HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-16-20; 8-a - Minutes1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 16, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
919-245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board
as listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board’s
proceedings.
May 19, 2020 BOCC Virtual Business Meeting
May 21, 2020 BOCC Budget Work Session
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated with
this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
ATTACHMENT 1 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
ORANGE COUNTY 4
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5
VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING 6
MAY 19, 2020 7
7:00 p.m. 8
9
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, 10
May 19, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 11
12
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, 13
Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price 14
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 15
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 17
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified 18
appropriately below) 19
20
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 21
22
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners (BOCC) conducted a 23
Virtual Business meeting on April 21, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners 24
participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to 25
view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-26
Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 27
28
In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. 29
• Written submittals by email 30
• Speaking during the virtual meeting 31
32
Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this 33
agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 34
35
36
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 37
38
Bonnie Hammersley said Item 6a – Eviction Diversion Program and Approval of 39
Budget Amendment #9-A will be deferred until June 2nd, or earlier, as staff has found out 40
about the Cares Acts Funds, and they anticipate they may be using these funds for 41
departments. 42
43
Public Charge 44
The Chair acknowledged the public charge. 45
46
Arts Moment 47
No Arts Moment will be available for this meeting. 48
49
2. Public Comments 50
2
1
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 2
3
Sally Merryman, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Association of Educators, reviewed the following 4
comments: 5
6
May 10, 2020 7
8
Board of County Commissioners 9
300 W. Tryon St. 10
Whitted Bldg. Rm 220 11
Hillsborough, NC 27278 12
13
Dear Members of the Board of County Commissioners: 14
15
As you noted many times throughout last week’s presentations, the people feeding, counseling, 16
and teaching this community in the midst of this crisis -- along with frontline and other equally 17
essential workers -- are its educators. 18
19
The budget the CHCCS Board of Education presented to you is our district’s most pro-public 20
education budget in at least a decade. It is one where resources are rightly focused on all 21
personnel - classified and well as certified -- and doing right by them. It makes no mention 22
of consultants or pilots promoted by anti-educator legislators. 23
24
To be clear, we are supporting a budget that does what is morally right by providing living 25
wages and hiring more educators and TAs to teach our children. It also provides resources to 26
allow educators to remain safe in their homes and get paid when bad weather hits or school 27
closings once again necessitate educators being teachers and parents at the same time. 28
These past two months could not have happened without paid family leave. 29
30
It was disappointing to hear you speak so eloquently about living wages in the abstract during 31
Q&A and then tell our most vulnerable education professionals that the BOCC may not fund 32
what it states its values are. Yes, revenues are uncertain, and resources are tighter than 33
planned, yet what is really missing is courage. 34
35
Last year, while you did increase school funding, the increase didn’t even cover CHCCS's 36
continuation budget ask. And what CHCCS asked for then -- educator benefits -- it continues to 37
request now. Yet somehow you have already found funding to provide your own county 38
employees some of these very same benefits. While we don’t begrudge the county employees 39
these benefits, the employees of the local schools also deserve them too. 40
41
More disconcerting, though, is even after a local election where it was clear the electorate 42
wants commissioners who they believe will fund our schools, some BOCC members appear 43
unwilling to reconsider their own mindsets to find ways to increase that funding and trust that 44
the public will thank and back you for those efforts. Clearly more conversation is needed, and 45
we are looking forward to having it. 46
47
In the coming days and weeks, we will introduce you to educators, parents, students -- many of 48
whom are Orange County taxpayers and voters. They will make it perfectly clear: there is 49
nothing inconsistent with saying we want our schools to be funded even if it means raising 50
3
taxes in difficult times and for those funds to be spent wisely and morally on the people who live 1
and work in this county, this community. 2
3
Our community wants to rally together. Public education is *the* issue to rally around. If we 4
don't, we shouldn’t be surprised when (not if) the tipping point Commissioner Dorosin alluded to 5
occurs. Trust us, we've been watching how the dollars have been spent in Chapel Hill as close 6
as, or even more closely, than you. We as an Association have been and continue to be 7
outspoken regarding these expenditures. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro community has pulled 8
together in recent months to hold our district leaders accountable for reckless spending and 9
devastating cuts to program funding. But if you don't fund our schools because you're worried 10
about how the funds have been (or might be) spent, you’ll be compounding an already long 11
existent problem. Do the right thing. Grant the funding for the benefits CHCCS wants to 12
provide its educators and let the community hold them accountable for making sure it happens. 13
14
We are eager to discuss this further with members of the Board of County Commissioners and 15
will reach out in the coming days. Please feel free, however, to get in touch sooner if you feel 16
moved to do so. W e look forward to speaking with you soon. 17
18
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 19
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda 20
below.) 21
22
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 23
Commissioner Bedford said she attended a Department of Social Services (DSS) 24
meeting yesterday, and approximately 400,000 meal equivalents have been served since this 25
pandemic started. She said DSS is working hard, and is on track. She said she attended a 26
Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) meeting, and she got a 27
motion passed unanimously to get the staff and technical group to work together to bring back 28
options for geographic equity moving forward. 29
Commissioner McKee said at the work session last week, he jokingly asked the Board 30
about joining him at the Whitted building for in person meetings. He petitioned for the BOCC 31
and the public to meet at Whitted for the June 2nd meeting. He said the Board could meet on 32
the floor, in front of the dais, 6 feet apart, with room for staff and public in the surrounding 33
space. He offered this petition as long as it does not conflict with any orders from the 34
Governor, and feels it would be a good way to take a safe step towards normalcy. 35
Commissioner Greene said she sent an email to the Board about the opioid litigation 36
group. She encouraged everyone to wear masks. 37
Commissioner Marcoplos said he sent an email to the Board about the organizations to 38
which the BOCC belongs. He said the annual dues total about $60,000 and he would like to 39
discuss if this is a good use of funds. He said these organizations are: Triangle J, National 40
Association of Counties (NACO), North Carolina Association of County Commissioner 41
(NCACC), and the School of Government. 42
Commissioner Price said attended the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan 43
Planning Organization (DCHC- MPO) meeting, and there was a transit update. She said Travis 44
Myren sent an email out last week about that, and the comment period ends on May 22nd. 45
Commissioner Price said the 55th anniversary of the Voting Act will occur on August 6, 46
and she petitioned for a resolution to honor this anniversary be presented at the first BOCC 47
meeting in September. 48
Commissioner Dorosin said he attended the ABC board virtual meeting, and alcohol 49
sales are up 10% from last year, and Orange County is currently ranked 12th in the state in 50
4
revenues. He said ABC has spent $40,000 in Covid-19 related expenses, including supplies 1
and a $2/hour raise to all employees. He said the estimate for the ABC store repairs in 2
Hillsborough is $100,000, but the driver’s insurance company will pay this. He said the ABC’s 3
recommended budget includes the adoption of a payroll structure that supports a living wage, 4
which is encouraging. 5
Commissioner Dorosin said his petition is about the role he plays on the ABC Board, as a 6
non-voting position. He said he would like to have a discussion whether the BOCC wants to 7
keep it this way, or if the BOCC would prefer to have a voting member of the board. He said 8
the BOCC talked with John Roberts about this, and the BOCC could have a voting seat. He 9
said is not sure if there are other boards like this. He said the Orange County Board of 10
Commissioners role is more of an advisory, and is not allowed to be a part of the ABC board’s 11
closed sessions. He would like a review of any boards like that, and to have a discussion going 12
forward. 13
Commissioner Dorosin said he received a letter from one of the rural fire departments 14
about the Solid Waste Convenience Centers, but will bring it up later in the meeting. 15
Chair Rich said Orange County is conducting more Covid-19 testing, which increases 16
positive numbers. She said the numbers are a little higher than desired, and these numbers will 17
come to the BOCC tomorrow. She said Orange County’s executive order runs through June 18
30th and if the governor changes things, the County can go back to change its order, or not. 19
Chair Rich said when questions arise about items on a BOCC agenda, the process is for 20
questions to be directed to Greg Wilder in the Manager’s Office, who then disperses them to 21
the appropriate Department Directors. She said Directors reply to all County Commissioners. 22
She said this procedure has been in place for many years, but has recently become a bit 23
muddled. She said Greg Wilder would write a memo about this procedure, to serve as a 24
reminder. 25
Chair Rich had two petitions. She said the first refers to the $11.5 million of unfunded 26
fund balance from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and she was stunned to 27
hear that amount mentioned last week, since schools are complaining about bad air, etc. She 28
petitioned for the Manager to meet with the superintendent to discuss the potential reallocation 29
of the undesignated fund balance to meet articulated needs expressed by the current CHCCS 30
CIP budget. She said the $11.5 million does not belong to the schools, but to the taxpayers, 31
and if there are serious needs the schools should address them with these funds. 32
Chair Rich said her second petition is about the Chapel Hill library funding. She said the 33
memorandum of understanding (MOU) ran out in 2015, but the County continues to fund the 34
library at $563,000/year. She said the BOCC should review this. She said she would like the 35
minutes from the last working group with Chapel Hill; the minutes from the last Library Board 36
meeting; what it costs; how many households are using the library; and to better understand 37
about the interoperability, and where they have gone with that. She said she did talk with 38
Lucinda Munger, Library Services Director, and would like this to be addressed promptly. 39
40
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 41
NONE 42
43
5. Public Hearings 44
NONE 45
46
6. Regular Agenda 47
48
a. Eviction Diversion Program and Approval of Budget Amendment #9-A 49
5
The Board considered voting to approve the development of an Eviction Diversion 1
Program in Orange County to help eligible Orange County residents avoid eviction, preserve 2
tenancy, address substandard housing conditions and maintain the affordable rental housing 3
supply; allocate funds to pay housing costs necessary to prevent imminent eviction and 4
foreclosure, assist in securing affordable homes, and prevent homelessness; authorize staff to 5
seek funding for the Eviction Diversion Program from the Towns, and donations from the 6
communities and businesses; and approve Budget Amendment #9-A to appropriate $200,000 7
from the Social Justice Reserve. 8
9
DEFERRED UNTIL JUNE 2nd or earlier 10
11
b. Coronavirus Relief Funding Summary Report and Approval of County Plan 12
The Board received an outline and presentation on the Coronavirus Relief Funding (CRF) 13
to North Carolina counties, including allowable expenses, spend down timeframes and reporting 14
requirements; and consider voting to approve an Orange County Coronavirus Plan for submittal 15
by June 1, 2020. 16
17
BACKGROUND: 18
The North Carolina General Assembly unanimously approved the Coronavirus Relief Funding 19
that was signed by the Governor on May 4, 2020. The CRF package includes relief measures 20
related to public health and safety, education, small business assistance, and continuity of state 21
government operations. The State has included $150 million in initial relief funding, with each 22
county’s allocation distributed on a per capita basis, with the exception of the largest three 23
counties – Guilford, Wake, and Mecklenburg. Those three counties received Coronavirus Relief 24
funding directly from the U.S. Treasury based on their populations exceeding 500,000. 25
26
The Orange County State-wide per capita share is $2,665,753 of the $150 million allocated to 27
NC counties. House Bill 1043 does not appropriate any funds directly to a city or town but 28
instead delegates that funding decision to counties. If the BOCC directed staff to allocate a 29
share of the County’s CRF funds to the municipalities, then a County per capita allocation is 30
proposed as a fair and reasonable allocation methodology. A per capita allocation is currently 31
used for the distribution of local option sales tax including Article 44 Hold Harmless sales tax. 32
33
COVID-19 Eligible Expenses: 34
• Provide Grants to small businesses experiencing financial loss due to COVID-19 35
• Support COVID-19 related expenditure for public health staff and program costs, 36
personal protective equipment (PPE), public safety staff expense, medical expense, 37
overtime or mandatory pay, distance learning and teleworking requirements 38
• Expenses must be incurred between March 1, 2020 – December 30, 2020 39
• Funds cannot be used to replace lost local government revenue 40
41
Note: The U.S. Treasury may allow revenue replacement in any future CRF allocations. 42
43
Reporting Requirements: 44
June 1, 2020 - Counties determine a funding plan 45
Beginning October 1 - Submit Quarterly Reporting of expenditures to the State 46
47
The Funding Plan categories due by June 1, 2020 are: 48
1) Medical expenses 49
2) Public health expenses 50
6
3) Payroll expenses 1
4) Expenses to facilitate compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures 2
5) Expenses associated with economic support including small businesses 3
4
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 5
6
Coronavirus Relief Fund Act 7
Summary 8
May 19, 2020 9
10
Background 11
State of North Carolina allocation from the Federal CARES Act is $4 billion; 12
The North Carolina General Assembly approved the Coronavirus Relief Fund Act House 13
Bill 1043; 14
Governor signed legislation House Bill 1043 on May 4, 2020; 15
House Bill 1043 appropriates $150 million from the State to be allocated among 97 16
counties on per capita basis; 17
U.S. Treasury is providing direct funding to Guilford, Mecklenburg and Wake counties; 18
there populations exceed 500,000; 19
House Bill 1043 allows NC counties to determine municipality funding; 20
Orange County per capita share from the State is $2,665,753 21
Fair and reasonable allocation is methodology is each town per capita share within 22
Orange County; similar to current Local Option Sales Tax per capita allocation 23
24
County-Based Per Capita Allocation (chart) 25
26
CRF Act Eligible Uses 27
Provide Grants to small businesses experiencing financial loss due to COVID-19 28
Support COVID-19 related expenditure for public health staff and program costs, 29
personal protective equipment (PPE), public safety staff expense, medical expense, 30
overtime or mandatory pay, distance learning and teleworking requirements 31
Expenses must be incurred between March 1, 2020 – December 30, 2020; and not 32
accounted for in FY 2019-20 Budget 33
Eligible expenses if any prior to March 1, 2020 should be applied for through FEMA 34
Must apply for either CRF or FEMA; trigger date is determinant 35
Before March 1 apply through FEMA; minimal County coronavirus expenses within this 36
timeframe 37
After March 1 apply through CRF; majority of coronavirus expenses 38
Funds cannot be used to replace lost local government revenue 39
Note: The U.S. Treasury may allow revenue replacement in any future CRF allocations. 40
41
State Reporting Time 42
June 1- Submit a Funding Plan to the Office of State Budget and Management 43
Quarterly Funding Reports on October 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021 44
All Funds must be expended by December 30, 2020 45
Unexpended fund to be returned to the State 46
47
Next Steps 48
BOCC Approval- 49
7
Two Step Process to Decide; 1) Municipalities Allocation 2) Eligible Uses 1
Allocation by June 1 2
Inform Town Finance Officers of Federal and State Guidelines, Tracking 3
Expenditures and Reporting Timeframes 4
Implement Funding Plan 5
6
Questions 7
Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC is discussing two things: the allocation formula 8
and the plans. He said the recommendation for the formula is to do it per capita, and asked if 9
there are any alternatives to this method. 10
Gary Donaldson said per capita is fair and reasonable, but another alternative could be 11
on the ad valorem. He said the staff recommendation would be to use the per capita. 12
Commissioner Dorosin asked if staff looked at a comparison of the options. 13
Gary Donaldson said yes, and the ad valorem option would be higher for the county and 14
less for the municipalities. 15
Commissioner Dorosin said it would be helpful to hear all options and their comparisons, 16
when there is more than one option. 17
Commissioner Dorosin said the second decision is what the funding plan would be. 18
Bonnie Hammersley said staff will bring a recommended funding plan to the Orange 19
County Board of Commissioners, and she will be meeting with department heads and will find 20
out what they need, and her staff will prioritize. She said $2.6 million is not a lot of money, and 21
the County will have to spend quickly. She said staff will probably bring it to the Orange County 22
Board of Commissioners at the May 28th work session, and the towns have to submit their plans 23
at the same time. 24
Bonnie Hammersley said the other option is to give the towns a portion of these funds, 25
which would be totally voluntary on the part of the County. She said there will be no other 26
monies in the CARES ACT for municipalities. She said the plan will be brought forward as soon 27
as possible, and staff is open to suggestions. She said there are many Covid related expenses, 28
and any local funds would have to be used before the CARES ACT funds; however, Orange 29
County has not put aside any local money. She said after CARES ACT funds have been spent, 30
then petitions can be made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 31
Commissioner Dorosin said the two things that these funds can be spent on are on 32
County needs and small business grants. He said he hoped that any plan would include funds 33
for these two things. 34
Bonnie Hammersley said the BOCC must decide if it wants to give funds to the towns, 35
per capita. She said she did not think to include ad valorem as an option. 36
Chair Rich said these monies have to be spent between March and December 2020. 37
Commissioner Bedford said she had a concern about using the per capita allocation as 38
outlined, although she thinks per capita is fairer than ad valorem. She said things like the 39
health department and DSS, which are countywide, have had a lot of expenses. She asked if 40
the total of these expenses is known, and said these expenses would only be incurred at the 41
County level. She said it may be better to give the towns half of the suggested percentage, and 42
when the staff has the first quarterly report, staff can adapt the funding. She said postage to 43
mail paper-voting ballots will also be a County expense. She said her concerns are the per 44
capita percentages are too high, and she would like to try to stagger the plan and funding. 45
Bonnie Hammersley said the County is in charge of many of these services, but the 46
entire county is taxed for these purposes. She said they have spent about $495,000 to date. 47
She said there are some things that will be centralized within Orange County, such as masks. 48
She said the consultant who will come on board to lead the recovery will be shared amongst all 49
the partners, and all plans will work together and complement one another. She cautioned the 50
8
Board from keeping funds separate, as everyone has the same goal and is working together. 1
She said the towns may have needs that the County does not know about, or best know how to 2
handle. 3
Bonnie Hammersley said she recommended this methodology because they have 4
always used it. She said if any of the funds are spent on ineligible uses, the State would 5
require all local entities to repay the funds, and possibly lose out on future funding. 6
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC should stay within the recommended allocation, 7
as it is a well-known practice. 8
Commissioner McKee said for County staff to work closely with town staffs to make sure 9
the funds are spent appropriately. 10
Gary Donaldson said he would send out the information about the ad valorem option to 11
Board tomorrow, as he only has numbers from years past, which are about 3-4% higher than 12
per capita. 13
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested approving this tonight, and the per capita is what 14
has been used historically. He said it is fair and equal. 15
Chair Rich said the County has been working closely with the towns, and this proposal is 16
not a surprise to anyone. She said the plan is the most important thing. She said Durham 17
asked for input from Orange County, and will likely use Orange County’s methodology as a 18
template to move forward. 19
Chair Rich asked Commissioner Dorosin if he was willing to vote without exact ad 20
valorem numbers from Gary Donaldson. 21
Commissioner Dorosin said yes he was willing to vote. 22
Gary Donaldson said he would get the ad valorem information to the Board for 23
informational purposes. 24
25
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The State has allocated $2,665,753 to the County for eligible COVID-19 26
expenses. 27
28
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to 29
receive the summary report and approve an appropriate CRF Funding Plan for submittal by the 30
June 1, 2020 deadline. 31
32
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33
34
Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Bedford’s comments were well taken, and 35
there may be times when the Board wants to revisit the per capita allocation methodology. He 36
petitioned this discussion for a future work session. He said it is not about short changing the 37
towns, but rather make sure the countywide services are funded. 38
39
c. Release of the 2020 Orange County Affordable Housing Bond Program 40
Application 41
The Board considered voting to authorize the release of the 2020 Orange County 42
Affordable Housing Bond Program Application materials on June 8, 2020. 43
44
BACKGROUND: 45
In the fall 2016, the Board of Commissioners approved a $5 million Affordable Housing Bond. 46
Half of the bond funds ($2.5 million) were awarded in 2017. This application is for the remaining 47
$2.5 million of the bond funds. 48
9
The 2020 application was developed based on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2017 1
round of bond funding and the application evaluation criteria approved by the Board of 2
Commissioners in April 2019. 3
4
Eligible projects will be new construction for homeownership and/or rental development 5
affordable to low-income households. Projects may be mixed-use and/or mixed-income. No 6
more than 20% of residential units may be set aside for people with disabilities, in compliance 7
with best practices outlined in the State of North Carolina’s Olmstead settlement agreement. 8
Land banking is not an eligible use. 9
10
Eligible applicants for funding will be: 11
• nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing and community development 12
(including faith-based organizations) 13
• for-profit developers, and 14
• joint ventures between eligible nonprofit and for-profit entities 15
16
The application evaluation criteria consider the following factors for each proposed project: 17
(1) income and vulnerable population targeting 18
(2) targeting of households currently living and/or working in Orange County 19
(3) leveraging of other funding sources 20
(4) building and site design features including environmental sustainability and accessibility 21
features 22
(5) community design features including neighborhood compatibility and location relative to 23
transportation, employment opportunities, and services 24
(6) community sponsorship, engagement, and support 25
(7) project feasibility, and 26
(8) developer experience 27
28
Differences between this application and the 2017 RFP are mostly formatting changes in order 29
to condense the content of application. Significant recommended changes include: 30
• This is a funding application rather than an RFP – applications will go to the Department 31
of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) instead of through Procurement. 32
Because they will not go through Procurement, certain requirements of Contractors, 33
such as E-Verify requirements and Iran Divestment Act certification requirements, are 34
not included. 35
• Application review and preliminary scoring will be conducted by DHCD staff, then 36
funding recommendations will be made to the BOCC, rather than the review process 37
going from staff to a County team, then to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and 38
then to the BOCC. Because advisory boards may not be able to meet to review 39
applications due to the COVID-19 pandemic (and the inability of advisory boards to hold 40
virtual meetings), this process will prevent delays in application review and funding 41
awards. 42
43
If and when the 2020 application is approved by the BOCC, the proposed timeline for 44
application review and funding award is as follows: 45
June 8, 2020 Application Released 46
June 15, 2020 Application Workshop 47
July 31, 2020 Application Submission Deadline 48
August 2020 Staff Review Applications 49
September 1, 2020 BOCC Considers Applications and Funding Recommendations 50
10
September 2 – 1
October 1, 2020 Contracts Executed and Projects Begin 2
3
Emila Sutton, Housing Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 4
5
HOUSING BOND APPLICATION 2020 6
Orange County Board of Commissioners 7
May 19, 2020 8
9
Background 10
• In the fall 2016, the Board of Commissioners approved a $5 million Affordable Housing 11
Bond. Half of the bond funds ($2.5 million) were awarded in 2017. This application is for 12
the remaining $2.5 million. 13
• 2017 Awards: 14
o $915, 334 to Habitat for Humanity for development of 24 owner occupied 15
Townhomes for seniors in the W aterstone development serving ages 55 and 16
above who earn between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) 17
o $636,533 and $736,833 to CASA for development of Merritt Mill Chapel Hill and 18
Carrboro (respectively) for 28 proposed rental apartments serving people 19
earning 50% or less AMI 20
o $211,300 to EmPOWERment for the acquisition and rehab of a single family 21
rental home for families earning under 50% AMI 22
23
2020 Housing Bond Application 24
• The 2020 application was developed based on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 25
2017 round of bond funding and the application evaluation criteria approved by the 26
Board of Commissioners. 27
• Eligible projects will be new construction for homeownership and/or rental development 28
affordable to low-income households. Projects may be mixed-use and/or mixed-income. 29
• Eligible applicants for funding will be: 30
o nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing and community 31
development (including faith-based organizations) 32
o for-profit developers, and 33
o joint ventures between eligible nonprofit and for-profit entities 34
• The application evaluation criteria consider the following factors for each proposed 35
project: 36
(1) income and vulnerable population targeting 37
(2) targeting of households currently living and/or working in Orange County 38
(3) leveraging of other funding sources 39
(4) building and site design features including environmental sustainability and 40
accessibility features 41
(5) community design features including neighborhood compatibility and location 42
relative to transportation, employment opportunities, and services 43
(6) community sponsorship, engagement, and support 44
(7) project feasibility, and 45
(8) developer experience 46
47
2020 Housing Bond Application Proposed Changes 48
11
• Differences between this application and the 2017 RFP are mostly formatting changes 1
in order to condense the content of application. Significant recommended changes 2
include: 3
• This is a funding application rather than an RFP – applications will go to the Department 4
of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) instead of through Procurement. 5
Because they will not go through Procurement, certain requirements of Contractors, 6
such as E-Verify requirements and Iran Divestment Act certification requirements, are 7
not included. 8
• Application review and preliminary scoring will be conducted by DHCD staff, then 9
funding recommendations will be made to the BOCC, rather than the review process 10
going from staff to a County team, then to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and 11
then to the BOCC. 12
o Because advisory boards may not be able to meet to review applications due to 13
the COVID-19 pandemic (and the inability of advisory boards to hold virtual 14
meetings), this process will prevent delays in application review and funding 15
awards. 16
17
2020 HOUSING BOND APPLICATION PROPOSED TIMELINE 18
If and when the 2020 application is approved by the BOCC, the proposed timeline for 19
application review and funding award is as follows: 20
June 8, 2020 Application Released 21
June 15, 2020 Application Workshop 22
July 31, 2020 Application Submission Deadline 23
August 2020 Staff Review Applications 24
September 1, 2020 BOCC Considers Applications and Funding Recommendations 25
September 2 – 26
October 1, 2020 Contracts Executed and Projects Begin 27
28
2020 HOUSING BOND APPLICATION EDIT NEEDED 29
30
Orange County Affordable Housing Bon Program 2020 Scorecard 31
4. Building and Design _____ (20 pts) 32
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points
Project incorporates sustainable design elements, such as smaller building sizes, use of
local/recycled building materials, energy efficient features, LED lighting, water conservation
fixtures, efficient HVAC systems, etc.
(for energy efficient features, the project meets or exceeds the NC Housing Finance Agency’s
energy efficiency criteria)
5
Project provides handicap accessibility and/or incorporates Universal Design 3
Project incorporates sustainable community and environmental design elements, such as
flexible lot design, low impact development, storm water controls, reduced impervious surface
areas, natural or drought-resistant landscaping or any additional element that would serve to
minimize negative environmental impacts, as Orange County regulations allow 5
12
Project is connected to water and sewer service, will connect to existing service, or will use a
community well and sewer system consistent with water and sewer boundary agreements and
local standards 5
Additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects associated with functionality, maintenance and
dispersal.
2
1
PUBLIC COMMENT: 2
Delores Bailey, Executive Director of EmPOWERment, said during this pandemic they 3
have supported many areas of their community, and she listed these. She said 4
EmPOWERment closed on 3 apartments and one piece of property during this pandemic. She 5
said her concern with this application is whether it allows for purchases and rehabs. She said 6
EmPOWERment’s inventory is full, and it is imperative that EmPOWERment receives funding 7
from this bond. She said EmPOWERment will be at a disadvantage with the larger housing 8
non-profits, with the scoring rubric as it stands. 9
Commissioner Price referred to the eligible projects on page 37, which says no more 10
than 20%of the properties can be set aside for those with disabilities. She asked if those that 11
would be included in this could be identified, and if this is seeking to discourage group homes. 12
Emila Sutton said the intent is that people with disabilities have full choice where they 13
can live, to prevent discrimination. She said this limits hard set aside units to 20%. 14
Commissioner Price referred to the next page, and said one of the reasons not to be 15
considered is that an applicant has previously demonstrated poor past performance or 16
compliance with funding guidelines. She asked if this pertains to County programs, and how 17
many years back will they be looking. 18
Emila Sutton said she was not sure how this was defined in past applications, and they 19
can take recommendations. She said reviewing three years of compliance history would be 20
reasonable. 21
Commissioner Price said if one had an issue in years past, but it is good standing now, 22
she would want them to be considered. 23
Commissioner Price referred to construction detail, and asked if consideration would be 24
given to universal design that provides flexibility, so people can stay in their homes. She asked 25
if points would be given for that. 26
Emila Sutton said yes. 27
Commissioner Price asked if this would have to be built in. 28
Commissioner Dorosin said it is already included in the checklist on page 38. 29
Commissioner Greene said it is in the scoring criteria, giving 3 points. 30
Commissioner Price said the applicant would get extra points for designating units for 31
Orange County residents, and asked if there is a method to monitor this. 32
Emila Sutton said it is a part of the scoring criteria, and would be indicated in the 33
application. She is not aware of any residency monitoring. 34
Commissioner Price said it would require taking the developer at their word. 35
Emila Sutton said she is not aware of any way to monitor residency status. 36
Commissioner Price referred to the conflicts of interest portion, and asked if Mebane will 37
be included. 38
Emila Sutton said yes, she can include Mebane. 39
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the concern to which Delores Bailey eluded could be 40
clarified; that EmPOWERment would be at a disadvantage to the larger non-profits. 41
Emila Sutton said the way the application is written does not include acquisition and 42
rehab as eligible uses of funds. 43
13
Commissioner Dorosin asked if, right now, the only eligible use of funds is for new 1
construction. 2
Emila Sutton said yes. 3
Commissioner Dorosin said he would advocate for changing the application to include 4
acquisition and rehab. 5
Commissioner Dorosin said the whole residency issue is tricky and can create legal 6
issues. He said the developers should be encouraged to market to those who live and work in 7
Orange County. He said he would encourage more creative thinking on this issue. 8
Commissioner Greene agreed completely with Commissioner Dorosin about the 9
residency issue. She said the other point she wanted to make was about the scoring criteria, 10
and specifically public transportation. She said points were added for developments that had 11
access to public transportation, or those that would provide transportation. She said she did not 12
like that option of providing transportation, as it is too vague, and she would like to strike that 13
and just give points to those projects on public transportation (section 5 of scoring criteria, page 14
18) 15
Chair Rich asked Emila Sutton about this topic. 16
Commissioner Greene said the BOCC added development provided transportation last 17
year. She said she would prefer that if the development is not on public transportation then it 18
does not get the points. 19
Commissioner Greene moved to take language out for transportation being provided by 20
the developer. She said this should not earn transportation points. 21
Commissioner McKee asked, if the verbiage is taken out, would it not eliminate 22
developments being built beyond the bounds of public transportation. 23
Commissioner Greene said no, as the transportation points are just one area of points. 24
She said a development could get points for other things. 25
Commissioner McKee said between two close projects, it may make the difference. 26
Commissioner Greene said it may well be the tipping point, but she feels the project on 27
public transit should get the money. 28
Commissioner McKee said it is hard to argue against her point, but he does not want to 29
centralize affordable housing in urban corridors. 30
Commissioner Greene said this is a policy difference between her and Commissioner 31
McKee, and she would like public monies to be used to support development that serves the 32
most people in an environmentally friendly way. 33
Commissioner McKee said he understands that, but also feels the BOCC has an 34
obligation to support geographical diversity in affordable housing. 35
Commissioner Greene said the BOCC is talking about creating scoring criteria for 36
limited funding. 37
Commissioner Marcoplos said there will soon be an on demand transportation that will 38
go throughout the County, and this should be recognized and addressed somehow in the 39
scoring. 40
Commissioner Marcoplos said every resident was able to vote on this bond, and the 41
BOCC needs to envision some projects in the rural areas. He said there may be a 42
development that has a community garden component, which could only be done in a rural 43
setting, and this helps the environment as well. He said there should be opportunity for 44
affordable housing everywhere. 45
Commissioner Greene said she is not opposed to re-writing the verbiage to add the on 46
demand transportation. 47
Commissioner Price said she had concerns about taking the verbiage out, and there is 48
room for a lot of creativity. 49
14
Commissioner Dorosin said this goes back to a bigger debate of how to get the most 1
housing and community based services with limited funds. He said Commissioner Greene’s 2
suggestion is fine and the very next criteria that is listed gives points to housing that is in an 3
area that is typically underserved, which would address the issue rural needs. He said water 4
and sewer is a similar issue, and it is more expensive to build without water and sewer. He said 5
the costs for housing are not just limited to the house itself. 6
Commissioner Greene said many options that have been suggested are provided 7
publicly. She said she most strongly objects to the “by the developer” wording as it could be 8
anything, and not really true transportation service, and it may be difficult to enforce. She said 9
she would prefer it to read, “Public transportation to include a bus route, or publically provided 10
on demand service, or equivalent public transportation is accessible.” She agreed with 11
Commissioner Marcoplos’ point about the other advantages to rural living, and the bond funds 12
being voted on by the whole county. 13
Commissioner Dorosin seconded Commissioner Greene’s motion 14
15
VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Greene, Chair Rich, Commissioner Bedford, 16
Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos, 17
Commissioner Price) 18
19
Commissioner Bedford agreed with Commissioner Dorosin to amend this to include 20
acquisition and rehab to the application, as eligible uses of funds. She said there is no value in 21
cutting off potential projects at this point. She asked Emila Sutton if the process is integrated 22
with the town of Chapel Hill’s process, in order to avoid working in silos. 23
Emila Sutton said she has spoke with the Town, and Chapel Hill has released their 24
funds first in advance of the County, so that applicants would know if they were receiving 25
Chapel Hill funds in advance of applying to the County. 26
Commissioner Bedford said knowing how much an applicant may have received from 27
Chapel Hill is important. 28
Commissioner Bedford said she would like conversation, since the advisory boards are 29
not meeting virtually now. She asked if a full list of the projects would be provided to the 30
BOCC. 31
Emila Sutton nodded yes. 32
Commissioner Bedford said when she read about the 20% limit for those with 33
disabilities, she understood where the language was coming from, due the Olmstead act; but 34
she appreciated Emila Sutton adding extra clarification. She said she is excited about this 35
process moving forward. 36
Chair Rich asked if the BOCC were to include acquisition and rehab into the process, 37
where would it be included in the scoring criteria. She said she thought half of the bond money 38
was going to older construction, and half was going to new, shovel ready projects. 39
Emila Sutton said she is unfamiliar with the prior conversations, and her department 40
would need to look at this to see if any of the scoring would impact these types of uses. She 41
said, if not, they could just be added as eligible projects. 42
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 37, and said the language could be changed to 43
include this uses as eligible projects. He said to take out “ new construction”, or possibly add 44
language there. He said he thinks the scoring construct would remain the same. 45
Commissioner Price said adding acquisition or rehab would not change anything, but 46
perhaps new language would be needed under project detail activity on page 42, as it has new 47
construction verbiage in there. 48
Commissioner Greene suggested passing this tonight to add acquisition and rehab, and 49
Emila Sutton could look at the criteria and bring back on the BOCC consent agenda. 50
15
Commissioner Greene said she is a little uneasy that the advisory board is not weighing 1
in. She asked if the advisory board could be involved without slowing the process down. 2
John Roberts said he does not know. He said virtual meetings are not prohibited by 3
state law, but rather by BOCC policy, which is up for discussion in June. He said if the boards 4
can meet virtually it could possibly be concluded by the end of June. 5
Commissioner Greene said she would prefer the advisory board be able to weigh in, but 6
she is not going to insist on it. 7
Commissioner Price said the advisory board issue did concern her too. She said if the 8
advisory board is allowed to meet virtually, she would encourage it, as the advisory board is 9
made up of members of the community. She said staff could present the advisory board with a 10
recommendation for it to review. 11
Chair Rich said this is the BOCC’s timeline, and it can be tweaked if need be to allow 12
the advisory board to meet. She said the virtual meeting policy would need to be changed. 13
Commissioner Greene asked if the advisory board can meet in person, with strict social 14
distancing. 15
Chair Rich said no, as the state of emergency only allows 10 people to meet in person. 16
Commissioner McKee said people can sit in the Whitted meeting room, if the advisory 17
board wants to meet. He said it is 5000 square feet, and could be much less congested than 18
grocery store. 19
Bonnie Hammersley said she respects Commissioner McKee’s position. She said the 20
process for the last $2.5 million of the housing bond included a committee of staff that ranked 21
the applications. She said this committee did not go through the advisory boards at that time. 22
She said the staff that reviews these applications should be those who are experts in housing. 23
She said there is a process that was employed for the small business loan fund, and it worked 24
very well. She said it was an emergency committee and they met virtually. 25
Bonnie Hammersley said the Orange County Board of Commissioners may decide on 26
June 2nd to allow virtual advisory board meetings, and the applications do not go out to June 8th. 27
Commissioner Marcoplos said the advisory board involved should be involved, and 28
would support delaying the process a couple of weeks 29
Commissioner Dorosin said he is in favor of having the advisory board involved, but 30
does not want to change the timeline. 31
Commissioner Price said the review process is not until August, and virtual meetings are 32
easier to for people to attend, so the timeline can be held to. 33
34
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford amend 35
the application to include housing rehab and acquisition as well as new construction 36
37
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair Rich) 38
39
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Greene for 40
the Board to authorize the release of the 2020 Orange County Affordable Housing Bond 41
Program Application materials with two amendments on June 8, 2020 with any modifications 42
from the Board (and ask Emila Sutton to review the criteria for rehab/acquisition that needs to 43
be changed). 44
45
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46
47
d. Discussion Regarding Construction and Demolition Waste at Waste and 48
Recycling Centers 49
16
The Board discussed and provided direction to Solid Waste staff regarding enforcement 1
of the current Solid Waste Ordinance provisions related to Construction and Demolition Waste 2
at the Waste and Recycling Centers. 3
4
BACKGROUND: 5
The Orange County Waste and Recycling Centers (Centers) were established for the disposal 6
of household municipal solid waste and recycling. Specifically, the Orange County Solid Waste 7
Ordinance provides in Section 34-40 that Centers are maintained at selected locations 8
throughout the County for the convenience of County residents. It details a list of wastes that 9
may not be accepted at convenience centers, including commercial waste, institutional waste, 10
industrial waste, land clearing waste, and construction waste and demolition waste. In contrast, 11
the ordinance specifically provides a list of materials that, if there is a specifically designated 12
area for collection, may be deposited at the Centers, including white goods, furniture, yard 13
waste and tires. These ordinance provisions have been in effect since 14
May of 1993. 15
16
A recent audit of the Centers highlighted that the Ordinance was not being consistently followed 17
by some of the Solid Waste staff. The Centers have traditionally allowed a “wheelbarrows” or up 18
to 3 cubic feet worth of construction and demolition waste to be deposited in the bulky waste 19
area as an accommodation to residential users of the sites. This amount was being 20
inconsistently applied by staff. In addition, it became apparent that construction and demolition 21
waste of a commercial nature was also being brought to the sites. Individuals that were 22
renovating homes for commercial purposes were bringing or causing large quantities of 23
material to be brought to the sites. 24
25
This activity was not only contrary to the current Solid Waste Ordinance but also raised other 26
concerns. The Orange County Regulated Recycling Materials Ordinance (RRMO) is being 27
circumvented by having construction and demolition wastes brought to the Centers. The RRMO 28
requires that regulated recyclable construction and demolition waste be separated from other 29
solid waste unless delivered to a certified commingled recycling facility. Allowing the 30
construction and demolition waste at the Centers violates the RRMO. The construction and 31
demolition waste that is brought to the Centers is transported to a transfer station and ultimately 32
disposed of in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. 33
34
In addition to conflicting with the RRMO, accepting Construction and Demolition waste at the 35
Centers increase both transportation costs and disposal costs which have seen recent 36
increases and will continue to increase. During fiscal year 2019-20, the disposal rate at the 37
Durham transfer station increased from $44.50 per ton to $47.50 per ton. 38
39
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current conservative estimates are that 20-25% of waste delivered to the 40
Waste and Recycling Centers are construction and demolition wastes. Tipping fees for those 41
materials are estimated to be $75,000-$88,000 per year. Increasing the amount of allowable 42
construction and demolition wastes will result in increased transportation and disposal costs 43
ultimately resulting in a need to increase the Solid Waste Programs Fee. 44
45
Robert Williams, Solid Waste Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 46
47
Waste and Recycling Centers 48
Construction and Demolition Discussion 49
May 19, 2020 50
17
1
Purpose 2
Provide updated information on the current operations of the Waste and Recycling Centers 3
4
Background/History 5
In 1993, Section 34-40 of the Solid Waste Ordinance established guidelines for what is 6
acceptable and not acceptable at solid waste convenience centers now known as Waste and 7
Recycling Centers. 8
Sec. 34-40. - Solid waste convenience center. 9
O (a) Solid waste receptacles are maintained at selected centers throughout the county for 10
the convenience of county residents. Use by out-of-county residents is prohibited. Solid 11
waste may be deposited in the solid waste receptacles only in accordance with the 12
provisions of this article. 13
14
Background/History 15
NOT ALLOWED 16
(b) The following wastes may not be deposited in solid waste receptacles or at solid waste 17
convenience centers: 18
(1) Asbestos. 19
(2) Burning or smoldering materials, or any other materials that would create a fire hazard. 20
(3) Commercial waste. 21
(4) Construction waste and demolition waste. 22
(5) Hazardous waste. 23
(6) Industrial waste. 24
25
Background/History 26
Allowed 27
c) The following wastes may be accepted at solid waste convenience centers when there is a 28
specific area designated for the collection of such items: 29
O (1)Lead-acid batteries. 30
O (2)Used oil with no other substances mixed in. 31
O (3)White goods. 32
O (4)Yard waste. 33
O (5)Furniture. 34
O (6)Tires. 35
36
Posted Size Limits (photo) 37
38
Waste and Recycling Centers 39
Some attendants previously accepted the following waste, which is not allowed per Sec. 34-40 40
of the Solid Waste Ordinance. 41
42
Waste & Recycling Centers (photo) 43
44
Waste & Recycling Centers (photo) 45
46
Waste & Recycling Centers 47
• Meeting the needs of the customer costs an average of $625,000 per year in disposal 48
tipping fees. 49
18
Accepting C&D at current levels costs an estimated $77,000 -$88,000 in tipping fees per year 1
because the waste is hauled out of Orange County. 2
3
C&D Size Example: 3 cubic feet (photo) 4
5
C&D Size Example: 6 cubic feet (photo) 6
7
C&D Size Example: 3, 6, and 8 cubic ft. (photo) 8
9
Conclusion 10
• Currently, daily limits are in place for MSW and Yard Waste. 11
• There are some inconsistences when it comes to C&D disposal at the Waste and 12
Recycling Centers. 13
14
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there has been a policy change, or was the existing 15
policy just not being enforced. He said if the latter is true, why was the policy not being 16
enforced, and how does staff enforce it now. 17
Robert Williams said he does not know why it was not being enforced, but when he 18
arrived, and understood County ordinances, he found there were inconsistencies. 19
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the picture that shows how much waste residents can 20
bring, and asked if the limit is 3 cubic yards or 4.5. He asked if the policy is enforceable. 21
Robert Williams said 4.5 yards is different, and the sign says 120 cubic feet. He said 22
the confusion came with the C&D waste versus everything else. He said C&D should not be 23
taken at the waste and recycling centers. He said nothing has changed with house waste, etc. 24
He said staff has been more thoroughly trained, and have been encouraged to promote 25
consistency. He said the options are either to stop taking C&D at the solid waste convenience 26
centers (SWCC), or to change the ordinance to accept it. He said enforcement comes with 27
consistency and clear communication to the public. He said the County ordinance does not list 28
C&D waste as allowable material to be collected at the SWCC. 29
Commissioner Price asked if residents are not taking the C&D to the SWCC, then do 30
they take to the C&D landfill and pay a tipping fee. 31
Robert Williams said yes, residents can take it to the C&D landfill with a tipping fee, or 32
out of County to a transfer station. 33
Commissioner Price asked if someone had 6 cubic feet of C&D and took it to the landfill, 34
what would they pay. 35
Robert Williams said there is a flat fee ($5 or $10), but it also depends how much the 36
C&D weighs. 37
Commissioner Price said there is a monetary incentive to leave C&D waste at the 38
SWCC. 39
Robert Williams said yes. 40
Commissioner McKee referred to the sign at the SWCC that was shown in the 41
presentation at the SWCC, and said this sign has been at the SWCCs for years, and is the 42
understood process by the community. 43
Commissioner McKee said the Orange County C&D landfill is open and operational, and 44
asked if there is a reason why the waste is taken to Durham. 45
Robert W illiams said Orange County does not have room at the SWCC, and so it is 46
heaped with the bulk household waste and taken to Durham. 47
Commissioner McKee referred to the first page of abstract where it says the SWCCs are 48
for the convenience of the residents. He said the section that states a resident can bring a 49
wheelbarrow amount of waste, directly contradicts the sign that is posted at the SWCCs. He 50
19
said he is upset that they are talking about having residents pay extra (above and beyond 1
annual waste fees) to haul waste down to the C&D Landfill on Eubanks Road. He said he has 2
taken this type of waste to his local SWCC for more than 20 years. 3
Commissioner McKee said this is an issue of a service to the community, and they have 4
a policy via the signs at the SWCC. He said the problems arise when one is rehabbing a 5
property and takes all the waste to the SWCC. He said he understands the issue of transfer 6
costs to Durham. 7
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC should amend the policy to say that more 8
enforcement of commercial dumping will be enacted, and residential C&D could be placed at 9
the SWCC in much larger amounts than 3 cubic feet. He asked if there is any reason why 10
would they consider dropping it down to 2 grocery bags. 11
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is difficult to separate contractors from residents, and 12
there needs to be a better way to communicate the policy at the SWCC. He said it is pretty 13
reasonable to take a pick up truck full to the C&D Landfill for around $30. He suggested 14
signage at the SWCC, and he would suggest allowing homeowners to bring 6 cubic feet rather 15
than 3 cubic feet to the SWCC, and anything more should go to the C&D landfill. 16
Commissioner Dorosin referred the sign again, and clarified that it does not say anything 17
about C&D waste. 18
Robert Williams said the sign pertains to household or bulk waste. 19
Commissioner Dorosin said residents have been reading this sign, and interpreting it to 20
include that C&D is also allowable. 21
Robert Williams said C&D was never supposed to be accepted at the SWCCs, but he 22
understands Commissioner Dorosin’s point. 23
Commissioner Dorosin said the sign was not supposed to apply to C&D waste. He said 24
residents are reacting to the change for C&D waste, despite the fact that the policy has not 25
changed, but was rather not being enforced. 26
Commissioner Dorosin asked if it would be possible to say they will start taking small 27
amounts of C&D waste at SWCC, which would be segregated from other waste in order to be 28
taken to the landfill, and asked if this would accommodate all interests. He said if residents 29
want to bring more than that, they would take it to the C&D Landfill. 30
Bonnie Hammersley said that Robert Williams had an audit done at solid waste, and 31
changing the ordinance will require a policy change. She said this is a 27-year-old ordinance, 32
which has probably softened in its enforcement over the years. She said staff will enforce it 33
until the BOCC decides to change it. She said Robert Williams is simply enforcing an existing 34
ordinance. 35
Chair Rich said it was her understanding that contractors are meant to properly dispose 36
of C&D waste at the C&D landfill as a part of their job, and is part of the cost of doing business. 37
She asked Commissioner Marcoplos, who is a contractor, if this is correct. 38
Commissioner Marcoplos said yes. 39
Commissioner Greene said she is in line with Commissioner McKee and Commissioner 40
Dorosin. She would support segregating the C&D that is coming into the SWCC, and the large 41
versus small amounts. She said the BOCC is in a bind because the policy on the books differs 42
from what the residents think it is, and the de facto policy is what is written on the sign. She 43
said she would support changing the policy to reflect what is on the posted sign at the SWCC. 44
Commissioner McKee said most residents do not know what the ordinance states. He 45
said he also does not want to conflate the commercial C&D with residential waste. He said 46
there is no way solid waste staff can catch everyone that comes into the SWCC with C&D, but 47
to punish all residents for some abusers is not fair. He said he bought a sofa to the SWCC, 48
and staff told him that starting on July 1 he would only be able to bring 2 grocery bags worth of 49
waste. He said this is not reasonable, and the policy should change. He referred to cost, and 50
20
said he has no problem with the County subsiding these costs, just as it does with many other 1
needs in the County, such as affordable housing. 2
Robert Williams said Commissioner McKee received bad information from one of his 3
employees. He said the items Commissioner McKee brought to the SWCC were allowable 4
(couch, chair, tires, etc.). He said these items are not C&D, and for staff to whisper that in his 5
ear was not fair. He said they are trying to correct these inconsistencies by educating his staff. 6
Commissioner McKee said he has heard from many residents on this topic over the past 7
months. He said perhaps there should be a specific roll off container for C&D waste only, which 8
can be taken to the C&D landfill. 9
Commissioner Marcoplos reiterated his previous point that residents should be allowed 10
to take 6 cubic feet max for C&D; have signage at the SWCC that shows visually what 6 cubic 11
feet are; and state that if one has more C&D waste than this, they should go to the C&D landfill. 12
He said he does think a separate roll on is necessary, but deferred to the expertise of Robert 13
Williams. 14
Commissioner Price said she appreciated the work Robert Williams has done to audit 15
the department and to promote consistency. She agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos’ 16
comments. She said she would like to try and find a way to prevent contractors from using the 17
SWCC. 18
Commissioner McKee said he considers 6 cubic feet to be far too small an amount. 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price for the 21
Board to: 22
23
• Direct Solid Waste staff to present a resolution at an upcoming meeting amending 24
Section 34-40 of the Solid Waste Ordinance, and provide an outline as to how this waste 25
stream will be directed. 26
27
Commissioner Dorosin asked if Commissioner McKee’s goal is to permit 4.5 cubic yards 28
of residential C&D waste at the SWCCs. 29
Commissioner McKee said he does not have a specific amount in mind, but feels that 6 30
cubic feet is too low. He said he is open to the discussion. He said the County needs to amend 31
the policy, and should avoid the transportation and costs to Durham, and direct local C&D to its 32
own C&D landfill. He said Orange County should take responsibility for its waste. 33
Commissioner Dorosin said he cannot support a policy that maintains what has been 34
done currently. 35
Commissioner McKee said there is no fault on the part of Robert Williams or his staff 36
and his main concern is to accommodate the residents as much as possible. 37
Commissioner Greene agreed, and said the BOCC is asking, through this motion, for 38
staff to bring something back, and for the BOCC to accommodate residents as best it can. 39
40
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair Rich) C&D should be taken to the C&D Landfill 41
42
Commissioner Dorosin said he received a communication from Chief Jeff Cabe, Orange 43
Rural Fire Department, who said his department has traditionally taken its waste to the Walnut 44
Grove SWCC, but was recently told it could no longer do so. He asked if staff could provide 45
some information as relates this, and to follow up with Jeff Cabe and the Orange County Board 46
of Commissioners. 47
Robert Williams said he would look into this. 48
49
7. Reports 50
21
1
a. Final Report of Emergency Small Business Fund Program 2
The Board received a report from staff on the Emergency Small Business Funding 3
Program for Orange County small businesses experiencing revenue loss due to the coronavirus 4
pandemic. 5
6
BACKGROUND: 7
The coronavirus pandemic has impacted the global economy and disrupted business activity 8
throughout the United States and North Carolina. The County is committed to supporting its 9
local businesses and employment base. 10
11
The Board of County Commissioners approved an Emergency Small Business Funding for 12
Orange County small businesses experiencing revenue loss due to the coronavirus pandemic. 13
The emergency program was funded with $300,000 from the Article 46 Sales Tax Fund. Award 14
recipients were eligible to receive grants and/or loans. The application period was from March 15
25 through April 10, 2020. The BOCC approved formation of a Nine-Member Committee to 16
review and approve the award recipients. 17
18
At the direction of the County Manager, the Finance and Administrative Services and Economic 19
Development departments formulated the policies and procedures for the emergency program. 20
Program eligibility requirements: 21
- Orange County based businesses 22
- Minimum of one year of operations 23
- For-Profit business status 24
- All applicants are required to have been in business for a minimum of one-year, hold 25
applicable 2019 business privilege licenses, and be registered with appropriate legal 26
entities such as the North Carolina Secretary of State or Orange County Register of 27
Deeds office 28
- Companies are not eligible if they have past-due tax liabilities or tax liens, 29
delinquencies in Orange County property taxes, or are currently in bankruptcy 30
(Corporate or Personal) 31
- Profit and Loss statement indicating profitability prior to coronavirus pandemic 32
The County received 283 applications by the April 10 due date, with 39 applications initially 33
eliminated because they were duplicates (20), or submitted by businesses located outside of 34
Orange County NC (19). This resulted in 244 County-wide small business applications as 35
follows: 36
37
Location of
Applicants
Within Orange
County
Total Number of
Applicants
Grant Requests
Loan Requests
Total Loan &
Grant Requests
Carrboro 44 $226,000 $573,500 $799,500
Chapel Hill 123 $588,800 $1,516,000 $2,104,800
Hillsborough 62 $315,750 $909,910.82 $1,225,660.82
Durham 2 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000
Mebane 8 $40,000 $125,000 $165,000
Rougemont 3 $15,000 $30,000 $45,000
Cedar Grove 1 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
Hurdle Mills 1 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000
22
Totals 244 $1,210,550 $3,204,410.82 $4,414,960.82
1
Orange County Economic Development staff completed reviews to check the business 2
registration status with the North Carolina Secretary of State and/or Orange County Register of 3
Deeds, and checked each applicant’s current Real and Personal property tax payment status 4
with Orange County Tax Office to verify eligibility. A total of 168 of the 244 applicants returned 5
the requested information. 6
7
The following table represents demographic information for women, minority and co-owned 8
women businesses. 9
10
Breakdown of 244 Applications 11
Breakdown of 244 Applications 12
Percentages of Women and Minority-
Owned Business Owners Women Owned
90 out of 244
Applicants
37%
Minority Owned
34 out of 244
Applicants
14%
Co-owned by Women
44 out of 244
Applicants
18%
13
Gary Donaldson made the following PowerPoint presentation: 14
15
Emergency Small Business Fund 16
Final Report 17
May 19, 2019 18
19
Background 20
The Board of County Commissioners approved an Emergency Small Business Funding 21
on March 24, 2020 in response to COVID-19 pandemic; 22
Funded through $300,000 appropriation in Article 46 Orange County small business 23
loan program; 24
Application period open to small businesses for more than two weeks; March 25 25
through April 10, 2020. 26
BOCC approved a 9-Member Funding Committee which met and approved the award 27
recipients. 28
9-Member Funding Committee composition; 29
- Two members Small Business Loan Program 30
- Two members Small Business Grant Program 31
- Two members Agriculture Grant Program 32
- One member each from Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough 33
Collaborative Departmental effort by Manager’s Office, Economic Development, 34
Finance, Information Technology, Register of Deeds, Tax Office to respond to small 35
businesses’ needs 36
37
Eligibility Requirements 38
Orange County based businesses 39
23
Minimum of one year of operations 1
For-Profit business status 2
Minimum of one-year in business and applicable 2019 business privilege licenses, and 3
registered with legal entities including North Carolina Secretary of State and County 4
Register of Deeds Office 5
Businesses must not have past-due tax liabilities or tax liens, delinquent property taxes, 6
or bankruptcy reorganization status 7
2019 Profit and Loss statement indicating profitability prior to pandemic 8
9
Compilation of Funding Requests (chart) 10
Breakdown of Awards by Location (chart) 11
12
Demographics of the 244 Applicants 13
Women Owned Applicants 14
- 90 out of 244 Applicants or 37% 15
Minority Owned Applicants 16
- 34 out of 244 Applicants or 14% 17
Women Co-Owned Applicants 18
- 44 out of 244 Applicants or 18% 19
20
Demographics of the 27 finalists 21
Women Owned Finalists 22
- 13 out of 27 Finalists or 48% 23
Minority Owned Applicants 24
- 3 out of 27 Finalists or 11% 25
Women Co-Owned Applicants 26
- 4 out of 27 Finalists or 15% 27
28
Three Key Financial Metrics 29
1) 2019 Profit/Loss Statement 30
- Revenues minus Expenditures 31
- Operating Surplus (Deficit) 32
-Passing Metric: $0 or greater 33
2) 2019 Net Profit Margin 34
- Net Income divided by Revenues 35
- Passing Metric: Positive % 36
3) March 2019 versus March 2020 Revenue Variance 37
- Passing Metric: 25% or greater revenue decrease 38
39
Financial Criteria Results (chart) 40
41
Additional Small Business Funding Options 42
Additional Funding Options; Article 46 and Coronavirus Relief Funds; 43
Decrease from multiple Financial Criteria to only 1 criteria; 44
Finance Criteria-April 2019 versus April 2020 Revenue Declines 45
46
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if Piedmont Food Processing Center (PFAP) was one 47
of the applicants that passed the financial criteria and was recommended to the committee. 48
Gary Donaldson said no. 49
Commissioner Price asked if Gary Donaldson could review the last slide again. 50
24
Gary Donaldson did so. 1
Commissioner Dorosin said some people turned down awards, and asked if these funds 2
would be distributed amongst other recipients, or be used at another time. 3
Gary Donaldson said the recommendation is to roll those funds into a phase two. He 4
said these awards were distributed with care given to equity, and he expects there are many 5
more businesses that will need future help. 6
Commissioner Dorosin said the list shows some business that received less than the full 7
amount, or possibly nothing. 8
Gary Donaldson said there were some businesses that did not want a loan, and those 9
that are listed at zero did not want a loan. 10
Commissioner Dorosin asked if some received less, it was because they wanted less. 11
Gary Donaldson said yes. 12
Commissioner Dorosin said it seems like people could have received more if there is 13
excess funding, and the goal is to get the money out as quickly as possible. 14
Gary Donaldson said many disbursements were made electronically. 15
Bonnie Hammersley referred to the CARES ACT money, and said the County submitted 16
its application last week and will receive the CARES ACT money before the plan is submitted. 17
She said this money is moving, and will not take months. She said the $36,000 can be rolled 18
up in it, and hopefully reach more people than this time. She said the CARES ACT money 19
must be given out as grants, not loans. 20
Chair Rich clarified that the recommendation is for the BOCC to receive the report this 21
evening, and asked if staff is recommending using some of the CARES ACT money for the next 22
round. 23
Bonnie Hammersley said no, and in the plan there will be monies for small business 24
grants. She said the plan is forthcoming, likely next week. 25
Commissioner Price said there were only 27 applicants that made it through the 26
approval process, as opposed to there not be enough funds to give to more applicants. 27
Gary Donaldson said that is correct. 28
Commissioner Bedford said 244 people completed applications, but only 27 qualified 29
awards, so there are 217 applicants who are not happy. She said she agreed with Gary 30
Donaldson that the criteria should be lucent. She agreed with the Manager about assessing the 31
needs with the Department heads, and said the best way to stimulate the economy is to get 32
money into the hands of people to be spent; specifically poor people. She asked if there is a 33
way to have a net worth eligibility requirement. She said she feels conflicted on parts of this 34
topic. 35
Commissioner Dorosin said he feels the County should have given all of the monies out, 36
as this was an emergency proposal. He said he favored reducing the criteria, and looks 37
forward to moving quickly on the next round. 38
Commissioner Bedford said she has clients who have received PPP funds from the 39
federal government, and she thinks those people should be screened out, and then give priority 40
to those who did not receive those funds. 41
Gary Donaldson said this could be done. 42
Commissioner Price said there are small businesses that are family owned, and do not 43
have relationship with financial institutions, and could not have taken advantage of the PPP 44
funds. She said she would like to reach out to these businesses specifically. 45
46
8. Consent Agenda 47
48
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 49
Chair Rich – Item 8e 50
25
1
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 2
3
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 4
approve the remaining items on Consent Agenda. 5
6
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7
8
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 9
10
e. Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget Amendment #10 11
The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 12
2019-20 for Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Non-Department – Juvenile 13
Crime Prevention Council (JCPC); Health Department; Housing and Community Development; 14
and Animal Services. 15
Chair Rich said wanted to point out that DSS received $7155 in community giving 16
donations for their food pantry and school supplies, and she wanted to share the Board’s 17
appreciation for these donations. 18
19
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to 20
approve budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2019-20. 21
22
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23
24
a. Minutes 25
The Board approved the draft minutes from April 23 and 28, 2020 as submitted by the 26
Clerk to the Board. 27
b. Request for Road Additions to the State Maintained Secondary Road System for 28
Sweetflag Lane in The Forest at Little River Subdivision 29
The Board voted to make a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of 30
Transportation (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NC BOT), 31
concerning a petition to add Sweetflag Lane in The Forest at Little River Subdivision to the 32
State Maintained Secondary Road System. 33
c. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2020 34
Report 35
The Board approved and certified the 2020 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance 36
Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report. 37
d. Audit Contract Renewal Extension for Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC 38
The Board voted to exercise the second of three one-year renewal options for Mauldin & 39
Jenkins to perform audit services for Orange County pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) 40
5215 of the original audit contract approved by Board of County Commissioners on March 22, 41
2016; authorize the requisite County signatures as required by the North Carolina Local 42
Government Commission; and authorize staff to pursue a new RFP during the upcoming year 43
for audit services for Orange County beginning with the FY 2020-21 financial and compliance 44
audit. 45
e. Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget Amendment #10 46
The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2019-20 47
for Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Non-Department – Juvenile Crime 48
Prevention Council (JCPC); Health Department; Housing and Community Development; and 49
Animal Services. 50
26
f. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2020 1
The Board approved changes to the Board of Commissioners’ meeting calendar for 2020 to 2
make the June 2020 BOCC meetings virtual. 3
4
5
9. County Manager’s Report 6
Bonnie Hammersley said there will be a Budget Work Session on May 21st. 7
8
10. County Attorney’s Report 9
John Roberts said the General Assembly (GA) has been focused on Covid-19 issues, 10
and today was the last day for local bills. 11
12
11. *Appointments 13
NONE 14
15
Commissioner Marcoplos said Commissioner McKee proposed meeting in person on 16
June 2nd, and asked if there is a status update on this. He said he is prepared to make a 17
motion that the BOCC not meet in person. 18
Chair Rich said there is a State of Emergency in place that does not allow gatherings of 19
more than 10 people. 20
Commissioner Marcoplos said he supported that, and now is not the time to get cavalier. 21
Commissioner McKee said it was a petition, and was in line with the governor’s phasing 22
in. 23
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the follow up list for petitions, and whether Chapel Hill 24
Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) has signed a janitorial contract. He said he still thinks a task 25
force is needed to look into the issue of in house versus contract services, even if CHCCS has 26
already signed a contract. 27
Commissioner Bedford said Commissioner Dorosin is misreading it, and the petition to 28
have a task force created is still on the list. 29
30
12. Information Items 31
• May 5, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 32
33
13. Closed Session 34
NONE 35
36
14. Adjournment 37
38
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 39
adjourn the meeting at 10:11 p.m. 40
41
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42
43
44
Penny Rich, Chair 45
46
47
Donna S. Baker 48
Clerk to the Board 49
50
27
1
2
1
ATTACHMENT 2 1
2
DRAFT MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
VIRTUAL BUDGET WORK SESSION 5
May 21, 2020 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Budget Work Session on 9
Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, 12
Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price 13
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 14
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 15
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 16
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified 17
appropriately below) 18
19
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 20
21
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual Budget 22
Work Session on May 21, 2020 utilizing Zoom. Members of the Board of Commissioners 23
participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to 24
view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-25
Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 26
27
28
1. FY 2020-21 Fire District Tax Rates, Pgs. 216-222 29
• New Hope Fire District, Pg. 219 30
• Orange Rural Fire District, Pg. 220 31
32
2. Discussion of County Departments’ FY2020-21 Recommended Budgets within the 33
Public Safety, General Government, and Support Services Functional Leadership 34
Teams (including Operations, Capital, and Fee Schedule Changes): 35
36
Public Safety 37
• Courts, Pg. 122 38
• Criminal Justice Resources, Pg. 123 39
• Emergency Services, Pg. 200 40
• Sheriff, Pg. 331 41
• Non-Departmental, Pg. 289 42
43
General Government 44
• Board of County Commissioners, Pg. 74 45
• Board of Elections, Pg. 78 46
• County Attorney, Pg. 110 47
• County Manager, Pg. 113 48
• Register of Deeds, Pg. 327 49
2
• Tax Administration, Pg. 361 1
• Non-Departmental, Pg. 273 2
3
Support Services 4
• Asset Management Services, Pg. 66 5
• Community Relations, Pg. 101 6
• Finance and Administrative Services, Pg. 211 7
• Human Resources, including Employee Pay & Benefits, Pg. 248 and Appendix A, Pg. 8
367 9
• Information Technologies, Pg. 256 10
• Non-Departmental, Pg. 292 11
12
Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: 13
14
Budget Work Session #2 15
County Fire Districts 16
Public Safety 17
General Government 18
Support Services 19
May 21, 2020 20
Virtual Meeting 21
22
County Fire Tax District Map 23
• 12 Fire Tax Districts 24
• Different from Primary Response Districts 25
• Total Fire District Expenditures $6,626,480 26
• Increase of $313,760 over FY2019-20 27
28
Fire District Recommendations 29
Fire District Tax Rates
FY2019-20
Tax
Rate
FY2020-
21
Rec.
Tax Rate Difference
Cedar Grove 8.10 8.10 0.00
Chapel Hill 14.91 14.91 0.00
Damascus 10.80 10.80 0.00
Efland 6.78 6.78 0.00
Eno 9.68 9.68 0.00
Little River 5.92 5.92 0.00
New Hope 9.94 10.67 0.73
Orange Grove 6.81 6.81 0.00
Orange Rural 9.15 9.48 0.33
South Orange 9.68 9.68 0.00
Southern Triangle 10.80 10.80 0.00
3
White Cross 12.37 12.37 0.00
1
2
Fire District Recommendations 3
Recommended Fire Tax Rates and Revenue (Chart) 4
5
Fire District Recommendations 6
• District Requests – pages 219 & 220 7
o New Hope Fire District 8
– 0.73 cent Increase Requested to 10.67 cents 9
– Rate Increase Generates - $51,867 10
– Restructure and Add Three (3) Paid Staff 11
o Orange Rural Fire District 12
– 0.33 cent increase from 9.15 cents to 9.48 cents 13
– Rate Increase Generates - $49,480 14
– Add Full Time Fire Chief Position & Increasing Workers 15
Compensation 16
– Apply $89,000 from Fund Balance for Fire Suppression 17
Equipment and Chief’s Vehicle 18
19
Charles Bowden said these funds will be used to increase and restructure staff. He said 20
it is very difficult to find volunteer firefighters. 21
Jeff Cabe, Orange Rural Fire, said this all looks good. He said his department had a 22
significant increase in workers comprehension, due to the death of a firefighter. He said this 23
should go back down in about 5 years. 24
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 25
26
CIP Questions- these will be action items the Orange County Board of Commissioners will 27
consider for future budget amendments. 28
• Future Action Items 29
o Tankless/On-demand Hot Water Heater at the Seymour Center p. 38 CIP 30
– Up to 24% More Efficient 31
– New Quote = Same Price as Traditional Gas Fired Units 32
– Amend Major Plumbing Repairs Project to Reflect an On-33
Demand System for the Seymour Center 34
– No Change in Recommended Cost 35
• Future Action Items 36
o Library Roof Replacement p. 44 CIP 37
– Staff Error 38
– Roof is not at End of Life and is Performing According to Design 39
– New Roof Asset Management Program Study to Prioritize Future 40
Projects 41
– Amend Roofing and Building Façade Project to Remove 42
Design Costs of $25,000 from FY2020-21 Project 43
Recommendations and $250,000 from the FY2021-22 Project 44
Recommendations 45
• Future Action Items 46
o Morgue Project p. 53 & 54 CIP 47
– Original Scope Proposed Reuse of 4,200 sq. ft. Existing Building 48
– Fully Operational Morgue Requires Approximately 1,000 sq. ft. 49
4
– Attaching Morgue to New EMS Substation is More Efficient than a 1
Standalone Option 2
– New Project Scope and Costs Include Deconstruction of Existing 3
Facility 4
– Amend the EMS Substation Project included in the 5
Recommended FY2020-21 CIP to Reduce the Morgue Portion 6
of the EMS Substation Project from $1.2 million to $525,000 7
8
Public Safety 9
• Courts – page 122 10
– Decrease of $7,500 for the Jury Master List which is Funded Every Other Year 11
– CIP Projects for Justice Facility - p. 33 & 39 CIP 12
o Generator Projects – $450,000 13
– Fully Energize Justice Facility during Power Disruption 14
– Current Unit Only Services Sheriff’s Office 15
o Old Courthouse Square - $20,000 16
– Design of Restoration Activity in Future Years 17
– Total Restoration Budget - $630,000 18
19
Mark Kleinschmidt, Clerk of Court, said the County’s response to the Court’s needs has 20
never been met as well as it was this past year, noting that previous years received good 21
support as well. He thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and County staff for 22
its support of court operations. 23
Commissioner McKee referred to on demand hot water system versus conventional, and 24
asked if there is a known life span differential. 25
Travis Myren said the research shows no difference in terms of life cycle or costs. He 26
said there might be some extra piping, but that is covered in the proposed costs. He resumed 27
the PowerPoint presentation: 28
29
Public Safety 30
• Criminal Justice Resource Department – page 123 31
o Total Recommended Expenditure Budget - $735,949 32
– Offset by $461,328 in ABC Board Revenues 33
o Lethality Assessment Protocol Project - $60,000 34
– CJRD to Oversee Contract with Compass Center 35
– On Scene, Evidence Based Risk Assessment by Law 36
Enforcement 37
– Training Provided by Attorney General’s Office 38
– Immediate Connection to Domestic Violence Service Provider for 39
Officer and Victim 40
– Contract Funds Staffing for a New Domestic Violence Hotline 41
» $60,000 in FY2020-21 42
» $30,000 in FY2021-22 43
» Compass Center to Fund with Grants Thereafter 44
45
Commissioner McKee asked if this grant is a revolving grant, or an annual grant. 46
Travis Myren said it is an annual grant, with a steady revenue stream. 47
Commissioner Greene said this program will be very helpful moving forward. 48
49
50
5
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 1
2
Public Safety 3
• Criminal Justice Resource Department – page 123 4
o Restoration Legal Counsel Program 5
– 16,000 Orange County Residents with Suspended Drivers 6
Licenses 7
– 3,000 of those Suspensions Result from Failure to Comply with 8
Traffic Fines and Court Fees 9
– Free Legal Services to Reduce or Eliminate a Traffic Fee or Fine 10
– Expunction Relief to Purge Criminal Record 11
– Means Tested Service Eligibility 12
o Program Performance 13
– Started in October 1, 2019 14
– 250 Referrals in FY2019-20 15
– 40% of Referrals Received Restoration Relief 16
– 420 Referrals Expected in FY2020-21 17
18
Public Safety 19
• Criminal Justice Resource Department – page 123 20
– Pretrial Services Performance-graph 21
22
Public Safety 23
• Criminal Justice Resource Department – page 123 24
– Criminal Case Assessment -graph 25
26
Commissioner Price referred to the lethality project slide, and asked if it is known where 27
this would go in the chart. 28
Travis Myren referred to page 289-291, and said it is in the Public Safety Non- 29
Departmental Section. 30
Commissioner Price said the Department requested $198,000 for operations, but the 31
Manager recommended $93,000. She asked if the proposed use of the money could be 32
identified. 33
Travis Myren said staff is not recommending any general fund funded positions. 34
Caitlin Fenhagen, Criminal Justice Resource Director, said the original plan was to start 35
earlier with the Compass Center, with more funding, but that was reduced due to Covid-19. 36
Caitlin Fenhagen said she is very excited about the lethality assessment protocol, and 37
the state is offering free training. She said it requires a great deal of collaboration amongst all 38
local law enforcement. She said it will be worth it, and highly valuable. She said this program is 39
evidence based, and has shown to reduce lethality in domestic violence cases. 40
Caitlin Fenhagen said the jail population has been greatly reduced, through the 41
collaboration of all involved. 42
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any update of the Restoration Relief program. 43
Caitlin Fenhagen said it has been terrific, and the Judges all respect the staff involved. 44
She said referrals have slowed due to Covid-19. 45
Travis Myren asked if MAR could be defined. 46
Caitlin Fenhagen said it stands for Motion for Appropriate Relief, and there are people 47
serving state prison sentences that are vulnerable to Covid-19, or are close to the end of their 48
sentences, who can be released early. She said support is being provided when people return 49
home. 50
6
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 1
2
Public Safety 3
• Emergency Services – page 200 4
o Total expenditure budget - $11,816,610 5
– Total County Costs Increased by $455,091 from FY2019-20 6
Budget 7
o Emergency Management Planner 8
– Added by Reclassification in FY2019-20 to Assist in COVID 9
Response 10
o Recurring Capital - $198,000 11
– Ambulance Outfitting, Equipment Replacement 12
– Approximately the Same as FY2019-20 13
o 911 Software Upgrade - $190,000 14
– Mandatory due to VIPER Changes 15
16
Public Safety 17
• EMS Revenue – Collected by Tax Administration (graph) 18
19
Public Safety 20
• Emergency Services – page 200 21
o Community Paramedic Program Performance 22
o Population Served 23
– Falls at Home 24
– Congestive Heart Failure & Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary 25
Disease (COPD/Emphysema) 26
– Substance Abuse/Overdose Follow-up 27
o Program Outcomes 28
– 27 Unique Patients; 39 Total Visits 29
– Community Paramedic Visits Suspended due to COVID-19 30
– Patients with One (1) Initial Encounter Did Not Call 911 Again with 31
Same Complaint 32
33
Public Safety 34
• Emergency Services – page 200 35
– Emergency Medical Services Performance Measures (graph) 36
37
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the two full time community paramedic positions only 38
doing 39 visits, and said that seemed low to him. 39
Dinah Jeffries, EMS Director, said she did not hire the positions until mid September, 40
and one was a re-classification, and one was a new hire. She said they did not start visits until 41
October/November, and then Covid-19 hit and they were pulled to do duty at the EOC. 42
Commissioner Dorosin said he was wondering if this is the best use of these services. 43
44
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 45
46
Public Safety 47
• Emergency Services – page 200 48
– Emergency Medical Services Wheels Rolling Time (graph) 49
50
7
Public Safety – CIP 1
• EMS Substation and Morgue – p. 53 CIP 2
– Efland Substation Replaces Station #4 on Mt. Willing Road 3
• 24 Hour Substation 4
• 5,000 sq. ft.; Two Ambulance Bays; Sleeping Quarters for Four Staff 5
• PV Panels – 61 kW System with 11-13 Year Payback 6
• Total Cost - $2.3 million 7
– Morgue Project 8
• Revised Cost from $1.2 million to $575,000 9
• Provides Fully Functional 1,000 sq. ft. Facility 10
• Attached to the Substation for Shared Site Work and Infrastructure 11
– Public Safety – CIP 12
13
Dinah Jeffries said she is proud of her team and Orange County, and appreciates 14
everything that the County has done for her department. She said her staff is tired, but 15
dedicated, and Orange County has one of the best Emergency Services departments in the 16
state, and maybe in the U.S. She said her staff is thankful to the Orange County Board of 17
Commissioners. 18
Chair Rich said she has been working closely with EMS on Covid-19, and she thanked 19
the department for its great efforts. She said this is EMS week. 20
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 220, and said the organizational chart shows 21
one community paramedic. He asked if the other one listed elsewhere in the organization. 22
Travis Myren said this is probably due to the timing of the publication. He resumed the 23
PowerPoint presentation: 24
25
Public Safety 26
• Sheriff – page 331 27
• Total expenditure budget - $14,803,705 28
– Net County Cost Increase of $727,614 over FY2019-20 Budget 29
• Classification and Compression Work in FY2019-20-chart 30
31
Public Safety 32
• Sheriff – page 371- Sheriff’s Office Calls for Service (chart) 33
34
Public Safety 35
• Sheriff – page 371- Average Scene Time (chart) 36
37
Public Safety 38
• Sheriff – page 371- Response Time (chart) 39
40
Commissioner Price referred to the slide with the projections of number of calls, and 41
asked if there is a current update. 42
Travis Myren said he can get that information. He said on an annualized basis there 43
would be 13,000 calls. He said this goes from July 2019 to early May 2020. 44
Commissioner Price asked if the calls are around 30,000 now. 45
Travis Myren said the high twenties. 46
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason for the increase in response time. 47
Travis Myren said it is about stable. 48
Sheriff Blackwood said there are many factors that go into this, but the main reason is 49
that his department is spending a lot more time with investigative measures at the scene, due to 50
8
increased technological resources. He said there has been a dramatic increase in domestic 1
calls, and the lethality protocol will increase the time spent even further. He said it is not taking 2
longer to get to the call, but rather more time is being spent with the people involved in the call. 3
Commissioner McKee said domestic calls are up, and asked if that is the main reason 4
for the increase in the volume of calls. 5
Sheriff Blackwood said no, there are several factors increasing the number of calls. He 6
said there are more people in the county than before; there is a level of trust within the 7
community; and the Sheriff is asking people to call for help. He said this number is a good 8
thing. 9
Commissioner McKee asked if the number of calls was putting more stress on his staff. 10
Sheriff Blackwood said if he does his job appropriately, he takes the pressure so his 11
deputies do not have to. He said he pays close attention to his staff, and there are measures in 12
place to offer support to those who need it, or may be overwhelmed. He said officers from 13
around the state want to come to work in Orange County, which is a compliment. 14
Sheriff Blackwood said Covid-19 has brought many of their departments together 15
though the pandemic, and it has been challenging, but all are working together. 16
Sheriff Blackwood expressed thanks for the support his office has received from County 17
staff and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. He said he hopes some of the practices 18
put in place due to Covid-19 may continue. He said the efficiency is amazing. 19
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 20
21
Public Safety 22
• Non-Departmental Expenditures – page 289 23
– Lethality Assessment Protocol - $60,000 24
– Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Match - $24,408 25
• Required 30% County Match 26
• Driven by Additional Funding for Organizations due to Raise the Age 27
Legislation 28
29
Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC voted to add a position to the Sheriff’s office for 30
an SRO at Eno River Charter School, and asked if there was any update. 31
Sheriff Blackwood said the position has been filled, and the agreement was for a yearly 32
renewable contract. He said the school wants to continue with it. 33
Travis Myren said almost all pubic safety positions would be exempt from the hiring 34
freeze, especially those with a funding stream. He resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 35
36
General Government 37
(Donna Baker was in attendance) 38
• Board of County Commissioners – page 74- 7:47pm 39
• Total expenditure budget - $987,832 40
– Increase of $1,703 over FY2019-20 41
• Boards and Commissions Software Upgrade - $25,000 42
– Transfer from Board Technology Fund in CIP 43
• Compensation Adjustment - $12,709 44
– Effective December 1, 2020 45
– Amendment Submitted to Eliminate December Adjustment 46
• Countywide Travel and Training Reduction – ($25,400) 47
48
General Government 49
• Board of County Commissioners – page 75 50
9
• Performance Measures 1
– % of Contracts Completed within 15 Days of Department Request 2
» FY2019-20: 85% 3
» FY2020-21: 90% 4
– % of Agendas Published Electronically within 24 hours of Receipt 5
» FY2019-20: 100% 6
» FY2020-21: 100% 7
– % of Eligible Reappointments Submitted Prior to Term Expiration 8
» FY2019-20: 85% 9
» FY2020-21: 90% 10
11
General Government 12
• Board of Elections – page 78 13
• Total expenditure budget - $843,363 14
– Net decrease of $20,033 Compared to FY2019-20 15
• Reduction in Personnel and Operating Accounts 16
– One Countywide Election in FY2020-21 17
18
Commissioner Bedford thanked Rachel Raper, Elections Director, for sending 19
information that there may be Care Act funding for the election, but asked if there will be 20
increased costs for absentee voting postage, as well as cleaning supplies due to Covid-19. 21
She said it is important to do everything possible so people can vote. She asked if the County 22
can help in any way to insure that the BOE is not stuck with a time delay in getting necessary 23
supplies 24
Rachel Raper said there is bill to be filed tomorrow about funding, and she is confident 25
that the General Assembly (GA) did decide to match the funding. 26
Commissioner Bedford asked if there are plans in place of plans for voter information, 27
such as registration and voting by mail. She said the website should have more clarification. 28
Rachel Raper said they are trying to use the wording “voting by mail,” which is a term 29
that is used in western states, and the website does have information about how to do this. 30
She said she will work with her partner departments to make sure absentee ballot request 31
forms are available at County facilities. 32
Commissioner Bedford asked if one registers through the DMV, does one receive voting 33
information through that process. 34
Rachel Raper said no, one does not receive voting by mail information, but does receive 35
some information about voting. She said she would like to include the voting by mail 36
information here as well. She said there are a lot of unknowns at this time, and faxing and 37
emailing absentee ballots may be a possibility. She said more information will be forthcoming. 38
Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a process in place to get additional funds to a 39
department quickly, while the BOCC is on summer break. 40
Bonnie Hammersley said staff would look at appropriated money and the Orange 41
County Board of Commissioners would not be involved. She said, during the summer break, 42
the Orange County Board of Commissioners allows the Manager authority, and then the Board 43
approves budget amendments in the fall retroactively. 44
Chair Rich said Orange County sent a tweet out today with a link to get an absentee 45
ballot. 46
Commissioner Price asked if the BOE provides postage for absentee ballots. 47
Rachel Raper said no, postage is not provided for voters to send back absentee ballots. 48
Commissioner Price asked if sending a ballot back in would require additional postage. 49
Rachel Raper said the outgoing is more expensive, and incoming only takes one stamp. 50
10
Commissioner Price asked if the department is hiring more staff for the upcoming 1
election. 2
Rachel Raper said she is ramping up her seasonal temporary employees, which was 3
originally expected to handle early voting sites; but now this workforce may be shifted to handle 4
absentee ballots in the office. 5
Commissioner Price asked if more funds will be needed for advertising. 6
Rachel Raper said she is waiting to see what the General Assembly provides for 7
direction first. 8
Commissioner Price asked if absentee voters will need a notary. 9
Rachel Raper said one usually needs a notary or two witnesses, but she will wait to view 10
the GA bill first. 11
Commissioner Dorosin said he has heard that many temps who work the polls are 12
elderly, and some counties are looking for alternative measures due to polling sites not being 13
able to accommodate social distancing. He asked if Orange County is looking into any of this, 14
and what has Rachel Raper heard from other areas. 15
Rachel Raper said she is waiting until mid-July to send out a poll to her poll workers to 16
gauge where the “holes” are. She said she is looking in detail at the question of 17
accommodating social distancing. 18
19
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 20
21
General Government 22
• County Attorney – page 110 23
John Roberts was in attendance 24
• Total expenditure budget - $666,764 25
– Decrease of $9,268 Compared to FY2019-20 26
• Reduction in Litigation Expenses due to Settled Cases 27
– $10,000 Reduction in Operating Budget 28
29
General Government 30
• County Manager – page 113 31
• Total expenditure budget - $2,946,480 32
– Reduction of $8,235 Compared to FY2019-20 33
– Countywide Travel and Training Reduction 34
• Transfer Partnership to End Homelessness to Housing & Community 35
Development Department 36
– Improve Coordination of Continuum of Housing Related Services 37
38
General Government 39
• County Manager – page 117 40
– Arts Commission 41
• Total Expenditure Budget - $225,199 42
– Increase of $13,771 due to Personnel Related Costs 43
• Performance Measures 44
– Arts Incubator at Eno River Mill 45
» 1st Tenant in March 46
» Four Studios Paying Rent 47
» One Studio Under Lease 48
» Four Vacant with Six on Waiting List (On Hold due to 49
COVID-19 Precautions) 50
11
• New Programs and Activities 1
– Lead Coordinator for Local Roots Festival 2
– Good Moon Festival 3
– Art on the Hill Outdoor Exhibit(s) 4
5
General Government 6
• County Manager – page 119 7
– Food Council 8
• Total Expenditure Budget - $72,629 9
– County Share: $28,325 10
– Moved to a Multiyear Fund to Preserve Unspent Funds 11
• FY2019-20 Accomplishments 12
– Pilot Compost Program at Two OCS Elementary Schools 13
– Food Insecurity Report – BOCC Retreat 14
– Active in COVID-19 Food and Agriculture Support Groups 15
– Staff Liaison to Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing 16
Center 17
18
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a reason for personnel costs increasing under 19
the Arts Commission, given the hiring freeze. 20
Travis Myren said this is for 2 reasons: 1.) there was a reclassification of a position; and 21
2.) recognition of the 2% across the board pay increase that was applied last year. 22
Commissioner Dorosin said he understands that these presentations are a lot of work, 23
and recognizes the amount of effort that goes into them; but it is difficult to go back and forth 24
between the presentation and the PowerPoint, and going forward, it would be helpful to include 25
explanations on the slides, or in the summaries in the budget book. 26
Commissioner Price asked if the reclassification could be explained. 27
Travis Myren said when staff reviews positions and classifications, they sometimes 28
recommend increases or decreases based on the review. 29
Commissioner Price asked if this is for increased responsibilities or to provide a raise. 30
Travis Myren said it is not a raise, but rather recognition of the responsibilities of the 31
position, in comparison to other positions in the same classification schedule. 32
33
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 34
35
• FY2020-21 New Programs and Activities 36
– Gaps Analysis – Community Food Baseline Assessment 37
– Development of Food Policy Agenda based on Gaps Analysis 38
– Assist in Creation of a Community Data Index with 39
Health Equity Council 40
41
General Government 42
• County Manager – page 115 43
• Risk Management 44
– Increase Expenditures for Bonds and Insurance - $37,685 45
– Property insurance, general liability, public officials, employment, 46
cyber 47
– Increase expenditures for workers compensation – $197,2 48
– No Change in Budgeted Expenditures for UC - $50,000 Base 49
Budget 50
12
1
General Government 2
• Register of Deeds – page 327 3
• Total expenditure budget - $1,093,958 4
– Net County Costs Decreased by $347,063 5
– Remains a Net General Fund Contributor - $1,163,755 6
• Revenue Increase - $425,000 7
– Excise Stamps and Register of Deeds Fees-chart 8
– Recommended Increase Moderated from ROD Request by 5% 9
10
General Government 11
• Tax Administration – page 361 12
Nancy Freeman was in attendance 13
• Total expenditure budget - $3,895,052 14
– Net County Cost Increase of $71,600 over FY2019-20 15
• Collection Rates Decreased for FY2020-21 16
– Real and Personal Property – (0.5%) 17
– Motor Vehicles – (0.5%) 18
• COVID-19 and the 2021 Revaluation 19
– Field Work is Ongoing but Slightly Behind Schedule 20
– Ongoing Review of Sales Data 21
– Final Assessed Values Established in January 2021 22
23
Bonnie Hammersley referred to the Arts Commission, and said the revised budget is 24
used as the base budget, and that is where the $13,000 came in. She said there was a drop in 25
revenue from the revised budget to the recommended budget, which was about $8000. She 26
said when revenues drop, there is an increase in the County’s costs. 27
28
Travis Myren resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 29
30
General Government 31
• Sales Tax Collections 32
– Projected COVID-19 Impact for Last Three Months of FY2019-20 – ($1.68 33
million) 34
– Projected 12 Month Collections for FY2020-21 Down 4.5% from FY2019-20 35
Budget and 10% from Previous Projections 36
37
General Government 38
• Tax Administration – Tax Base History (chart) 39
40
General Government 41
• Assessed Home Value by Tax Jurisdiction (chart) 42
– Based on 2018 Revaluation 43
General Government 44
• Tax Administration - Tax Rate History (chart) 45
46
General Government 47
• Emergency Measures Used to Delay Tax Rate Increase (chart) 48
• Many One Time or Unsustainable 49
13
• Multi-Year Plan Required to Replace One Time Revenues/Transfers 1
with Sustainable Revenue 2
3
General Government 4
• Non-Departmental – page 273 5
• No budget changes 6
7
Support Services 8
• Asset Management Services – page 66 9
Steve Arndt, Asset Management Services Director, was in attendance 10
• Total expenditure budget - $5,337,736 11
– Increase of $516,091 over FY2018-19 Budget 12
• Annualizing Building Leases - $388,900 13
• No Changes to Utility Accounts 14
15
Support Services 16
• Community Relations – page 101 17
Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, was in attendance 18
• Total expenditure budget - $289,588 19
– Increase of $762 Compared to FY2019-20 Budget 20
• No Significant Budget Changes 21
22
Support Services 23
• Finance and Administrative Services – page 211 24
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, was in attendance 25
• Total expenditure budget - $1,606,253 26
– Increase of $71,535 Over FY2019-20 Budget 27
• Annualize 1.0 FTE Financial Systems Administrator 28
– Added by Budget Amendment in FY2019-20 29
• Key Performance Indicators Focused on Efficiency 30
– % of Invoices Not Paid within 30 Days 31
– $ amount of Revenues Not Recorded within 30 days 32
33
Support Services 34
– SMART Goal Feature Coming in FY2020-21 35
36
Support Services 37
• Human Resources – page 248 38
Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources Director, was in attendance 39
• Total expenditure budget - $1,006,264 40
– Increase of $3,307 over FY2019-20 Budget 41
• Employee Pay and Benefits – page 367 42
• COVID-19 Response Measures 43
– Hiring Freeze 44
– No General Wage Adjustment 45
– Suspend Employee Performance Adjustments 46
– Suspend Conference, Training, and Travel 47
• Mandated Cost Increases 48
– Post-65 Retiree Insurance Increase - $106,003 49
– Dental Insurance Increase - $92,236 50
14
– Employer Retirement Contribution - $800,000 1
2
Support Services 3
• Information Technologies – page 256 4
Jim Northup, Chief Information Officer, was in attendance 5
• Total expenditure budget - $3,846,104 6
– Decrease of $230,510 Compared to FY2019-20 7
• Software Maintenance and Licenses 8
– Decrease of $247,115 due to Use of Multiyear Contracts 9
– Funds Maintenance for 118 Software Program 10
11
Commissioner Price asked if Jim Northrup is ordering more hot spots, or other things 12
needed for emergency purposes. 13
Jim North said his department will be submitting its Covid-19 relief fund budget for next 14
year, and it does include more. 15
Commissioner Dorosin asked if Chair Rich could address the changes included in 16
Phase 2. 17
Chair Rich said executive order (EO) 141 came out last night. She said she met with 18
the mayors, and sent out the amended Orange County EO today. She said the EO141 does 19
not require customer service employees to wear masks, but Orange County’s order does; as 20
well as highly recommending customers coming into shops and restaurants to wear face 21
coverings. She said the Governor required no more than 10 unrelated people at a table, but 22
DHHS required no more than 6, so Orange County requires only 6 as well, and 10 if you are 23
cohabitating. She said indoor gatherings are still limited to 10 people, and outside is 25 people. 24
She said Orange County had this language included for weddings and funerals as well, but has 25
since removed it as there is some worship that goes on in weddings and funerals Orange 26
County did not want to infringe on anyone’s right to worship. She said Orange County’s EO is 27
still in place until June 30th. 28
Commissioner Bedford said many people have passed away during this season, and 29
traditional funerals could not be held. She said she wanted to recognize these families, and 30
express sympathy for their losses. 31
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is general consensus from local law 32
enforcement regarding people that are unwilling to follow the executive orders. 33
Chair Rich said Sheriff Blackwood, EMS, and fire chiefs have been a part of the EOC 34
from the beginning, and only one citation has been given in Orange County so far. She said 35
local law enforcement is here to educate not arrest. She said all have worked together in 36
excellent partnership. 37
38
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to 39
adjourn the meeting at 8:46 p.m. 40
41
42
Penny Rich, Chair 43
44
45
Donna S. Baker 46
Clerk to the Board 47
48