact Sheet- map 46
47
Breadth of Study, General Findings 48
• Land Record 49
• Environmental Site Assessment 50
35
• Cultural and Archaeological Site Assessment 1
• General Site Civil Land Planning 2
• Hydrology and Wetlands Assessment 3
• Onsite Septic and Water Feasibility 4
• OWASA Services Capacity; Land Use Ordinance Modification 5
6
Concept Site Plan “A”- 7
Key feature – there could be isolated wetlands in middle of proposed soccer complex – their 8
consultants are waiting to meet with the state; if wetlands are less than half an acre the Board 9
of County Commissioners can remove these and develop. This lay out is more appealing to 10
Millhouse Road buffering and more of a neighborhood block feel. 11
12
Concept Site Plan “B” 13
This is very close to not disturbing the wetlands but may affect the county’s rural buffer. This is 14
a more linear site and not as neighborly as concept A. 15
16
Utility Infrastructure Key Factors comparison (chart) 17
18
Housing Unit Development Cost Comparison (chart) 19
20
Discussion, Q&A: 21
• For the Board to receive a progress report on the 78 acre Millhouse Road Park site 22
feasibility analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and 23
• Provide feedback to the Manager and staff on the analysis and potential next steps. 24
25
Commissioner Jacobs said this is not a thorough report, because this is a park. He said 26
there is a goal of providing affordable housing, but there in no examination of the property to 27
show the environmental values embodied on the property. He said there is no map of the 28
environmental character of this property, and that which the County may wish to preserve. He 29
said he would like DEAPR to provide a map, information about mature hardwoods, obliterating 30
wetlands, and the purpose of buying the park in the first place. He said he understands why 6 31
soccer fields may be desirable, but the Board never discussed this number. He said his main 32
purpose in looking at this land was to accommodate manufactured housing on a site that is 33
proximate to services, schools, and could remain part of the community. 34
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to first consider the reasons this property was 35
purchased at all. 36
Commissioner Jacobs said there is no such thing as a passive park. He said this is a 37
low impact park, and this is an inexact report. 38
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to consider the likely consequences of 39
providing water and sewer. 40
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if three test wells are necessary to learn what type of 41
water flow may be present. 42
Michael Fiocco said yes; staff strongly recommended this. 43
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if possibilities and probabilities could be learned from 44
one well. 45
Michael Fiocco said there is the possibility that one well could produce the water for the 46
property, but the long experience of staff in this area of the County points to that being unlikely. 47
Commissioner Marcoplos said one well may deliver enough water for the soccer players, 48
without bringing water from Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). 49
Michael Fiocco said there are many architectural decisions to be made. 50
36
Commissioner McKee referred to the last slides on cost per lot, and asked if the total 1
cost per lost could be identified, if well and septic were used. 2
Michael Fiocco said $102,000, and $89,000 per lot with OWASA. 3
4
PUBLIC COMMENT: 5
Josh Kirschner said he lives on Millhouse Road. He said the study, as presented today, 6
still contains many items for discussion: the lack of water on the site, poor soil condition for 7
water and septic sites, wetlands, rural buffer, repaying the parks fund for the 10 acres being 8
used, and the $2.2 to $2.8 million cost of the infrastructure. He said the time frame for this 9
project is for 20 months, and he thought the County was planning this as a rapid response to 10
residents in need of housing. He said he admired what the County is trying to do, but this site 11
does not fit any of the criteria that the County is trying to accomplish, without jumping the 12
significant hurdles. He said the biggest hurdle is water and sewer, and right across the street is 13
flat piece of property owned by Chapel Hill that has water and sewer, is on a bus route, and 14
within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. He asked if there is a reason the County is not 15
considering this land. He said the property in question was purchased for a park not a 16
residential area, and Julia Blackwood would have wanted this land kept as a park. 17
Cecil Griffin said he has lived in Orange County for a long time, and he has been 18
involved in past disputes for this same land. He said spending money considering a property, 19
only to find out it is not a viable option, is not wise. He said Commissioner Jacobs mentioned 20
setting aside parkland, and now the Board wants to make it a residential area, which does not 21
make much sense. He said due to the fight against putting a landfill on this property, there is a 22
detailed study of the wells in the area, including his, that was done by a Duke University 23
graduate student, and found that the water is not very good quality. He said the only way to pull 24
this project off is to get OWASA’s water and sewer, which may not even be possible. He said 25
what if he wanted to put a mobile home park on his adjacent land the County would laugh at 26
him. He said there is a man that lives near Morris Grove School, who lived in a mobile home, 27
with well and septic, which deteriorated. He said this man came to Orange County to put 28
another mobile home on the site, and the County told him he could not do it. He urged the 29
County to stop spending taxpayer money to pay for consultants. 30
Shane Purner asked if the County has explored other sites that are inside of Chapel Hill 31
for this mobile home park, since most of these residents are from Chapel Hill. He said Orange 32
County should explore options that have the infrastructure already in place. He said there is 33
already a well on the property of Julia Blackwood’s home. 34
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there are any details available regarding the land 35
across the street that is owned by the Town of Chapel Hill. 36
Chair Dorosin said only that Orange County does not own it. 37
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is an interesting thought to pursue. 38
Commissioner McKee said the more he sees this project, the less he likes it. He said 39
the County would do better to buy land, with water and sewer, and put a park on it. He said to 40
do this project on well and septic, when OWASA services are across the street, would be 41
insane. He said the property across the street makes more sense to him, and the County and 42
the Town of Chapel Hill have been discussing partnerships for a long time, and this would be a 43
great opportunity. He said the residents in need currently live in Chapel Hill school district, and 44
this property is in Orange County. He said school boundaries may need to be amended, which 45
does not seem like a good idea. He said this property looks worse and worse with each 46
update. 47
Chair Dorosin said learning this information is exactly why the County hired the 48
consultant. 49
Commissioner McKee said he was supportive at one time, but is not so much now. 50
37
Commissioner Jacobs said he does not have an opinion yet, but he wants to have an 1
informed opinion. He said this is a park with environmental features, and he would like to know 2
what those are. 3
Commissioner Jacobs said Chapel Hill is not interested in offering their site, since this 4
conversation has been ongoing for about a year, and the Town has never brought up its site. 5
He said Orange County may be able to buy the property. He said staff could inquire of the 6
Town. 7
Commissioner Rich said some Commissioners were not on this board when this 8
property was purchased for a park with soccer fields, and she would like to see the information 9
from that time. She said it would be helpful to see the context of the property itself. 10
Commissioner Jacobs said the Board did not discuss what it wanted to have on this 11
property when it was purchased. He said there was one Commissioner and the County 12
Manager who had ideas for the property. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos said this information is not wasted, and he thinks it is a good 14
idea to ask Chapel Hill about the land across the street. 15
Chair Dorosin said he would bring it up to the Chapel Hill Mayor this week. 16
Commissioner McKee said if soccer fields are built, Chapel Hill residents will mostly use 17
them, and they would need to have a reciprocal agreement. 18
Chair Dorosin said on the question of context, it is good to have this information before 19
spending more money on wells. He said the Board took this action because many residents 20
were going to lose their homes. He said he will talk to the Mayor; have staff look at other sites; 21
this is part of a broader discussion on affordable housing; and this is outside of the water and 22
sewer boundary, but incremental changes could be made to this boundary. He said the 23
boundaries and school lines have all been put in place by the Commissioners, and change is 24
possible. He said it seems the Board would like more information about the context of the 25
property; to consider other sites, and asking partners about possible options; and more 26
information on the timeline for the displacement of mobile home residents; 27
Commissioner Price asked if water and sewer are across the road, why would the 28
County put well and septic on the other side. 29
Commissioner McKee asked Mr. Griffin if he would give him the name of the man who 30
could not replace his mobile home. 31
Bonnie Hammersley said there is not a master plan, because Chapel Hill has not 32
participated. She said staff will talk with partners, and do nothing more with this site without 33
bringing more information back to the Board. She said staff will also look at other sites. 34
35
d. Orange County's Proposed 2018 Legislative Agenda 36
The Board considered: 37
1) Reviewing and discussing the Legislative Issues Work Group’s (LIWG) proposed 38
2018 legislative package and any other potential items for inclusion in Orange 39
County’s legislative agenda package for the 2018 North Carolina General Assembly 40
Session; 41
2) Consider approval of one proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide 42
Issues; 43
3) Consider approval of one proposed legislative matters resolution on the North 44
Carolina Association of County Commissioners 2018 Short Session Priorities and 45
Goals; and 46
4) Confirm five specific items from the entire package to highlight as priorities for 47
Orange County. 48
49
38
Greg Wilder, Assistant to County Manager for Legislative Affairs, presented the 1
following item: 2
3
BACKGROUND: 4
The 2018 North Carolina General Assembly “short session” convened on May 15, 2018. The 5
Board of Commissioners has historically appointed a Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG) to 6
work with staff to develop a proposed legislative package for the County. Based on the work of 7
the LIWG, the BOCC then reviewed and approved packages of legislative items to present to 8
Orange County’s legislative delegation. 9
10
For 2018, and in contrast to past years, the Board of Commissioners invited the three members 11
of Orange County’s legislative delegation to the April 17, 2018 regular Board meeting to discuss 12
issues of concern to the Board of Commissioners and the legislative delegation. Board 13
members conversed with members of the delegation, and members of the public also had the 14
opportunity to comment. 15
16
Following the discussion, the Board provided direction to staff and Commissioners Mark 17
Dorosin and Penny Rich, as the 2018 Board appointees to the Legislative Issues Work Group, 18
to bring a 2018 legislative package back to the Board for approval. The LIWG members have 19
subsequently consulted with each other and all seven BOCC members and developed the 20
attached package consisting of the three attached documents. 21
22
The first attached document is a draft listing of potential 2018 Orange County Priority 23
Legislative Issues (Attachment 1). This document was developed based on feedback from 24
Board members on the items included in second attachment to this abstract. 25
26
The second attached document is a proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide 27
Issues (Attachment 2). It includes legislative issues the Board has addressed in past years as 28
well as 29
two new items – Restoration of School Impact Fee Authority and the 3DaysCount™ initiative. 30
31
The third attached document is a proposed resolution expressing general support for the North 32
Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) 2018 Short Session Priorities and 33
Goals (Attachment 3). However, the draft resolution also details two qualifications to that 34
support regarding an item related to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and a second 35
item opposing NCACC’s goal to repeal the statutory authority under North Carolina General 36
Statute 115C-431(c) that allows local school boards to file suit against a county board of 37
commissioners over county appropriations for education. 38
39
The Board will need to discuss and consider both legislative matters resolutions (Attachments 2 40
& 3) as provided by the LIWG. Following consideration of the resolutions, the Board will likely 41
want to discuss and consider the draft listing of potential 2018 Orange County Priority 42
Legislative Issues (Attachment 1). 43
44
The work of the Legislative Issues Work Group to this point is based on the current information 45
available for the 2018 General Assembly Session. The issues addressed by the Group may 46
evolve and change over the session and require additional attention by the Group and Board of 47
Commissioners. New issues may also arise necessitating additional review. 48
49
2018 ORANGE COUNTY PRIORITY LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 50
39
Expansion of Medicaid Program 1
Support legislation to increase access to the Medicaid program to make health insurance 2
available to approximately 500,000 more North Carolina residents and as additional support for 3
rural hospitals. 4
5
Item #3 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits 6
7
Priority School Issues 8
Support legislation to address the following issues related to schools: 9
a) * Provide local school systems with calendar flexibility; 10
b) * Provide full funding for State allotments including Average Daily Membership (ADM) 11
growth, and support legislation to provide for an overall increase in funding based on 12
average daily memberships outside of the current formula system; 13
c) Impose class size reductions commensurate with State funding for staffing; and 14
d) Maintain full funding for Driver Education; 15
Item #16 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits 16
* Also see the attached Resolution Regarding the North Carolina Association of County 17
Commissioners 18
2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals with Exhibit – Goals PE-3 and PE-4 19
20
Minimum Wage Increase 21
Support legislation to raise the minimum wage to enhance people’s economic security, improve 22
access to safe and secure housing, boost the economy with increased spending, decrease 23
dependence on government assistance programs, and improve the lives of families. 24
25
Item #7 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits 26
27
* Broadband/Digital Infrastructure 28
Support legislation, funding, and other efforts that provide counties with flexibility and 29
opportunities to support options for increasing access to high-speed internet connectivity and 30
expanding digital infrastructure/broadband capability to the un-served and under-served areas 31
of the state. Access to high speed internet connections will reduce disparities, enhance quality 32
of life for all the State’s residents, and broaden opportunities in areas such as education, jobs 33
creation, small business development, health care, civic participation, and growth in farm 34
enterprises. 35
36
Item #19 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits 37
* Also see the attached Resolution Regarding the North Carolina Association of County 38
Commissioners 39
2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals with Exhibit– Goal GG-3 40
41
Restoration of School Impact Fee Authority 42
Support legislation restoring Orange County’s long-held authority to levy impact fees on new 43
residential development to help pay for school construction. The North Carolina General 44
Assembly approved legislation in 1987, amended in 1991 and 1993, authorizing Orange County 45
to impose impact fees to support public school infrastructure. Orange County utilized these 46
funds to fund school construction needs. On June 20, 2017 the General Assembly approved 47
House Bill 406/Session Law 2017-36 stripping Orange County of the authority to levy the impact 48
fee. Orange County requests restoration of the authority to levy the fee to support school facility 49
needs. 50
40
Item #41 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits 1
2
Commissioner Rich said the way this was done this year left the Board somewhat 3
uncomfortable. She said the Board may want to discuss this at a later meeting, and possibly 4
return to the legislative breakfast format. 5
Chair Dorosin said he is surprised to hear that, and the outcome is the same as it is 6
every year. 7
Chair Dorosin said the priorities should include some of the things deemed likely to be 8
more successful, by legislative delegation, such as broadband and school issues. He said the 9
impact fee authority could be moved under the priority school issues, thus having 4 priorities 10
instead of 5. 11
Chair Dorosin asked if there is specific criticism of the process. 12
Commissioner Burroughs said the delegation thought it was not much of a dialogue. 13
Commissioner Jacobs said he thought the Board got answers that were couched for the 14
public, as opposed to a part of a conversation with the BOCC. 15
Commissioner Marcoplos said when a meal is shared together, there is more latitude 16
with the discussion, and it is conducive to a better relationship with the delegation. 17
Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos and Commissioner 18
Jacobs, and that face time with the legislative delegation in an informal setting bears more fruit. 19
He said it is a much more careful process with the cameras on; and while the outcome may be 20
the same, the old process is better. 21
Chair Dorosin said it is disheartening to think a public meeting is less effective than a 22
private one. 23
Commissioner Price said she has not discussed this with the delegation, but it felt 24
strange for the Board of County Commissioners to be on a dais, while the delegation was on 25
the floor. She said she thought that there was confusion about the process, but the results 26
were about the same. 27
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is not a matter of transparency, but in a regular meeting 28
the Board tries to do things more efficiently out of respect for everyone’s time. He said the 29
breakfast meeting is more relaxed, and allows for greater conversation. 30
Commissioner McKee said he is not criticizing the Chair’s leadership, but it seemed to 31
flow better in their legislative breakfast process. 32
Chair Dorosin said he appreciated the Board’s feedback. He said any time the Board 33
talks with the legislature, the Board seems to feel cowed by it, and this is disheartening. 34
Commissioner Rich agree with the suggestion of putting the school impact fee under 35
school priority issues. 36
Commissioner McKee said he will not vote against it, but in his experience in Raleigh 37
adding impact fees under the schools may taint all of the other school issues. 38
Commissioner Burroughs said she supports the list of 5 proposed. 39
40
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner 41
Marcoplos for the Board to: 42
43
4) Confirm five specific items from the entire package to highlight as priorities for Orange 44
County (Attachment 1). 45
46
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 47
48
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to 49
41
Consider approval of the proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide Issues 1
(Attachment 2). 2
3
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4
5
Commissioner Marcoplos said he thought the issue with the school board authority to 6
sue had been resolved. 7
Chair Dorosin said it is pending, and has yet to be passed. 8
9
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 10
approve: 11
12
The proposed legislative matters resolution on the North Carolina Association of County 13
Commissioners 2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals (Attachment 3). 14
15
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16
17
18
7. Reports 19
20
a. Update on the Manufactured Home Park Initiative 21
The Board received an update on the activities undertaken to date, as well as those that 22
are upcoming, as it relates to the County’s Manufactured Home Park Initiative. 23
Sherrill Hampton said the mobile home park issue is a small part of a bigger picture, and 24
Orange County has done so much more for affordable housing, and she is glad to be a part of 25
these efforts. 26
Sherrill Hampton reviewed the information below: 27
28
BACKGROUND: 29
The last update provided to the Board occurred on March 20, 2018. At that time, there were two 30
(2) manufactured home parks in threat of closure – Lakeview in Chapel Hill and Homestead 31
located on NC 86 South. Residents in the Homestead Mobile Home Park were given until 32
March 31, 2018 to relocate. The County is leading the effort to provide relocation options for 33
these residents. Since that time, the County staff worked with the park owner to secure an 34
extension until June 30, 2018 as it relates to the deadline for residents to relocate. 35
36
During the March 20th regular BOCC meeting, the Board approved the parameters for a 37
contract with EmPOWERment to provide relocation coordination services for the Homestead 38
Mobile Home Park residents. The listing below details the efforts undertaken by staff since mid-39
March 2018. 40
41
RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES: 42
• On March 17, 2018 - County staff met with the residents of Homestead Mobile Home 43
Park to discuss and evaluate potential options for relocation. Residents did not select 44
the option of securing units in a multi-family complex owned by a local nonprofit in 45
Chapel Hill. All families selected the option of an alternative manufactured home park. 46
County staff continues efforts to identify housing options based on the families’ selection 47
preference. 48
• March 21 – March 23, 2018 – County staff refined required features of the proposed 49
new manufactured units, especially those that add to the sustainability of the units, 50
42
including energy efficiency and durability. Several manufactured home dealers were 1
identified and County and EmPOWERment staff began contacting these dealers to 2
secure written quotes. Staff from EmPOWERment began identifying other perspective 3
manufactured home parks in an effort to assist the County given the BOCC’s approval 4
of the contract parameters and the time-sensitivity of the proposed relocation. 5
• March 25, 2018 – County staff received an email from the Homestead Mobile Home 6
Park owner as it relates to agreeing to extend the deadline for relocation to June 30, 7
2018. County staff, on March 26th, notified the park residents, County Manager, 8
EmPOWERment and BOCC about the deadline extension. County staff also checked 9
with the residents to ensure they received the formal extension letter from the park 10
owner. 11
• March 30, 2018 – County staff and an EmPOWERment representative visited 12
manufactured home dealers to view several models. 13
• March 31, 2018 – County and EmPOWERment staff facilitated a site visit for two (2) of 14
the three (3) families to be relocated. The site visit was at the Quick Silver Mobile Home 15
Park on Highway 70 East. This manufactured home park could only accommodate 2-16
bedroom units at the time. EmPOWERment staff was having difficulty identifying 17
alternative parks with available lots for rent. 18
• April 10, 2018 – Applicable Homestead Mobile Park residents returned their 19
“Acceptance/Rejection” Forms. The applicable families rejected the Quick Silver 20
location. 21
• April 18, 2018 – Affordable Housing Land Banking/Manufactured Home Park Work 22
Group Meeting. County staff provided an update on activities undertaken to date and 23
received comment and input. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District staff was in 24
attendance. Orange County Schools District staff could not attend due to a scheduling 25
conflict. Staff from the Town of Chapel Hill also provided an update to the group. 26
• April 18, 2018 -- The County hosted a meeting with manufactured home park owners. 27
Approximately forty-five (45) owners attended. The conversation was rich and a call was 28
given to identify park owners who had vacant lots and would agree to participate in the 29
County’s new draft Displacement Mitigation Assistance Program (D-MAP). Four (4) 30
interested park owners were identified and follow-up began the next day with these park 31
owners. In addition, County staff unveiled the new Manufactured Home Park Revolving 32
Loan Program. Other County departments participating in the meeting included Planning 33
and Solid Waste, along with the County Manager’s Office, EmPOWERment, as well as 34
the Rapid Response Team and Affordable Housing Land Banking/Manufactured Home 35
Park Work Group. In addition, representatives from the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel 36
Hill were on the agenda. 37
38
Based on the April 18th meeting with manufactured home park owners, County staff 39
learned of two (2) other potential park closings. In regard to one park, Eastbrook Mobile 40
Home Park, the County’s Planning Department shared the notice of the proposed 41
redevelopment. County staff has been in contact with the park owner. The other 42
potential park closure is under a sales contract but the park owner has not finalized the 43
closing date. The new owner may continue to operate the property as a manufactured 44
home park. 45
46
• Throughout the period when there have been no scheduled meetings, County staff and 47
EmPOWERment continued to engage with the Homestead Mobile Home Park residents 48
43
through assistance from the assigned Family Success Alliance Navigator. This was 1
done in an effort to stay engaged and provide updates, as applicable. 2
• May 5, 2018 – County staff held a meeting with Homestead Mobile Home Park residents 3
in order to share information on the newly identified alternative sites, review the draft D-4
MAP Guidelines and answer questions, as well as gather their input. EmPOWERment 5
representatives were in attendance. After the meeting, site visits to the three (3) newly 6
identified manufactured home parks (Highwoods, Hillsborough Estates and Carolantic) 7
were conducted. 8
• May 9, 2018 – Homestead Mobile Home Park residents returned their 9
“Acceptance/Rejection” Forms. Two (2) families accepted lots in the Highwood Mobile 10
Home Park on Highway 70A East. One (1) family rejected all three (3) of the sites 11
shown. The D-MAP Guidelines required that the County show up to 4 alternative 12
locations, based on availability. Therefore, no additional sites will be shown the family 13
that rejected all sites. However, the family will be eligible for assistance payable to the 14
applicable vendors, i.e. utility and landlord, for security and utility deposits, as well as a 15
small amount of direct assistance. 16
• May 16, 2018 – County staff and EmPOWERment representatives met with Homestead 17
Mobile Home Park residents to finalize their specific lot selections and share information 18
on the features of the new manufactured units, as well as have them begin to complete 19
the required documents, i.e. rental applications, submittal of household income 20
documentation, etc. 21
• May 25, 2018 – As the County Attorney’s Office finalizes the agreement between the 22
County and EmPOWERment, the Housing and Community Development Department 23
will work with the Finance & Administrative Services Department to facilitate the 24
purchase of the two (2) new units currently needed. The total cost of the two (2) new 25
units is $89,584.46. To date, no funds have been expended. However, the contract 26
amount to EmPOWERment may be adjusted to reflect the County’s purchase of the 27
units. In addition, the BOCC would need to take action in order to transfer ownership of 28
the new units to EmPOWERment, Inc. 29
30
Upcoming Activities: 31
• County staff and EmPOWERment will facilitate a meeting with Goodwill, the Salvation 32
Army and Habitat Restore, as well as the Furniture Project, in the coming weeks in order 33
to provide families with a coordinated approach to securing needed household goods. 34
• County staff and EmPOWERment will hold another meeting with Homestead Mobile 35
Park residents on or about June 9, 2018. 36
• County staff is finalizing the due diligence on the Millhouse Road site and will provide a 37
report to the BOCC on June 5, 2018. As staff identifies additional options and strategies, 38
the Board will continue to receive updates. 39
40
Sherrill Hampton said residents are still anxious even though the mobile home park 41
owner has decided not to sell the park. 42
43
PUBLIC COMMENT: 44
Curtis Bane said she is the owner of a park, which has aging infrastructure that has 45
been a challenge. She said the park operates on a community water system, and it is difficult 46
to get items written in Spanish for their residents. She said assistance in this area would be so 47
helpful. She said it was a relief to be heard at the community meeting with the County. 48
Commissioner Jacobs said this was an excellent report, and it is clear how much work 49
went into this report. He said EmPOWERment is a good partner. 50
44
Commissioner Burroughs said the County is fortunate to have Sherrill Hampton leading 1
this team, and it is delightful to get this type of public feedback on a new initiative. 2
Commissioner Rich agreed. She said the school collaboration meeting involved some 3
discussion about relocating students if the parks are closing, and she said it is so important to 4
share information between all involved entities. 5
Commissioner Price agreed, and said the comprehensive way in which Sherrill Hampton 6
is approaching this issue is wonderful. She thanked Ms. Bane for taking time to share with the 7
Board. 8
Chair Dorosin said Sherrill Hampton has been relentlessly optimistic about this issue. 9
He asked if there is any update about the two families from Homestead that accepted relocation 10
help. 11
Sherrill Hampton said there were three families originally, but one dropped out, and she 12
has not heard back from one. She said she has heard from the last one, and staff has ordered 13
one new home. 14
15
b. Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update – this item 16
addressed above 17
18
8. Consent Agenda 19
20
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 21
d and h previously discussed. 22
23
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to 26
approve the remaining items on the agenda. 27
28
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29
30
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 31
32
a. Minutes 33
The Board approved the minutes from May 3, 10 and 15, 2018 as submitted by the Clerk to the 34
Board. 35
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 36
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle 37
property tax values for four taxpayers with a total of five bills that will result in a reduction of 38
revenue in accordance with the NCGS. 39
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds 40
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax 41
values for thirteen taxpayers with a total of eighteen bills that will result in a reduction of 42
revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. 43
d. Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc. 44
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, regarding denial of a 45
refund request submitted by Sports Endeavors, Inc. 46
e. 2018 Amendment to Orange County Records Retention and Disposition Schedule, 47
Standard 11: Personnel Records, Item 25: Employee Performance Review File 48
45
The Board approved an amendment to the Personnel Records Retention and Disposition 1
Schedule dated April 15, 2013, and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 2
December 15, 2015, amending the County Management Records Retention and Disposition 3
Schedule, Item 25, Employee Performance Review File, Agency Policy, to reflect “Agency 4
Policy: Destroy in office after 3 years.” 5
f. Adoption of Triangle J Council of Government’s (TJCOG) Revised Charter Resolution 6
The Board reviewed and adopted TJCOG’s Revised Charter Resolution. 7
g. ISLA, Inc. Lease – 501 W. Franklin Street, Suite 200 8
The Board approved a two year Lease Agreement with Immersion for Spanish Language 9
Acquisition, Inc. (“ISLA”) for approximately 880 square feet of administrative office space within 10
Suite 200 of the County-owned Bentley Building located at 501 West Franklin Street in Chapel 11
Hill; and authorize the Chair to execute the Resolution for Lease and the Lease Agreement 12
upon final County Attorney review. 13
h. Joining the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy 14
The Board authorized the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange County’s commitment to the 15
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested by the Orange County 16
Commission for the Environment. 17
i. Encroachment Agreement for Sidewalk Construction Associated with Sportsplex 18
Facility & Field House 19
The Board approved a Three Party Right of Way Encroachment Agreement regarding a 20
Primary and Secondary road system between the North Carolina Department of Transportation 21
(NCDOT), Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough; and authorized the Manager to sign 22
the Encroachment Agreement contingent upon County Attorney review and upon Hillsborough’s 23
execution of the Agreement. 24
j. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy 25
The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board’s adoption 26
and continued use of Orange County’s travel policy. 27
28
9. County Manager’s Report 29
Bonnie Hammersley referred to a memo at the Commissioners’ places about the 30
Southern Library process, and said this is an update. 31
32
10. County Attorney’s Report 33
NONE 34
35
11. *Appointments 36
37
a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – Appointment- The Board will 38
consider making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory 39
Committee. 40
41
A motion was made by seconded by to appoint the following to the Adult Care Home 42
Community Advisory Committee: 43
44
DEFERRED 45
46
47
b. Economic Development Advisory Board – Appointments 48
The Board will consider making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory 49
Board. 50
46
1
A motion was made by seconded, by to appoint the following to the Economic 2
Development Advisory Board: 3
4
DONE ABOVE 5
6
c. Historic Preservation Commission – Appointment 7
The Board will consider making an appointment to the Historic Preservation 8
Commission. 9
10
DEFERRED 11
12
12. Information Items 13
14
• May 15, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 15
• Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis 16
• Tax Collector’s Report – Measure of Enforced Collections 17
• Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100 18
• Memorandum Regarding NC-54 Corridor Study Update 19
20
13. Closed Session 21
NONE 22
23
14. Adjournment 24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to 26
adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m. 27
28
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29
30
Mark Dorosin, Chair 31
32
33
Donna Baker 34
Clerk to the Board 35