HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-13-2018 8-a - Minutes1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 13, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
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.
November 1, 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.
1
Attachment 1 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
REGULAR MEETING 5
November 1, 2018 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, November 1, 9
2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Mia 12
Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price 13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Dorosin 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
Commissioner Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She said the Board of 20
County Commissioners (BOCC) would open the public hearing in agenda item number 5, but 21
the hearing would be continued to February 5th. She said notice would be given about this 22
meeting. 23
Commissioner Rich said Chair Dorosin would be unable to attend tonight. 24
25
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 26
27
Commissioner Rich noted the following items at the Commissioners’ places: 28
- Pink sheet for proposed addition to the agenda as item 4-b: Proclamation Honoring Jaki 29
Shelton Green, NC Poet Laureate under Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations. 30
31
The Board agreed by consensus to add this item to the agendas as Item 4b. 32
33
- PowerPoint for Item 7-a 34
- Map hand out of proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) widening 35
and realignment of Eubanks Road 36
37
Bonnie Hammersley said there is an informational meeting on November 5th at Southern 38
Human Services Center on the TIP Project No. I-3306A: Proposed Widening of I-40 from I-85 39
to the Durham County Line in Orange County. 40
41
PUBLIC CHARGE 42
The Vice Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. 43
44
Arts Moment 45
Doris Friend, Orange County Arts Commission (OCAC) Advisory Board Member, 46
introduced Zachariah Claypole White: 47
Mr. White has been an award-winning, published poet since elementary school. In 2017 48
he graduated Oberlin College with a major in creative writing, a minor in English literature, and 49
was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa national honor society. He is a member of the North Carolina 50
2
Writers’ Network and the North Carolina Poetry Society. His poetry has recently appeared in the 1
Albion Review, The Plum Creek Review, and Scalawag. He will be featured in Be a Writer 2
Like... (forthcoming from Teaching That Makes Sense), and his flash fiction has appeared in 3
Anchala Studios’ anthology, The Collection: Flash Fiction for Flash Memory. Zachariah uses his 4
lifelong struggle with mental illness to fuel his writing and hopes that he can use his art to help 5
others with similar disabilities. He lives in Hillsborough, NC, is a bookseller at Flyleaf Books, 6
and is currently working toward the publication of his first chapbook, Roads I Know. 7
Zachariah Claypole White read a piece of his work. 8
9
Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:05 p.m. 10
11
2. Public Comments 12
13
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 14
Jim Merritt signed up to speak but went to the wrong building. 15
The Board agreed by consensus to allow him time to speak upon his arrival. 16
17
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 18
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda 19
below.) 20
21
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 22
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Orange County participate with the Hillsborough 23
Train Station discussions, and have a seat at the table. 24
Commissioner Jacobs said the Justice Advisory Council does not need two Board of 25
County Commissioners members. He said usually a County Commissioner serves as the 26
Chair, but this council does not need the emeritus position, which was created for former 27
Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier, who is no longer serving on this Council. 28
Commissioner Jacobs said since Orange County is contributing to the incentives for the 29
Wegman’s project in Chapel Hill, the County should know what is going on and have a seat at 30
the table. 31
Commissioner Jacobs said he was alarmed when the US Attorney for Eastern North 32
Carolina said he would subpoena a million early voting records, and that early voters have a 33
number that goes along with their vote. He said if this accurate, he believes the legislature 34
should change this, as it runs counter to the notion of a secret ballot. 35
Commissioner Jacobs expressed condolences to Mike Mills, Engineer at NCDOT who 36
lost a son, as well as to the family of Pat Sanford, a long time advocate for Animal Services, 37
who passed away recently. 38
Commissioner Price thanked staff and participants involved with the Economic 39
Development Summit and reception. 40
Commissioner Price received an email from constituents about sidewalks near Grady 41
Brown School, and providing safe routes for schools. She asked if a partnership between the 42
County and municipalities, to address these needs, could be investigated. 43
Commissioner Price encouraged everyone to vote. 44
Commissioner Marcoplos had no comments. 45
Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. 46
Commissioner McKee had no comments. 47
Commissioner Rich met with Brad Ives, and the University of North Carolina (UNC) is 48
working on sustainable efforts and wanted to partner with the towns and County. 49
3
Commissioner Rich said they hope to get a report back from the Hwy 54 meeting on 1
Monday. 2
3
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 4
5
a. Resolution To Oppose Marsy’s Law Constitutional Amendment 6
The Board considered approving a resolution opposing Marsy’s Law Constitutional 7
Amendment, and authorizing the Chair to sign. 8
9
BACKGROUND: 10
On March 20, 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution in 11
support of Marsy’s Law. This proposal is now on the November 2018 ballot as a constitutional 12
amendment, and is part of a broader campaign to amend the North Carolina Constitution. 13
The attached draft resolution provides the opportunity to rescind the resolution adopted on 14
March 20, 2018, as well as formally express opposition to the Marsy’s Law / Crime Victims’ 15
Amendment constitutional referendum. 16
17
Commissioner Rich read the resolution: 18
19
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE MARSY’S LAW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 21
22
WHEREAS, in March 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution in 23
support of Marsy’s Law, which is now on the November 2018 ballot as a constitutional 24
amendment; and 25
26
WHEREAS, since that time, this amendment has become part of a broader campaign to amend 27
the North Carolina Constitution to fundamentally undermine the separation of powers and core 28
democratic principles; and 29
30
WHEREAS, while we are committed to supporting victims and their families and believe they 31
deserve dignity and respect, further analysis of this amendment reveals that it will violate due 32
process rights, unnecessarily restrict and delay criminal proceedings, undercut diversion 33
programs and other efforts to reduce incarceration rates in our community, and significantly 34
increase costs for our criminal justice system; and 35
36
WHEREAS, North Carolina already has statutory and constitutional protections for crime 37
victims, and that those victims would be better served by increased State resources for existing 38
victims’ support programs, domestic violence shelters, and effective diversion, counseling, and 39
re-entry programs, rather that this unnecessary and misleading amendment; 40
41
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners doe 42
hereby rescind the resolution adopted on March 20, 2018; and 43
44
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners is opposed to 45
the Marsy’s Law / Crime Victims’ Amendment constitutional referendum, and encourages all 46
residents of Orange County North Carolina to also oppose this misguided and harmful 47
amendment. 48
49
This the 1st day of November, 2018. 50
4
1
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos for 2
the Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution. 3
4
Commissioner Marcoplos said if this amendment were to pass, it would waste a lot of 5
money that could be used on other endeavors. 6
Commissioner McKee asked if someone could explain how this proposed amendment 7
violates due process rights. 8
John Roberts said he did not write this. 9
Commissioner McKee also asked if there could be clarification regarding the following 10
language: “unnecessarily restrict and delay criminal proceedings, undercut diversion programs”. 11
Commissioner McKee said he found it odd that the Board of County Commissioners 12
passed a resolution supporting Marsy’s Law in March 2018, and he read a portion of the past 13
resolution, which stated that the BOCC knew that this was a constitutional amendment. 14
Commissioner Rich said she cannot speak to this since Chair Dorosin wrote it, but 15
Chair Dorosin investigated further and believes the Board’s previous support was a mistake. 16
Commissioner McKee said he would think that the whole board should find the answers 17
to these questions. He said he will vote against it, and he questions why the Board is not doing 18
the same. He said supporting victims’ rights is paramount to a safe society. 19
John Roberts said it is a position statement and an opinion written by Chair Dorosin. 20
He said he cannot state whether this opinion is correct, but noted that Chair Dorosin is not 21
alone in this opinion. 22
Commissioner Jacobs asked John Roberts if he knew when the constitutional 23
amendments were compiled. 24
John Roberts said some of them were in the General Assembly early in the session, 25
and some came later. 26
Commissioner Price said other attorneys have expressed similar concerns, and initially 27
the intent was good, but realizing what could happen if this were put into the constitution before 28
the law was written beforehand. 29
Commissioner McKee said he has the same concerns about many of the proposed 30
amendments, but when he voted for this in March he knew what he was voting for. 31
Commissioner Marcoplos said the proposed amendment is not providing victims’ rights 32
for the first time in N.C. history, as there is already protection encoded in the law. He said the 33
language is so ambiguous, and some states that have passed this law are rescinding it to 34
reduce the ambiguity. 35
Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos, and he had his 36
own concerns with this original law. He said he does not know what the consequences are in 37
the third paragraph of this resolution, and has a hard time voting to rescind something that he 38
thought was a good idea. He said the language in this evening’s resolution is strong, and he 39
would like more details. 40
Commissioner Burroughs said they all learned more information about this law since 41
March, and it is okay to change one’s mind. She said the lack of clarity is exactly why it should 42
not be in the constitution. 43
Commissioner McKee said the resolution the BOCC passed in the spring was very 44
clear. 45
46
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee) 47
48
Jim Merritt (Items not on the printed agenda) said he is the co-chair of the Veteran’s 49
Memorial Committee, and he is giving a status report tonight. He said Ranger Up is planning a 50
5
jujitsu tournament at Chapel Hill High on November 10th, with all proceeds going to the 1
Veteran’s Memorial Committee. He said the Veteran’s Day program is November 12th at 11 2
a.m. at the memorial site at Southern Human Services Center, where Commissioner Jacobs will 3
be recognized for his years of service. 4
5
ADDED: 6
7
b. Proclamation to Recognize Jaki Shelton Green – NC Poet Laureate 8
The Board considered a proclamation honoring Jaki Shelton Green, a native and current 9
resident of Orange County, as the 2018 North Carolina Poet Laureate and a renowned poet, 10
creative writing teacher and community arts advocate. 11
12
BACKGROUND: 13
Jaki Shelton Green is a native and current resident of Orange County, and was recently 14
selected by Governor Roy Cooper as the 2018 North Carolina Poet Laureate. Ms. Green has 15
authored eight books of poetry, co-edited two poetry anthologies, and written one play. Ms. 16
Green received the North Carolina Award for Literature in 2003; and was inducted into the 17
North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame in 2014. 18
19
Commissioner Price read the proclamation: 20
21
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 22
PROCLAMATION 23
HONORING JAKI SHELTON GREEN, NORTH CAROLINA POET LAUREATE 24
25
WHEREAS, Jaki Shelton Green, a native and current resident of Orange County, North 26
Carolina, has established herself as a renowned poet, creative writing teacher and community 27
arts advocate; and 28
29
WHEREAS, Jaki has authored eight books of poetry, co-edited two poetry anthologies, and 30
written one play; and 31
32
WHEREAS, in 2003, Jaki received the North Carolina Award for Literature; and 33
34
WHEREAS, in 2014, Jaki was inducted into the North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame; and 35
36
WHEREAS, Governor Roy Cooper has selected Jaki Shelton Green as the 2018 North Carolina 37
Poet Laureate; and 38
39
WHEREAS, Jaki is the first African-American and the third woman to receive this high honor as 40
NC Poet Laureate; and 41
42
WHEREAS, as the North Carolina Poet Laureate, Jaki will serve as the ambassador of poetry 43
and the spoken word for the state; and 44
45
WHEREAS, Orange County is proud to honor its residents and their accomplishments; 46
47
NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby proclaims November 48
1, 2018 as: 49
6
JAKI SHELTON GREEN DAY in recognition of her remarkable talents in the field of literature, 1
and in acknowledgement of her outstanding contributions to humanity. 2
3
Proclaimed this 1st day of November 2018. 4
5
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to 6
approve the Proclamation to Recognize Jaki Shelton Green – NC Poet Laureate. 7
8
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9
10
Jaki Shelton Green said it is an auspicious occasion for her. She said she travels all 11
over North Carolina, and thanked the BOCC for always being champions of literacy. 12
13
5. Public Hearings 14
15
a. Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update 16
The Board conducted a public hearing, review, and made a determination on the Efland-17
Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (E-B-M AMP) to continue the public hearing at a 18
later date. 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 21
for the Board to open the public hearing. 22
23
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24
25
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that when this item comes back to ask the Planning 26
staff to tell the BOCC how the changes will be implemented. 27
28
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner 29
Marcoplos to continue the public hearing until February 5, 2019. 30
31
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 32
33
6. Regular Agenda 34
35
a. Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments 36
The Board considered approval of amendments to the Unified Animal Control Ordinance 37
and adoption of the Resolution of Amendment Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code 38
of Ordinances, in order to primarily clarify issues identified by the Orange County Animal 39
Services Advisory Board and County Attorney’s Office and authorize the Chair to sign. 40
Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, said Anne Marie Tosco, County Attorney’s 41
Office, has made many specific revisions from the Oct. 16th meeting. He said the intent of 42
these amendments was to clarify several issues that had become apparent in the ordinance as 43
it was applied after its adoption in 2016. He said one specific issue was providing a review for 44
dangerous animal declarations, which was brought forth by the Animal Services Hearing Panel 45
pool. 46
Anne Marie Tosco reviewed the following information: 47
48
BACKGROUND: 49
7
The Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) adopted the Unified Animal Control Ordinance 1
at its January 26, 2016 meeting. In nearly three years administering and enforcing the 2
Ordinance, Animal Services staff, members of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool, and the 3
Animal Services Advisory Board have identified provisions to recommend be clarified, added to, 4
or removed from the Ordinance. The Animal Services Advisory Board and County Attorney’s 5
Office has reviewed the items identified below and the accompanying amendment language, 6
and along with staff, unanimously recommends that the BOCC approve these amendments: 7
8
1. New paragraph 4-38(c) has been added to the section titled “Animal control program” in 9
order to clarify under what conditions Animal Control Officers may enter onto private 10
property. This language states in writing what Animal Control Officers currently do in 11
practice, by granting them the authority under the Ordinance to enter onto and inspect 12
private property to investigate, impound, and/or issue citations for violations of the 13
Ordinance upon consent, pursuant to an administrative search warrant, or as otherwise 14
authorized for law (for example, pursuant to a criminal search warrant or an exception to 15
the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances). 16
17
a. UPDATE following discussion at October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting: Based on 18
the Board’s request, language has been added to this section expressly stating 19
that an animal may be in imminent danger due to any of the act described in 20
section 4-41(a)-(k) of the Ordinance (which addresses “mistreatment of animals”), 21
including acts related to animal fighting or baiting. 22
23
2. In Section 4-42, Control of dangerous animals; security dogs: 24
25
a. References to the defined term “restraint” have been removed and substituted with 26
variations of “control” or “confined in accordance with the requirements of this 27
section.” The definition of “Restraint” in section 4-37(bb) is applicable to animals in 28
the County generally, while animals that have been declared “dangerous” were 29
intended to be subject to the higher levels of restraint as detailed in section 4-30
42(d). Changing the word “restraint” in section 4-42 is intended to alleviate 31
conflation of “restraint” generally and the stronger control required for animals 32
declared dangerous, and clarify the requirements for how dangerous animals must 33
be controlled and confined under the Ordinance. 34
35
b. The Animal Services Advisory Board and Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool 36
members determined the language of Section 4-42(b)(3) to be confusing when 37
applied in appeal hearings for dangerous animal declarations. The proposed 38
language clarifies that sentence by moving “defending a person” to another part of 39
the Ordinance (see f. below) and by limiting the provision to apply to animals 40
attacked while “on the land of the attacking animal’s owner or keeper without 41
permission” as opposed to “on the land of another without permission.” This 42
amendment would alleviate confusion raised in matters where an animal attacks 43
another animal on land open to the public but where no express permission has 44
been given for that animal to be there (for example, an attack occurring in Duke 45
Forest). 46
47
c. In 4-42(d), the phrase “controlled by means of a leash, chain, or other like device” 48
has been simplified to “controlled by means of a leash.” While “leash” is not defined 49
in the Ordinance, the dictionary definition of “leash” (“a line for leading or restraining 50
8
an animal”) encompasses all means by which a dangerous animal may be 1
controlled under the Ordinance, without including means by which the Ordinance 2
did not intend for dangerous animals to be controlled, specifically electronic fences. 3
4
d. Section 4-42(d)(2) has been split into two sections, clarifying how a dangerous 5
animal shall be controlled going to and from a secure enclosure or permitted 6
location when on the owner’s property, and when off the owner’s property. This 7
amendment is in response to questions from owners of dangerous animals asking 8
how the animal should be taken to a secure enclosure on the owner’s property. The 9
amendment clarifies that animals going to and from a secure enclosure or 10
permitted location (such as a kennel or vehicle) on the owner’s property should be 11
leashed, but need not be muzzled as it is required when off the owner’s property. 12
e. In 4-42(e)(4)b., the word “tort” was inadvertently left out of previous versions of the 13
Ordinance, so the sentence read, “Committing a willful trespass or other, which 14
shall be determined…” The amended sentence reads, “Committing a willful 15
trespass or other tort, which shall be determined by looking at a totality of the 16
circumstances.” 17
18
f. A new section (6) has been added to 4-42(e), excepting “a dog that is defending a 19
person or other animal at the time the injury to or death of a pet or livestock is 20
sustained” from the definition of “dangerous animal.” The language regarding 21
“defending a person” was moved to the Exceptions section from the definitions in 4-22
42(b). The language regarding defending another animal is recommended by the 23
Animal Services Advisory Board and Animal Services staff. 24
25
g. A new section 4-42(k) has been added, allowing for the Animal Services Director to 26
review dangerous animal declarations annually upon application of the owner, and 27
revoke the declaration should the owner meet certain criteria for revocation, 28
including by providing a professional, third party assessment of the animal. The 29
Animal Services Director would be required to issue written findings when revoking 30
or refusing to revoke the declaration, based on the criteria outlined in section 4-31
42(k). There is strong support for this amendment given the experience of the 32
Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool with appeals of dangerous animal declarations 33
as the incidents on which these are based vary greatly in their intensity and harm. 34
35
At this time, no fees are being proposed for review of a dangerous animal 36
declaration, taking into account the cost of obtaining the required assessment for 37
review and any costs incurred as a result of the declaration in order to comply with 38
the confinement requirements of the Ordinance. Animal Services will monitor 39
administrative costs and staff time incurred as a result of these reviews for one year 40
following the effective date of this amendment, in order to determine whether a fee 41
for review is recommended to account for staff time, materials, etc. related to 42
review of declarations. 43
44
• UPDATE following discussion at October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting: Based on 45
the Board’s request, language has been added to this section clarifying that all 46
dangerous (or vicious, as was used in prior iterations of the Ordinance) declarations 47
made under this or previous versions of the Ordinance may be reviewed. 48
49
9
A concern was raised regarding the 18-month period that must pass prior to review 1
– the current language stating 18 months is to allow for staff to conduct the annual 2
inspection of secure enclosures required by the Ordinance. Under the current 3
scheme, an inspection is made annually beginning one year from the declaration to 4
check for and assure ongoing compliance with Ordinance standards. These annual 5
inspections are critical to confirming owner responsibility and compliance with 6
restrictions intended to protect the public and its pets. Reducing the “wait period” 7
before review from eighteen to twelve months would mean that individuals may 8
request a review prior to their first annual inspection. Also, other jurisdictions that 9
have or are considering review of similar declarations, specifically Wake and 10
Pasquotank counties, require 36 months to pass without incident before a 11
declaration can be reviewed. 12
13
Also, a review of relatively recent violations of Ordinance restrictions on dangerous 14
animals resulting in criminal summons revealed that, of eight violations, four 15
occurred less than one year from the declaration, and four occurred more than one 16
year from the declaration. Of the four occurring more than one year from the 17
declaration, two violations occurred approximately two years after declaration, and 18
the other two violations occurred three or more years after the declaration. 19
20
Further, the following table shows the number of dangerous dog and/or animal 21
declarations made for the period 2016 to 2018. The declarations reported in the 22
table are made under state law, local ordinance or both. The bites all involve 23
reports Animal Services has received about a dog biting one or more people (as 24
these bites are required to be reported under state law). 25
Declarations Dog Bites 26
2018 (YTD) 40 109 27
2017 44 195 28
2016 23 163 29
As the table shows, the number of declarations each year is often upwards of 50. 30
These declarations are often but not always made on the basis of a dog bite. In 31
some instances, they are made as a result of injury caused by a dog to another 32
domestic animal off its owner’s property. In others, they are made on the basis of a 33
dog behaving aggressively toward a person off of its owner’s property. 34
35
Finally, the issues addressed on appeal of a dangerous animal declaration are 36
different than those addressed by the proposed review. An appeal is made to the 37
hearing panel pool and then Superior Court immediately following a declaration, in 38
order to determine if the incident forming the basis of the declaration (often, a bite 39
to a person or other animal) occurred and justified the declaration under statute 40
and/or Ordinance. The declaration may be overturned if the hearing panel or a 41
judge determines the incident did not occur or the elements of the offense as 42
defined in the Ordinance have not been met. 43
44
A review is made with the understanding that the incident occurred and justified the 45
declaration (which actually may have been appealed). However, the review 46
examines not only the severity of the underlying facts but several other factors, 47
including measures taken by the owner since the declaration to prevent 48
reoccurrence, to determine whether a similar incident is likely to happen again, and 49
10
if there does not appear to be a continued risk to the public safety, the declaration 1
can be rescinded following review. 2
3
3. Animal Control Officers raised concerns about their authority under the Ordinance to 4
impound animals subject to cruel treatment, as Section 4-41(k), Mistreatment of animals, 5
could be read as allowing for only the impoundment of animals subject to tethering. The 6
language, “[an animal] that is in imminent danger,” has been added to the general 7
impoundment authority and process in Section 4-43 in order to clarify this authority. As 8
described in new paragraph 4-38(c) and as required by law, such animals would only be 9
impounded pursuant to consent, a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement. 10
11
4. Section 4-51(c)(5), was intended to provide an appeal for citations ordering a public 12
nuisance animal to be removed from the County, as opposed to citations for any public 13
nuisance violation. An “f” has been added to correct this error, so that the language reads 14
“An Owner or Keeper shall have a right to appeal a citation for removal,” rather than “…a 15
citation or removal.” Other citations pursuant to the public nuisance sections of the 16
Ordinance are appealable to the Finance Director through the debt setoff process. 17
18
5. Section 4-53, Appeals, was intended to provide the process for appeals granted 19
expressly by other sections of the Ordinance. However, the language of this section 20
could previously be read as providing an appeal for every violation of the Ordinance. This 21
language has been amended to identify what appeals are granted by the Ordinance: 22
dangerous animal declarations, citations ordering the removal of nuisance animals, and 23
denials or revocations of kennel or pet shops permits. A new appeal is included for 24
citations issued for mistreatment, where the animal has been impounded and the Animal 25
Services Director has determined not to release the animal back to its owner under 26
Section 4-43(c). Citations for other Ordinance violations are not appealable under this 27
Ordinance, but may be appealed to the Finance Director through the debt setoff process. 28
29
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that the appeals go through the Chief 30
Financial Officer (CFO) and the finance office. 31
Anne Marie Tosco said all appeals of debt to go to Gary Donaldson, CFO. 32
Commissioner Price asked if this only applies to one appealing a debt. 33
Anne Marie Tosco said the person will get a citation for a monetary amount, which can 34
be appealed to the finance officer. She said the CFO reviews the facts to determine if the debt 35
needs to be paid. 36
Commissioner Price asked if this has anything to do with animal control. 37
Anne Marie Tosco said citations can be for public nuisance, and the finance officer 38
reviews the case to determine its merits. 39
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that appeals do not go to someone in 40
Animal Services. 41
Bob Marotto said it is a two-step process: 1.) an appeal is made to an agent of the 42
County, and the designated agent is the CFO, and the merits of the case are what are at the 43
issue. The agent decides if the debt is to be paid based on whether the infraction is 44
demonstrated by Animal Services; 2.) The Office of Administrative Hearings, which takes it 45
outside of the County, but keeps it in the administrative side of things, as opposed to District 46
Court. 47
Commissioner Price clarified that the CFO is not making a determination on the animal 48
itself, but whether the citation has merit. 49
11
Commissioner Price asked if the written language can remain simple and easy to read, 1
avoiding legalease. 2
Commissioner Price asked if the costs of an assessment of the certification council are 3
known. 4
Bob Marotto said probably $100-250. 5
Commissioner Price said that is a sizeable burden. 6
Bob Marotto said yes, it could be, but they are considering removing the restrictions 7
imposed on the animal to protect the public. He said there have been children mauled by family 8
dogs, which are serious offenses, and staff is reluctant to remove restrictions absent of 9
thorough professional assessment of the animal. 10
Commissioner Price said she agrees with the assessment being done, but is concerned 11
about the costs for low-income residents. 12
Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he was agreeable to 438-C. 13
Commissioner Jacobs said yes. 14
Commissioner Burroughs said she was glad to keep the review period at 18 months, 15
especially as this recommendation came from the Hearing Panel Pool and Animal Services 16
staff. 17
Bob Marotto said the Hearing Panel Pool felt strongly that there should be some 18
mechanism to revisit the issue and not have a lifelong sentence imposed on an animal, based 19
on one incident. He said other counties’ practices were reviewed and the 18- month period is 20
the recommendation by all involved. 21
Commissioner Burroughs supports the 18-month period. 22
Commissioner Price referred to the exceptions and the instance of a dog defending an 23
animal or a person at the time of injury. She asked if there is a process to determine when an 24
animal is acting out of defense rather than aggression. 25
Bob Marotto said Animal Services staff would make this determination based on 26
evidence gathered during the investigation. 27
Commissioner Price clarified that the determination is not simply based on the testimony 28
of the owner. 29
Bob Marotto said no, there would be a review of the totality of the circumstances and all 30
available evidence. He said an example would be if a dog was attacking him, and his own dog 31
interceded to defend him. 32
Anne Marie Tosco said that is existing ordinance language, which she moved around to 33
avoid some previously caused confusion. 34
Commissioner Rich thanked staff for revisiting this, and the additional information was 35
helpful. 36
Commissioner Rich referred to Section 4-42 on page 7, and the four reasons listed as to 37
why a dog could be considered dangerous. She said this same language is also on the 38
application for review under Section 2. She said reason number 4 states that an animal can be 39
deemed “potentially dangerous or dangerous in accordance with the NC General Statute, 40
Chapter 67, Article 1-a: dangerous dogs,” and asked if it is known who is making such as 41
determination for the State. 42
Bob Marotto said the Animal Services Director and staff. 43
Commissioner Rich asked if, when the 18-month period passes and a dog is no longer 44
deemed dangerous, does staff also inform the State of this change. 45
John Roberts said the 18-month period applies to declarations under the County’s 46
Animal Control Ordinance (items 1, 2 and 3), and if an animal is declared dangerous pursuant 47
to State Statute, the 18 months does not apply. 48
Commissioner Rich clarified that the dog would remain dangerous in the State, but not 49
in the County. 50
12
John Roberts said there is no way to remove the declaration from the State. 1
Commissioner Rich clarified that number 4 does not fit in with numbers 1, 2, and 3. 2
Bob Marotto said it is not subject to be repealed under the State Statute, and he would 3
like to see such a mechanism exist under the State Statute, and the County may wish to make 4
this recommendation some time in the future. He said the County can only amend its own 5
Ordinance, and has no authority to revisit it under the State Statute. 6
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why this is in the review process, and 7
should it not be removed if the County has no authority to amend the Statute. 8
Anne Marie Tosco said the Statute defines dangerous dog differently than the 9
Ordinance, and has different restrictions. She said the Ordinance is more restrictive. She said 10
a dog could be declared dangerous/potentially dangerous under State Statute, but also have 11
additional Ordinance restrictions put on them. She said the County cannot lift the State 12
declaration of “dangerous” but can lift the additional restrictions imposed by the Ordinance. 13
Commissioner Rich clarified that in doing so, the dog would no longer be considered 14
dangerous in Orange County. 15
Anne Marie Tosco said it would be dangerous under State Statute in Orange County, 16
but no so under local ordinance. 17
Commissioner Rich asked if all of the restrictions would go away. 18
Anne Marie Tosco said the State restrictions would not go away. 19
Commissioner Rich said it is a bit confusing. 20
Bob Marotto said the County staff does not have the authority to revisit the statutory 21
declaration of the animal as dangerous/potentially dangerous. He said there are other statutes 22
around that country that have been amended to provide a mechanism like that which the 23
County is providing in the local ordinance presently. 24
Commissioner Rich said she is uncomfortable voting for this as written, and if it is 25
unclear to her it will be unclear to others. She said staff can reverse numbers 1, 2, and 3 but 26
not 4. 27
Bob Marotto said yes. 28
29
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos 30
for the Board to adopt the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and 31
approve and authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution of Amendment, “A Resolution Amending 32
Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.” 33
34
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich) 35
36
Commissioner Rich said this is not put well together, and she petitioned staff to petition 37
the State to make changes. 38
Bonnie Hammersley said if the Board desires to change the State Statute, she 39
recommends adding this recommendation to the legislative agenda, as staff cannot petition the 40
State. 41
John Roberts said if an ordinance is not passed unanimously at the first reading, it has 42
to come back at the next meeting for a second reading. (This was later clarified and revised 43
after the meeting to indicate that this did not have to have a second reading). 44
Commissioner Price asked if it must be a unanimous vote at the second reading. 45
John Roberts said no. 46
47
b. Schools Joint Action Committee – Appointment and Letter Transmittal 48
The Board considered the appointment of an Orange County Commissioner to the 49
Schools Joint Action Committee (SJAC) and authorizing the Chair to sign a transmittal letter to 50
13
the Orange County Schools Board of Education and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of 1
Education. 2
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, reviewed the information below: 3
4
BACKGROUND: 5
The State of North Carolina enacted legislation in 2017 resulting in a decrease in class size 6
averages from 1:20 to 1:17 for kindergarten to third grade for the 2018-2019 school year. Due 7
to significant statewide ramifications as a result of the reduced class size averages, the North 8
Carolina General Assembly unveiled House Bill 90 which allows for a phasing-in process to 9
address the decrease in class size averages over the next four years. Based on House Bill 90, 10
average class sizes for kindergarten to third grade will be phased-in as provided below: 11
12
Due to impacts to elementary school capacity resulting from these reductions, the Schools 13
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) identified the 14
need for the Schools Joint Action Committee (SJAC) to meet in order to discuss options and 15
determine how to implement the school capacity changes in the 2019 SAPFO report and 10-16
year student membership and building capacity projections sheets. Based on the adopted 17
SAPFO Memoranda of Understanding, school building capacity shall be determined by 18
reference to state guidelines and school district guidelines and by a joint action of the School 19
Boards and Orange County Board of Commissioners. 20
21
The SJAC is comprised of elected officials from the Orange County Schools Board of 22
Education, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education, and Orange County Board of 23
Commissioners. The SJAC last met in 2005 to discuss and recommend how to implement 24
elementary level class size reductions related to legislation implemented at that time. At the 25
time, the SJAC decided to defer reductions, for SAPFO purposes, to elementary level class size 26
averages for both districts until after the opening of Morris Grove Elementary School in 2008. 27
The Committee is expected to meet twice to review and discuss impacts and options before 28
determining how to implement class size reductions for SAPFO purposes. Orange County 29
Planning staff will organize and provide staff support at the committee meetings. Staff from 30
Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill – Carrboro City Schools will be invited to attend. In 31
order to proceed with the formation of the Schools Joint Action Committee, a letter from the 32
Board of County Commissioners Chair must be sent to the Orange County Schools Board of 33
Education and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education. This letter (Attachment 1) 34
provides a brief summary and request for appointments to the committee. 35
36
Commissioner Price said the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 37
(NCACC) has been looking at the class-size mandates, and the issue is in their top 5 goals, but 38
not their top 3. She said this is still a big issue with a lot of opposition. 39
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the SJAC is more broadly discussing the use of the 40
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). He said there is no enforcement 41
mechanism in the private sector, and the only enforcement mechanism is to require to the 42
BOCC to build the schools. 43
Craig Benedict said the SAPFO has been more of a Capital Improvement planning 44
mechanism rather than an enforcement mechanism, and he said the benefits of the SAPFO 45
have been well done over the years at keeping in tune with enrollment, capacity and State 46
legislation. 47
Commissioner Jacobs said it is a good planning tool. 48
Craig Benedict said yes. 49
14
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that whoever represents the Board of County 1
Commissioners on the SJAC should keep in mind that only one of three rounds of updates to 2
existing schools has occurred, and the Board of County Commissioners should move very 3
cautiously before making commitments to build new schools. He said Orange County Schools 4
(OCS) have been more effected by Charter Schools than the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools 5
(CHCCS), and if there is another recession it will be very hard to build new schools, and the 6
BOCC will be accused of making false promises. He said all local government supports public 7
education, but schools are very expensive and SAPFO can sometimes be a straightjacket to 8
County Commissioners. 9
Commissioner Burroughs said SAPFO is an excellent planning tool, meets the needs of 10
the community, and she does not think it is a straightjacket. She said SAPFO has not helped 11
with meeting the needs of maintaining the older schools, and schools are valued, and she 12
would not be afraid of SAPFO. She said she would also not be afraid of studies that show the 13
need for significant renovations of existing schools, as all of this is information that helps the 14
County meet the needs of the students. 15
16
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 17
appoint Commissioner Rich to the Schools Joint Action Committee. 18
19
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 20
21
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 22
authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to the Orange County Schools Board of 23
Education and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education contained in Attachment 24
1. 25
26
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27
28
7. Reports 29
30
a. NC 54 West Corridor Study 31
The Board received a presentation on the NC-54 West Corridor Study from Orange 32
County Transportation Planning staff and provided comments. 33
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, reviewed the following information and 34
PowerPoint presentation: 35
36
BACKGROUND: 37
The NC-54 corridor study started in September 2017 by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 38
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and North Carolina Department of 39
Transportation (NCDOT). The study area spans from Old Fayetteville Road in Carrboro to the I-40
85/I-40 interchange in Graham. The final plan includes comprehensive analysis and identifies 41
feasible improvements along the corridor. The study’s final recommendations serve as feasible 42
projects for consideration through future Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) 43
processes. These recommendations are to be presented to DCHC MPO for consideration on 44
November 14, 2018. A draft plan is currently out for a public review period in accordance with 45
DCHC MPO’s Public Involvement Policy. 46
47
DCHC MPO is the only MPO adopting the study. All other local governments and regional 48
agencies involved in the study area are given the final plan for consideration and an opportunity 49
to provide comments during the review period. The following is the review schedule: 50
15
• October 2 - Graham City Council 1
• October 11 - Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) 2
• October 16 - Carrboro Board of Alderman 3
• October 16 - Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) 4
• October 17 - Orange County – Orange Unified Transportation Board 5
• November 1 - Orange County BOCC 6
• November 14 - DCHC MPO Board - Adoption 7
8
Two unique four-lane street cross-sections are recommended throughout NC-54 in the planning 9
area. 10
• Assumed 150’ max right-of-way with 12’ travel lanes, 8’ shoulders (6’ paved), 17’ to 23’ 11
median and 10’ to 12’ shared use path. 12
• Assumed 130’ max right-of-way with 2’ curb & gutter, 12’ to 14’ travel lanes, 10’ to 23’ 13
median and 10’ to 12’ shared use path. 14
• Current right of way along NC-54 is 100’. Future right of way will need to be dedicated 15
as 16
development occurs. 17
18
Roundabouts are recommended along NC-54 at: 19
• Alamance County - Wormranch Road and Mt. Willen Road/Salem Church Road 20
• Orange County - Mineral Springs Road and Morrow Mill Road 21
22
Pedestrian cross walks and turn lanes are recommended at other intersections. Other general 23
recommendations for all intersections (some of which can be deployed as relatively low‐cost, 24
short‐range improvements) include: 25
• Provide pedestrian crossing treatments, such as crosswalks, signage, and signals, 26
where appropriate; 27
• Where warranted, provide turn lanes (especially left‐turns) of adequate length to 28
accommodate typical vehicle queues; 29
• Monitor and update signal timing and phasing as necessary to optimize efficiency; 30
• Periodically assess unsignalized intersections to determine if traffic volumes, delay, or 31
crash history warrant signalization; and 32
• Enhance lighting, pavement marking, and signage as needed to maintain visibility. 33
34
The total overall cost for all projects identified in the corridor study is estimated at $180 million. 35
Projects would seek funding through future SPOT processes split over four phases: 36
• Phase 1 - $43,200,000 - 2020-2030 37
o Old Fayetteville Road to Dodson Crossroads 38
• Phase 2 - $47,700,000 - 2025-2035 39
o NC-119 to Wormranch Road and Dodson Crossroads to Morrow Mill Road 40
• Phase 3 - $35,400,000 - 2035-2040 41
o Wormranch Road to Mineral Springs Road 42
• Phase 4 - $52,200,000 - 2040 and beyond 43
o Mineral Springs Road to Morrow Mill Road 44
45
Estimate includes $26.3 million for the proposed Shared Use Path. A copy of the draft study 46
and 47
supporting materials is available at www.nc54west.com/. 48
Public Involvement: 49
16
VHB conducted two rounds of public workshops in Graham City Hall, Rigmor House in Orange 1
County and Carrboro Town Hall: 2
• January 2018 – presented existing condition analysis and gathered input from the public 3
about their issues, concerns and discuss possible strategies to address them 4
• May 2018 – presented proposed recommendations and addressed remaining public 5
questions, issues, and concerns. 6
A website (www.nc54west.com/) was created keeping the public involved in the study. 7
8
Carrboro Board of Aldermen - October 16, 2018 9
NC-54 Corridor Study was presented before the Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen. It 10
provided that Board an opportunity to provide comments. No formal comments were submitted; 11
however the following understanding was expressed: 12
• While Carrboro is skeptical about the recommended widening, it understands current 13
operational and intersection improvements in the Town may help address some of the 14
growing traffic and safety issues at this end of the study area. 15
• It also understands future improvements will be needed as traffic continues increasing 16
along the corridor. These improvements are anticipated over the next 20 years and 17
beyond and in future SPOT processes as presented. 18
• Transit may help address the increasing traffic. Coordination between the two current 19
providers – Piedmont Authority for Regional Transit (PART) and Chapel Hill Transit – 20
along the corridor will need to be improved in the future. 21
• Town acknowledges NCDOT does not fund Shared Use Paths due to its current bicycle 22
and pedestrian policy as well as complete streets policy, even if it is NCDOT right-of-23
way. This is something local jurisdictions must address. 24
25
OUTBoard Comments - October 17, 2018 26
OUTBoard provided the following comments: 27
• The OUTBoard opposes widening NC-54, based on the rationale: increase lanes results 28
in more cars on the road, this escalates negative impacts on air quality and subsequent 29
impacts on climate change. 30
o Recommends making intersection improvements first 31
o Adding passing lanes second. 32
• Provide a dedicated transit lane and improve transit services between all service 33
providers along the corridor, this includes: 34
o Better coordinated currently provided services by PART and Chapel Hill Transit 35
o Adding additional services by Go Triangle and Orange County Public Transit 36
o Include Bus Rapid Transit as a preferred recommendation to widening 37
• Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 38
technologies 39
at intersections. 40
41
NC-54 West Corridor Study 42
November 1, 2018 43
44
Outline 45
Background 46
Recommendations 47
Implementation 48
Carrboro Comments 49
Action 50
17
1
Background – Jurisdiction and Issues 2
• Shirt and long-term vision safety 3
o Multimodal options 4
o Community and Environment preservation 5
o Economic viability 6
Inadequate pedestrian and bicycle treatments/facilities (safety & access) 7
Difficulty turning left to/from NC 54 (crashes & delays) 8
Reduce intersection delays & queues 9
10
Project Schedule (flow chart) 11
12
Public Comments 13
Reduce truck traffic 14
Widen (encourage development?) 15
Don’t widen (discourage development?) 16
Better lighting 17
Vehicles represent most of noted safety issues 18
More traffic signals 19
More passing and turn lanes 20
Enhance wayfinding 21
Park & Ride with transit service 22
More entries for the eastern half of the corridor 23
24
Commissioner Jacobs asked if “better lighting” could be clarified. 25
Nishith Trivedi said there is very little lighting along the corridor, as well as wayfinding. 26
He said improved lighting is recommended, so that people can see while driving at night. 27
Commissioner Jacobs asked if DOT has a dark skies policy. 28
Nishith Trivedi said he is not sure, but can research that information. 29
Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County has restrictions on light pollution, but does 30
not think DOT has the same ones. He said he would like to see Orange County standards 31
followed, as increased lighting could be a huge change for the people who live nearby. 32
33
Potential Solutions 34
• Intersection Configurations (signals, lanes, ped/bike crossings) 35
o Conventional 36
o Median U-turn 37
o Superstreet 38
o Quadrant 39
o Roundabout 40
• Cross-section improvements 41
o # lanes & widths 42
o Median type & width 43
o Shoulder width 44
o On/off-street bicycle facilities 45
o Sidewalks, shared paths, sidepaths 46
47
Key Findings 48
55-mph speeds, dropping to 45-mph in places 49
1.5% average annual traffic growth 50
18
No dramatic land use changes 1
Primarily Shared-Use Path (SUP) east of Long Dairy Road, shown on north side 2
Primarily sidewalks (both sides) west of NC 119 3
4
5 graphs 5
6
Priorities 7
Safety, especially for bicyclists & pedestrians 8
Both crossing & along NC 54 9
Intersection improvements (short-range) 10
Ultimate cross-sections (long-range) 11
Transit and other options 12
Supportive land uses & policies 13
Environmental protection & mitigation 14
Implementation phasing 15
16
Recommendations 17
4 lanes will be needed throughout the corridor 18
Access management will be critical, especially along existing 5-lane section 19
Phasing is feasible (ends middle) 20
Most likely 23-foot raised grassed median with ditches east of NC 119 21
• Potentially narrower median in limited locations 22
• Curb-&-gutter appropriate in some locations 23
24
6 graphs 25
26
Implementation 27
28
Graph 29
30
Estimated Costs 31
Total = $180 million 32
Alamance County = $ 80 million 33
Orange County = $100 million 34
By Phase 35
$43 million – Phase 1 Subtotal (Orange County) 36
$48 million – Phase 2 Subtotal 37
$24 million – Phase 2: Alamance County 38
$24 million – Phase 2: Orange County 39
$36 million – Phase 3 Subtotal (Alamance County) 40
$53 million – Phase 4 Subtotal 41
$20 million – Phase 4: Alamance County 42
$33 million – Phase 4: Orange County 43
44
Carrboro Comments: 45
Carrboro provided the following comments at its October 16 Meeting: 46
• While Carrboro is skeptical about the recommended widening, it understands current 47
operational and intersection improvements in the Town may help address some of the 48
growing traffic and safety issues at this end of the study area. 49
19
• It also understands future improvements will be needed as traffic continues increasing 1
along the corridor. These improvements are anticipated over the next 20 years and 2
beyond and in future SPOT processes as presented. 3
• Transit may help address the increasing traffic. Coordination between the two current 4
providers – PART and Chapel Hill Transit – along the corridor will need to be improved 5
in the future. 6
• Town acknowledges NCDOT does not fund Shared Use Paths due to its current bicycle 7
and pedestrian policy as well as complete streets policy, even if it is NCDOT right-of-8
way. This is something local jurisdictions must address. 9
10
OUTBoard Comments: 11
• The OUTBoard opposes widening NC-54, based on the rationale: increase lanes results 12
in more cars on the road, this escalates negative impacts on air quality and subsequent 13
impacts on climate change. 14
o Recommends making intersection improvements first. 15
o Adding passing lanes second. 16
• Provide a dedicated transit lane and improve transit services between all service 17
providers along the corridor, this includes: 18
o Better coordinated currently provided services by PART and Chapel Hill Transit. 19
o Adding additional services by Go Triangle and Orange County Public Transit. 20
o Include Bus Rapid Transit as a preferred recommendation to widening. 21
• Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 22
technologies at intersections. 23
24
Requested Action 25
The Manager recommends to BOCC: 26
• Receive the presentation (Attachment 1); 27
• Discuss as appropriate; and 28
• Identify any comments the Board may have for staff to convey to DCHC MPO. 29
30
Commissioner Marcoplos said Park and Ride lots were heavily discussed at the 31
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), but he does not see them strongly recommended 32
here. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to make the Park and Ride lots a priority. 33
He said there is a UNC facility on Hwy 54, with a lot of land around it, and suggesting work ing 34
with them. He said it could be a gravel lot, and does not need to be fancy. 35
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) idea, and said, if it is 36
going to be done, it should be done soon since a lot of transit projects are planned for the 37
future, but are almost too little too late once finally completed. 38
Commissioner McKee endorsed Commissioner Marcoplos comments, and said the key 39
is to get ahead of the curve, as growth will only increase. 40
Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos and Commissioner McKee. 41
She asked if bikes will be included in this plan. 42
Nishith Trivedi said yes. 43
Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan for stormwater. 44
Craig Benedict said if there is curb and gutter, it is piped to areas where there are 45
existing streams. He said before it is released into a stream, stormwater devices must be put 46
in. He said it is a major engineering endeavor, and would greatly increase the project cost. 47
Commissioner Price clarified that the numbers presented do not include these costs. 48
Craig Benedict said the numbers probably include a middle of the road cost estimate, 49
and real costs will likely be higher. 50
20
Commissioner McKee said the curb and gutter act like a collection system that is piped 1
into disperser pads or retention ponds. 2
Commissioner Price said this was not reflected in the PowerPoint, and will likely 3
increase the projected costs. 4
Commissioner Price said she liked to listen to Carrboro residents’ comments, and she 5
would like to see more reduction of traffic on this road, as well as greater use of Park and Ride 6
lots. 7
Commissioner Rich referred to b-2 and c-2, and asked if there is only a sidewalk on one 8
side of Highway 54. 9
Nishith Trivedi said yes that is correct. 10
Commissioner Rich asked if it is known how far one would have to walk to reach an 11
intersection to cross the road to the sidewalk. 12
Nishith Trivedi said each of these proposed intersections has a pedestrian crosswalk. 13
Commissioner McKee asked if the intersections are signalized. 14
Nishith Trivedi said most, but not all of them. 15
Commissioner Rich referred to the OUTBoard comments, who want to see more 16
coordination of all the transit partners, and asked if those discussions are included at the MPO 17
and other meetings. 18
Nishith Trivedi said yes. 19
Commissioner Rich asked if public transit would stop at the Park and Ride lots. 20
Nishith Trivedi said this would be recommended as part of the study. 21
22
b. GoTriangle Quarterly Update on Orange County Transit Plan Implementation 23
The Board received a quarterly update from GoTriangle on the implementation of the 24
Orange County Transit Plan including the status of the Durham-Orange Light Rail project as 25
required by the Cost Share Agreement between Durham County, Orange County, and 26
GoTriangle. 27
28
Travis Myren presented John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Development 29
Director, who will be presenting this item and the PowerPoint presentation, which can be found 30
in the Commissioners’ packets. 31
Travis Myren said John Tallmadge has a slide on the performance of the Article 43 32
sales tax, but, additionally, Orange County will be publishing a sales tax tracker on the County 33
website, so that residents can keep track. 34
35
BACKGROUND: 36
On April 27, 2017, the Board of Orange County Commissioners adopted the Interlocal Cost 37
Sharing Agreement for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project as well as the Orange 38
County Transit Plan. The Cost Sharing Agreement requires GoTriangle to provide quarterly 39
reports to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Durham County, Orange County, and the 40
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) when the 41
project was approved to enter engineering. 42
43
This quarterly report will focus on the Go Forward program, the status of dedicated transit 44
revenue collections, GoTriangle’s Short Range Transit Plan, and an update on the status of the 45
Durham-Orange Light Rail Project. 46
47
FINANCIAL IMPACT: 48
21
No direct financial impact is associated with the project update. GoTriangle reports that neither 1
the total budget nor the total projected project expenditures have changed since the adoption of 2
the Cost Sharing Agreement and Orange County Transit Plan. 3
4
John Tallmadge made the following PowerPoint presentation: 5
6
Orange County 7
GoTriangle Quarterly Update 8
Nov. 1, 2018 9
10
Introduction 11
• Go Forward 12
• Dedicated Transit Revenues 13
• GoTriangle Short-Range Plan 14
• Youth GoPass 15
• Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project 16
• GoForwardNC.org 17
18
Durham and Orange Revenue- table 19
20
Short-Range Transit Plan 21
• Provides a roadmap for transit that incorporates a regional approach to mobility. 22
• Begins integrating light-rail into the future transit network. 23
Specific Goals 24
• Make bus service faster and more competitive 25
• Provide more frequent service 26
• Provide more all-day service 27
28
GoTriangle Short-Range Plan (graph) 29
30
What are the project timelines? (graph) 31
32
Light-Rail Project Update 33
• Project remains eligible for approximately $1.25 billion in federal funding (Full Funding 34
Grant Agreement anticipated September 2019). 35
• Durham County confirmed its intent to provide an additional $57.6 million in dedicated 36
transit revenue. 37
• Updated cost-sharing agreement and transit plan anticipated January-February 2019. 38
39
Light-Rail Financial Plan (Year of Expenditure) October 2018- table 40
41
Tentative Federal Grant Application Schedule 42
• Undergo next FTA review October 2018. 43
• Finalize agreements and secure remaining nonfederal funds including public and private 44
donations through the GoTransit Partners Capital Campaign by early 2019. 45
• Submit federal grant application by April 2019. 46
• Anticipate Full Funding Grant Agreement September 2019. 47
48
Supplemental Environmental Assessment 49
22
• Updated environmental document will be available for public review and input at the end 1
of October. 2
• Proposed project refinements and enhancements include changes to: 3
o Blackwell/Mangum station, Gateway Station, Erwin Road, Pettigrew Street, MLK 4
Jr. Station park-and-ride lot, Shannon Road, Patterson Place Station, and Alston 5
Avenue. 6
7
John Tallmadge said there are some other relevant issues: changing the width and the 8
length of the platforms from a 3-car to a 3-car platform as a value engineering measure; and 9
use of a single track bridge crossing over New Hope Creek, lessening the impacts and costs. 10
He said neither of these changes will negatively impact service. He resumed the presentation: 11
12
Erwin Road 13
Design considerations: 14
• Avoid hospital utility relocation. 15
• Maintain access to medical centers. 16
• Minimize property impacts. 17
Proposed solution: 18
• Realign and elevate a portion of the Erwin Road tracks. 19
• Elevate the LaSalle Street station and Duke/Durham VA Medical Center station. 20
21
Pettigrew Street 22
Design considerations: 23
• Avoid possibility of large vehicles getting stuck with the required change from sloping 24
roadways to flat tracks at railroad crossings in downtown Durham. 25
Proposed solution: 26
• Raise the elevation of Pettigrew Street approximately 7 feet at its intersection with 27
Mangum Street. Mangum Street would transition back to its existing elevation south of 28
Vivian Street. 29
30
Blackwell Street 31
Design considerations: 32
• Enhance safety and pedestrian access for a downtown crossing in great need of 33
improvement. 34
• Avoid impact to historical landmark. 35
Proposed solution: 36
• Close the existing Blackwell Street railroad crossing to vehicle traff ic. 37
• Work closely with the community to evaluate an alternative connection near Blackwell 38
Street, most likely in the form of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. 39
40
Dillard Street 41
Design considerations: 42
• Acknowledge existing traffic patterns. 43
• Mitigate ways current railroad operations pose challenges to vehicle, pedestrian and 44
light-rail traffic. 45
46
Proposed solution: 47
• Convert Dillard Street to one-way southbound between Ramseur and Pettigrew streets 48
to improve light rail and existing freight rail operations. 49
23
1
Downtown Loop (Ramseur Street) 2
Design considerations: 3
• Acknowledge existing traffic patterns, other vehicle access changes to Blackwell Street. 4
• Adhere to city’s existing downtown loop plan. 5
Proposed solution: 6
• Change Ramseur Street to two-way travel between Chapel Hill Street and Dillard Street 7
to improve vehicle and bus access in the westbound direction. This conversion aligns 8
with the City of Durham’s adopted plan to convert the entire loop. 9
10
Alston Avenue/ NCCU 11
Design considerations: 12
• Enhance safety and pedestrian access for nearby affordable housing residents and 13
North Carolina Central University. 14
• Limit potential conflicts with vehicle traffic. 15
Proposed solution: 16
• Replace large park-and-ride structure at Alston Avenue with at-grade parking spaces. 17
• Move the Alston Avenue station platform closer to the intersection of Pettigrew and 18
Grant streets to improve pedestrian access. 19
• Improve sidewalks and lighting at both station areas. 20
21
Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility 22
• GoTriangle seeking rezoning with a development plan, Future Land Use Map 23
amendment and annexation. 24
• Planning Commission hearing Oct. 9; Durham City Council action in December. 25
26
Project Design Schedule 27
• Design has surpassed the 50 percent milestone, and 90 percent of design is anticipated 28
by summer 2019. 29
• Informal reviews with third-party stakeholders are ongoing. 30
• 100 percent design milestone anticipated by November 2019. 31
• 32
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation 33
DBE goals remain on track for the three primary consulting contracts: 34
• 14 percent for the General Engineering Contract 35
• 14 percent for the Project Management Contract 36
• 15 percent for the Construction Management Contract 37
38
Workforce Development 39
• A strong local labor supply will limit risks to construction costs. 40
• A broader coalition is needed to implement a healthy workforce development program. 41
• The project creates significant opportunity for sustainable jobs. 42
43
Questions 44
45
Commissioner Price referred to the revenue streams, and asked if it is known why the 46
revenue for the Article 51 and 52 taxes is decreasing. 47
24
John Tallmadge said they do not have good answers for that, and are working with the 1
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to see if they are seeing a pattern in other parts of the 2
State. 3
Commissioner Price referred to the donations, and asked if the 4% private donations 4
and others include the land donations. 5
John Tallmadge said yes, and the VA Memorandum of Understanding does include land 6
donations, but does not count toward this since it is already federal land. 7
Commissioner Price said the cost-share agreement will need to be revised next year, 8
and asked if anything particular would trigger a change in this agreement, adding that the 9
contingency, which is above 20% now, and could go up and wondering who will be responsible 10
for the increase. 11
John Tallmadge said the State action this summer precipitated the parties meeting, and 12
the agreement on the path forward was made but it needs to be memorialized in some 13
language change to the cost-share agreement. He said that is related to the second question, 14
and if the risk assessment comes back recommending higher contingency levels, Durham City 15
and County are weighing options for meeting this need. He said GoTriangle is also making 16
revisions to the financial model in regards to assumptions about interest rates, is there more 17
money on the Durham side in transit taxes, etc. 18
Commissioner McKee referred to the private and other donations, and asked if the 19
figure or percentage of current totals is known. 20
John Tallmadge said they are at $15 million in land donations from the Universities, 21
leaving $88 million to be committed. 22
Commissioner McKee asked if this money has to be raised in the next 3-4 months. 23
John Tallmadge said yes, and there are more donations in process that cannot yet be 24
made public. 25
Commissioner McKee asked if the undisclosed donations amount to a specific 26
percentage of the remaining $88 million. 27
John Tallmadge said close to target or there. 28
Commissioner McKee asked if the VA donation does not count against the cost, why 29
does the donation from UNC and NCCU count against the State donation. 30
John Tallmadge said there are different laws that regulate this. 31
Commissioner McKee asked if there are any assurances that the State will not count 32
this $15 million as part of the State’s donation. 33
John Tallmadge said under the current law, the limit to be directed to a transportation 34
project is $190 million. He said this could be changed, but the action of the two universities and 35
the Council of State are not through the same stream of revenue used by the Board of 36
Transportation. 37
Commissioner McKee said the total cost is still being referred to as $2.5 billion to build 38
the project, which does not include the long-term Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 39
Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans of $800 million plus. He said Orange County’s share is $149 40
million, which also does not count long-term interest of the TIFIA loans. 41
John Tallmadge said the $149.5 million is the contribution towards the capital cost until 42
2032, and there are agreements in the cost sharing language that state that Orange County will 43
continue to pay a share of the debt payments on the borrowing that happens for the 44
construction. 45
Commissioner McKee said the true cost to Orange County will hit closer to $300 million 46
over the life of the project, and the $149 million does not include TIFIA. 47
John Tallmadge said he does not know the exact number. 48
Commissioner McKee said the $149 million does not include the long-term interest. 49
25
John Tallmadge said the $149.5 million does not include any of the debt repayment that 1
occurs after 2032, but does include debt repayment that occurs before 2032. 2
John Tallmadge said they are acting consistently with the adopted transit plan and cost 3
sharing agreement. 4
Commissioner McKee said in these documents the true cost of the project to Orange 5
County needs to be acknowledged, and the long-term interest costs are not being 6
acknowledged in the total costs. 7
Commissioner McKee said he would like to know what the exact cost of the Erwin Road 8
elevation, the Pettigrew Street elevation, and each one of these increased and decreased 9
costs. 10
John Tallmadge said the Erwin Road elevation is a $90 million add to the project; and 11
there are other changes that are happening related to when construction costs are to occur and 12
interest rates, etc., and all of these are changing as the get closer to the project. 13
14
Public Comment: 15
Bonnie Hauser said her comments are intended to complement an email that we sent 16
earlier this week: 17
18
First – thanks for the information on sales tax collections. It helped to alleviate our 19
concerns. When the County lowered its growth projections, we wondered how you were going 20
to meet GoTriangle’s aggressive projections. Now we know. 21
22
We continue to have concerns about the project, which we listed in our email. We hope that you 23
will consider the full list. 24
25
Tonight I will focus on financial issues so that taxpayers can have a full understanding of how 26
costs, functionality and risks have changed since voters approved the transit tax in 2012. 27
28
First. News reports have quoted GoTriangle saying that interest costs will increase to $850-29
$900 million. We’ve also read about cost estimates for changes to Erwin Road and unresolved 30
concerns of downtown Durham’s biggest business owners. All the while, GoTriangle and 31
elected officials tell us that the capital cost remains at $2.4 billion, ignoring the debt burden 32
that’s increasing for Orange and Durham County. For Orange, the project costs exceed $300 33
million. How much more, including interest, will this project cost Orange County? 34
35
We’ve also like to know how much functionality is being cut or shifted to local governments? In 36
the 2017 plan, we lost MLK BRT and about 20% of our bus hours. GoTriangle also identified 37
about $75-100 million of unfunded needs that will be needed to keep basic bus services 38
operational. What further cost shifting or “value-engineering” should we expect in the future? 39
40
Third. How much more will it cost Orange County to keep its transit services operating? We 41
know that LRT is funded from the transit tax, but it appears that public transportation – that’s 42
buses and other services – will be funded out of the Town and County general funds where 43
transit will compete with schools and other essentials. There’s still a question about how 44
possible changes to TIFIA loans could impact costs and the County’s ability to borrow money in 45
the future. 46
47
With our questions and these things in mind, we ask that you to please invite Davenport back to 48
update their review and assess Orange County’s risk. And while they are at it, maybe staff can 49
give us an idea about how much our own transit services will cost. 50
26
1
We need your help to assure that everyone can GoForward with confidence. 2
3
Thank you 4
5
Cheri Hardman said she is responding to the rail operations maintenance facility and its 6
proximity to her neighborhood. She said Durham County has much of the burden for this 7
project, and there is complete uncertainty at the State and Federal level. She said she is not in 8
support of light rail, and its negative environmental effects. She thinks the site is poorly chosen, 9
especially as it relates to Interstate 40. She said there are many naysayers surrounding this 10
project, which leads it to a large responsibility being placed on Orange and Durham counties. 11
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is concern that the light rail (LRT) project is 12
preventing other transit projects from coming to fruition. He said the transit taxes have paid for 13
other transit projects, and asked if this information is specified on the GoForward website. 14
John Tallmadge said anyone can find the transit plans and fund allocations on line. He 15
said he believes the annual reports are also available. 16
Commissioner Marcoplos said it would be great to make that information front and 17
center. He said there will be an Amtrak station in Hillsborough soon funded by transit tax 18
money. 19
Commissioner Burroughs said she does this commute daily, and she knows exactly at 20
which point her commute will slow down. She said this increasingly sluggish commute was 21
predicted, and the predictions have been spot on, and she appreciated the work of GoTriangle, 22
Orange County and Durham. 23
Commissioner McKee said light rail is burning up more than the majority of the ½ cent 24
sales tax revenue, and he is curious about how many buses will be needed through 2062, and 25
how much would be paid for through this sales tax. He said he anticipates a minute amount of 26
these necessary buses will be paid for by this sales tax. 27
Commissioner Rich asked if the appropriate website for further information could be 28
identified. 29
John Tallmadge said it is www.gotriangle.org/lightrail 30
Commissioner Rich said she frequently hears that the County is ignoring the cost of the 31
debt service, but she disagrees. She said the word “ignore” does not fit the conversation, as all 32
are aware that the debt service is present. 33
Commissioner Rich asked Travis Myren to drive the public to the website, to coordinate 34
answers, and put the information on the GoTriangle website. 35
36
8. Consent Agenda 37
38
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 39
40
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 41
42
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 43
approve the remaining items on the agenda. 44
45
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46
47
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 48
49
a. Minutes 50
27
The Board approved the minutes from October 9 and 16, 2018 as submitted by the Clerk to the 1
Board. 2
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 3
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle 4
property tax values for two taxpayers with a total of two bills that will result in a reduction of 5
revenue in accordance with NCGS. 6
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds 7
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax 8
values for seventeen taxpayers with a total of twenty-seven bills that will result in a reduction of 9
revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. 10
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion 11
The Board considered ten untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem 12
taxation for ten bills for the 2018 tax year. 13
14
9. County Manager’s Report 15
Bonnie Hammersley said there is a map at the Commissioners’ places and an 16
informational meeting on the TIP Project No. I-3306A: Proposed Widening of I-40 from I-85 to 17
the Durham County Line in Orange County will take place on November 5th at Southern Human 18
Services Center. 19
Bonnie Hammersley said on November 8th there will be a BOCC work session at 20
Southern Human Services Center. 21
22
10. County Attorney’s Report 23
NONE 24
25
11. *Appointments 26
27
a. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool – Appointment/Reassignment 28
The Board considered making reassignments to the Animal Services Hearing Panel 29
Pool. 30
31
REASSIGNMENT of positions within the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool. Amanda 32
Schwoerke was appointed to the Animal Services Advisory Board in June 2018 and to the 33
Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool in March of 2017. The Town of Carrboro position is 34
currently vacant and Michelle Walker is a Town of Carrboro resident. This request is to move 35
Michelle Walker to position #1 “Town of Carrboro” and assign Amanda Schwoerke to position 36
#18 “Animal Services Advisory Board Member”. 37
38
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to 39
appoint the following to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool: 40
41
• Position 18 to 1 for Michelle Walker - Town of Carrboro - First Full Term ending 42
03/31/2020 43
• Position 10 to Position 18 for Amanda Schwoerke- Animal Services Advisory Board 44
Member Position - First Full Term ending 03/31/2019 45
46
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 47
48
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 49
appoint Matthew Bonds to Position 11- At Large Position – with the term ending 3/31/2021. 50
28
1
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2
3
12. Information Items 4
5
• October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 6
• Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis 7
• Tax Collector’s Report – Measure of Enforced Collections 8
• Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100 9
• Summary of 2018 Orange County LocalFest 10
11
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to 12
adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. 13
14
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15
16
17
Penny Rich, Vice-Chair 18
19
20
Donna Baker 21
Clerk to the Board 22