HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-08-20181
APPROVED 12/3/2018
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
November 8, 2018
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, November 8,
2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board
Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
1. Presentation on Racial Equity Assessment of Manufactured Housing
BACKGROUND:
A student team from Dr. Allison De Marco's economic justice course in the UNC School of
Social Work worked with Commissioner Mia Burroughs, the Board’s representative to the
Leadership Team of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH), on a
racial equity assessment of manufactured housing (mobile homes), which have been an option
for affordable housing in Orange County. Using a racial equity toolkit, the team interviewed key
stakeholders and developed two proposals:
1) The Towns and Counties could partner to purchase the land of mobile home communities
at risk for displacement.
2) Relocation of residents of Chapel Hill and Carrboro mobile home parks to other
predesignated, town-owned parcels of land.
Both of proposals include measures for ensuring accountability, including conducting follow-up
surveys with the Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance
throughout the implementation process as well as after the process.
Orange County Mobile Home Parks: Proposals from a Racial Equity Lens
Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch, Lucas Risinger and Serena Singh
Executive Summary
Orange County, in cooperation with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, seeks a proposal for
how to use funds allocated to assist residents of mobile home parks at risk of being displaced
by development. We outlined two proposals for the use of these funds and analyze both using a
racial equity lens.
The Orange County Health Department and Family Success Alliance conducted a survey of
eight mobile home parks in the area and we largely rely on these data in our proposals; in the
survey results, it is clear that the residents of the mobile home parks strongly preferred
remaining in their homes and communities.
2
To address these strong preferences, our first proposal indicates that the Towns and Counties
should partner to purchase the land of mobile home communities at risk for displacement. This
proposal increases racial equity by ensuring that the majority Hispanic population of these parks
will be able to remain in their homes and on current land, thereby maintaining access to
services, transportation, and schools, which surveyed individuals cited as important reasons for
remaining in their current locations. This proposal would substantially benefit the residents of
mobile home parks facing displacement.
However, this proposal would also place a significant financial burden on the Towns and
Counties tasked with purchasing the land.
Our second proposal recommends the relocation of residents of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
mobile home parks to other pre-designated, town-owned parcels of land. This proposal is less
preferred under a racial equity lens given that it would force the relocation of marginalized and
vulnerable populations. Although this proposal places a burden on the residents, it takes into
account their preferences. The pre-designated parcels of land would ensure that residents
remain within Chapel Hill and Carrboro, ensuring that their children remain in the city school
district. Further, remaining within the towns would help alleviate concerns over access to transit
and other services. This proposal would also place a significant burden on the Towns and
County in that it would be costly to build the infrastructure for new mobile home parks and to
move residents and their trailers.
Both of their proposals include measures for ensuring accountability including conducting
follow-up surveys with the Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance
throughout the implementation process as well as after the process.
Dr. Allison DeMarco and UNC Students – Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch,
Lucas Risinger and Serena Singh (Current CEF Advocates) – made the following PowerPoint
presentation:
Orange County: Mobile Home Parks and Racial Equity
Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch, Lucas Risinger, Serena Singh
Step 1: What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes?
● Mobile home parks are overwhelmingly made up of people of color, meaning that any
adverse effects disproportionately harm communities of color.
○ A racially equitable policy is one that respects the wishes of these communities,
minimizes harm, and does not disproportionately harm people of color.
● We seek to propose two sustainable outcomes that balance the desires of these
marginalized communities with the financial realities of the County.
Step 2: What is the data?
● The burden of instability and uncertainty falls on the residents of these mobile home
parks, who are all low-income, majority-Hispanic, and often undocumented
themselves or live with undocumented family members.
● Residents who are undocumented or live in mixed-status homes are particularly
vulnerable, as they often cite avoidance of public services for fear of deportation, and
thus are likely particularly reliant on location-specific support networks and their
communities.
3
○ Proximity to family and friends was a major concern cited by residents regarding
relocation.Ste2: What is the data?
● Communities in these mobile home parks have expressed that they would like to remain
in their homes and communities.
○ There has been an emphasis placed on the importance of remaining within the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district.
● Lack of action could result in many of these residents to become homeless as many do
not have alternative options for housing.
Step 3: How are communities engaged?
Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance surveyed several mobile
home parks.
● The engagement process informs us:
1) that multiple facets of residents’ identities inform their decisions and
preferences, most notably race, class, and documentation status.
2) that not everyone in these mobile home parks has the opportunity to advocate
themselves, as they are in vulnerable situations, often living in fear of deportation
and separation from family members.
Step 4: What are your strategies for advancing racial equity?
The County should work actively to incorporate a racial-equity sense in all the work they do.
This includes:
1) facilitating conversations on poverty, race, affordable housing, or documentation-status.
○ These conversations should include and empower marginalized voices. By
partnering with community organizations like the Community Empowerment Fund
and the Family Success Alliance, the County can create effective spaces for
these conversations.
2) systematically surveying and documenting the responses of these individuals.
○ Listening and responding to the voices of marginalized populations in creating
and executing our proposal advances racial equity.
3) acknowledging that the needs of the community are subject to change and evolve as our
proposal begins to affect communities.
Step 5: Desired Outcomes, Proposals
Our desired outcome is one in which the wishes of community members are respected and
racially disproportionate harm is minimized.
Plan 1: Purchase Land
Costs: Principal purchase price and lost values of property taxes, while there would be income
flowing in from rent payments.
Benefits: While this is likely the most expensive option, it certainly minimizes the inflicted racial
inequity. Families would not have to relocate, nor would they have to fear future relocation;
furthermore, the desires of the community to remain in their current location would be
respected.
Plan 2: Relocated (Less Ideal) Plan 2: Relocate (Less Ideal)
Costs: Pay to relocate the residents (and their homes) to a plot of land owned by the County
within the preferred school system. The major expenses would be the physical relocation of the
mobile home park, as well as the establishment of proper sewage and electrical systems
4
Benefits: The additional financial burdens of this plan are likely smaller than the first, as the land
would already be owned by the town, and the regular maintenance would likely remain constant
or decrease. Residents will still have access to public transportation and live within the preferred
school district.
Unintended Consequences
Plan 1:
The aforementioned discretionary spending reserved for the mobile home parks may be enough
to fund either plan, but it is possible that more funding may be necessary to purchase the
currently occupied land. This can be allocated from existing county discretionary spending or
raised through taxes.
Plan 2:
The second plan would require additional personnel. Personnel would be needed to help
relocate the families, receive and implement community input, address unintended
consequences and damage to property, and survey the community after the move.
Step 6: How to ensure communication, accountability, and evaluate results?
• It will be important to conduct a follow up survey, an effective way to gauge the effects of
our proposal.
○ In our follow-up survey, we can repeat questions from the initial survey to
measure how responses have changed as well as ask new questions regarding
the implementation and outcomes of our proposal.
○ In conducting a follow-up survey it would be important to not only reach the
families that participated in the initial survey to see where they ended up, but also
to reach other community members who may have initially declined participation
to hear their input.
References
D. (1/29/18). Emotional Pleas at Chapel Hill Meeting Over Possible Redevelopment of Mobile
Home Park. Chapelboro.Com. Retrieved from
https://chapelboro.com/news/development/emotional-pleas-at-chapel-hill-meeting-over-
possible-redevelopment-of-mobile-home-park
Orange County Health Department and Family Success Alliance. (9/15/17). Mobile Home Park
Survey: Preliminary Report. Retrieved from
https://www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=38240
(8/28/18). Work Continues on Threats of Displacement to Mobile Home Dwellers. Orange
Politics.
Retrieved from
http://orangepolitics.org/2018/08/work-continues-threats-displacement-mobile home-
dwellers
Commissioner Rich asked the students if anyone in their class lived in mobile home
parks.
Lucas Risinger said not that he knows of, but he grew up in Chapel Hill, and had grade
school classmates who lived in them.
Commissioner Rich asked if there was a method for finding, and communicating with,
mobile home park residents.
Shodeah Kelly said she has lived in a mobile home. She said the students solely relied
on survey data, acknowledging that there are gaps in the data and it refreshed data is needed
to see if any participants that did not get to be part of the survey would like to be a part of it.
5
She said they hoped that the survey would be real, and she personally tried to weave personal
experiences into this project, without being subjective.
Commissioner McKee asked if the sample size could be identified.
Female student said the survey was done in 2017 in mobile home parks in Orange
County and the towns. She said the students would recommend that the next survey use more
community partners to reach out to organizations that may work with these residents.
Commissioner McKee said the two local school districts are on par with each other, and
noted that people across the country move all the time, changing schools as they go. He asked
if there is a reason why the students consider changing school systems to be so oppressive.
He said buying land in Chapel Hill is radically different than buying land in Orange County.
Female student said the students understand the cost factor, but there is a widely held
belief that the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) is a better school system, with better
funding. She said there are other benefits to living in Chapel Hill such as public transportation
and community partners.
Female student said about 96 surveys were completed and returned.
Commissioner McKee said he understood the perception that the CHCCS is the primary
school system, but he went to Orange County Schools (OCS) and he challenges the perception
that CHCCS is a better system.
Female student said people do move for all types of reasons, and in this particular case,
it is more to do with the nature of how and why people are being moved. She said these
residents want to remain in Chapel Hill, but will not be able to, which makes it racially
inequitable.
Shodeah Kelly said she moved 9 different times, and moving each time requires forming
new friendships, and relationships, different curriculums that left gaps in her knowledge, and as
a minority she was not given an opportunity to advocate for herself. She said it leads to a
fragmented foundation on which to build educational pursuits.
Commissioner McKee said he agrees and understands the stress, but he wants to
prevent the quest for perfection from getting in the way of the possible.
Chair Dorosin said this is a critical issue for the community. He said this is Orange
County’s gentrification, and low wealth residents are being displaced. He said finding other
options is critical.
Commissioner Price said she attended a seminar today that focused on housing and
real estate trends, and one of the recommendations was to purchase land/land trust to help
keep housing affordable.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Allison De Marco have someone from OCS come
and speak to her class. He said moving is not such an onerous thing, and the County could
help more people for less money.
Commissioner Burroughs thanked the students for coming tonight, and said it is not so
much that it is hard to move, but for folks who are already economically distressed it can be a
greater hardship. She said it is not so much about the schools, but about the people.
Lucas Risinger said that the residents advocated staying in their community, and it is
important to treat minorities the same way as a white community.
Female Student said she does not claim to know all of the costs of moving, but it is easy
to assume that costs would be larger because of the barriers these residents already face
(gaining employment, being undocumented, etc.). She thanked the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) for being willing to engage in this conversation.
2. Proposed Guidelines for the New Orange County Local Rent Supplement Program
(OC-LRSP)
Sherrill Hampton, Housing Director, introduced Javon Holley, Program Manager for the
new Housing Choice Voucher Program.
6
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners, on June 19, 2018, approved an initial
$100,000 appropriation for a new local voucher program known as the Orange County Local
Rent Supplement Program. In addition, the HOME Consortium, now known as the Local
Government Affordable Housing Collaborative and consisting of the towns of Carrboro, Chapel
Hill, and Hillsborough, as well as Orange County, approved a recommendation to award
$139,613 in FY 2018-19 HOME funds to be used for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. Of the
aforementioned amount, $114,613 would serve as leveraged resources for the new OC Local
Rent Supplement Program. The remaining amount of $25,000 will be used for the Rapid Re-
Housing Program. The federal Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) approved
the FY 2018-2019 HOME grant award on October 3, 2018, and the grant agreement was fully
executed on October 10, 2018 by the County Manager.
The new OC Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) in many aspects mirrors the
federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. However, it is also designed to allow
for flexibility in meeting local identified housing needs. For the full program overview and
proposed guidelines of the new OC-LRSP, see Attachment 1. In addition, a draft implementation
timeline and a copy of HUD’s FY 2019 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are also included as
Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. The listed rents serve as the payment standards for the
rental subsidies offered under the new program. It should be noted that there has been an
increase in the FMRs in FY 2019 as opposed to those originally
Sherrill Hampton thanked the BOCC for supporting this program, and said it will be
another tool in the housing toolbox. She reviewed the following PowerPoint presentation:
PART I: OVERVIEW OF THE NEW ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL RENT SUPPLEMENT
PROGRAM (OC-LRSP)
A. OVERVIEW
The Local Rent Supplement Program is a new rental subsidy program approved by the Orange
County Board of County Commissioners on June 19, 2018 with an initial injection of capital in
the amount of $100,000. The County’s HOME Consortium, the Local Government Affordable
Housing Collaborative, is providing $114, 613 in FY 2018-2019 HOME funds for tenant-based
rental assistance as leveraged funds to assist in the implementation of the OC-LRSP. The
County will enter into an agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) to
administer the new program.
The OC-LRSP provides monthly rental subsidies that cover the difference between the rents
that low-income families and individuals can afford to pay and the actual monthly cost of rent for
the unit. The new program addresses one of the priority housing needs identified in Orange
County’s FY 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, as well as the recently released Affordable Housing
Coalition’s 2018 Affordable Housing Summit Report.
The new program is designed to complement the federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) Program, which is administered by OCHA and will assist families and individuals who
earn 50% or less of the Area median Income with priority going to those who are very low
income (30% of AMI or less). The program promotes community-wide planning and strategic
use of resources to address the jurisdiction’s unmet needs and to narrow the gap in benefits
and services received by cost-burdened families.
7
For the most part, and unless otherwise specified, OC-LRSP will follow the rules and regulations
of the HCV Program. However, some of the differences between OC-LRSP and HCV Program
are that OC-LRSP’s rental subsidies are not for housing outside a 10-mile radius of the County’s
jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore the subsidies are not “portable” and are only available to
Orange County residents. In addition, the preferences and priorities for the housing assistance
are different than those specified in the HCV Program rules and regulations. Furthermore, the
rental assistance may be administered as tenant-based and/or project-based. If project-based is
utilized then an RFP will be released and proposals solicited from eligible landlords. In the
future, OC-LRSP may be amended to include sponsor-based rental assistance as a
methodology for incentivizing new affordable housing multi-family development.
B. PURPOSE
The purpose of the OC Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) is to provide rental
assistance in the form of a monthly rental subsidy to Homeless/At Risk of Homelessness
persons and families, Senior/Disabled persons, and Victims of Domestic Violence who are at or
below the fifty (50) percent of the Area Median Income limit.
PART II: PROPOSED PROGRAM GUIDELINES
ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY COSTS
• The total proposed cost of the Local Housing
program is $203,6201 and the break-out of units with
associated costs are as follows:
o 5 one bedroom units @ $902 per month for
12 months =$54,120
o 5 two bedroom units @$1,055 per month for
12 months = $63,300
o 5 three bedroom units @ $1,435 per month
for 12 months = $86,100
• HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
allocation of $114,613 will support the needed
difference of $103,620 for rental subsidies.
• Of the $114,613 identified above, $10,993 will be
used to cover security and utility deposit payments;
and
• If additional funds are needed to cover security
and utility deposit payments, OCHA will make a
request for Risk Mitigation/Housing
Displacement Funds, as well as for applicable
assistance from other jurisdictions. However,
these funds are often available on a one-time
basis and may not be used for ongoing utility
assistance as is provided under the federally-
funded HCV Program, which provides monthly
utility assistance to applicable low and very low
income households.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE The amount of the monthly assistance that OCHA will pay
on behalf of a family, may not exceed the difference
between the rent payment standard for the unit size and
thirty (30) percent of the family’s monthly adjusted income.
8
SECURITY DEPOSITS
A limited number of security deposit grants will be provided
to eligible applicants, subject to the availability of funds and
at the sole discretion of the OCHA. Participants must
document, in writing, their efforts to secure security deposit
funding from other sources and demonstrate insufficient
personal funds. The maximum amount of funds that may be
provided for the security deposit is the equivalent of two
months’ contracted rent for the unit.
Only the tenant (not the landlord) may apply for security
deposit assistance.
THE TERM OF THE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE
The term of the rental assistance contract may not exceed
twelve (12) months, but may be renewed, subject to the
availability of annual appropriations from Orange County or
the program, and at the discretion of the OCHA.
FUNDING
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The OCHA will make annual funding requests to Orange
County for the program. In turn, the County will request
HOME TBRA funds, as well as provide Risk
Mitigation/Housing Displacement funds based on the
availability of applicable program funds.
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners will
review and approve all policies, procedures and guidelines,
as well as amendments. The Orange County Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, serves as the Board of
Directors for the Housing Authority, adopts policies and
procedures annually.
The Local Rent Supplement Program adheres to the 1
federally-funded HCV Program model, unless otherwise 2
noted in these Guidelines. If there is a conflict between 3
program regulations and the HCV Administrative Plan, 4
the OC Local Rent Supplement Program regulations 5
have precedence. 6
In addition to evidence of eligibility required under the 7
HCV Program, applicants must meet one of the 8
following requirements to qualify for the Local Rent 9
Subsidy Program: 10
1. Homeless Individuals 11
2. Homeless Families, including those who may have 12
children in child protective services 13
3. Person At Risk of Homelessness, including those 14
who may have children in child protective services 15
4. Senior/Elderly and Disabled Individuals 16
5. Victims of Domestic Violence 17
18
And 19
Be at or below the HUD fifty (50) percent AMI limit 20
21
ELIGIBILITY The Orange County Housing Authority requires that 22
households, at time of entry into the program, be at or 23
9
below fifty (50) percent of the Area Median Income 1
(AMI). Additionally, the OCHA must provide at least fifty 2
percent (50%) of its local vouchers to applicants whose 3
income does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the AMI. 4
HUD income limits may also be used since they are 5
similar to Housing Choice Voucher income limits. 6
7
APPLYING TO THE WAITING LIST Any individual/family who wishes to receive 8
Any individual/family who wishes to receive rental 9
subsidies under the OC Local Rent Supplement 10
Program must apply for admission to the program. 11
The Local Rent Supplement Program has a 12
separate Waiting List and assistance is restricted to 13
persons who are at or below fifty percent (50%) of 14
the AMI. Priority will be given to Homeless 15
Individuals/Families, Persons At Risk of 16
Homelessness, Senior/Elderly Disabled Individuals, 17
and Victims of Domestic Violence 18
19
ACESSIBILITY TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS the Department of Social Services 20
(DSS), Community Centers and 21
various service providers throughout 22
the County. The Application period 23
will run from February 1, 2019 – 24
February 8, 2019. Persons having 25
questions or needing assistance in 26
completing the application may 27
contact the Orange County Housing 28
Authority/Department of Housing 29
and Community Development at 30
(919) 245-2490 or the TDD Number 31
at (919) 644-3045. 32
33
OUTREACH AND MARKETING The new program will be announced on the 34
County’s website beginning in mid-January 2019. In 35
addition, OCHA will hold a briefing for applicable 36
area service providers. 37
Full Implementation Timeline: 38
• January 14, 2019 – Announce new OC-LRSP 39
• January 17, 2019 – Hold Briefing for Service 40
Providers 41
• Application Period Opens – February 1, 2019 42
• Application Period Closes – February 8, 2019 43
• Reviewing Applications and Determining 44
Preliminary Eligibility – February 11- March 15, 45
2019 (Screening period may be extended due 46
to the number of applications received.) 47
• Conduct Briefings and Begin Issuance of New 48
Vouchers – March 25 – April 30, 2019 49
50
10
SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT The OCHA requires that any agency making 1
referrals to screen applicants for eligibility based on 2
the guidelines outlined in this document and to 3
submit to the OCHA required documents included 4
in the Local Rent Supplement Program Application 5
Packet. 6
Completed documents will be used by the PHA to: 7
1. Determine applicant’s eligibility 8
2. Select participants 9
3. Notify applicants of their obligations as an OC-10
LRSP recipient 11
12
Completed application and verifications must be 13
current within the last sixty (60) days. Referring 14
agencies and case managers must conduct a 15
thorough screening and assessment of each 16
individual’s care needs. The screening will include 17
assessment of the individual’s ability to live 18
independently. 19
In addition, the individual must not present a 20
danger to himself or others and the individual must 21
not require a level of care that is not offered by OC 22
Local Rent Supplement Program. 23
24
EVIDENCE OF ELIGIBLITY Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness Certification 25
The Local Rent Supplement Program applicants, who 26
qualify under the definition of Homelessness, must provide 27
the following documentation at the time of application to 28
establish that they meet the required criteria: 29
1. The Local Rent Supplement Program applicant’s 30
written certification that they have insufficient 31
financial resources and support networks 32
immediately available to attain housing stability 33
2. Documentation to verify that the Local Rent 34
Supplement Program applicant did not have 35
sufficient resources or support networks 36
immediately available to attain housing stability as 37
evidenced by one of the following: 38
a. Source documents (e.g., notice of 39
termination from employment, bank 40
statement, health care bill showing arrears); 41
or 42
b. Written statement by referring agency 43
staff confirming that they spoke to a relevant 44
third party to verify homelessness or at risk 45
homelessness status; or 46
c. Written statement by referring agency 47
staff of the efforts taken to obtain 48
verification through source documents and 49
relevant third parties 50
11
d. Verification that the Local Rent 1
Supplement Program applicant met one of 2
the seven conditions under the definition of 3
Homelessness as evidenced by one of the 4
following: 5
i. Source documents that evidence 6
one or more of the conditions; 7
1. A Homeless/At Risk 8
Homelessness Certification 9
Form completed by a service 10
provider. 11
2. A written statement by a 12
relevant third party or the 13
written certification by 14
referring agency staff of the 15
oral verification by the 16
relevant third party that the 17
applicant meets one or more 18
of the conditions; or 19
3. A written statement by the 20
referring agency staff that the 21
staff person has visited the 22
applicant’s residence and 23
determined that the applicant 24
meets one or more of the 25
conditions or, if a visit is not 26
feasible or relevant to the 27
determination, a written 28
statement by the referring 29
agency staff describing the 30
efforts taken to obtain the 31
required evidence. 32
33
34
3. In addition, one or more of the following should 35
be provided: 36
a. A written documentation of observation 37
by an outreach worker; 38
b. A written certification by the household 39
seeking assistance that demonstrates that 40
the individual or head of household is 41
currently homeless and living in a place not 42
meant for human habitation, in an 43
emergency shelter, or a safe haven. 44
45
46
Senior/Elderly Disabled Certification A birth certificate or other official record of birth is 47
the preferred form of age verification (must be at 48
least 62 years of age or older). An original 49
document that provides evidence of the receipt of 50
social security retirement benefits is acceptable. 51
12
1
In order to receive Disabled/Disabling Condition 2
preference, the Local Rent Supplement Program 3
applicants must present evidence of disabling 4
condition diagnosis with one or more of the 5
following conditions: substance use disorder, 6
serious mental illness, developmental disability as 7
defined by the Department of Housing and Urban 8
Development (HUD). 9
A disabling condition is defined by HUD as: 10
1. A physical, mental, or emotional 11
impairment which is expected to be of long-12
continued and indefinite duration, 13
substantially impedes an individual’s ability 14
to live independently, and of such a nature 15
that the disability could be improved by 16
more suitable conditions; 17
2. A developmental disability as defined in 18
section 102 of the Developmental 19
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 20
Act; 21
3. The disease of acquired 22
immunodeficiency syndrome or any 23
conditions arising from the etiological 24
agency for acquired immunodeficiency 25
syndrome; or 26
4. A diagnosable substance abuse disorder. 27
28
Evidence of this criterion must include one of the 29
following: 30
a. Written verification of the 31
condition from a professional 32
licensed by the state to diagnose 33
and treat the condition; 34
b. Written verification from the Social 35
Security Administration; 36
c. Copies of a disability check (e.g., 37
Social Security Disability Insurance 38
check or Veterans Disability 39
Compensation); Intake staff (or 40
referral staff) observation that is 41
confirmed by written verification of 42
the condition from a professional 43
licensed by the state to diagnose 44
and treat the condition that is 45
confirmed no later than fourteen (14) 46
days of the application for 47
assistance and accompanied with 48
one of the types of evidence above; 49
or other documentation approved by 50
HUD. 51
13
1
Victim of Domestic Violence The Local Rent Supplement Program applicants, who 2
qualify under the definition of Victim of Domestic Violence, 3
must provide the following documentation at the time of 4
application to establish that they meet the required criteria: 5
1. The individual may satisfy the PHA’s request by 6
providing any one of the following three forms of 7
documentation [24 CFR 5.2007(b)]: 8
a. A completed and signed HUD-approved 9
certification form (HUD-50066, 10
Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating 11
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), 12
which must include the name of the 13
perpetrator only if the name of the 14
perpetrator is safe to provide and is known 15
to the victim; 16
b. A federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local 17
police report, or court record, or an 18
administrative record; or 19
c. Documentation signed by a person who 20
has assisted the victim in addressing 21
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 22
assault, or stalking, or the effects of 23
such abuse. This person may be an 24
employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim 25
service provider; an attorney; a mental 26
health professional; or a medical 27
professional. The person signing the 28
documentation must attest under penalty of 29
perjury to the person’s belief that the 30
incidents in question are bona fide 31
incidents of abuse. The victim must also 32
sign the documentation. 33
34
TENANT SELECTION Selection Criteria 35
Families will be selected based on the following targeted 36
population selection criteria and selection preference 37
method. Within the preference category, families and 38
individuals will be selected based on severity of needs. 39
40
The OCHA system of preferences may select families 41
either according to the date and time of application, or by a 42
random selection process. When selecting families from 43
the Waiting List OCHA is required to use targeted funding 44
to assist only those families who meet the specified 45
criteria, and OCHA is not permitted to skip down the 46
waiting list to a family that it can afford to subsidize when 47
there are not sufficient funds to subsidize the family at the 48
top of the waiting list. 49
50
Targeted Population: 51
14
• Homeless Individuals 1
• Homeless Families, including those families who 2
may have children in child protective 3
services 4
• Person At Risk of Homelessness, including 5
families who may have children in child 6
protective services 7
• Senior/Elderly and Disabled Individuals 8
• Victims of Domestic Violence 9
Families and individuals must meet the requirements and 10
eligibility criteria of one of the above targeted population 11
groups to qualify for the Local Rent Supplement Program. 12
Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness 13
For Homelessness and At Risk of Homelessness 14
applicants, severity of needs is identified and verified 15
through the use of Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness 16
Certification Form and submitted source documents. 17
Senior/Disabled applicants and Victims of Domestic 18
Violence 19
For Senior/Disabled applicants and Victims of Domestic 20
Violence applicants, severity of needs is identified and 21
verified through the use of the submitted source 22
documents. 23
24
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND All participants will undergo criminal background and sex 25
offender checks based on the Housing Choice Voucher 26
(HCV) regulations. 27
28
DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE An applicant will be denied participation in the Local Rent 29
Supplement Program if the applicant does not meet Local 30
Rent Supplement Program specific admission criteria. 31
32
Participation will also be denied if the Local Rent 33
Supplement Program applicant does not provide: 34
1. Information that the OCHA determines is 35
necessary in the administration of the program 36
2. Complete and true information and it is 37
discovered that the applicant does not meet 38
eligibility requirements 39
40
BRIEFINGS AND VOUCHER ISSUANCE The applicant, together with all adult 41
members of the household and the 42
assigned case manager (if applicable) must 43
be present for the initial briefing and 44
voucher issuance. 45
46
Upon the completion of the initial briefing, a 47
Local Voucher/Rent Subsidy voucher will be 48
issued to the applicant. Local Rent 49
Supplement Program participants have up 50
to 120 days to search for a unit within the 51
15
Orange County geographic area and submit 1
a Request for Tenancy Approval (RTA) to 2
the OCHA upon finding a suitable unit. 3
4
If an extension is needed, one may be 5
requested. The request will be evaluated 6
and a decision made based upon the same 7
policy outlined in the voucher issuance 8
section of Chapter 5 of the OCHA Housing 9
Choice Voucher Administrative Plan (Proof 10
of Effort must be submitted to the OCHA). 11
12
TENANT RENT PORTION Program participants are required to pay a portion of their 13
rent if they are receiving assistance under OC Local Rent 14
Supplement Program. Participants’ rent must be equal to 15
the highest of: 16
• 30 percent of family‘s monthly adjusted income; 17
• 10 percent of family’s monthly gross income; or 18
• A minimum rent of $50 contribution. 19
The PHA has authority to suspend and exempt families 20
from minimum rent when a financial hardship exists. 21
22
HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS (HQS) HQS unit inspections are required both at 23
initial occupancy and annually thereafter for 24
all Local Rent Supplement subsidized units. 25
Newly leased units must pass the HQS 26
inspection before the beginning date of the 27
assisted lease and the Local Voucher Rent 28
Supplement Housing Assistance Payment 29
(HAP) Contract. 30
31
RENT REASONABLNESS Rent reasonable review must be conducted before Local 32
Rent Supplement Program participant rents a unit. The 33
OCHA will pay rents up to the rent reasonable amount, not 34
to exceed the exceptional payment standard utilized for the 35
PHA’s HCV Program. 36
37
MOVING WITH CONTINUED ASSISTANCE AND PORTABILITY 38
Under the OC Local Rent Supplement Program, the OCHA issues an eligible family a voucher 39
and the family selects a unit of its choice within the Orange County geographic area, as 40
specified earlier in these guidelines. If the family moves out of the unit, the contract with the 41
owner ends and the family can move with continued assistance to another unit within the 42
Orange County geographic area. 43
44
Local Rent Supplement Program participants are not eligible for portability and must remain 45
within the Orange County geographic area. 46
47
ANNUAL/INTERIM REEXAMINATIONS The OCHA is required to process annual re-48
examinations. In cases where a family experiences 49
a change in household composition and/or income 50
16
between annual re-examination, the PHA will 1
process an interim re-examination. 2
3
The family is required to report all changes in 4
household composition and/or income to the OCHA 5
within 10 calendar days of the occurrence. 6
7
RENTAL INCREASES Landlords may submit a request for a rent increase every other 8
year and approval is based on availability of funding and rent 9
reasonableness for the tenant. 10
11
TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE AND TENANCY The OCHA is required to terminate a 12
family’s assistance if certain 13
program rules are violated. 14
15
For other types of offense, the 16
OHCA has the discretion to either 17
terminate the family’s assistance or 18
to take another action. All 19
participants must adhere to Section 20
8 Housing Choice Family 21
Obligations and Informal 22
Reviews/Hearings process. 23
24
Chair Dorosin clarified that this initial proposal anticipates 15 vouchers. 25
Sherrill Hampton said yes, and that is a slight increase from last year. She said HOME 26
funds are being leveraged here, and risk mitigation funds could be used if necessary. 27
Commissioner Price referred to the eligible subsidy costs, and the 5/5/5 breakdown, and 28
asked if that breakdown is based on actual need, and what would happen if the number of 29
applications varies. 30
Sherrill Hampton said selection of the tenants is based on a preference rating, and there 31
is some flexibility and it depends on the first round of persons selected and deemed eligible 32
under the preferences. 33
Travis Myren said the number of vouchers is dictated by the amount of money available. 34
He said very low income residents are being targeted, thus assuming a 100% subsidy. He said 35
the County could choose to target people at 60% of the average median income, which would 36
allow more people to be served, but would be people with less need. 37
Sherrill Hampton referred to rental assistance (page 2), and said the monthly assistance 38
is dependent on a family’s income, and no family will pay more than 30% of their monthly-39
adjusted income. She said there is flexibility with this, and the term of the rental assistance is 40
for one year. She said families would be recertified on an annual basis, as is consistent with the 41
federally funding housing choice voucher program. 42
Commissioner Price asked if there is a process in place for the security deposit when a 43
renter moves out of the County prior to the 12-month time period. 44
Sherrill Hampton said the deposit would come back to them. 45
Javon Holley explained the residency eligibility policy on page 3 of the PowerPoint 46
presentation, as well as the application process. 47
Sherrill Hampton said a limited time window for applying was chosen because there are 48
a limited number of vouchers: only 15. She said staff wanted to manage the number of 49
applications, and thus shorten the period for applications. She said the processing of 50
applications is labor intensive. 51
17
Javon Holley said it will take about 60-90 days to determine eligibility of an applicant, 1
and to do so, they will ask for proof of age, homelessness, or domestic violence. 2
Commissioner Price referred to the requirement that an applicant must meet necessary 3
criteria as determined by a professional licensed by the state, and asked if the licensed 4
professional can only be from North Carolina. 5
Sherrill Hampton said this program is only for Orange County residents, and staff would 6
like to see certification by a professional in the local area; however, if one has moved to the 7
area and has certification from out of state, that would also be acceptable. 8
Javon Holley said an out of state certification would be acceptable, as long as the 9
person is not living in Orange County. 10
Javon Holley referred back to the question of occupancy standards, and said the 11
program is flexible, and will allow for staff to ensure that the resident is matched with correctly 12
sized housing. 13
Sherrill Hampton said the federal program is not as flexible, and sometimes one with a 14
one-bedroom voucher is placed in a two-bedroom unit, and when the rent is raised, the voucher 15
is insufficient to cover the cost. She said the local program should be able to address this 16
problem. 17
Javon Holley referred to slide 6 on tenant selection, which will be prioritized by 18
application date and time, after other prioritization factors mentioned earlier, are also weighed. 19
Sherrill Hampton said residents on the current federal waiting list can still apply for the 20
Orange County voucher, but they must remain on the federal listing. She said there are 771 21
individuals on the federal waiting list. 22
Sherrill Hampton referred to slide 7 on criminal background, and staff will follow federal 23
guidelines on completing criminal and sex offender background checks on all persons in the 24
program. She said if a person needs to be denied because of a background check, staff will 25
notify them in writing. She reviewed the other reasons that one may be denied for the program. 26
Sherrill Hampton referred to slide 8, noting that all residents must pay rent of $50, and 27
staff will employ rent reasonableness. She said all financials will be carefully reviewed to 28
ensure this. 29
Sherrill Hampton said these vouchers are not portable, and residents will be allowed one 30
move per year. She said rent increases will only be accepted every other year. She said if a 31
resident can appeal if their assistance is terminated, which is true of the federal program as 32
well. 33
Commissioner Rich asked if the 15 vouchers are going to apply to all areas of the 34
County. 35
Sherrill Hampton said all over the County, as well as 10 miles outside of the County 36
boundaries. 37
Commissioner Rich asked if staff is working with the municipalities, or if this is just an 38
Orange County program. 39
Sherrill Hampton said it is just Orange County program, but staff is working with all the 40
providers who work with residents of all areas. She said housing could be all over the County, 41
but the housing has to be able to pass the Section 8 inspections. 42
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan in place to make the landlords and residents 43
aware of program. 44
Sherrill Hampton said the annual landlords meeting will take place on November 28th, at 45
which time staff will announce this proposed program. She said outreach will be done to 46
providers in January, and this information will be on the web, with a separate email address and 47
newspaper ads. 48
Commissioner Price asked what would happen if there is a family that needs a 4- 49
bedroom apartment, and will this program have the same criteria as HUD regarding the number 50
of square feet per bedroom per child. 51
18
Sherrill Hampton said the program will follow the same inspection standards as the 1
federal program, and bedrooms must have ingress and egress, closets, etc. 2
Javon Holley said the program will likely follow the HUD standards, which calls for the 3
head of household and spouse to have a bedroom, and every 2 family members thereafter must 4
have a bedroom. 5
Commissioner Price asked if there is flexibility built into the program to allow for a family 6
that needs four bedrooms. 7
Javon Holley said staff may have needed to exchange a three bedroom voucher for a 8
four bedroom one, but that will be possible. 9
Commissioner Price asked if those who do not meet requirement will be directed to other 10
housing options. 11
Sherrill Hampton said staff can refer those who do not qualify to other partners and 12
share a resource list with them. She said the housing supply is very limited in Orange County. 13
Sherrill Hampton said this model is set up that if there is a family that needs a 4 bedroom 14
they will need to lose one of the rooms since rent would be too high. She said some zip codes 15
have a higher rate of rent than others, and as a result, the total amount of vouchers may 16
decrease. 17
Commissioner Price encouraged staff to continue to provide those who are rejected with 18
alternative resources. She reminded staff to please remember military veterans within the 19
target groups. 20
Javon Holley said the Veteran’s Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program specifically 21
focuses on homeless veterans. 22
Commissioner Price said yes, but they still have a lot of homeless veterans. 23
Commissioner Jacobs asked if these families are seeking their own apartments or will 24
staff guide them. 25
Sherrill Hampton said residents are responsible for their search, and staff cannot steer, 26
but staff does send out lists of available homes. 27
Commissioner Jacobs asked if these families are anticipated to be in need of support 28
from the Department of Social Services (DSS) as well. 29
Sherrill Hampton said yes, and staff always refers residents back to local partners. She 30
said the housing department does not do case management. 31
Commissioner Jacobs said Durham has so many apartments, and may not like Orange 32
County residents being steered there. He asked if DSS will coordinate with other counties. 33
Sherrill Hampton said if one is living in that ten-mile radius, and thus becomes a resident 34
of Durham County, one would be eligible for Durham County programming and services. 35
Commissioner Jacobs said people will find more opportunities in Durham, and it may be 36
good to have some outreach to Durham Social Services. 37
Sherrill Hampton said Orange County residents under the federal program are ported to 38
Durham, and the administrative fee and funds goes to the Durham Housing Authority. 39
Commissioner Marcoplos said these people are looking the best place to meet their 40
needs, which may be Durham County. He said staff is not allowed to direct people. 41
Chair Dorosin said this is exciting. He clarified that the funding is coming partly from the 42
County general fund and partly from HOME funds. 43
Sherrill Hampton said yes. 44
Chair Dorosin asked if this program will be unavailable to undocumented residents due 45
to the use of some HOME funding. 46
Sherrill Hampton said if the money for the rent comes out of the HOME program, it 47
cannot be used by undocumented residents. 48
Chair Dorosin asked if the two piles of funding could be kept separate, thus allowing for 49
an undocumented resident to be funded using Orange County funds. 50
Sherrill Hampton said yes. 51
19
Sherrill Hampton said no utility assistance or security funds for an undocumented person 1
can be paid out of HOME funds, but the local risk mitigation money could be used for this. 2
Chair Dorosin asked if staff could explain how this program will intersect with the 3
housing choice voucher program. He said there are 771 people on the housing choice waiting 4
list, and asked if these people can sign up for one of these local vouchers. 5
Sherrill Hampton said yes. 6
Chair Dorosin asked if it is possible for a person in the middle of the federal program 7
waiting list to move to the top of the list for a local voucher. 8
Sherrill Hampton said yes a person could move higher up on the local list if one meets 9
the preferences. 10
Javon Holley said the two cannot be mixed, but one can be on both lists and accept or 11
deny whichever becomes available first. 12
Chair Dorosin said there are 771 people on the housing choice voucher waiting list, and 13
asked if there are people who have these vouchers but cannot find housing, and thus lose the 14
voucher. 15
Sherrill Hampton said there is a 120-time period to secure housing, and yes, vouchers 16
can be lost. She said staff tries to check in at the 60-day mark to see how the search is going. 17
She said the HUD program allows for one 60-day extension, and the local program will allow for 18
two. 19
Chair Dorosin said one step of this process is creating more vouchers, and asked if a 20
targeted recruitment of landlords would be helpful through the towns or service partners. 21
Commissioner Jacobs said this program is great, but he had originally looked at going at 22
this differently by finding housing and subsidizing the apartment owner to reserve those units for 23
those who would then receive vouchers. 24
Sherrill Hampton referred to page one, and the type of help that will be available: tenant 25
based voucher, project based voucher, and sponsored based vouchers. She said more 26
vouchers are needed to make more happen, and staff has started with 15 vouchers to start, and 27
then go on to project and sponsored based. She said current funding is limited and staff 28
needed to start with tenant based, with the hopes of moving onto project/sponsor based. 29
Commissioner Jacobs said it would be easier to look for housing if one knows where to 30
look. He said staff may not be able to steer, but consistent partners make the search much 31
easier. 32
Sherrill Hampton said not everyone will want to live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro, and staff 33
wants to ensure choice. She said 270 landlords have been invited to the landlord meeting on 34
November 28th. 35
Chair Dorosin referred to the $50 minimum rent, and asked if this can be waived. 36
Sherrill Hampton said yes. 37
Javon Holley said if one has no income, the $50 is typically waived. 38
Chair Dorosin referred to Attachment C (2019 fair market rents), and said the voucher 39
may not cover the amount of the rent. He asked if the voucher can be adjusted. 40
Sherrill Hampton said staff plans to do this by zip code, and some areas of the County 41
will exceed these amounts. She said vouchers can be adjusted to pay more, but that will 42
reduce the overall amount of available vouchers. 43
Commissioner Marcoplos said this program sounds very promising, and is glad to see it 44
moving forward. He clarified that staff mentioned a shortage of one-bedroom housing inventory. 45
Sherrill Hampton said yes and thus residents who have one bedroom vouchers end up 46
with a two-bedroom unit. She said this especially true in urban areas, and developers do not 47
build one-bedroom units. 48
Commissioner Marcoplos said he wanted to highlight this need for a later discussion. 49
Javon Holley said this is a problem all over the country, and no one is building affordable 50
one-bedroom units, especially in urban areas. 51
20
Commissioner Marcoplos said a one-bedroom dwelling would only be suitable for 1-2 1
people. 2
Javon Holley said it can be larger, as the living room is allowed to be a bedroom. 3
Commissioner Marcoplos said the 1-2 person household could live in small (tiny) home. 4
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Department on Aging is a part of these 5
conversations. 6
Sherrill Hampton said yes. 7
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Department on Aging is steering people to the 8
Housing Department, or is it working autonomously. 9
Sherrill Hampton said both departments are working together on the Mater Aging Plan 10
(MAP). 11
Chair Dorosin said there is consensus to move forward on this pilot program. 12
13
RECOMMENDATION(S): 14
The Manager recommends that the Board review the proposed guidelines for the new Orange 15
County Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) and provide comments in preparation for 16
an upcoming regular meeting, authorizing the Manager to execute the necessary agreement(s) 17
with the Orange County Housing Authority to administer the Program. 18
19
20
3. Board of Commissioners - Boards and Commissions Appointment Process 21
Discussion 22
23
BACKGROUND: 24
Members of the Board of Commissioners have referenced various topics over the past year 25
related to Boards and Commissions for Board discussion. Staff met over the summer break to 26
review these topics and develop proposed recommendations/changes to be discussed further at 27
this work session. Attachment A details identified issues to be discussed, and Attachment C 28
depicts a proposed streamlined abstract format/membership roster/applicant interest list for 29
Board appointments. 30
31
1. Discussion Decision Point: 32
-To consider discussing the Adult Care Home CAC and the possibility of the 33
reduction in number of positions (since there are sometimes many vacancies) 34
and/or the option of merging this committee with the Nursing Home CAC. 35
See Attachment B- emails from Autumn Cox, Ombudsman, Area Agency on 36
Aging-TJCOG (attachment b). 37
38
Donna Baker said there were emails in the Commissioners’ packets from the 39
Ombudsman, and suggested having her come to a meeting (annual presentations), and the 40
Chair of the Board to participate in any proposed changes the Board of County Commissioners 41
may want to propose. She said this Board wants to remain at its current size. 42
Commissioner Rich said it is hard to fill larger boards, and suggested talking about this 43
during the annual review. She said she would like to reduce this board, and other boards, 44
where possible, as it is frustrating when boards cannot have a quorum due to lack of numbers. 45
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if merging these boards would work, and allow the 46
same amount/type of work to be done. 47
Commissioner Price said she attended the Adult Care Home CAC, which meets in the 48
afternoon. She said this board was reviewing the various adult care homes. 49
21
Chair Dorosin said yes, one board reviews/monitors adult care homes and the other 1
focuses on nursing homes. He said these two types of homes are defined differently in the 2
statute, thus the two boards. 3
Commissioner Price asked if there are certain requirements for these boards. 4
John Roberts said there are training requirements for both of these boards, and the only 5
other statutory requirements are the minimum numbers. 6
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if these boards visit the actual care facilities. 7
The Board answered yes. 8
Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a capacity question, and if the same work can be 9
done with less people then a smaller board would be fine. 10
Chair Dorosin said the requirement is for a smaller number, and the year-long trainings 11
make it even more difficult to fill these boards. He said he agrees with reducing the number of 12
members. He agreed with Donna Baker and said to have Ombudsman to come and speak on 13
the pros and cons of reducing size or merging. 14
Thom Freeman said the training process changed a few months ago via a House Bill. 15
He said the applicant, once vetted, attends training for a few weeks. He said successful 16
trainees who want to proceed will be put forth to the BOCC for a one year initial term 17
appointment. He said when that first term is successfully completed, the candidate can go on to 18
a full term. 19
Commissioner Price said these boards have requested to come before the BOCC and 20
present their findings on a more regular basis. 21
Commissioner Rich said this opportunity is available at the annual review. 22
Commissioner Price said there is a desire to come before the Board outside of the 23
annual presentations. 24
Donna Baker said the Chair of these boards attends the annual review, but not the 25
Ombudsman, and scheduling this would likely be helpful. She said she will schedule a time. 26
27
28
2. Discussion/Decision Point: 29
--To consider the vetting of applicants for certain boards as appointments 30
come up (i.e., OWASA, BOA, Planning, ABC Board, etc.) by a committee made 31
up of BOCC members (two members) that would then make a recommendation 32
to the BOCC. 33
34
Chair Dorosin said the idea here is that there would be a sub-committee of the Board 35
that would make recommendations. 36
Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on “vetting”. 37
Chair Dorosin said usually the Board gets a recommendation from an advisory board 38
and the Board of County Commissioners make the appointments. He said this would mean 39
another level of review by the Board of County Commissioners, while still having 40
recommendations from the board. He said it is a more thorough level of review prior to the 41
Board making an appointment. 42
Commissioner McKee questioned the need for another added level in the process. 43
Commissioner Rich said an example of this was when the OWASA appointment had to 44
resign, and she called everyone on the applicant listing to learn more about them, and who may 45
be the best person to represent them on the board. She said this is similar to when additional 46
questions were added to the application, and she feels that even those additional questions do 47
not always provide sufficient information. She said BOCC members are not connected to the 48
applicants. 49
Chair Dorosin asked if she could simply keep calling applicants when she wants to know 50
more. 51
22
Commissioner Rich said yes she could, but this is just a recommendation to find out 1
more about all applicants in a consistent way. 2
Chair Dorosin said this came up because everyone does not call applicants, and some 3
of the Board of County Commissioners felt that the recommendations from the advisory boards 4
may not be the best appointee for the Board of County Commissioners to appoint. 5
Chair Dorosin said he is loathe adding another level of bureaucracy to the process, but it 6
may be helpful to those that do not do their due diligence. He said Commissioners do not 7
always have the same information, and this suggestion seems to be a way to create a 8
consistent approach to knowing more about applicants. 9
Commissioner McKee said he does not think this suggestion will solve all of those 10
problems, and the more levels added to the application process, the more laborious it becomes, 11
and likely the fewer applicants the Board will receive. 12
Commissioner Price asked if this would only apply to the boards listed in the suggestion. 13
Chair Dorosin said it could apply to any board/commission. 14
Commissioner Price said she could see value in some of these boards having a deeper 15
dive investigation by the BOCC, but if boards are already vetting applicants she would have a 16
hard time going behind their backs and doing more vetting. She said she would favor either the 17
advisory board or the BOCC doing the vetting, but not necessarily both. 18
Chair Dorosin said the BOCC already has occasions when it rejects the 19
recommendation of the advisory board. 20
Commissioner Price said yes, and she is not left with good feelings when that happens. 21
Commissioner Marcoplos said the BOCC often lacks information on their applicants, and 22
a deeper level of vetting would likely be helpful in that regard, but this suggestion would involve 23
a lot of time, and is unsure how the BOCC would choose which boards to vet. 24
Chair Dorosin said the BOCC has already done this to some extent with the additional 25
questions on the boards that have fiduciary responsibilities. 26
Commissioner Marcoplos said the vetting duo could take the recommendations from the 27
boards and confirm or repudiate. He suggested experimenting for 6 months, see how it goes, 28
and then evaluate. 29
Commissioner Jacobs said at one point the BOCC made the list based on the boards 30
that had fiduciary responsibilities. He said it could be limited to that, with the addition of the 31
Board of Adjustment. 32
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC receives recommendations from boards 33
that do not have fiduciary responsibilities. 34
Commissioner Jacobs said yes, but there is more riding on the boards with fiduciary 35
responsibility, and it is hard to talk about this in public for fear of casting dispersions on anyone. 36
He said concerns could be pursued privately, allowing informed recommendations to be made 37
publicly. 38
Commissioner Burroughs said Commissioner Jacobs is at the heart of the problem, as 39
there is often knowledge about applicants, but it is uncomfortable to share in public. She said 40
the solution is for board members to read the appointments in the packet early on, and let their 41
colleagues know of any concerns. 42
Chair Dorosin suggested having appointments once a month or quarterly, as a main 43
agenda item, and if anyone has any reason to hold an appointment, then this appointment could 44
be referred to the two-person sub-committee, and come back on the next meeting. He said the 45
Commissioner with concerns can share them with the two-person sub-committee. 46
Chair Dorosin said appointments need to be moved up, or made into more of an item on 47
the agenda, as opposed to an afterthought at the end of a meeting. 48
Commissioner Jacobs said there is also the issue of filling vacancies when there is an 49
applicant but no recommendation form the advisory board. He said the two-person committee 50
23
could inquire with the department head as to why the advisory board did not recommend an 1
applicant even though applicants existed. He said this would empower the advisory boards. 2
Commissioner Price said if the appointment needed to be deferred, would the two-3
person subcommittee be appointed at that time to review the candidate. 4
Chair Dorosin said it could be standing two-person committee or a rotating one. 5
6
3. Discussion/Decision Point 7
--To consider not having elected officials from other jurisdictions representing 8
Orange County on a board/commission. 9
10
Chair Dorosin said there is no policy for this at this point. 11
Commissioner Rich said this discussion point was raised in response to having former 12
Board of County Commissioners members representing Orange County once retired. She said 13
she does not like this practice. 14
Chair Dorosin asked if she would feel this way even if it is a position that would 15
otherwise be filled by an Orange County resident. 16
Commissioner Rich said it would be fine to be a resident representative, but they should 17
not be representing the BOCC. 18
Chair Dorosin said this discussion point is broader than that, and gave the example of 19
someone from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools board, wanting to be on the Orange 20
County Planning Board. 21
Commissioner Price read it as Commissioner Rich did. 22
Chair Dorosin said he thinks all can agree that no one should represent the BOCC other 23
than current Commissioners. 24
Commissioner Rich said the Board has done that very thing on two occasions. 25
Chair Dorosin said he thinks everyone agrees that should not happen. 26
Chair Dorosin said this question came up because another elected official was serving 27
on an Orange County boards. 28
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this could be addressed on a case by case basis, and 29
if an elected official is especially well matched to serve on a board then it seems acceptable to 30
allow them serve. He said a member of the Chapel Hill Town Council serving on the Orange 31
County Planning Board would likely not be a good idea. 32
Chair Dorosin said that is the status quo. 33
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC is already able to appoint or not appoint whom it 34
likes to boards or commissions. 35
Chair Dorosin said the question is whether the Board keeps it on an ad hoc policy, or 36
make it a matter of policy that if one is serving as an elected official on another board in Orange 37
County, then one should not be apply to be on a County advisory board/commission. He said if 38
one is extremely interested, one can attend the meetings. 39
Chair Dorosin said an elected official has many opportunities to have a voice in local 40
government and can also have the ear of the BOCC quite easily. He questions if they need to 41
serve on a board. 42
Commissioner Price said she would prefer to see people go as an interested citizen or a 43
liaison, but not as a voting member. She said having an elected official on a board/commission 44
can be intimidating to others. 45
Chair Dorosin said he sees no reason to make them a liaison, and if one is interested 46
they can simply attend meetings. He said he has mixed feelings about it: if one wants to serve, 47
one should be able to serve; however, he also sees it as a closed universe when elected 48
officials serve on advisory boards. He said these boards/commissions are like the minor 49
leagues to becoming an elected official, and there is a desire for greater diversity and new 50
24
voices on these boards. He said he would probably be in favor of not having elected officials on 1
these boards. 2
Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price agreed. 3
Commissioner McKee said making it a policy will limit options, and if the BOCC does not 4
want to appoint someone to a board, for any reason, it can do so. He said a policy is 5
unnecessary. 6
Commissioner Price said having a policy would inform elected officials not to even apply, 7
and thus avoid getting their hopes up. 8
Commissioner McKee said these are big boys and girls, who can handle it. 9
Chair Dorosin said he is hearing that a majority of the Board of County Commissioners is 10
in favor of making this part of the advisory board policy. 11
Commissioner Rich suggested that the Clerk poll other jurisdictions, as maybe there are 12
other solutions out there. 13
Chair Dorosin asked if any members of the BOCC serve on municipal boards. 14
The Board said no. 15
Commissioner Rich said she would not even try to serve. 16
17
4. Discussion/Decision Point: 18
-Applicants – To consider either revising the Applicant Application to allow 19
applicants to include other governmental boards (municipal) they may be 20
currently serving on OR requiring that applicants can only serve on two 21
advisory boards (which our policy currently states but that only includes other 22
Orange County advisory boards) and including within this parameter for two 23
boards – both Orange County and/or municipal boards. 24
25
Chair Dorosin said this gets to the heart of the “closed circle” that participates in 26
boards/commissions. 27
Commissioner Price clarified that this would limit one from being on Orange County 28
Planning Board, Chapel Hill Planning Board and OWASA all at the same time, for example. 29
Chair Dorosin said yes. He said the current policy states that one can only serve on 2 30
Orange County boards, and this would limit service to one Orange County board and one other 31
board. 32
Donna Baker said in order to accomplish this staff could add another question to 33
application as to which boards an applicant is currently serving on outside of Orange County 34
boards. 35
Commissioner McKee said he is not in favor of this change as the BOCC already has 36
the authority to accept or reject any applicant to its boards/commissions. 37
Commissioner Price said one can serve on two County boards as well as one task force. 38
Commissioner Rich said it is important to know where other people are serving from an 39
informational standpoint, and perhaps a policy is unnecessary, but she would like to know the 40
information. 41
Commissioner McKee said he questions how often this is really happening, and doubts it 42
is happening enough to warrant a policy. He said he is fundamentally against layer upon layer 43
of bureaucracy. He said the BOCC is not swamped by applications for these boards or 44
commissions. 45
Chair Dorosin said the BOCC sees the same names over and over again. 46
Commissioner McKee said that happens everywhere: churches, fire departments, town 47
councils, etc. He questions why the BOCC would add layers to this process, as it seems to be 48
like killing a fly with a shotgun. 49
Commissioner Marcoplos said he basically agreed with Commissioner McKee, and 50
would rather just take it on a case-by-case basis. He said if one is worming their way onto 51
25
multiple boards, then the BOCC would not appoint them to another; but if one is serving on two 1
boards, but has a unique talent or knowledge to make them appropriate for another board, he 2
would be in favor of that person’s appointment. He said no one wants to see the same people 3
hogging all the positions on powerful committees, but there is also a desire to fill the gaps with 4
people who can best serve. 5
Chair Dorosin said perhaps it makes sense to simply add the question to the application. 6
Thom Freeman said it is a bit of a moving target. He said the question can be added to 7
the initial application, but over time the answer to that question may change. He said it is hard 8
to monitor. 9
Commissioner Price asked if staff was checking into the accuracy of an application prior 10
to an appointment being placed on BOCC agenda. 11
Thom Freeman said if an application is 6-12 months old, he checks to see if the 12
applicant is still interested. He also asks for updates, and can add in this question about service 13
on other boards. 14
Commissioner Price said to add a box or line to application. 15
Chair Dorosin said there is consensus to add the question of whether one serves on 16
other boards to the application. 17
18
5. Discussion/Decision Point: 19
- At Large vs Designated Positions- to consider reducing the number of 20
designated positions and replace with at- large positions to better fill more 21
positions on boards/commissions in a timely manner. 22
23
Chair Dorosin said sometimes this is geographical nature and some of it is categorical. 24
He said a change was made a couple of years ago that if a position is vacant more than 6 25
months, the BOCC can appoint someone else or revisit the current make up. 26
Commissioner Price asked if the current method is not working. 27
Chair Dorosin said the current method is fine, but he has concerns about some of the 28
designated positions, especially the categorical ones, which can be hard to fill. 29
Commissioner Rich said the BOCC can move people around if an appropriate applicant 30
comes forward to fill a categorical/geographical spot that the BOCC has already filled. 31
Chair Dorosin said yes this can happen, as long as there is an additional vacancy to 32
move someone into. 33
No action to take. 34
35
6. Discussion/Decision Point: 36
37
-To consider adding appointments on the agendas on a quarterly basis only. 38
(However, there may be “time sensitive” appointments once in a while) 39
40
7. Discussion/Decision Point: 41
-To consider moving the Appointments higher up on the Agenda 42
43
Chair Dorosin said to combine these two discussion points, and the BOCC already 44
discussed about moving appointments to another format: quarterly, bi-monthly, once a month. 45
Chair Dorosin said this makes sense to him, as well as flagging those that need 46
additional review, as previously discussed. 47
Commissioner Price said she agrees with moving appointments up on the agenda, but 48
said if appointments are only reviewed quarterly, and was deferred for any reason, it would 49
delay a vacancy being filled for quite some time. 50
Chair Dorosin said a deferred item could be brought back at the next meeting. 51
26
Commissioner McKee said the agenda is so front-loaded now, and it is often 8pm before 1
the BOCC gets into the meat of the agenda. He said moving this up on the agenda will move 2
other priority items further down. He said the focus should be on addressing items that the 3
public comes for, and appointments are housekeeping items. 4
Chair Dorosin reviewed the agenda, and said appointments are usually item 11. He 5
suggests moving appointments up to the regular agenda or reports. 6
Commissioner McKee said that would be fine, and is of less concern to him. 7
Commissioner Rich said when she served on the Chapel Hill Town Council, they voted 8
by ballots. She said the clerk would tally the vote at the meeting, and unless it was a tie, there 9
would be no discussion. She says it quicker, but not as transparent. 10
Chair Dorosin asked if there was any discussion. 11
Commissioner Rich said discussion happened beforehand, and it was not as 12
transparent. 13
Chair Dorosin said it is not transparent at all. 14
Commissioner McKee said he would have an issue with that process. 15
Commissioner Marcoplos said he liked hearing why people nominate, etc. 16
John Roberts said he questions if that is legal, because the minutes need to reflect the 17
vote. 18
Commissioner Rich said at the end of a meeting, the Board is keen to get out of the 19
meeting, and may not be having necessary discussions. 20
Chair Dorosin said there is agreement to move appointments up a bit in the agenda, and 21
to do them bi-monthly or quarterly as a regular item that allows for more discussion. 22
Commissioner Rich said if appointments are placed before consent, then staff will wait 23
longer to see if a consent item is going to be pulled. She said if the Commissioners can agree 24
to inform everyone ahead of time if they plan to pull a consent item, it would ensure that staff 25
does not have to linger. 26
Commissioner Jacobs said there is a deadline to reveal concerns about agenda items, 27
and if the Chair sticks to that deadline a Commissioner would be unable to pull an item at the 28
last minute. 29
Chair Dorosin agreed. 30
Staff will review agenda format and then propose/move the appointments to a different 31
location on the agenda (rather before the Manager/Attorney Comments or under regular agenda 32
or reports.) 33
34
8. Discussion/Decision Point: 35
-Applicant Interest Listing: Thom Freeman currently contacts applicants before 36
putting up on abstracts to see if they are still interested in a position on a 37
board and if there is no response email/call within a specified timeframe- and it 38
is still less than two years for the application on file, does staff keep applicant 39
on interest list or remove. 40
41
Chair Dorosin said this is like purging voters. 42
Commissioner Rich said to give applicants a time frame in which to respond to Thom 43
Freeman’s contact, and tell them if they do not respond in a timely manner, they will be purged 44
from the list. 45
Commissioner Marcoplos said one can apply again. 46
Thom Freeman said the applicant is removed from the list, but he keeps their contact 47
information. 48
49
9. Discussion/Decision Point: 50
51
27
-Appointments: Reformatting of appointment abstract (to reduce duplication of 1
information), membership roster and applicant interest listing to orientate both 2
to same format and reduction of duplication of information on applicant 3
interest list. (examples in attachment C- were used on a trial basis at the Sept. 4
4th meeting). 5
6
Already in place. 7
8
10. Discussion/Decision Point: 9
-Boards/Commissions Attendance by BOCC members: To request an alternate 10
to attend meetings if a BOCC member is unable to attend a board or 11
commission meeting (whether it is an internal board/commission or an 12
intergovernmental board). 13
14
Donna Baker said if a Commissioner is unable to attend, and there is no designated 15
alternate, the Commissioner could call another Commissioner to attend in their place. 16
Commissioner Burroughs said she thinks this already happens. 17
Chair Dorosin said to let the Clerk know if you are unable to attend a particular board or 18
commission meeting, and if that board does not have designated alternate member, Donna 19
Baker can let full Board know to see if anyone else wants to attend. 20
Commissioner Marcoplos said this is likely only an issue where a board has only one 21
BOCC representative, and perhaps a back up could be designated ahead of time for those 22
boards. 23
Commissioner Jacobs said this places the responsibility on the Commissioner to get in 24
touch with the alternate, which does not always happen. 25
Commissioner Burroughs said the BOCC should be paid more, as this job is getting 26
bigger and bigger. 27
Commissioner Price said certain boards have training requirements, so an alternate 28
would be ineligible to fully participate/vote. 29
Chair Dorosin said an alternate could just go and listen. 30
Commissioner Rich said it would be good to have someone present 31
Chair Dorosin said work with the Clerk if you are unable to attend a meeting such as 32
above. 33
34
4. Discussion on Alternatives for Potential Environmental Impacts Section on BOCC 35
Meeting Agenda Abstracts 36
37
BACKGROUND: 38
In response to an April 26, 2018 petition from the Board of Commissioners to potentially begin 39
outlining environmental impacts within agenda item abstracts, staff has prepared two draft 40
agenda abstract templates for Board discussion and feedback. Both templates are integrated 41
approaches that recognize and illustrate the three sustainability components of: 42
• Environment (related to the 2005 Environmental Responsibility Goal - Attachment C); 43
• Equity (related to the 2010 Social Justice Goal - Attachment D); and 44
• Economy (Financial Impact). 45
46
The templates are as follows: 47
48
Attachment A – Minimal Edits – Current abstract format with integrated approach including 49
the impacts related to the 2005 Environmental Responsibility Goal. 50
28
1
Attachment B – Tabular Format – Walks abstract writers and readers through the elements of 2
the County’s goals and their relation to the proposed action being requested of the Board. 3
The first of the attached draft templates makes the fewest changes to the current abstract 4
template in grouping the Financial, Social Justice, and Environmental Impacts together and 5
providing an open text field in which staff can select from the goals documents. 6
7
The second template uses a tabular format to guide the selection of the relevant goals and 8
objectives that should be considered, and provides staff with an area to address the goals to 9
which the abstract applies. 10
11
The current Social Justice Impacts section of the abstract template allows staff to select the 12
relevant Social Justice Goals adopted by the BOCC in 2010 (note Attachment B). Similarly, the 13
County also adopted an Environmental Responsibility Goal with 10 related objectives in 2005 14
(note Attachment C). The CFE also periodically adopts a State of the Environment report with 15
metrics to assess environmental impacts. For the Board’s reference, the 2014 State of the 16
Environment Report can be found at this link: www.orangecountync.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=63 17
One or both of these documents can be used as the base reference documents for the 18
proposed environmental impacts section. 19
20
During the work session, staff will present these concepts and will facilitate the Board’s 21
discussion to generate guidance for staff and the Commission for the Environment. 22
23
It is proposed that the CFE, which considered this subject several years ago, review and advise 24
on how this could be holistically addressed in the framework on an agenda abstract. The CFE 25
will begin discussing this topic at its November meeting. 26
27
David Stancil, Department for the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation 28
(DEAPR) Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 29
30
Assessing Environmental Impact In BOCC Abstracts 31
November 8, 2018 32
33
Need a concise, yet informative tool 34
Must be able to assess in reasonable time, but be as holistic as possible 35
Metrics should be understandable and usable by all types of abstract writers 36
Some constraints may exist in usage 37
38
How To Measure - Agenda Abstract 39
Opportunity to create a sustainability framework for agenda item impact (equity, economy, 40
environment) 41
Equity (Social Justice) and Economy (Financial Impact) addressed now 42
Engage the Commission for the Environment to review possible tools 43
44
One Possible Approach 45
1. A quick measure against a set of environmental goals (Environmental Responsibility 46
Goal) 47
2. A tabular assessment using locally-created checklist (drawn from ER Goal, State of 48
Environment, other sources if desired) 49
3. Some combination of the two, or an alternative metrics 50
51
29
Potential Templates (Attachment a and b) 1
Review the two templates, offering feedback and guidance, additional ideas 2
Convey feedback and other direction to the Commission for the Environment for use in creating 3
recommendation to the BOCC 4
5
Recommendation 6
7
Commissioner Marcoplos said as soon as he suggested this addition, he was 8
overwhelmed by the complexities of it. He said he appreciates staff’s efforts. He said the social 9
and financial goals always seem philosophical to him, whereas the more specific information 10
that would come out of the table would be more useful and more educational for the both the 11
BOCC and the public. He likes the idea of running it by the Commission for the Environment 12
(CfE). He said he would add another category under environmental, which would be something 13
like “impact on energy usage/carbon footprint”. He said he likes the other four categories, and 14
this looks like it would work. 15
Commissioner Jacobs said he felt just the opposite, and he would like it to be as simple 16
as possible, and a minimal burden on staff. He said running it by another advisory board is an 17
onerous process. He said the Planning Board would also likely want to weigh in, which will 18
cause delays and staff will resent and dread it. He said in terms of practicality it does not work 19
as well as the other two goals on the abstract, and he said a simple version would be best with 20
larger items being fleshed out as regular agenda items. 21
Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed, and he thought that the CfE would only look at 22
the template one time to provide input on its creation, not so that every issue would be run 23
through the CfE. 24
David Stancil said staff would forward the idea to the CfE for initial input, but would not 25
be reviewing every abstract. 26
Commissioner Marcoplos said this would be quick and dirty, but more or less accurate. 27
Commissioner McKee said he would be in favor of a simple statement, like the other two 28
goals, but anything else is layering on extra work for staff. He said there is a perception that 29
Orange County is anti-business, and he said this Board has worked hard to reduce this 30
perception. He said he is concerned that if the Board gets too involved in laying out specific 31
parameters, it will be interpreted as specific regulations in the making, thus reinforcing the anti-32
business perception. 33
Commissioner Marcoplos said it may be that it does not end up being a little introduction 34
at the beginning, and over time it may end up being applied within the greater analysis of any 35
issue. He said there are things related to the environment, which the Board should know about 36
on any issue that comes before the Board, e.g.: what is the effect on waste reduction/energy 37
use, etc. 38
Commissioner McKee said it is information to which the Board already has access, and 39
this would add another level of work on staff on every abstract. 40
Commissioner Marcoplos said what if the Board wanted to know the energy use of the 41
new jail. 42
Commissioner McKee said to simply ask staff to provide that information. 43
Commissioner Marcoplos said there should be a short list of environmental information 44
that the Board should want, and have, on every project without having to ask. 45
Commissioner McKee said he thinks staff is already doing this. 46
Commissioner Rich said the issue is that this information could already be in abstract up 47
front, as opposed to having to ask the questions during a presentation. 48
Commissioner McKee said a lot of the projects already have this information included, 49
and this simply seems like more work for staff without a defined reason for the work. 50
30
Commissioner Rich said the work to gather the information is already being done, and 1
the question is how does it match up with the environmental goal that may be added to the 2
abstract. 3
Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason to have it as a written goal. He said 4
there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Orange County is environmentally conscious, and he 5
wonders what they are trying to accomplish. 6
Commissioner Rich said the public is asking for this, and the County has values, which 7
should be at the forefront of all that it does. 8
Commissioner McKee said Orange County had a reputation of being anti-business. 9
Commissioner Rich said she does not want to debate that issue, but if the County has 10
values of being environmentally conscious, it should promote this at the forefront and keep it in 11
mind with all goals. 12
Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Jacobs’ suggestion accomplishes that. 13
Commissioner Jacobs said it will be just like the other goals, and it seemed like 14
everyone is in accord with the short statement being added. He said he misunderstood the role 15
of the CfE. 16
Commissioner McKee asked if there is purpose to the tabular format. 17
Chair Dorosin said the current format of the social justice goal is not useful, and it would 18
be more useful to have a short statement of why/how a particular item impacts the social justice 19
goal. He said he would think the same would be true of the environmental justice goal. He said 20
to put the three statements (financial, social, and environmental) on the front page, since many 21
times that is all people read. 22
Chair Dorosin said he understands the argument for not creating more work on staff. 23
Travis Myren said staff would be concerned about going through multiple projects, and 24
trying to quantify every aspect as pertains to goals; but a simple, general statement would be 25
fine. 26
Commissioner McKee said it reeks of patting themselves on the back. 27
Commissioner Marcoplos said if in the course of putting the agenda, it would be helpful 28
to include a few factoids to give public something to chew on. 29
Travis Myren said some projects would be more conducive to doing that than others. 30
Chair Dorosin said more complex items could be detailed during 31
presentations/discussions. 32
Commissioner Price said she does not review the social justice statements, and would 33
prefer to see the impact of different projects, both positive and negative. 34
David Stancil said staff will take the Board comments and suggestions to the 35
Commissioner for the Environment, and bring a proposed template at some future date. 36
37
Commissioner Marcoplos said he wanted to talk about the ground rules for Board of 38
County Commissioners, and how the Board members choose which boards on which they want 39
to serve in the coming year. He asked if there are specific rules laid out for the process, and he 40
thought there was. 41
Donna Baker said the Board made and adopted some changes to the process last year. 42
She said it is a short policy, which she can forward to the full Board. She said it would be a part 43
of the packet for the last meeting in December, and the boards and commissions will be chosen 44
that night as a part of a regular meeting. 45
Chair Dorosin summarized the process: each Commissioner gets one save only; each 46
Commissioner can serve two 1-year terms on intra-County boards, and four 1-year terms on an 47
intergovernmental board. He said this practice was not retroactive. 48
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a Commissioner has served one year on a board, and 49
wishes to remain on it for a second year, would this be the Commissioner’s one save. 50
Chair Dorosin said yes, this would be the one save. 51
31
Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that the BOCC is not committed to having a 1
Commissioner serve two years on every board. 2
Chair Dorosin said no, the BOCC is not committed to having Commissioners serve for 3
two years. 4
Commissioner Marcoplos said that this means the BOCC is okay with a Commissioner 5
learning the ropes of a particular board during the first year, only to leave and be replaced by a 6
different Commissioner the following year. He said he thought the intent was to have two years 7
on a board in order to understand it and be effective. He said it would also be beneficial for one 8
to serve a decent amount of time on an intergovernmental board for the same reasons. 9
Chair Dorosin said there was no agreement to Commissioners having two-year terms on 10
a board, and this is why boards and commissioners are chosen yearly. 11
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any concern about a Commissioner being 12
experienced in order to be effective, and simply flipping from one Commissioner to another from 13
year to year. 14
Chair Dorosin said if a Board member feels strongly about staying on a particular 15
board/commission, then said Board member can present that request/argument to the rest of 16
the Board and the Board can determine whether it agrees or not. He said it was his 17
understanding that each Commissioner gets one save, and there are the other limits as 18
previously outlined. He said just because one gets appointed to board “x” does not mean that 19
one will be on that board for 2 years. He said all the boards and commissions are on the list 20
every year. He said the intergovernmental boards having longer limits to allow for a 21
Commissioner to get fully immersed and be most effective. 22
Commissioner Marcoplos said he just wanted clarification, and looks forward to reading 23
the written rules/process when forwarded by the Clerk. 24
Chair Dorosin said the choosing process will occur on December 11. 25
Commissioner Rich said the choices are not approved until the first meeting in January. 26
Donna Baker said she notifies the boards after the choices are made, but there are no 27
work sessions in December or January, and the Board decided last year to move this process 28
forward to December. 29
Commissioner Price said some of the boards start meeting before the Commissioners 30
have things situated. 31
32
The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. 33
34
35
Mark Dorosin, Chair 36
37
38
Donna Baker 39
Clerk to the Board 40