HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-05-2019 Regular Meeting 1
APPROVED 2/19/2019
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
February 5, 2019
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 5,
2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: None
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
- Blue sheet: Proposed Addition to the Agenda (Item 4-c) - A RESOLUTION OPPOSING
ALTERNATIVE 4A AS A DESIGN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO EUBANKS ROAD AND NC
86 AS PART OF NCDOT PROJECT 1-3306A FOR PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-40
FROM 1-85 TO DURHAM COUNTY LINE
- Pink sheet: Item 6a- Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031
STIP--Date in title corrected (2022-2031)
- PowerPoint for Item 5-a
- PowerPoint for Item 6-a
- Yellow sheet: Updated information for Item 6-b
- PowerPoint for Item 6-b
- Revised Item 6-c
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Rich acknowledged the public charge.
Arts Moment
Doris Friend, Orange County Arts Commission Member introduced Katie Bowler Young.
Katie Bowler Young is the author of State Street, a chapbook published by Bull City Press, and
a biography of Mexican sculptor Enrique Alferez, forthcoming from The Historic New Orleans
Collection. Katie's has published poetry and prose in The Southern Review, Carolina Quarterly,
Louisiana Literature, Soundings East, and many other journals. Katie is also director of global
relations for UNC Global, working to support Carolina's international activity. She lives in
Orange County.
Katie Bowler Young read a poem from a collection of poems about the effect of
incarceration on family members, and the poem was called "Lessons on Animal Behavior".
2. Public Comments
2
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
David Keil read the following comments:
Chair Rich and Members of the County Commission, I'm David Kiel and I have been a resident
of the County since 1977.
Tonight I speak on behalf of Affordable Transit For All. We are a coalition of Orange and
Durham citizens and civic groups. We advocate for practical transportation solutions.
We have many concerns about the proposed Light Rail Project. Tonight, however, I want to
focus only the potential negative impact on transportation, schools and other public services in
Orange County.
The original capital expense for this project was set at $2.4 billion. The actual price including
interest on borrowing was recently calculated to be $3.3 billion. We just learned that changes in
the plan required by Durham may add as much as $500 million to the capital cost, a figure
which, as I understand it, does not include associated interest charges. As a result, the project
is hundreds of millions of dollars short. And here is the essence of the threat we see: Durham
and Orange will be expected to make up the difference. The light rail project is currently
absorbing almost all our transit funds. We believe these funds could be used to serve more
people, more flexibly at a fraction of the cost.
Therefore tonight we ask the Commission to consider four actions:
1.) Please honor your commitment to cap the County's share of the capital outlay for the project
at $149.5 million.
2.) Please consider a cap on Orange County's borrowing associated with light rail, already at
$150 million—and we will be responsible for the associated interest costs on this amount.
3.) Please do not offer other revenue streams to close the funding gaps that we foresee. The
county's schools and essential services face their own serious funding challenges. They should
not lose funds to Light Rail.
If there are unexpended transit tax funds, please use them to expand bus, bus rapid transit and
demand services for seniors and other vulnerable populations.
4.) Since GoTriangle must now come back to this body with a new financial plan taking into
account the increased costs, please invite Davenport, the County's respected financial
consultant, to return and review the new Light Rail financial plan so you can be fully informed as
you consider any further commitments to the project.
We believe these simple actions are essential to safeguard our citizens from the likely negative
impact of this project on the County's finances, transportation, and other public services. Thank
you.
Bonnie Hauser read the following comments:
Good evening Commissioners. I'm Bonnie Hauser and I'm also speaking for Affordable Transit
for All. We know you are facing some challenging questions about the light rail project, and we
are working to help you become fully informed.
I'm here to share some work that we did with the TOD Guidebook. You see we were really
surprised to hear numbers like $1.4-$1.9 billion in revenue, even as high as $2 billion. So we
went through the ream of paper and looked for ourselves.
Here's what we learned.
3
• The $1.4-$1.9 billion is cumulative over 40 years and includes revenue for Durham
county and Town, Orange County and Chapel Hill.
• If you look at the net annual numbers, it's actually a lot lower. Orange County and
Chapel Hill each might generate $5 million a year or so in new property tax revenue.
As you already know, the estimates in the Guidebook include tax exempt university property
and don't consider any of the infrastructure or service costs that come with the new
development. It also doesn't include the costs that Chapel Hill has agreed to cover to maintain
the light rail infrastructure.
It's conceivable that after you net the costs and the tax exempt properties, there's no economic
benefit at all for Orange County or for Chapel Hill.
But please, don't believe us. Here's the analysis we did using the data from TOD the
guidebook. The numbers come from Appendix G - that's around page 365. Please ask
GoTriangle and their consultants to look at it and see if we're close.
Also-while you're at it, please ask them whether Glen Lennox and other properties that are
already under development are counted in the revenue estimates. It's important because
Hamilton Road is by far the most economically beneficial station area for Orange County or
Chapel Hill. The question is whether that's because of development that's already in the
queue.
Thank you for listening.
Craig Carter said he previously asked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
about his memorial flag, which he cannot fly due to its size. He said he has heard no response
regarding this inquiry. He said he also talked about the lack of EMS services in the northern
portion of the County, and the time it takes for EMS to arrive in that part of the County. He said
he previously asked the Board about why an ambulance is not being stationed at the new fire
department on St. Mary's Road, and has since learned that the Board did vote to station an
ambulance there over a year ago, but it has yet to come to fruition. He said he was told that no
one can be stationed there due to the lack of sprinkler system; however, a sprinkler system has
been installed, yet no one is stationed there. He said the station is on a well, and if the power
goes out, the sprinkler system will not work anyway. He said he is frustrated with the lack of
resources to his portion of the County.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the
agenda below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Greene said on Monday she will attend a meeting on Emerging Issues in
Raleigh.
Commissioner McKee asked if Bonnie Hammersley would contact Davenport to get a
report, prior to the February 19t" meeting, regarding the additional cost incurred with the
changes to light rail (LRT) and exactly what "backstopping" means for Orange County's finances
and credit rating.
Commissioner McKee petitioned Bonnie Hammersley to contact the Chapel Hill
Manager prior to February 19t" to ask Town staff to provide a report on Chapel Hill transit's
current and future met and unmet needs.
4
Commissioner McKee said the Board of County Commissioners put out a statement
about a year ago about not committing any more funds to light rail, and he petitioned that the
Board re-commit to that statement.
Commissioner Price said the Ag Summit is on Monday, February 11t"
Commissioner Price said that she and others attended a Stepping UP Initiative
stakeholders' group in Buncombe County. She said she noticed the resources dedicated to
diversionary programming, and the comprehensive and cohesive approach that Buncombe
County takes. She said the group visited family justice center and the detention center, and it
was concluded that prosecution and incarceration cannot solve or remedy any of the pressing
social issues.
Commissioner Marcoplos petitioned the Planning Department to do a planning
assessment of the detached section of the rural buffer in the southeast corner of the County:
east of Old Lystra Road, on the edge of the Chapel Hill transition area. He said discussions
about the future of this area are inevitable, and it would be helpful for the Board to know the
implications of the land use in that area.
Commissioner Marcoplos respectfully added on to Commissioner McKee comments
about LRT, and said it would be money not well spent to pay Davenport to do any economic
analysis on the light rail, since the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) has not returned a
report on the risk assessment. He said there are a lot of unknowns at this point, and it would be
fruitless to do such an analysis.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the County look into creating some Orange
County swag.
Commissioner Dorosin said the General Assembly is back in session and there have
already been several bills introduced that reflect priority items of the BOCC: expanding
Medicaid; repealing the confederate monument protections; raising minimum wage to $15/hour;
red flag laws regarding gun violence.
Commissioner Bedford said she attended the Legislative Breakfast on Mental Health,
and it is the time to be loud about the need for the expansion of Medicaid.
Commissioner Bedford said that she would like to engage Davenport, and have them on
standby, as Davenport will need to time to be prepared should the County need them. She
said she would like Davenport to analyze the proposed LRT cost sharing agreement that will be
coming to the Board, as assumptions have changed and the Board needs factual information.
Commissioner Bedford said the Board needs to understand the numbers, and Davenport
may just want to be ready. She said the Board needs a comparison — like a truth in lending.
She said she is very concerned about the interest rates, and the Board needs an analysis from
an independent source so the Board knows exactly to what it is committed.
Chair Rich said Happy Chinese New Year, noting it is the year of the pig.
Chair Rich referred to the rural buffer discussion that happened at the Chapel Hill
Council meeting, and agreed that it would be good for the BOCC to get some information about
that southeastern corner of the County. She said would also like a bit more history on why this
portion of the County is in the rural buffer and information on the sensitive stream buffers and
watersheds. She said she heard that the ETJ stays the way it is as it is the open space for
southern village, and she does not know if these two areas are related. She said she would
also like a bit more information about typography.
Chair Rich said she is glad to work with Commissioner Dorosin on the "One Orange"
theme, and possibly kick off something in the spring.
Chair Rich said she attended the Extension Community Association meeting on
Saturday morning, and there are 80 women doing wonderful things for those in need in the
community: knitting blankets, making pillows, etc.
Chair Rich said she had three take-aways from Assembly of Governments (AOG)
meeting: Greene Tract resolution; formation of the climate change committee; and the formation
5
of the census committee. She said she would like more information on all of these items, and
how each will move forward.
Chair Rich reviewed the following information:
At the Board's January 22, 2019 regular business meeting, a petition was brought forward from
the public, and a petition from Commissioner McKee.
1. Review and consider request that the BOCC formally act to voice support for opening up to
the public the light rail workgroup meetings and other discussions that currently exclude the
public
2. Review and consider request by Commissioner McKee that the BOCC receive copies of the
January 10 Transit Workgroup Meeting minutes and that minutes from future meetings be
provided to Board members within 10 business days
As with all petitions, the BOCC received and referred this to staff and then to agenda review
with the Chair/Vice Chair/Manager/Deputy Manager/Greg Wilder/Donna Baker. It was
concluded that the Chair would confer with the county attorney for legal advice on how to
respond to this petition. It should also be noted that the Chair spoke with the Go Triangle
attorney before crafting this response.
There is no workgroup. That is a manufactured assumption. There are no minutes of the 1/10
meeting. GoTriangle staff and GoTriangle board representatives and Board Chairs from
Orange and Durham counties, along with the Mayor of Durham gathered to discuss draft
assumption numbers. No information had been presented at this meeting from the FTA b/c
there was a shutdown and the FTA was not open.
Please note that the topic of open meetings was addressed in a memo from the County
Attorney on January 16, 2019.
John Roberts' memo below:
FROM: John Roberts, County Attorney
DATE: January 16, 2019
RE: Open Meetings
This memorandum is in response to a request for information on open meetings requirements
by Commissioners Rich and Bedford.
The starting point for this discussion is NCGS 143-318.10, which requires official meetings of
public bodies be open. So unless there is a statutorily authorized reason to close a meeting,
such as discussions of economic development, personnel, or privileged communications with
attorneys, etc., meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. Further, if an official
meeting of a public body occurs "full and accurate" minutes must also be kept of the meeting
and any actions occurring at the meeting.
Thus the first question to analyze is what constitutes a public body? For purposes of local
government 143-318.10(b) defines public body as "any elected or appointed authority, board,
commission, committee, council, or other body of the State, or of one or more counties, cities,
school administrative units, constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina, or other
political subdivisions or public corporations in the State that (i) is composed of two or more
6
members and (ii) exercises or is authorized to exercise a legislative, policy-making, quasi-
judicial, administrative, or advisory function."
With regard to elected bodies there is no question that when there is a quorum present, unless
there is a legal reason for excluding the public, the meeting is a meeting of a public body and
must be open. The murkier issue is with the question of ad hoc attendees to a meeting. If the
ad hoc attendees merely attend a meeting due to their expertise or position in order to discuss
or negotiate issues and were not appointed to do so by any particular entity the meeting likely
does not constitute a meeting of a public body.
There is existing North Carolina case law that provides some insight into what constitutes a
public body with regard to ad hoc membership in a meeting group. In DTH Pub. Corp. v. Univ.
of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 128 N.C. App. 534 (1998) the Court noted that in order to
constitute a public body the members of the body must have been appointed by an entity that is
authorized to make appointments. So, for example, if the Board of County Commissioners
appointed its Chair, Manager, and several other staff to form a committee and hold meetings
with the mayor, manager, and staff of a town to discuss a water line and the town likewise took
action to appoint those individuals to do so then the meetings could be meetings of a public
body. This is not absolute, however, and whether it is a public body would depend on the facts
of the individual situation. It's otherwise clear that without that official appointment by an
authorized entity the ad hoc group is not a public body.
What constitutes an official meeting? 143-318.10(d) defines official meeting as a "meeting,
assembly, or gathering together at any time or place or the simultaneous communication by
conference telephone or other electronic means of a majority of the members of a public
body for the purpose of conducting hearings, participating in deliberations, or voting upon
or otherwise transacting the public business within the jurisdiction, real or apparent, of the
public body. However, a social meeting or other informal assembly or gathering together of the
members of a public body does not constitute an official meeting unless called or held to evade
the spirit and purposes of this Article." This would cover most meetings of elected or officially
appointed groups.
I will utilize three examples to describe what is and what is not an official meeting of a public
body.
The first example of what are certainly official meetings of public bodies would include any
scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners (elected), the Orange County
Planning Board (appointed by the Commissioners), the Orange County Board of Equalization
and Review (appointed by the Commissioners), etc. Each of these is a scheduled meeting of a
body comprised of either elected or appointed officials at which the public body will engage in
either"legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, or advisory functions." These
meetings must be open to the public unless the subject matter qualifies for an exception to the
open meetings law.
The second example is of a meeting that is absolutely not a meeting of a public body. In this
example the Planning Director, County Manager, Health Director, and several other staff
members meet to discuss an issue on an upcoming Board of County Commissioners' regular
meeting agenda. The product of the meeting is an advisory memo to the Board of County
Commissioners in which the staff members recommend specific action. This meeting does not
involve elected or appointed officials and is not a regularly scheduled meeting, and further
7
NCGS 143-318.10(c) specifically excludes staff only meetings from the definition of what
constitutes public body.
For the final example I will use a hybrid meeting that is not an official meeting of a public body.
In this example several department directors and multiple staff of several local governments
attend a meeting to discuss details of an intergovernmental agreement. In addition to the staff,
several elected officials from various local governments also attend the meeting, although no
quorum of any one elected body is present. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss changes
to the intergovernmental agreement. Assuming this is an ad hoc group that met to discuss the
changes and will then present the results of the discussion to the various governmental boards
for action this would not be an official meeting required to be opened to the public. Some of the
reasons include; the attendees were not appointed by any governmental entity to attend and the
group itself was not created by any governmental entity. If the attendees were appointed by the
various governmental entities to attend then it could rise to the level of a public body and the
meeting would then rise to the level of an official meeting but those are not the facts of this
example. Even though this was not an official meeting of a public body the public could be
invited, but this is not required and whether or not to do so would be up to the host entity.
This final example is analogous to the recent meeting at GoTriangle that consisted primarily of
staff but also involved some elected officials. That meeting, similar to others in the past, did not
involve a quorum of any governmental entity and did not result in any official action taking place
at the meeting. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the attendees were not appointed to
participate by any of the involved governmental entities. This meeting would not constitute a
meeting of a public body. Since it was not an official meeting of a public body it was not
required to be open to the public and the decision of whether to do so rests entirely with the
host of the meeting. Certainly some members of the public could want access to the meeting
to see the proverbial sausage being made, however, the open meetings law does not require
that access and it was entirely lawful to exclude the public from the meeting if the host entity
elected to do so.
Chair Rich read the following:
Response: I will note this response addresses only Orange County hosted meetings.
Meetings hosted by other governmental organizations are the responsibility of those
organizations.
In formulating this response I consulted with the County Attorney to determine what is required
by law to be open to the public. The County Attorney's response was that most meetings of
elected officials are required by law to be open to the public, meetings comprised entirely of
staff are not required to be open to the public, and meetings of informal groups comprised of
staff and elected officials are also usually not required to be open to the public so long as there
is no quorum of an elected body present.
Small groups of elected officials meet often to discuss items that may come up for discussion on
their respective governing boards. These small groups such as the Mayors of the towns, the
Chair, and some number of staff should be able to meet regularly or as needed to discuss
important business without having to schedule those meetings and provide for public
attendance. This freedom to meet and exchange ideas is crucial to a thorough understanding
of issues. These types of informal meetings do not involve final decisions on any issue. Final
decisions are the sole purview of the governing boards of each jurisdiction.
8
Opening all meetings, whether those meetings are comprised exclusively of staff or are
comprised of a group that may include staff and a limited numbers of elected officials, would not
be productive and would likely have a disquieting effect on what would be discussed at those
staff or predominantly staff meetings. Also, opening staff or predominantly staff meetings for all
transit or light rail meetings would likely lead to opening staff meetings on other topics as well.
Meetings of the Orange County Board of Commissioners regarding transit issues and
particularly the light rail have been open and have had high levels of public engagement for a
number of years. Quarterly transit and light rail reports are provided at regular Board of County
Commissioners meetings, which are always open to the public. Similarly, decisions on transit
and light rail issues are only made at regular board meetings. This is a level of openness and
transparency that is in excess of state open meetings laws, thoroughly engages the public, and
will not change. (We have had 17 meetings from 1-1-17 — 1-30-19 where we discussed or took
action on the LRT.)
In conclusion, the BOCC does not have the legal authority to direct GoTriangle to open their
meetings to the public.
Commissioner McKee said the meeting on January 10th was not a meeting of friends
over coffee for discussion. He said this group has a name and the lack of minutes is irrelevant,
as there was a PowerPoint presentation at that meeting. He said the only way he got this
presentation was through a public records request to GoTriangle. He said the night he made
these petitions, he distinctly agreed that the open meeting law did not apply to this meeting, but
morally, and because this is a divisive issue in this community, no one should be excluded from
sitting in the back of a meeting and quietly listening.
Commissioner Marcoplos said to Commissioner Bedford that she is welcome to contact
him at any time to find out what happens at any GoTriangle meetings.
Commissioner Marcoplos said one cannot say that any particular issue is deserving of
changing the basic way of governing to make all meetings open. He referred to other items
(detention center, ag center, etc.) and said meetings occurred in recent weeks that discussed
preliminary numbers, which are no longer accurate. He said things change from day to day,
and this is the type of meeting that was held at GoTriangle on January 10th, and so much was
discussed that is not reflected in the basic PowerPoint, and so many things have changed since
that meeting. He questions if it is good governance to make every single work session between
staff and elected officials open. He said the numbers at the January 10th meeting, were not
actual factual numbers, and there has to be a happy medium. He said Orange County
government has always been transparent, and he finds it interesting that this concern is only
being raised about LRT. He said there has to be a balance between transparency, and getting
day to day work done in order to present current, factual information to the public for discussion
and vote.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he appreciates the passion of those opposed to light rail,
but this is a tactic to slow the project down and it is not entirely about the open meetings law.
He said no numbers have been hidden.
Commissioner McKee said if Orange County is going to define itself as transparent, then
this should apply to any meeting, not just light rail. He said he does not advocate for people to
be allowed to speak at all meetings, but just for the right to attend meetings. He said any
discussions, preliminary or not, should be open to the public. He said to him this is a moral
issue.
Commissioner Bedford suggested that the Commissioners have a facilitated meeting
about their roles on different boards, and how they report back to each other, staff and the
public. She said this can help to develop norms, and allow the BOCC to operate at a higher
level on all issues. She said the onus should not be on her, or any Commissioner, to track
9
everyone's meetings to find out what is going on, and it is not good governance to shut out
other Commissioners from information that all need to hear. She said those BOCC
representatives attending board and commission meetings have more time to digest and
consider information, as opposed to their fellow commissioners who receive an abstract a few
days before a BOCC meeting, at which a decision must be made. She said she was able to
read the PowerPoint from the GoTriangle meeting, and decipher what was relevant, and what
may have changed, which was very straightforward and helpful. She said another suggestion
may be to have only staff attend meetings, such as a GoTriangle meeting, and keep elected
officials out of the deliberation.
Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC does a good job with transparency, and rather
than more of them attending other meetings, he would promote having more open discussion in
the BOCC meetings, like tonight. He said these meetings are televised and recorded and the
Board can have longer discussions. He said the focus of transparency lies in their BOCC
regular and work session meetings.
Commissioner Dorosin petitioned to get a response about the ambulance issue that Mr.
Carter brought forward.
Chair Rich said Dinah Jeffries, EMS Director, did send out a response to Mr. Carter
about this issue, which can be forwarded to Commissioner Dorosin. She said a response from
the Planning Department about the flag is forthcoming.
Commissioner Price said the issue is not about the light rail, but rather about all of the
noise she heard surrounding the January 10th GoTriangle meeting. She said it was unclear
what the meeting was for, and what occurred at the meeting. She said it was touted as an
unimportant meeting, but then a PowerPoint appeared. She said she would like more
transparency and collegiality. She said everyone does not need to be at every meeting, and if a
meeting is announced, it is fair to expect that people may want to attend.
Commissioner Marcoplos said if the Board is going to have a mediated meeting, he
would like the Board of County Commissioners members to have a list of the controversial
topics in the past, so that the discussion can be comprehensive.
Chair Rich said the GoTriangle representative and the Chair of the Board of
Commissioners have been meeting at GoTriangle for over two years now, and nothing different
occurred at the meeting on January 101h, than has occurred at any meeting in the past 2 years.
She said sometimes it was Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Jacobs who attended,
and then it was Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Marcoplos.
Chair Rich called for no more discussion and ended the conversation.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Proclamation Recognizing the Orange High School Future Farmers of America
(FFA) Senior Livestock Judging Team for Winning State Competition
The Board recognized the Orange County High School Future Farmers of America
Senior Livestock Judging Team for winning the State competition.
Travis Myren introduced this item and Cole Watkins, the Ag Teacher, introduced the
team.
Commissioner Price read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION
ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA SENIOR LIVESTOCK
JUDGING TEAM WINNING 2018 STATE COMPETITION
10
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, Orange High School entered a Senior Livestock Judging
Team in the 2018 N.C. Future Farmers of America (FFA) Association's annual Livestock
Evaluation Career Development Event; and
WHEREAS, the competitive event is for agricultural education students, emphasizing skills in
livestock evaluation, selection and management as taught through the agricultural
education curriculum; and
WHEREAS, under the leadership of Cole Watkins, an instructor in the Career and Technical
Education Department at Orange High School, the team placed 1st in the state out of 89 high
school teams; and
WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication and commitment, the team brought honor upon
themselves, Orange High School, the Orange County Schools District and Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the Orange High School Senior Livestock
Judging Team and Cole Watkins for this outstanding achievement, and wishes them great
success when they represent the school and county at the national event in October 2019.
This the 5`" day of February 2019.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee, for the
to authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation recognizing the students and faculty advisor for
winning the competition, representing the community and school and wishing them great
success in the nationwide competition this fall.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. NC Association of Assessing Officers Distinguished Jurisdiction Award
The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office for its selection as a distinguished
assessment jurisdiction by the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers.
Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, reviewed the background information below:
BACKGROUND: Each year the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO)
recognizes up to three (3) counties for the Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award. For
the third year in a row, Orange County has been selected for this prestigious award. Per the
NCAAO announcement, the award is presented each year in recognition of a county's
achievement in areas of property tax assessment and/or collection, the implementation of a
project, or endeavors to enhance the overall effectiveness of a county tax department. The
recipient receives prestigious recognition and an award at the annual NCAAO Fall Conference
held in November.
The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office for its award selection, including
acknowledgement of the plaque received from NCAAO highlighting the recognition.
c: ITEM ADDED (no abstract)
The Board considered a Resolution Opposing Alternative 4a as a Design for
Modifications to Eubanks Road and NC 86 as Part of NCDOT Project 1-3306A for Proposed
Widening of 1-40 from 1-85 to Durham County Line.
11
PUBLIC COMMENT:
John Hollingsworth from the Northwood community said he is grateful that the Board of
County Commissioners has been supportive to the Northwood neighborhood. He asked that
the Board endorse this resolution tonight. He said while they have fended off one crisis, they
still face grave threats from the design of this road and the amount of traffic that will use their
neighborhood as a cut-through. He said they are going to continue to advocate for their
neighborhood and ask for the Board's continued support.
Chair Rich asked John Hollingsworth (Northwood resident) to read this item:
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ALTERNATIVE 4A AS A DESIGN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO
EUBANKS ROAD AND NC 86 AS PART OF NCDOT PROJECT 1-3306A FOR
PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-40 FROM 1-85 TO DURHAM COUNTY LINE
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has initiated a project
for widening 1-40 in Orange County, which includes proposed modifications to Eubanks Road
as part of reconstruction of the 1-40/ NC 86 interchange; and
WHEREAS, NCDOT has developed alternative designs for modifications to Eubanks Road and
has shared them with the public for feedback in January of 2019; and
WHEREAS, alternative 4A and precursor designs depicted a realignment of Eubanks Road
through the Northwood neighborhood that would necessitate the demolition of multiple
homes and would create substantial negative impacts to the neighborhood fabric; and
WHEREAS, residents of the Northwood neighborhood submitted a petition to Orange County
urging a design solution that does not endanger homes, property values, well and septic
infrastructure, or neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS, NCDOT has been exploring additional alternatives such as the one shown on Map
4B which align Eubanks Road in a way that reduces impacts to the Northwood neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
the Board hereby states its opposition to the alternative 4A realignment of Eubanks Road, as
depicted on NCDOT Public Meeting Map 4A, for this portion of the design for NCDOT Project
1-3306A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board supports a design that does not significantly
alter the alignment of Eubanks Road, and strongly encourages NCDOT to continue refining
design options in order to meet the following criteria:
• Minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on neighborhoods surrounding the
project
• Support alternative modes of travel, specifically bicycle and pedestrian
• Contribute positively to the character of Chapel Hill
• Stagger construction of improvements on Old NC 86 and NC 86 so that
construction occurs on each road at different times, thereby optimizing
vehicular access to 1-40
• Protect the feasibility of future improvements to Eubanks Road and NC 86 for the
North South BRT project, as planned by Chapel Hill Transit
• Ensure design that allows for sufficient emergency response
• Maintain left turn movements from Eubanks Rd onto northbound NC 86 as
12
much as possible, potentially as a short-term measure until traffic levels exceed
certain thresholds
• Widen the eastbound 1-40 exit ramp to create an additional lane of traffic exiting onto
NC 86. This would be in addition to the proposed slip lane from the exit ramp onto
Eubanks Road
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Orange County Commissioners requests that
this resolution be transmitted to the Orange County Legislative Delegation.
This the 5th day of February 2019.
A motion was mad by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the resolution and transmit it to the Legislative Delegation.
Commissioner Dorosin said adoption of this resolution does not mean that the BOCC
does not support the widening of 1-40, because the BOCC does support that. He said this is
about opposing the construction/design of the interchange.
Commissioner McKee said he met with the neighbors on a raw, cold day, and the
number of neighbors involved impressed him, and the amount of time, energy, and focus the
neighbors put into researching the impacts of this proposal. He said this indicated a level of
thoughtfulness and cooperation on all fronts.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner McKee said this might be a good discussion item at the next Department
of Transportation (DOT) quarterly meetings.
Chair Rich said it was discussed at the last meeting, and will be so again at future
meetings.
5. Public Hearings
a. Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
The Board received an overview of the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan (E-B-M AMP), continue the public hearing, and provide comments before the
Plan is scheduled on an upcoming agenda for Board action.
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner 11, introduced this item.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2018 the BOCC authorized the Planning Department to update the adopted 2011 E-
B-M AMP in accordance with an approved public and advisory board review. This update has
been conducted through a comprehensive public involvement process which included
community input and recommendations from the Planning Board and Orange Unified
Transportation Board (OUTBoard). Planning staff also presented the draft plan to the Economic
Development Advisory Board (EDAB) and its staff for input.
There is no voting tonight only public comment.
The E-B-M AMP is:
• A combination of the original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study,
County
• Planning, City of Mebane, and public comments.
13
• A long-range transportation vision for the area illustrating roadway alignment and
corridor
• width necessary to serve future land uses and address traffic impact as development
occurs.
• A plan that assists the County in promoting economic development through its
development review process by encouraging developers to dedicate right-of-way
necessary for future roads.
The E-B-M AMP is not:
• A proposal for, nor does it seek authorization for, funding right-of-way acquisition.
• However, an AMP would be a necessary prerequisite to guide the investment to improve
access, where necessary.
• A collection of future road design and construction projects, nor does it include a
schedule.
• A guarantee that future development will occur or that roads will be built.
Summary and key highlights from the E-B-M AMP
Chapter 1 - Introduction —federal, state, and local regulations authorizing such plans including
the process used in updating this plan.
• 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
• Traffic trend details in addition to the 2017 Transportation Study results.
Chapter 2 —Access Management Planning — Introduction of 2017 Transportation Study and
recommendations for the planning area. This should be a focus area for review.
• Includes Volkert, Inc., County staff and the recently adopted Mebane 2040
• Comprehensive Transportation Plan (June 2018).
Chapter 3— Enforcement (aka Implementation) — lists the various resources, roles and
responsibilities of state and local officials as well as property owners.
• Includes process to amend the plan through developer initiated Traffic Impact Analysis
Chapter 4—Appendix—2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study and remarks collected
throughout the planning process.
• Contains survey results and specific comments provided by the public.
A summary of key planning areas and responses to public comments are provided below. Also
see Attachment 1, Public Questions & Comments.
o West of West Ten Road and east of Mebane city limits.
• Plan updated to avoid multiple stream crossings.
• Intersection locations updated and requiring additional study.
o Railroad crossings in Efland — Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Mt. Willing Road.
• Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
• Key crossing identified by staff requiring additional study.
• NCDOT requests Orange County conduct feasibility study through MPO.
o Turner Street Extension through Center Street residential area.
• Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
• Property zoned Local Commercial; UDO Section 3.4.10 requires property "have
• direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector".
• Provide access to land locked parcels west of residential neighborhood.
14
o US-70 and Preston Loop Subdivision
• Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
• No recommendations on US-70 or through Preston Loop Subdivision.
Appendix C of the plan provides comprehensive documentation of all public involvement
activities throughout the planning process.
Planning Board Review - September 5, 2018
Planning Board began reviewing the Draft E-B-M AMP. Following are key highlights from its
initial review:
o What is planned for the area, where will development occur, and will County take property
for roads?
• The AMP is similar to the Future Land Use Map; it expresses a vision, has no financial
component, and is achieved over an indefinite time period.
• The plan gives the County legal standing to request right-of-way dedication during the
development review process. If development does not occur, neither do new roads.
o Who contracted the study (2017 Transportation Study)?
• The County funded the study and contracted it out to Volkert, Inc.
o Does it include alternative transportation such as cyclists and pedestrians?
• Yes, the 2017 Transportation Study recommended 3 of NCDOT's standard street cross
• sections. Each includes either a 5-foot sidewalk or wide paved shoulder or both.
OUTBoard Review- September 19, 2018
The OUTBoard received the Draft E-B-M AMP for review. Following are key highlights from its
initial review.
o What about multimodal travel?
• The recommended NCDOT approved standard street cross sections include either a
sidewalk or wide paved shoulders. Some include both.
o Bicycle safety needs to be included in the scope of the project.
• The street cross sections address Bicycle and Pedestrian safety by including 5-foot
sidewalks and/or wide paved shoulders. The plan does not include specific road
design/engineering but does accommodate sufficient right-of-way in several cases for
future bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Public Notice of Planning Board and OUTBoard meetings
On September 20, 2018, approximately 1,000 notices were mailed to property owners in and
within 1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the October Planning Board and
OUTBoard meetings.
Planning Board Recommendation - October 3, 2018
The Planning Board recommended the BOCC approve the E-B-M AMP with the Planning
Director's recommended revisions and the following additions:
o Provide more clarity on what the plan is and is not.
• Information added to Draft E-B-M AMP
o Provide more information on how the plan meets Economic Development Objective 2.2 and
2.3 (Page 5 of Draft E-B-M AMP).
• Included a street cross section with a bicyclist and cite NCDOT guidelines
• Information added to the Draft E-B-M AMP
OUTBoard Recommendation - October 17, 2018
15
The OUTBoard members who were present— in the absence of a quorum - provided the
following comments:
• Include roundabouts as potential intersection improvements for both 2017
Transportation Study and staff recommended intersections.
• Limit lane widths in the planning area to 11 feet and provide more shoulder.
• Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies
at intersections.
• Incorporate public transit into the plan.
• BOCC proceed with its decision provided all comments are addressed.
Public Notice of BOCC Public Hearing
On October 19, 2018, approximately 1,000 notices were mailed to property owners in and within
1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the BOCC Public Hearing.
• On November 1, 2018, the BOCC opened the Public Hearing for the E-B-M AMP but
continued it to February 5, 2019 so that planning staff could address any impacts the
plan may have on the economic development district. The primary concern raised by the
Economic Development Department is the future marketability of relatively large
properties (e.g. where new connector roads bisect the area) that have been targeted for
economic development purposes.
Economic Development Advisory Board - January 8, 2019
The Planning Department originally provided the Draft E-B-M AMP to the Economic
Development Department for their review on August 31, 2018. The EDAB provided the following
comments on January 8, 2019:
• Improve communication and coordination between the two departments.
• Provide an option in the plan with no internal road connectivity.
• A Draft Reduced Connectivity option has been provided for the BOCC's consideration
(Attachment 2).
• EDAB provided a letter (Attachment 3) recommending BOCC approve the Reduced
Connectivity option as part of the plan.
Planning Director Recommendation
Based on the input staff has received from the public, EDAB, and staff, another option for
consideration is in the Reduced Connectivity Option (Attachment 2). This option removes the
vast majority of new connectivity roadways through undeveloped properties. Although, there is a
strong merit in our AMP that supports all 4 elements (i.e. right-of-way width, intersection
placement, Frontage/Service Joint Road Access, and Master Plan Road Connections), the
perception that the connectivity aspect may encumber and/or eliminate the property from a
"short list" potential may outweigh the benefits of having the road documented on an AMP.
Without the connectivity element, staff cannot ask for these connections with "by right"
approvals, only with agreement to include them during a conditional zoning process. The
developer may find it advantageous to add the connections upon their own reflection, so the
comprehensive transportation solution may still be achieved. In any event, the "Reduced
Connectivity" option is viable and may balance the interests and unencumber development
potential.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said there is a PowerPoint presentation at the
Commissioners' places, and he will be going through only a few of the slides:
16
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
Access Management Plan Update
February 5, 2019
Board of County Commissioners
Item 5.a
Purpose of Item
To provide an overview of the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
(E-B-M AMP), to continue the public hearing, and collect Board comments before placing the
draft on an upcoming agenda for decision.
Presentation Outline
Background
o What the plan is and is not
o Adopted 2011 plan and 2017 Transportation Study
o Process and Public Involvement
E-B-M AMP
o The plan — annotated
o Recommended Road Network
o Reduced Connectivity Option
o Recommended Cross-Sections
o Community Input
0 2011 vs 2019 update
Next Step
o Requested Action
Background — Plan Purpose
• Improve overall transportation system
• Minimize congestion and crashes
• Efficient traffic flow, safety and access to properties
Background —What the plan is
• A long-range vision for the area
• Dedication of right-of-way through a development application
• Ensure future development addresses transportation through approval process
What the plan is not:
• Funded new roads or improvements
• Acquisition/purchase of right-of-way
• Construction of future roads
• Permanent/guarantees area develops
Background — How the plan works (table)
Background — Plan History (table)
Background — Future Land Use Map (map)
Background— 2011 Adopted E-B-M AMP (map)
17
Background —2017 Transportation Study (map)
Background —2017 Transportation Study (map)
Background —2017 Transportation Study (map)
Background — Process & Public Involvement
Background — Public Questions & Comments
Questions
• What the plan is and is not
• Will existing roads be improved?
• Will government take property for the roads?
• When will the development occur or the future roads?
• What about multimodal, bike, ped, transit, etc.?
• No four way stops, roundabouts!
Responses
• Existing road will not be removed
• No, government is not taking or buying land
• This is a vision, plan has no horizon year
• Cross sections takes multimodal into consideration
Background — Process & Public Involvement
The Plan — Outline
1. Introduction
a) State and Local Regulations; b) Background and Planning Area; c) Goals and
Objectives; and d) Planned Projects
2. Access Management Plan
a) Community Meeting; b) 2017 Transportation Study; c) Recommendations -
Future Roadway Network, Cross-Section and Intersection Improvements; and d)
AMP Update and Implementation
3. Implementation
a) Roles and Responsibilities; b) Amendments; and c) Resources
4. Appendix
a. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP; b) 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study; and
b. Community meeting
The Plan — 2019 Draft E-B-M AMP (map)
The Plan — Reduced Connectivity Option (map)
The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
18
Community Input Documented
■ Appendix C
o Sign in sheets from Community Meeting, Planning Board and OUTBoard
o Surveys submitted by public
o Emails and letters submitted by public including responses
o Questions and Answers
Plan Comparisons—Adopted & Update
Implementation Over Time
Planning Board Recommendation (October 3, 2018)
❑ Provide more information on how the plan meets:
o Objective ED-2.2: Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable
communities. (Text drafted, in Goals and Objectives)
o Objective ED-2.3: Promote public transportation, alternative modes of
transportation, and encourage carpooling and park-and-ride participation.
(Text drafted, in Goals and Objectives)
What AMP elements are employed?
1. Right of Way Width
2. Intersection Placement
3. Frontage/Service Joint Road Access
4. Master Plan Road Connections
Background — Elements of the Plan
Right-of-Way
a.) Existing Buckhorn and West Ten Road are 60' wide, AMP says both roads to be
100'.
b.) Ask developer along Buckhorn Road and West Ten Road to dedicate 20' on east
side.
Intersection
a.) Existing AMP notes a NCDOT "pre-approved" location for a full flow intersection with
possible traffic light.
b.) Ask developer to plan project to above AMP intersection location, limit other access
points, and make improvements according to TIA needs at this point in time.
Frontage/Service Roads
a.) Existing AMP promotes Frontage/Service Roads.
b.) Ask developer to include frontage/service road easement so large area and smaller
projects can be redirected to future traffic signal intersection (after NCDOT warrants are
met)
Through Connectivity
a.) Existing AMP shows approximate alignment
b.) Ask developer to plan project with a future public road through the property to the
east to distribute (and create internal capture) traffic to infrastructure focus areas.
Background — Elements of the Plan
Background — How the plan works
19
Background — How the plan works
Background — How the plan works
Background — How the plan works
Not having a plan
Transportation/traffic efficiency and effectiveness/Connectivity
• Businesses must rely on an already very limited road system, including
multimodal opportunities
■ New development would not be responsible for the impact they cause, including:
■ Preventing adjacent property owners from accessing their property
• Increasing traffic in the area without mitigating it
Safety
■ Current transportation network will:
■ Become more congested
■ Crash rates will increase
■ Traffic flow will continue to deteriorate
■ Degrade and become unsafe for all users
Economic Development
• County receives no funding for new roads
■ State does not build new roads unless there are "lines on a map"
■ "Perceived impacts of access management on adjacent commercial businesses
and landowners are often major impediments to projects moving
forward...perceptions are often worse than reality. (#9 Economic Impact of
Access Management, 2011 adopted E-B-M AMP)
Not having a plan
■ Funding Opportunities
■ County weakens its partnership with the MPO/RPO and NCDOT, making it
difficult for the public, staff, and County to advocate for its transportation needs.
■ Without a strong public-private partnership to address the transportation network,
County— including its residents— relies totally on the State to fix the
transportation problems brought on development, even without development.
■ Future businesses seeking to develop in the County may not want to take
responsibility for the traffic impacts they will cause to existing roads nor be
accountable for future traffic patterns they create due to their development.
The Plan — Right-of-Way
The Plan — Intersections
The Plan — Intersections
The Plan — Intersections
20
The Plan — Intersections
The Plan — Road Connections
The Plan —Service Roads
The Plan — Roadway Connectivity
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
the Board to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the reduced access plan, and the recommendation in
the packet to go with the reduced connectivity plan, and clarified that this is recommended
because the other plan may hinder economic development due to the burden of the requirement
to build roads.
Craig Benedict said that is correct, and a line on the map may inhibit a potential
development. He said with economic development being so competitive, it is wise to keep
things as visible and understandable as possible.
Commissioner Dorosin said by not having the more extensive plan, when the properties
get developed the County does not have the same leverage to require that these connections
be made. He asked if it is more dependent on the developer and its desires.
Craig Benedict said yes, if a project is permitted by right, there are standards within the
code to ask for a lot of things, but since this would not be in there, a road cannot be required.
He said if it is conditional zoning, or a master plan development conditional zoning, it may be
possible to bring this requirement back in via negotiation. He said other elements of the plan
are still alive: dedicate more roads for widening, bring development to a certain predetermined
intersection point, and use frontage and service road concepts that would help support the
overall transportation plan.
Commissioner Dorosin said at the BOCC retreat, the Board discussed the impediments
to developing some of these properties: that there is a lack of infrastructure, piecing together
multiple parcels, etc. He clarified that the reduced connectivity option still envisions building
more major arteries that will address some of the concerns the Board has heard.
Craig Benedict said yes. He said Industrial Drive and providing access to one of the
largest rail sites have still been preserved. He said there are also discussions between
Mebane, DOT and the railroad to build a flyover at Buckhorn Road over towards Frasier Road.
He said this even reflects a plan brought forward by the rail authority to limit the rail crossings.
He said the elements of this plan can help lead to investments.
Commissioner Greene asked if the determinate between development by right and
development by conditional zoning could be identified.
Craig Benedict said the areas have certain zoning designations. He said if it is
Economic Development-Buckhorn District 1, it is assigned to the property already. He said a
use listed in that zoning category can be approved by staff. He said some uses may be Special
Use, and Class A special use would end up in front of the BOCC. He all standards within the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would still need to be met, but the access management
plan would not be included.
21
Commissioner Greene said she understands that by right is a good thing to attract
potential developers, and she will not argue with the deletion of the proposed roads, but she
finds reducing connectivity to be concerning.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to page 3, where it says alternative transportation is
included (cycle and pedestrian) as well as a 5-foot sidewalk or a wide paved shoulder. He
asked if the shoulder would also be 5 feet wide.
Craig Benedict said it is 4-5 feet for an on road bike lane; and if bikes are going to ride
on a sidewalk it has to be 8 feet wide. He said in the County there are cross-sections of roads,
but the sidewalks would likely not go in unless Mebane, etc. annexed it. He said DOT will not
maintain sidewalks.
Commissioner Price referred to the purple sections, where it says "further analysis," and
asked if this could be defined.
Craig Benedict said that is, for example, a possible traffic separation study that the rail
authority and DOT has been working on to say whether Buckhorn Road should be widened in
this area or a bridge be built over the road. He said further analysis is required. He said
roundabouts and full intersections have also been considered.
Commissioner Price asked if the ones to the east could be clarified, near Efland-Cedar
Grove.
Craig Benedict referred to the map, pointing out Mt. Willling Road, which is presently 2
lanes, but is recommended to be 80 feet wide in the future (15-20 feet wider on either side of
the existing roadway corridor). He said if a development comes in, with over 800 trips/day, the
developer must complete a traffic impact study, and if this study says more than one access
point is required, then the developer must comply, per the UDO.
Commissioner Price said she encourages roundabouts.
The Board agreed by consensus to schedule the Plan on the March 7t" meeting for
Board action.
6. Regular Agenda
a. Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031 STIP
The Board considered voting to approve a resolution endorsing lists of Orange County
transportation projects to the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO),
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) for Strategic Prioritization of Transportation
(SPOT)/Strategic Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Nishith Trivedi said a copy of the SPOT 6.0 presentation is at the Commissioners'
places, and in an effort to save time, he will review the key points presented in the abstract.
The main points are:
• NCDOT and MPO/RPO are about to start the next round of SPOT process and we must
identify potential projects for submission to MPO/RPO by March. That is why this is time
sensitive.
• Each MPO/RPO has unique processes for selecting limited number of projects they can
submit to NCDOT and they must complete their work by this summer.
• You have three attachments with maps, one for each MPO/RPO with a list of potential
projects, with staff and OUTBoard recommendations.
• All previous County Priorities for SPOT 5.0 are being carried forward as highway
projects rather than bike/ped projects and 6 new potential projects have been identified:
o US-70 widening due to high crash incidents, increasing traffic, and strategic
freight corridor
o NC-86 widening from north of Hillsborough to Caswell County
22
o Old NC-86 modernization with wide paved shoulder from Hillsborough to
Eubanks Road,
o Lebanon Road, just intersection improvements for safety, no widening
o Mebane Oaks Road, a project we would coordinate with Mebane
• Manager recommends the Board approve the list of transportation projects for
submission to MPO/RPO
He said he is happy to go over the presentation if the Board would like and answer any
questions or concerns they may have.
BACKGROUND: Biennially, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a ten
year STIP that funds and schedules transportation projects throughout the state for all modes of
transportation. The STIP implements Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organization's
(MPO/RPO) adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP). The CTPs and MTPs are used by MPO/RPOs to determine which
projects are submitted for considered in the STIP using the SPOT process.
SPOT 5.0/STIP FY 2020-2029
Orange County has thirty-nine (39) projects in SPOT 5.0. This includes its member jurisdictions
- Hillsborough, Mebane, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Eight of them have been funded, and those
projects are:
• TIP - 1-3306A: I-40 Widening from I-85 to US 15/501
• TIP - 1-5984: 1-85 at NC-86 Interchange upgrade
• TIP - 1-0305: 1-85 Widening from Orange Grove Road to Durham County
• TIP - U-5304A, B, D, E, F: US 15/501 improvements from NC-86 to 1-40 (Chapel Hill)
SPOT 6.0 Schedule and Process— FY 2022-2031
Between July 1, 2019— September 30, 2019, MPO/RPOs across the state will submit their
limited number of projects— based on their population and total centerline miles—to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)for inclusion in SPOT 6.0. These projects must
be approved by their respective Boards prior to submission. Orange County's process requires
that the Board of County Commissioners (BPCC) approve the list of County transportation
priorities prior to submission to the respective MPO/RPO. Each MPO/RPO has its own unique
process for determining which limited number of projects it submits to NCDOT.
• DCHC MPO will only submit projects listed in the adopted MTP
• TARPO will establish a subcommittee to determine which projects to submit
• BG MPO uses a multi-criteria process to determine which projects to submit
Before MPO/RPO Boards approve the projects for submission, they will conduct a 30 day public
comment period and public hearing.
SPOT 6.0 Project List— Staff and OUTBoard Recommendations
Based on changes to MPO/RPO SPOT project selection processes, staff is recommending
Orange County transportation priorities also change so that projects may compete better. Staff
has also met with member jurisdictions in Orange County to identify specific corridors they
would like addressed through SPOT/STIP or other funding opportunities. These changes and
potential corridors are provided as staff recommendations for Orange County Transportation
Priorities (Attachments 1 - 3). Many Orange County 2017 transportation priorities are carried
forward and highlighted in Green. Possible new priorities are provided in .,a, qu.
23
• Staff is recommending removal of independent bike/pedestrian projects based on
Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law § 136-189.11 (d).(3).c.
o The Department shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and
pedestrian improvement projects.
o Independent bike/ pedestrian projects can be pursued through "Federal Surface
Transportation Block Grant Direct Allocation".
o They require 20% local match and local administration.
• Staff recommends converting paved shoulder projects and independent
bike/pedestrian projects to highway modernization projects with bike lanes.
o First 5 feet of sidewalk width is subject to NCDOT's Sidewalk Cost Share Policy
— 50% for Orange County— and any additional width must be 100% locally
funded.
• Staff recommends adding Old NC-86, NC-86, US-70 and NC-54 as County Priorities
for SPOT and other funding opportunities.
o OUTBoard recommendations are provided in Attachments 1 — 3. Below is a
summary of its recommendations:
o Carry forward previous County Priorities and recommend they be highway
projects with 11' travel lane and 5' paved shoulder, no curb and gutter or
sidewalk.
o Projects in town jurisdictions should be coordinated with the town with the
understanding towns may submit them to MPO.
• US-70 widening not recommended as possible project
o Opposes more cars on road and find better ways to keep trucks on interstate so
they do not avoid the weigh station.
• Table NC-86 and NC-54 till MPO/RPO complete update to CTP
o Recommend BOCC request TARPO request NCDOT study NC-86 and update
CTP before proceeding with possible project.
o Await DCHC MPO action on NC-54 Corridor Study before proceeding with
possible project.
Nishith Trivedi made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031 STIP
February 5, 2019
Purpose of Item
To consider a resolution endorsing transportation projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC
MPO for SPOT 6.0/STIP 2022-2031.
-Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO)
-Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
-Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO)
-Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT)
-State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Presentation — Outline
❑ SPOT 6.0 Processes
■ NCDOT
■ DCHC MPO, BG MPO, & TARPO
■ Orange County
■ Orange County Priorities
0 TARPO
24
■ DCHC MPO
■ BG MPO
■ Requested Action
SPOT 6.0 Process — NCDOT (chart)
SPOT 6.0 Process — NCDOT
Highway
• Statewide — Interstates, Highways, Toll Facilities, etc.
• Regional — any US and NC routes
• Division — any SR and Local roads
• Bike/Ped
Bike/Ped
• Statewide — None
• Regional — None
• Division - $0 state funds (Federal STBDGA or NCDOT local cost share)
Public Transit
• Statewide — None
• Regional — 10% cap on services spanning 2 or more counties
• Division —All other services including terminal & stations
Aviation, Ferry, & Rail
SPOT 6.0 Process — MPO/RPO
Orange County submits SPOT projects are to:
• DCHC MPO
• TARPO
• BG MPO
MPO/RPO submits limited # of projects to NCDOT for inclusion in SPOT and consideration in
STIP, limit is based on:
• Total population in MPO/RPO
• Total Centerline miles in MPO/RPO
SPOT 6.0 Process — MPO/RPOs
SPOT 6.0 Process — Orange County
❑ Staff reviewed previous adopted plans
■ NCDOT FY 2018-2027 and 2020-2029 STIP
■ DCHC MPO, TARPO, BG MPO CTP & MTP
■ Locally adopted plans (AMP, Comprehensive, etc.)
❑ Staff reviewed previous BOCC adopted priority list
■ May 5, 2017
❑ Coordinate and Collaborate with local jurisdictions
■ Mebane, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough
❑ Obtain recommendations from OUTBoard
■ See Attachments 1-3
Orange County Priority List— TARPO
• TARPO (Attachment 1)
• DCHC MPO (Attachment 2)
25
• BG MPO (Attachment 3)
Orange County Priority List—TARPO
Orange County Priority List—TARPO
Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
Orange County Priority List— BG MPO
Orange County Priority List— New Protects
❑ NC-54 - OUTBoard recommends delay till MPO action
➢ Staff recommends project due to
❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
❖ Increasing accidents, including severity & fatalities
❑ US-70 - OUTBoard does not recommend project
➢ Staff recommends project due to
❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
❖ Increasing accidents, including severity &fatalities
❖ Strategic Freight Corridor
❑ NC-86 - OUTBoard recommends delay
➢ Staff recommends project due to
❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
❖ Increasing accidents, including severity &fatalities
Requested Action
• The Manager recommends that the Board approve/endorse the resolution (Attachment
4) to submit transportation projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO for SPOT
6.0/STIP 2022-2031.
Transportation Framework-
Example Life Cycle
Highway Projects - Multimodal Aspects
❑ Surface Transportation Block Grant Direct Allocation (STBGDA)
■ Federal funds incorporated into NCDOT STIP
■ Requires 20% local match plus local administration
➢ Commitment Letter from local jurisdiction to provide funds
■ Follow all Federal regulations & NCDOT oversight
➢ Violation could result in 100% local costs
➢ Choreographed with County's budget process
Highway Projects-Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law § 136-189.11 (d).(3).c.— The
Department shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects
OUTBoard Recommendation —Table
26
Road Improvements: OUTBoard recommends - NCDOT standard street cross section 2B (60'
row, 11' travel lane, with 5' paved shoulder) with intersection improvements, no C&G or
sidewalk
OUTBoard Recommendation- Widening: OUTBoard recommends
• Table till MPO/RPO updates CTP/MTP
• BOCC request TARPO request NCDOT study NC-86 for possible update
Orange County Priority List— TARPO (table)
Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO (table)
Commissioner Greene asked if the difference between SPOT 5 and SPOT 6, as pertains
to bicycle projects, could be clarified.
Nishith Trivedi said bicycle projects become highway projects. He said bicycle and
pedestrian projects require the County to invest into such projects in order to be submitted. He
said there are two different funding sources used for bike/ped projects. He said the County has
a hard time getting these projects, and, as such, staff has converted them into highway projects,
which would have paved shoulders wide enough for a bike lane.
Chair Rich said the OUTBoard presents this concern all the time, as NCDOT does not
recognize bike/pedestrian projects as a priority. She said this is a way around the issue, getting
the road that is wide enough to add the bike lane.
Commissioner Price asked if there is an update with Hwy 54.
Nishith Trivedi said the corridor study is recommending widening, but there is an issue
between Carrboro and the MPO on additional work to be done on this study.
Commissioner Price asked if widening means additional lanes.
Nishith Trivedi said yes, one lane on both sides.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the elusive bike path from Carrboro to Hillsborough could
be created if the County was able to pick which project gets completed.
Nishith Trivedi said Old Highway 86 is the highway project connecting Hillsborough to
Eubanks Road with a larger lane with a shoulder.
Commissioner Marcoplos said most include the component of widening the road enough
to include bike travel. He said maybe this will happen some day.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (revised)
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S LIST OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS FOR THE BURLINGTON-GRAHAM AND DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (BGMPO AND DCHC MPO) AND THE
TRIANGLE AREA RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF
INCLUSION IN THE 2022 — 2031 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), every two years, prepares a
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that identifies transportation projects to
be implemented over the next ten years with State and Federal funding; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina BOT solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local
and regional importance to be included in the FY 2022-2031 STIP; and
27
WHEREAS, the BGMPO and TARPO Transportation Advisory Committees and the DCHC MPO
Board are charged with the development of a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program (MTIP) or regional priority list; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is a member jurisdiction of the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO;
and
WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
bridges, to transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects
that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those
projects that foster economic development in the County's designated Economic Development
Districts; and
WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate
bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in
reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and
WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges
with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian
passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; and
WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all roads, bridges, and rights-of-
way so as to protect ecosystems and non-renewable resources; and
WHEREAS, Orange County has outlined its transportation needs within the BGMPO, TARPO
and DCHC MPO planning areas in attachments to this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
the Board endorses the following list of transportation projects to be submitted for scoring by the
State and to ultimately be considered for inclusion in the FY 2022-2031 STIP.
28
Burlington-Graham MPO:
1) US-70 Improvements: Widen US-70 and improve intersections from Buckhorn Road
(SR-1114) to Durham County with NCDOT standard street cross-section 4G (110' row,
17.5' median, 1 l' travel lanes, 5' bike lane, c&g, and sidewalk), add turn lanes and
safety improvements at NC-86, St. Mary's Road (SR-1002), Efland Cedar Grove Road
(SR-1004), Frazier Road (SR-1310), Richmond Road (SR-1312), Brookhollow Road
(SR-1324), Faucette Mill Road (SR-1328), Miller Road (SR-1555), Lawrence Road (SR-
1561), Palmers Grove Church Road (SR-1562), Pleasant Green Road (SR-1567),
Orange High School Road (SR-1588), and N Scotswood Boulevard (SR-2300).
2) Mattress Factory Road Interchange: Construct a new interchange at the existing grade-
separated crossing of Mattress Factory Road and 1-85/1-40.
3) Mattress Factory Road Extension to U.S. 70: Extend Mattress Factory Road northward
across East Washington Street and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way to
intersect U.S. 70 and close the existing railroad crossover road connecting East
Washington Street and U.S. 70 approximately 240 feet to the east of the intersection of
Mattress Factory Road and East Washington Street.
4) Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening: Widen Buckhorn Road from U.S. 70 to West Ten
Road (SR1144) to multiple lanes with bicycle and pedestrian facilities with grade
separation connection at US-70.
5) Lebanon Road Improvements: Intersection and safety improvements along Lebanon
Road (SR-1306) from Mill Creek Road (SR-1345) to Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR-
1004).
6) Mebane Oaks Road Improvements: Modernize Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) from NC
54 to 1-85 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5'
paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough Road
Road (SR-2126), Hebron Church Road (SR-1139), Yarborough Road (SR-1138), Oak
Grove Church Road (SR-1117), Jones Road (SR-1123), S Jim Minor Road (SR-2135),
Nicks Road (SR-1119), Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR-1100), and NC-54.
Triangle Area RPO:
1) Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders: Modernize Old Greensboro Road (SR-1005)
from Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942) to Alamance County with NCDOT standard street
29
2) safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942), Hatch Road (SR-1944), Neville
Road (SR-1945), Carl Durham Road (SR-1950), White Cross Road (SR-1951), Wildcat
Creek Road (SR-1953), and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (SR-1956).
3) Efland-Cedar Grove Road Improvements: Widen Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to Carr Store Road (SR 1352) with NCDOT
standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add
turn lanes and safety improvements at Carr Street (SR-1357) and highland Farm Road
(SR-1332)
4) Orange Grove Road Improvements: Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR-1106) from 1-85
to Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row,
11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at
Ode Turner Road (SR-1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134), Crossroad Church
Cemetery Road (SR-1131), Davis Drive (SR-1129), Kimbro Road (SR-1128) and
Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102)
5) Dairyland Road Improvements: Modernize Dairyland Road (SR-1177) from Orange
Grove Road (SR-1006) to Old NC-86 (SR-1009) with NCDOT standard street cross-
section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1006), Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102), Rocky
Ridge Road (SR-1113), Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR-1104) and convert
intersection at Old NC-86 (SR-1009) to Roundabout.
6) Dodsons Crossroads Improvements: Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102) from
Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B
(60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1106), Borland Road (SR-1126), Arthur
Minnis Road (SR-1115), and Dairyland Road (SR-1177).
7) Mebane Oaks Road Improvements: Modernize Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) from NC
54 to 1-85 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5'
paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough Road
(SR-2126), Hebron Church Road (SR-1139), Yarborough Road (SR-1138), Oak Grove
Church Road (SR-1117), Jones Road (SR-1123), S Jim Minor Road (SR-2135), Nicks
Road (SR-1119), Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR-1100), and NC-54.
8) Old NC-86 Improvements: Modernize Old NC-86 (SR-1009) from 1-40 to Eubanks Road
(SR-1727) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes at Davis Road (SR-1129), and New Hope Church
Road (SR-1723).
9) NC-54 Improvements: Widen NC-54 from Mebane Oaks Road (SR-1007) to Orange
Grove Road (SR-1006) and Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR 1951) /
Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR
1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) / Inside DCHC with additional lanes and
multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each intersection.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO:
1) US-70 Improvements: Widen US-70 and improve intersections from Buckhorn Road
(SR-1114) to Durham County with NCDOT standard street cross-section 4G (110' row,
30
17.5' median, 11' travel lanes, 5' bike lane, c&g, and sidewalk), add turn lanes and
safety improvements at NC-86, St. Mary's Road (SR-1002), Efland Cedar Grove Road
(SR-1004), Frazier Road (SR-1310), Richmond Road (SR-1312), Brookhollow Road
(SR-1324), Faucette Mill Road (SR-1328), Miller Road (SR-1555), Lawrence Road (SR-
1561), Palmers Grove Church Road (SR-1562), Pleasant Green Road (SR-1567),
Orange High School Road (SR-1588), and N Scotswood Boulevard (SR-2300).
2) NC 86 Improvements North of Hillsborough: Widen NC 86 from U.S. 70 Bypass to north
of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at U.S. 70 Bypass and NC 57.
3) Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road: Realign the intersection of Eno
Mountain Road (SR 1148) and Mayo Street (SR 1192) with Orange Grove Road (SR
1006) and make safety improvements.
4) U.S. 70 East/1-85/1-40 Connector: Modify the 1-85/1-40 Connector (SR 1239) interchange
at U.S. 70 to provide access from all directions.
5) Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders: Modernize Old Greensboro Road (SR-1005)
from Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942) to Alamance County with NCDOT standard street
cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and
safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942), Hatch Road (SR-1944), Neville
Road (SR-1945), Carl Durham Road (SR-1950), White Cross Road (SR-1951), Wildcat
Creek Road (SR-1953), and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (SR-1956).
6) Dairyland Road Improvements: Modernize Dairyland Road (SR-1177) from Orange
Grove Road (SR-1006) to Old NC-86 (SR-1009)with NCDOT standard street cross-
section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1006), Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102), Rocky
Ridge Road (SR-1113), Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR-1104) and convert
intersection at Old NC-86 (SR-1009) to Roundabout.
7) Dodson Crossroad Improvements: Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102) from
Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 213
(60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1106), Borland Road (SR-1126), Arthur
Minnis Road (SR-1115), and Dairyland Road (SR-1177).
8) Orange Grove Road Improvements: Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR-1106) from 1-85
to Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 213 (60' row,
11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at
Ode Turner Road (SR-1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134), Crossroad Church
Cemetery Road (SR-1131), Davis Drive (SR-1129), Kimbro Road (SR-1128) and
Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102).
9) NC-54 Improvements: Widen NC-54 from Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR
1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross
Rd (SR 1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) / Inside DCHC with additional lanes
and multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each
intersection.
31
10)Lebanon Road Improvements: Intersection and safety improvements along Lebanon
Road (SR-1306) from Mill Creek Road (SR-1345) to Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR-
1004).
11)Old NC-86 Improvements: Modernize Old NC-86 (SR-1009) from 1-40 to Eubanks Road
(SR-1727) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes at Davis Road (SR-1129), and New Hope Church
Road (SR-1723).
12)Dimmocks Mill Trestle Improvements: Improve current Dimmocks Mill Rd (#735154S)
grade separation and close Bellvue St (#735152D) rail crossing.
13)Exchange Park Lane Rail Trestle Improvements: Improve the current trestle at
Exchange Park Lane to accommodate Pedestrian traffic to support a pedestrian link
from the proposed train station to downtown Hillsborough.
14)Orange Grove Rd. Widening with Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: Construct one
additional lane between Patriot's Pointe Drive and New Grady Brown School Road (SR
1221) to include both pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the roadway. The 1-40
bridge would be widened to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle amenities and
one additional travel lane.
15)Calvander Roundabout: Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Old NC 86,
Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177), and Homestead Road (SR 1777) in Calvander
outside of Carrboro.
16)Old NC-86 Bike Lanes: Construct bicycle facilities on Old NC 86 from Farm House Road
in Carrboro to Homestead Road (SR 1777).
17)Homestead Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalks: Improve Homestead Road (SR 1777) from
Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86 to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks in sections of the
corridor where they do not exist.
18)Eubanks Road Bike Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes on Eubanks Road (SR 1727) from
Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86.
19)Mt. Carmel Church Road Bike/Pedestrian Improvements: Construct bike lanes and
sidewalks from US 15-501 to Bennett Road and bike lanes from Bennett Road to the
Chatham County line.
20)Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk Improvements: Construct a
sidewalk along the west side of Orange High School Road from Harold Latta Road to
U.S. 70, construct a sidewalk along the south side of Harold Latta Road from Cloverfield
Drive to Orange Grove Road, install high visibility crosswalks and in-road signage at
school entrances and exits on Orange Grove Road, and construct a sidewalk along
entrance roads to CW Stanford Middle School.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene for the
Board to approve approve/endorse the resolution (Attachment 4) to submit transportation
32
projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO for SPOT 6.0/STIP 2022-2031, with the
addition of the following language:
WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all roads, bridges, and rights-of-
way so as to protect ecosystems and non-renewable resources;
Nishith Trivedi said staff recommended additional projects, but the OUTBoard did not
agree with this recommendation. He asked if the Board wanted to consider new projects in the
resolution: US 70, N.C. 54 and Old Highway 86.
Commission Dorosin asked if these projects are included in the presentation.
Nishith Trivedi said yes, and pointed out the projects for the Board. He said the
OUTBoard generally opposes these projects due to opposition of widening roads and
encroaching on OUTBoard members' property.
Commissioner Dorosin supported adding these three projects to the resolution.
Commissioner McKee agreed. He said these three projects will address a public safety
issue, as well as the reality that the traffic is what it is.
Commissioner Marcoplos said Highway 54 is not going to be widened for a substantial
portion coming out of Carrboro, which should be a win for the OUTBoard. He said this seems
like a good idea, and he definitely supports the Highway 54 project.
Commissioner Price said she would be cautious with Highway 70, as parts of it go
through Hillsborough, and she would prefer to work with the Town on its plans for Cornelius
Street.
Nishith Trivedi said staff would coordinate with Hillsborough.
Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline in place.
Nishith Trivedi said this is a two-year process, after which there would be a new Capital
Improvement Program that would say when and where things would happen or not.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
support adding these three road projects to the resolution: US 70, N.0 54 and Old Hwy 86
Commissioner Price accepted friendly amendment and Commissioner Greene agreed.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Northern Campus Protect Update
The Board reviewed schematic design cost estimates for the County's Northern County
Campus, consider voting to approve an option and authorize staff to present budget
adjustments to the project at a future meeting.
Travis Myren referred to updated information, on the yellow sheet, at the
Commissioners' places. He reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND: The County's FY2018-19 Capital Investment Plan merged three independent
projects into the Northern Campus development. This development, located off of Highway 70 in
Hillsborough, is intended to include a replacement Detention Center, Environment and
Agricultural Center, and Parks Operations Base. The Board of Commissioners appropriated
approximately $28 million for the project.
As currently designed, the new Detention Center would consist of one hundred forty-four (144)
beds in approximately 48,900 square feet. The new facility would replace the existing 40,227
square foot detention facility located in downtown Hillsborough that was originally constructed in
1925 with additions and modifications occurring in the early 1980's and mid-1990's. The new
17,200 square foot Environment and Agricultural facility would replace the 19,087 square foot
33
office building currently located on Revere Road that houses the Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, Cooperative Extension, Farm Service Agency, and Soil and
Water Conservation. Finally, the 8,500 square foot Parks Operations Base would replace
scattered facilities at Millhouse Road Park used for office and equipment storage.
The County has recently completed the schematic design phase of the project and updated cost
estimates based on the building dimensions described above and programming needs of the
future building occupants. Based on those estimates, the current authorized budget amount is
not sufficient to complete the entire scope of the project.
With no changes to the current project scope or value engineering, the project is projected to
exceed the budgeted appropriation by approximately $13 million. Attachment 1 details the
schematic design cost estimates and budgeted appropriations for each element of the project.
At least three factors have contributed to this difference. First, these projects have been
included in the Capital Investment Plan for several years without budget escalation to recognize
inflationary cost pressures. The Detention Center has been in the CIP since 2012. The
Environment and Agricultural Center was originally included in the CIP in 2014, and the Parks
Operations Base was included in 2013. In recent years, construction costs have escalated by
five to seven percent annually. Second, the current construction environment is highly
competitive, so an inflationary adjustment of seven percent (7%) is added to the projected
costs. Finally, the original budget did not assume site acquisition costs or the associated
increase in site preparation for a larger site compared to the original detention center site owned
by the State. Several strategies can be used to reduce the cost of the Northern Campus Project.
Repurpose Previously Appropriated Funds: The County had previously borrowed funds for
Detention Center Design. Of this amount, approximately $718,000 is remaining to apply to the
current Northern Campus Project.
Value Engineering: Value engineering strategies can be used to change architectural and
aesthetic features without impacting how the facilities function. The project team has identified
$875,000 in value engineering strategies as detailed in Attachment 2.
Project Scope Reductions: Elements of the project may be reduced or eliminated to produce
savings. The staff team has identified $438,000 in potential scope reductions as detailed in
Attachment 3. As part of the scope reduction exercise, the number of Detention Center beds
was examined. The Detention Center capacity could be reduced by forty (40) beds which would
eliminate any capacity to house federal inmates and would immediately fill the available beds.
The elimination of federal inmates would also reduce operating budget revenue by $1.6 million.
Project Deferments: Projects that are currently programmed in the Capital Investment Plan
could be eliminated or deferred to a later date when the County's debt capacity would
accommodate them. The Southern Human Services expansion and a portion of the Cedar
Grove Park Phase 2 expansion could be postponed for a savings of$2.6 million. Components
of the Northern Campus project could also be postponed. Postponing the Environment and
Agricultural Center and the Parks Operations Base would defer$7.75 million in construction
costs. Given the County's current debt profile, debt capacity will begin to increase in FY2023-
24. See Attachment 4.
Using a combination of these strategies, current project costs may be reduced. The following
table outlines different strategy combinations in four (4) different options.
34
NORTHERN CAMPUS PROJECT OPTIONS
Current Estimated Costs
and Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Estimated Project Costs — $ 41,155,486
January 2019 $ 28,095,831) $ 41,155,486 $ 41,155,486 $ 41,155,486
Appropriated Budget $ (28,095,831) $ (28,095,831) $ (28,095,831)
DIFFERENCE $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655)
Cost Reduction Strategies
Repurpose Funds from Prior Jail
Project $ 719,700 $ 719,700 $ 719,700 $ 719,700
Value Engineering $ 875,000 $ 875,000 $ 875,000 $ 875,000
Strategies Project Scope $ 438,000 $ 438,000 $ 438,000 $ -
Reductions Other CIP
Deferments Postpone EAC $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500
and Parks Ops.
Construction $ 7,751,375 $ 7,751,375 $ - $ -
Reduce Detention Center $ 2,647,020 $ - $ - $Capacity
TOTAL COST REDUCTION
STRATEGIES $ 14,366,895 $ 11,719,875 $ 3,968,500 $ 3,530,500
DIFFERENCE $ 2,026,940.00 $ $ $ (8,809,455.00)
Option 1 would fund a smaller Detention Center only. It employs a sufficient
number of reduction strategies to create a positive project balance of
approximately $2 million.
Option 2 funds a 144 bed Detention Center but defers construction of the
Environment and Agricultural Center and Parks Operations. This option would
require an additional $620,000 in budget authorization.
Option 3 completes all of the components of the project but eliminates
project scope requested by the stakeholders. This option would require
approximately $8.37 million in additional budget authorization.
Option 4 completes all of the project components and funds the full
project scope as requested by the project stakeholders. Option 4 would
require an additional $8.8 million in authorized funds.
Northern Campus Options and Five Year Debt to General Fund Revenue Policy- graph
The Board of County Commissioners has established a debt to general fund revenue policy of
fifteen percent (15%). Given the amount of debt that the County has issued and plans to issue
in the approved Capital Investment Plan, that target is exceeded in FY2022, 2023, and 2024.
35
Adding budget authorization in Options 2, 3, and 4 will have some impact on this metric. Option
4, for example, adds $8.8 million to the project budget and increases the debt to revenue
measure from 17.79% to 18.13% in 2022, an increase of 0.34%.
Travis Myren said the yellow sheet provides an updated abstract. He made the following
PowerPoint presentation:
Northern County Campus Project Review Schematic Design Cost Estimate
Board of Orange County Commissioners
February 5, 2019
Northern Campus Development Plan
• Purpose
o To review schematic design cost estimates for the County's Northern County
Campus and consider budget adjustments to the project.
Preconstruction Process and Schedule
• Schematic Design: January 2019
• Design Development: February 2019
• Construction Drawings: July 2019
• Bid Process: August 2019
• Guaranteed Maximum Price: September 2019
Northern Campus Development Plan- site plan
Schematic Design Cost Estimates - table
What Has Changed Since Original Cost Estimates?
• Acquisition Costs & New Site
o $400,000 Acquisition Not Included in Original Budget
o Larger Site Not Part of Original Budget - $1 million
• Time
o Detention Center Budgeted in 2012
o Environment and Agriculture Center Budgeted in 2014
o Parks Operation Base Budgeted in 2013
• Construction Environment
o 7% Inflationary Adjustment Included in New Estimates
Recent History- Cost per Square Foot-graph
Cost Reduction Strategies- table
Debt Service to General Fund Revenue %- graph
Debt Service to General Fund Revenue %- graph
Debt to Revenue Policy- Compared to Status Quo- table
FY2018-23 Recommended Capital Investment Plan
Debt Service to General Fund Revenue ($)
36
Annual Debt Service Analysis — Compared to Status Quo- table
Commissioner Dorosin clarified that what these graphs show is that, when one looks at
the actual comparisons, the differences are more incremental.
Travis Myren said this takes the $13 million difference and spreads it over the life of the
project. He said over the life it is $840,000 every year, which could be accommodated with a
one-time tax impact of approximately 0.5 cents.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if that is why the lines overlap in some of the charts.
Travis Myren said yes. He said, of the four options, only 2 have perceptible differences.
Commissioner McKee referred to Option 2 and the delay of the EAC and Park OPS
construction, and asked if staff knows when these items may come back on line.
Travis Myren said the County will start experiencing some relief in 2023, as that is when
the debt capacity will start opening up.
Commissioner McKee said so roughly a 4-year delay, effectively.
Stakeholder Considerations
Vehicle Sallyport
• Fence vs. Brick
• Aesthetics
• Security
• Savings of$200,000
Stakeholder Considerations
Magistrate's Hearing Room
• Alternative to Courthouse
• Backup to Video
• Wedding Venue
• Savings of$128,000
Comparison of Options
37
MI
Repurpose Funds Repurpose Repurpose Repurpose Funds
Repurpose Funds from from Prior Jail Funds from Repurpose Funds from Funds from from Prior Jail
Prior Jail Project Project Prior Jail Project Prior Jail Project Prior Jail Project
Project
Value Engineering Value Engineering Value Value Engineering Value Value Engineering
Strategies Strategies Engineering Strategies Engineering Strategies
Strategies Strategies
Project Scope
Project Scope Reductions
Project Scope Project Scope Project Scope Reductions Add Back Add Back
Reductions Reductions Reductions Sallyport - $200,000 Sallyport and
Hearing Room
- $328,000
Other CIP Deferments Other CIP Other CIP Other CIP Deferments Other CIP Other CIP
Deferments Deferments Deferments Deferments
Postpone EAC and Postpone EAC
Parks Ops. Construction and Parks Ops.
Construction
Reduce Detention Center
Capacity by 40 Beds
26,104,011 28,751, 031 36,502,406 $36,702,406 $36 830,406 36,940,406
Commissioner Price referred to option 2, and asked if includes the brick sallyport and the
hearing room.
Travis Myren said if those items are included, option 2 would increase by $328,000.
Commissioner McKee asked if the brick sallyport would have the razor wire around the
top.
Travis Myren said the concertina wire at the top could be omitted.
Commissioner McKee said it changes the appearance, and given the location, this is a
critical consideration.
Commissioner Dorosin said the presentation said reducing the number of beds would
reduce the federal revenue, and he thought that this revenue was a net loss for the County.
Travis Myren said on a per bed daily basis, the County receives $93, and it costs
approximately $110 per day to house the prisoner. He said the biggest cost of the per-bed day
is the staff supervision, and in order to realize the savings, which would be associated with not
housing the federal inmates, the County would have to reduce the number of full-time
employees supervising the inmates.
Travis Myren said there is some built in expansion capability at 144 beds, and if the local
population increases that this would crowd out the federal inmates.
Commissioner McKee said he wondered if reducing the bed capacity would result in
people losing jobs. He said he suspects the office needs more officers, not less.
38
Travis Myren said that would be a policy decision by the Board of County
Commissioners, and staff is not proposing this choice. He said the only way to realize the
savings is to reduce the personnel costs.
Commissioner McKee clarified that dropping the 40 beds would essentially put the jail at
its current population, and he wonders why the County would ever build a facility for the current
population.
Travis Myren said that is a judgment call, and today there are 81 inmates in the jail. He
said that number fluctuates and, of those 81 inmates, 82% are there on felony charges. He said
staff is working to get the pre-trial number as small as possible, but there is still a larger group of
inmates there on larger charges.
Commissioner Marcoplos reiterated why he supported the number of beds: he said the
last thing he would want is for the County to find itself over capacity 10, 20, 30 years down the
line. He reaffirmed his support for 144 beds. He referred to the sallyport, and said it is near the
entrance. He too voiced concern about the razor wire, but said it seems the razor wire may not
be necessary. He said he spoke with the Sheriff last week, who mentioned that the sallyport is a
fallback containment area in the case of an emergency evacuation of the building. He said he
wonders what impact it may have if this capability were not an option.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the area could be used for evacuation if there was a
fence with a roof over it.
Sheriff Blackwood thanked Travis Myren for the work he has done. He referred to the
difference of brick versus fence, and said the County made a promise to the community that
they would design this facility to look unlike a jail. He said it is important to keep this promise
when at all possible. He said the ability to pull into an enclosed brick structure to unload and
load inmates is critical, and is one that he can work around. He said he has a team of
committed staff that will make whatever work, wherever.
Sheriff Blackwood said ultimately this is a cost issue, and it is a decision to be made by
the BOCC. He said the BOCC will either be remembered for doing this really right, or really
wrong. He said he and Commissioner Price visited Buncombe County, which is a bigger
county. He said he does not necessarily want to be a big county, but does want to be a safe
county. He said he will support any type of fence structure, as long as it is done right.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if landscaping could make the entrance more
aesthetically pleasing.
Blair Bordeaux said landscaping could hide it somewhat, but it will still look like a fence.
He said a fence is also somewhat of a security issue, as it maintains a line of sight, as opposed
to an enclosed structure.
Commissioner Dorosin said his position is to reduce the size the facility, and he sees no
reason to house federal inmates at all. He said the smaller facility is manageable and
reasonable. He said funds are being put into diversionary programming, and Orange County is
not growing that fast. He said given the savings that this change would produce, this is one of
the changes the Board should make. He said he would not support postponing the other
projects, especially the EAC. He said if these projects are postponed, he doubts they will ever
get built. He said if the philosophy is that these buildings can be done later, then he thinks the
same philosophy should apply if an expansion is needed on the jail at a later time. He said the
EAC is in poor shape, and putting money into it is a waste. He said the current EAC sits on the
most valuable piece of property that the County owns, and leaving it as the EAC is the lowest
and worst use of this land.
Commissioner Dorosin pushed option 3 with an inclusion of reducing the facility by 40
beds. He said he would still support option 3 if the Board does not want to reduce beds.
Commissioner Bedford said she is concerned about the capital budget in general, but a
delay in the build will only cost more later, which is true with every project the Board must fund.
39
She said the Carrboro library will need funding and the schools need capital investment, etc.
She said she supports option 2 and keep the sallyport, but is open to the majority's wishes.
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is no way to know how much construction will cost
in 4-6 years, but he feels the BOCC must do the right thing by not paying those costs then. He
said he is persuaded that the sallyport should be the entryway, and he supports option 3a. He
said the debt service can be helped by a 1/8 or '/4 cent tax increase.
Commissioner Price said she would like to see a bigger push for the diversionary
programming, and she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. She said she is in favor of the brick
sallyport and the hearing room.
Commissioner McKee said, at first blush, he would support option 2. He said he
understands the cost of the EAC and such will be higher. He said he would not want any future
board to question if this Board overbuilt this facility, but given the influx in the population in the
Triangle, he said the natural flow will tend towards Orange County, and he also does not want a
future board to question why this Board underbuilt the facility. He said he supports the 144-bed
option because it gives room for expansion as needed, reducing the federal population as
needed. He said if the Board does not support option 2, then he would support option 3a.
Commissioner Greene said she strongly believes all of these buildings need to be built
at once, and she supports option 3b. She said she is the least certain about the bed number,
since she was not involved in the original discussion. She asked if the cells are single bed cells,
with the capacity for two beds.
Sheriff Blackwood said no beds are scheduled to be double.
Commissioner Greene asked if they could be doubled.
Blair Bordeaux said yes.
Sheriff Blackwood said he would not want to do that.
Blair Bordeaux said the current 144-bed facility includes 8 pods, one of which is single
occupancy and could be converted to double, as could the ADA cells.
Commissioner Greene said doubling up where possible could substantially increase the
number of beds.
Blair Bordeaux said that would only be possible in one pod, and the majority of the cells
are already double occupancy to get to the 144 capacity.
Commissioner Greene said she heard all of the arguments, and can see logic in all. She
said she would provisionally go with option 3b, and she does not feel strongly about the 144
beds, but does feels strongly about the EAC.
Chair Rich said she supports option 3b, but would be happy with anything between 3-3b.
She said the Board is building a facility for the next 50 years.
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board told the community that it would build a campus,
not just a detention center. He said the campus is meant to be vibrant and bring people to the
area.
Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates building for the future, but he does not find
the argument persuasive. He said the budget for 144 beds is too much, and the Board should
commit to the values of diversionary programming and keeping people out of jail. He said he
would rather think of the best-case scenario, as opposed to the worst-case scenario.
Commissioner Greene said she would want to sell the old jail property, but she is not in
favor of selling the EAC and would rather keep it for affordable housing.
Commissioner Price said the sale of any currently County-owned properties is not
included in the PowerPoint. She said she does want the entire campus built, but supports a
reduction in the number of beds. She said she does is not ready to equate a growing
population to growing crime.
Chair Rich said building a 144-bed jail does not have a negative effect on their
diversionary programs.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is now in support of option 3b.
40
Commissioner Bedford said it is more cost effective to incorporate it all in the long term.
Travis Myren said, if it so chooses, the Board can include in the motion to direct staff to
apply any proceeds from the sale of the current detention center facility to debt service.
Board Action
Approve a Scope and Budget Option and Authorize Staff to Prepare a Budget Amendment
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price, to
approve option 3b with the reduction of the detention center capacity by 40 beds.
VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Rich,
Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner
Greene)
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
for the Board to approve Northern Campus Option 3b and authorize staff to present a budget
amendment at an upcoming meeting to appropriate funds based on the Board-approved Option.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
c. Funding Plan for Orange County Services Impacted by Federal Government
Shutdown
The Board considered approving $100,000 from the Social Justice Funds to be used for
food if the demand is greater than the capacity of the existing food programs.
Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND: The shutdown of the United States federal government began at midnight on
Saturday, December 22, 2018. About 380,000 federal employees were furloughed, and an
additional 420,000 employees for the affected agencies were expected to work with their pay
delayed until the end of the shutdown, totaling 800,000 workers affected out of 2.1 million
civilian non-postal federal employees.
During the shutdown, 95% of federal staff for the USDA's Food and Nutrition Services were
furloughed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the food-stamp program,
was funded through a $3 billion contingency fund appropriated by Congress in 2018; if the
shutdown continued through March 2019, those funds will be exhausted, leaving some 38
million Americans without food stamps and endangering food security.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was one of the federal agencies
closed during the partial government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018. HUD
indicated there were enough Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) funds to keep the
program running through the end of February. Although landlords may not get their payments
from HUD in March, the Housing Authority (PHA) cannot terminate due to a government
shutdown but landlords can terminate if they do not receive payment from either the PHA and/or
tenant regardless of a shutdown. HUD requires these conditions in the leases used for both the
Section 8 HCV program and properties receiving Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
(PBRA).
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
41
As detailed in Attachment 1, there was an early issuance of Food and Nutrition (SNAP) benefits
for February and those households will not receive additional funds until sometime in March,
even though the shutdown ended. For some of these families, managing their funds so they do
not run out of food before the March issuance will be problematic. Information about this
situation has been sent to clients by the state, and the Orange County Department of Social
Services (DSS) is answering phone calls from the public about their concerns. The guidance the
County is receiving (see Attachment 1) is to encourage families to stretch these resources and
that the funds will remain on their cards for the usual twelve months.
Orange County Department of Social Services (DSS) continues to take and process new
applications and these can be approved since the shutdown ended. If another shutdown
occurs, USDA would again be in the position to run out of funds for new applicants.
For these reasons, DSS anticipates additional requests for food, particularly after February
15th. Although food pantries appear to be stocked fairly well for now, it is unlikely that they
would be able to support this higher demand. Although the shutdown ended for three weeks, a
food shortage is still possible during the transition. It is difficult to estimate how many of the
5,000 local households would need assistance until the March distribution. If another shutdown
occurs, all households would be impacted and there would be a monthly loss of$1.1 million
until such time as USDA can release funds.
It appears there may be some movement to adopt legislation to release Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) and child care (has passed House and Senate). That passage would
assure continuance of Work First checks and staff costs paid by TANF. If not, another
shutdown could have significant impacts starting in March. Another impact if this continues past
February would be lost revenue to support staff working in Food and Nutrition services or in
programs supported by TANF. Orange County could lose approximately $122,000 in
administrative funds for Food and Nutrition and another$166,000 from TANF each month of the
shutdown.
In terms of the County's response, DSS suggests promoting food drives starting in mid-
February and continuing until food benefits are issued again. DSS has convened the various
organizations with food pantries or other food resources to coordinate efforts to meet this need.
There may also be a need for emergency funds to assist families impacted by the early
distribution or by another shutdown. Any funds provided by the County for food will not be
reimbursed by federal or state agencies.
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The government shutdown has negatively impacted the work being undertaken in the Housing
and Community Development Department (H&CD) in two (2)ways, including the following:
Funding for FY18-19 HOME projects will be delayed. Therefore, the four (4) entities awarded
funding will not be able to start their projects as anticipated in January 2019. The entities and
award amounts are as follows:
Community Home Trust— $60,000
EmPOWERment, Inc. — $145,000
Habitat for Humanity— $60,000
Orange County— $139,613 (includes $25,000 for the Rapid Re-Housing Program and
$114,613 for the new Local Rent Supplement Program).
42
H&CD staff will conduct a conference call with the aforementioned entities in early February to
ascertain the impact to the projects and what actions may need to be undertaken at that time.
There are approximately 537 to 550 voucher holders in the County Housing Choice (HCV)
Voucher Program. HUD allocated 623 general vouchers and 5 Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing (VASH) vouchers to the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The County
received payment from HUD for January and anticipates, per HUD, receipt of the February 2019
payment. HUD payments are made the first of each month. The County pays its landlords and
applicable HCV participants on the first of each month. The total amount of HUD-Held Reserves
is $235,736. The OCHA will seek HUD permission to utilize its HUD-Held Reserves, as
needed. HUD has limited the use of outside sources of funding in the Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) Program. HUD provides guidance for this in a Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Notice
2013-28 (Attachment 2).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $100,000 from the Social Justice Fund will be used for non-
reimbursable food expenses and will leave a balance of$128,000 in the Social Justice Fund.
Nancy Coston, Social Services Director (DSS), said because of the way the continuing
resolutions were written, there was an opportunity for the USDA to release some of the food and
nutrition funds early, which caused a gap for people so their next distribution will not be in
March; however, she heard today, that even if the government shuts down again on February
15'", the March distribution will occur. She said the $100,000 was to help the department with
the stopgap until the March distribution can be sent out. She said there are 5000 households in
Orange County that receive SNAP benefits, and staff is trying to make sure they can support
their food pantry at DSS and other food banks.
Sherrill Hampton, Housing and Community Development Director, said it is still very fluid
for her department, and staff is waiting on more information from HUD; and if there is another
shutdown, her department will need to have additional funding. She said there are roughly 195-
200 landlords, and there is a total of$350,000 per month between landlords and utility
assistance.
Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the February payments have been made and,
without another shutdown, all will be fine with March.
Sherrill Hampton said yes.
Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there may be a gap in the food benefits, even
without an additional government shutdown, but this is not the same with the housing
department.
Sherrill Hampton said no, not right now. She said there are about 4-5 HOME program
projects that have been interrupted, and all involved have been notified. She said this impact
will continue if there is another governmental shut down.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to approve $100,000 from the Social Justice Funds to be used for food if the demand is
greater than the capacity of the existing food programs.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Reports
NONE
8. Consent Agenda
43
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
NONE
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from January 22, 2019 as submitted by the Clerk to the
Board.
b. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for three taxpayers with a total of six bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
c. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are
liens on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute 105-369 and voted to
approve March 20, 2019 as the date set by the Board for the tax lien advertisement.
d. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System for
Stoneybrook Subdivision
The Board voted to make a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NC BOT),
concerning a petition to add Possum Place in Stoneybrook Subdivision to the State
Maintained Secondary Road System.
e. Approval of a Construction Contract and the Repurposing of Funds from Existing
Capital Proiects and New Financing, and Approval of Budget Amendment#5-A for the
Remediation, Repair, and Reconstruction of the Phillip Nick Waters Emergency
Services Building
The Board voted to approve a construction contract with Bar Construction Company, Inc., in
the amount of$1,412,855 to remediate, repair, and reconstruct the Phillip Nick Waters
Emergency Services building as well as the repurposing of available budgeted funds from
several existing capital projects and new financing, for the remediation, repair, and
reconstruction of the Phillip Nick Waters Emergency Services Building, and to approve
Budget Amendment #5-A to finance the project.
9. County Manager's Report
NONE
10. County Attorney's Report
NONE
11. Appointments
NONE
44
12. Information Items
• January 22, 2019 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
13. Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adjourn into closed session at 9:58 p.m. for the following purposes:
"To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or
potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law
enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond
to such activity." NCGS 143- 318.11(a)(9).
"To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
143-318.11(a)(5).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
reconvene into regular session at 10:35 p.m.
Commissioner Dorosin requested that going forward that he would prefer having closed
session materials sent to him electronically instead of having a deputy to deliver to his home.
Commissioner Price agreed.
14. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Penny Rich, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board