HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-01-2020 Virtual Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 10/6/2020
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday,
September 1, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, and Renee Price
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen Coleman
(All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual
Business Meeting on September 1, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated
in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and
listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on
Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment.
• Written submittals by email
• Speaking during the virtual meeting
Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this
agenda. (Pre-registration is required.)
Chair Rich asked if Board members would spend a moment observing happy memories
of Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board, who passed away over the summer.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Rich asked if the Board would agree to a roll call format for votes, which is a new
requirement of North Carolina General Statutes for virtual meetings. She said she will say the
Commissioner's last name, in alphabetical order, and the Commissioner can respond yea or
nay to the vote in question.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) agreed by consensus.
Chair Rich read the public charge.
Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
2
Chair Rich asked if Board members wanted to hear from all speakers, or from only the
first 20 speakers, due to the hour time constraint.
The Board unanimously signaled to allow all 29 speakers the time to speak, regardless
of the time overage.
Jessica Sheffield thanked the BOCC for allowing her to speak. She said she is the Eno
River Association (ERA) Executive Director, and thanked the Board for its capital investment.
She asked if the Board would continue to maintain funds for ERA in the future years of the
Capital Investment Plan (CIP). She said the ERA works to protect good environmental
stewardship in the Eno River watershed. She said ERA has great concerns about the proposed
Research Triangle Logistics Park, as it will not protect water quality, and quantity, of Cates
Creek and the Eno River. She said 6 acres of the 161-acre proposed project have been
designated by the State as Natural Heritage Natural area, and the current plan goes over this
land.
Chair Rich said the Commissioners have not received this project yet, and it is set to
come before the Board of County Commissioners on September 15th from the Planning
Department.
Ronald Sieber read the following comments:
My name is Ronald Sieber, and I live in the New Hope Springs neighborhood off of Davis Road.
I live approximately 1 3/4 miles away from the proposed RTLP project, about which I am
addressing you tonight. I mention this mileage figure because that cited distance triggered an
offhand comment from a Planning Board member at their August 5th meeting which implied that
the citizen who was speaking at that time lived too far away from the project to be affected by it.
I am here to assert that ALL of the people who live along Ode Turner Rd. and Davis Rd. use
Davis at its intersection with Old NC Hwy. 86 as an entrance/exit to our homes. We will ALL be
affected by this project that threatens our rural neighborhoods.
I've written several letters about this and other matters related to the process by which decisions
so far have been made and how those decisions will affect both the community of which I
speak, as well as the surrounding communities all along Old NC Hwy. 86, because all
communities will likely be affected.
Although I write as an individual, I am a member of my local neighborhood as well as the larger
community of Hillsborough and Orange County. I have listened to what others have said about
this issue, and therefore, many of my concerns reflect what others have also voiced. Therefore,
in this manner I am speaking for a much larger group than myself alone. And we are all of one
mind on this issue: the proposed project is too oversized in its present state and amendments to
land use should not be approved that would allow it go forward as proposed.
I ask that the Board of County Commissioners read the concerns expressed in the letters that I
have written, and I implore each commissioner to consider the ramifications of their decisions
yet to be made.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to the public hearing on September 15t"
Joan Kalnitsky thanked the BOCC for taking the time to hear from the public. She said
she is opposed to the research triangle park redistrict. She said she has written to the BOCC
and will do so again prior to the September 15 meeting. She said Davis Road was not built to
hand the RTLP, as there are no shoulders and no sidewalks. She said the County allowed
Davis Road to be developed as a quiet neighborhood road. She said it is really difficult to wrap
her head around the proposed building capacity of 950,000 square feet on an immediate access
to Interstate 40. She said the project is not significant enough to provide a strong benefit to
3
Orange County. She asked the Board to please leave the zoning as it is, and work within
existing parameters, which the applicant should be willing to do if it he serious. She asked the
BOCC to please not bulldoze the community's way of life.
Sarah Shore stood in her back yard to show the land, which is under discussion. She
welcomed the BOCC to visit her property. She said this land is residential, with little road traffic.
She said she finds it very upsetting to hear an out of state developer is trying to change the land
use. She asked the County to consider sensible development. She said she and her neighbors
are not against development, but would like the reasons behind development to be seriously
considered. She thanked the BOCC for listening.
Jon Lorusso read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough, a community organized effort in favor of harmonious
development that benefits the community. Our group represents most of 1000 residences in the
area whose homes are on either side of the following roads: Orange Grove Road on the west,
Interstate 40 on the north, Arthur Minnis Road and New Home Church Road on the south, and
Old 86 on the east. We are in favor of increasing local quality jobs and understand the need for
increasing Orange County tax revenue. Tonight you will hear an overview of why we think the
Research Triangle Logistics Park, as it's currently proposed, will be a detriment to the
community. We ask that the commissioners please consider our concerns in making any
decisions regarding the permitting and rezoning of the affected parcels.
Orange County is known for its high standards, and when someone moves here, there's
an expectation that they'll be afforded some level of protection from unsightly and disturbing
developments. We expect that the strict county ordinances will shield us from excessive noise,
pollution, and aesthetic aberrations. We ask that these strict ordinances be upheld without
exception, and that the burden of proof should be placed upon the developers to ensure,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these ordinances are strictly adhered to. Thus far, the
developer has not done their due diligence in any of these matters --far from it! We urge the
commissioners to postpone a vote on rezoning until the developers have proven that they will
not be in violation of any Orange County ordinances. Furthermore, since a conditional zoning
permit will allow for a wide range of development types, we request that the developer is
required to prove that these standards will be met, not just for the lowest impact developments,
but also for the highest impact developments that are permitted under the conditional zoning.
Kaila Mitchell read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough. I have serious concerns about RTLP. After successfully
recruiting Medline to invest in a distribution center in the Buckhorn Economic Development
District last year, it is probably tempting to build on that success by approving what sounds like
a similar project. RTLP is proposed as a distribution center in the Hillsborough EDD, so what's
the big deal?
Unfortunately, the two projects couldn't be more different, and I want to quickly outline just a few
of the differences between Medline's "Project Tomorrow" and Barrister's RTLP.
Density- Medline is building a 1.2 million square foot distribution center on 172 acres. RTLP
would pack 2-4 times more building area into a smaller parcel (166 acres).
Zoning - Medline optioned land in the existing EDD. RTLP requires rezoning of a rural
residential tract.
Neighbors - Medline occupies land that is sparsely populated, and builds at a density that
allows buffers. RTLP will build and pave within 250 feet of existing homes, and send all of its
tractor trailers down a driveway within 100 feet of those homes.
4
Uses - Medline will do light assembly and distribution of medical products and lab supplies.
Barrister either will not name the tenants of RTLP, or does not have them.
Economy- Medline's build-out plan will generate a guaranteed capital investment of$65 million
over 5 years. RTLP guarantees nothing.
Jobs - Medline is required to create 250 jobs within 5 years. RTLP claims it will create 18 times
that many jobs, even though it is also a distribution center.
Traffic - Medline's placement allows vehicles to make right turns to access the interstate. RTLP
requires every vehicle to take two left-turns onto rural roads not built for tractor trailers.
Experience - Medline operates 43 distribution centers across 20 countries. Barrister has a
history of stalled projects and speculative development.
Environment - Medline's distribution center will be LEED certified and generate up to half of its
energy with solar panels. Barrister had to be pushed by the planning board before agreeing to
install a handful of EV chargers.
Public Perception -When the Board opened the Medline project for public comment, not a
single voice rose against it. RTLP, on the other hand, has inspired a community to organize and
speak out, with letters, road signs, and hashtags. We are here tonight, not because this is fun,
but because we are passionate about finding a project for this site that will allow us all to say, as
Commissioner Rich did about Medline in a Daily Tar Heel interview, "It's such a positive
company, that fact that we were able to land it here is just amazing,"
I ask you to consider the very real differences between these two projects, and to help us find
another success worth celebrating.
Joseph Shore said he lives on Old 86, and his family will be hugely impacted by this
proposed development. He said RTL is the wrong thing for this area, and he has literally been
losing sleep over this. He said he is very concerned that the Planning Board members do not
care about the community, and he is worried about he will get into his driveway. He said he is
also concerned about potential ground water contamination, as he cannot dig a new well if there
is ground water contamination. He said this proposed project violates the Unified Development
Ordinance, and it is wrong for this area.
Franklin Garland said he has been a farmer since 1977, prior to the area becoming an
Economic Development District (EDD). He said several projects have been proposed, and
none have been right for the area, and the current proposed project is the same. He invited the
Commissioners to visit his property, as he has done so over the decades. He said to date, only
one person has accepted his invitation, and told him he had beautiful land that was going to be
ruined. He said he is against this proposed development.
Jo Massey said she has lived in Hillsborough for 30 years in Cornwallis Hills. She said
everyone wants to help with the tax base, but this applicant has shown no proof of expected
success. She asked the Board to build on the charm of the Town of Hillsborough, which has a
great deal to offer. She said flooding and run off water will be a huge issue, and will be
dangerous for residents. She said there are many children in this area who will be adversely
affected. She is against this development, and thanked the BOCC for its time.
Myra Gwin-Summers said she lives on Davis Road, two doors down from where the
traffic would enter. She said pollution would adversely affect the church and childcare center
that are located here, and the childcare center would no longer be able to operate. She said the
Church has built this childcare center to help with the church's finances. She said she has
grave concerns, and this proposed project is not environmentally just.
5
Jeremy Edmondson read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough. I have serious concerns about RTLP.
On Jan 25, 2017, the 12-acre parcel connecting the 2 large economic development lots to Davis
Road, PIN 9862998894, was sold by court order to a local resident for$185,000. From what we
understand, the buyer intended to build several houses on this beautiful wooded lot. However,
the buyer was unable to obtain county approval for that purpose, one reason being that the land
did not "perk" and so would require city water and sewer. The buyer is directly connected to the
current owner and has not been able to develop this land.
We understand also that the RTLP developer has obtained an option agreement for the right to
purchase the Davis Road parcel. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a pending request for
rezoning to support RTLP requirements.
For now, use of this Davis Road property as an "access point" is viewed as critical to the viability
of the RTLP development--because, according to the NCDOT, the existing Service Road is
unsuitable for use by vehicles that would turn left to exit the development toward 1-40. Instead,
the developers would force virtually all RTLP traffic to exit the development onto a small rural
road close to an intersection. Due to the elevation of the land, it is a substantial climb up to
Davis Road from the proposed location of the main warehouses, and the uphill grade will
increase the noise and emissions from 18-wheelers and heavy-duty trucks. Once at the top of
the hill, the same trucks need to run back down the grade to enter the 1-40 on-ramps, creating
additional noise due to engine-braking by the trucks' drivers.
This Davis Road parcel should not be part of the development! Either the usage of the
development needs to be adapted to the available traffic connections to 1-40 or better access
points need to be found to make the economic area viable. Spilling over into a rural residential
area to solve a site traffic problem needlessly pushes the burden to the local residents. Once
city water and sewer are brought to this land on Davis Road it will make a wonderful site for a
business more suited to the area that can bring tax revenue rather than as a traffic corridor for
the current warehouse proposal. The local residents fully support smart development of the
economic development area without using the Davis road lot to push the traffic problems to the
local residents.
Commissioner McKee joined the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Daniel Arneman read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough. I have serious questions concerning RTLP. The Environmental
Committee of Save Hillsborough, has identified several environmental impact issues for
consideration by our County Commissioners. While economic development is important to our
region and our communities, it must be done in a way that fits with existing uses and preserves
our natural assets. The 2019 State of the Environment report produced by the Orange County
Commission for the Environment highlights Orange County's ongoing commitment to a healthy
environment, including: a transition to 100% renewable energy county-wide by 2050;
maintaining a Rural Buffer planning zone to limit urban sprawl for over 30 years; actively
supporting local, sustainable agriculture; and reaching the goal of conserving 10% of the
County's land. We do not think this proposed development helps to meet those County goals.
Furthermore,
1. We would like to start by pointing out that the roadway perpendicular to the proposed
development is a designated NC Scenic Byway and that the proposed development
6
encompasses 6 acres of Natural Heritage Natural Area, which the design proposes to entirely
cover over.
2. Our next concern is the impact of noise--on the residents, the preschool, and the church, all
located within 50 to 1,000 feet of the proposed warehouse complex. According to the developer,
the warehouse complex will potentially host between 150 and 200 trucks and cars per hour
exiting onto Davis Road and Old NC Highway 86, with the ability for a 3-shift work schedule
producing diesel tractor trailer noise at high decibels 24/7. The noise-related long-term health
impacts of this proposed activity will be substantial and clearly bear additional study.
3. Next, the diesel exhaust from these vehicles (mainly trucks), again in close proximity to adults
and children of all ages, deserves additional attention due to the potential for serious long-term
health impacts, especially for our oldest and youngest citizens. Such emissions-related health
impacts clearly bear additional study too.
4. Next, the vegetative buffers and open space offered by the proposal are not adequate to
provide wildlife corridors, nor to decrease the negative visual and auditory impacts on residents
in the surrounding area.
5. Finally, this development proposal does not yet offer appropriate protections for the natural
community or for Orange County residents. We stand with the Eno River Association in our
concern that a structure built on the headwaters of the Eno River, adjacent to a floodplain, with
substantial clear cutting will not protect the water quality and quantity along the 2,500 feet of
Cates Creek encompassed within the development that connect watersheds of the Eno River
and New Hope Creek. There is of course more to say on this issue--and on stormwater
management and mitigation- -but again: further study of the impacts is warranted. The Eno-New
Hope Landscape Conservation Plan focuses on the critical importance of habitat connectivity for
wildlife in the Eno River and New Hope Creek watersheds that this development encompasses.
Please consider this in your questions and considerations of the RTLP proposal.
Janet Marks read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough. I have serious concerns about RTLP Traffic is an issue you will
hear and read a lot about, and there are two main reasons:
1. Added traffic from the RTLP warehouse complex will have a major negative impact, and
traffic is what will affect the area and the county as a whole the most. As you review the
applicant's proposal, pay close attention to how traffic exists today and what it is proposed to
look like. According to the Traffic Impact Summary presented on Aug 19, the RTLP
development will generate 3,648 vehicle trips per day.
• The existing traffic volume on Old NC86 between Davis Rd. and 1-40 is 6,600 vehicles
per day. It is projected that 95% of all inbound and outbound trips will utilize Old NC86—
it would now become 10,065, a 53% increase over the current volume.
• For Davis Rd. near its intersection with Old NC86, the developer's summary shows an
existing traffic volume of 2,100 vehicles per day. Add 15% of all inbound and 90% of all
outbound traffic or 1,915 RTLP-added trips --that is an astonishing increase of 91% of
vehicles using this twolane, mainly residential and rural area road. Yet in the words of
the developer, Impact will be "Minimal". Doubling the current traffic on a narrow road
abutted by homes, a church, a preschool --and yet the developer represents this as
"minimal"?When you read into the proposal, please ask yourself: Is even a 91%
increase in traffic on any road minimal? Not to mention that a large portion of these will
be large trucks!
7
2. As I'm sure you are aware by now. The applicant's proposal talks at length about
manufacturing, R&D, etc., in addition to warehousing, when referring to the scope of the RTLP
project, but then it states in the environmental assessment that "no production will take place on
these parcels." Further, the Traffic Impact Analysis calculates added traffic based on a land use
code of LUC 150, specific to warehousing. Keep in mind, this code results in one of the lowest
rates of estimated traffic for this type of development. So the numbers I stated before and those
which are listed in the application are the MINIMUM. Any business use that actually is in line
with manufacturing, mixed use, etc. will greatly increase the amount of traffic this site would
create. The Staff's response to the developer of June 30th even states: "As there will be a
myriad of other development occurring within the Project - staff is concerned the Traffic analysis
does not adequately anticipate and define impacts." One cannot `cherry pick' the data they use.
You have to be consistent. This area will be developed in some way—we understand that— it is
a highway intersection. The question is, why do we keep trying to ram a square peg into a round
hole? Why do we try and change the whole area to accommodate a plan? Why don't we work
within the parameters of this area and find the right fit--one that generates tax dollars, creates
jobs AND fits in with the landscape? We know there are traffic concerns around what the
Service Road can handle, and we know this plot of land backs up to residential and rural areas—
but that doesn't mean it can't be developed in an appropriate way. The highway interchange at
1-40 and "new 86" (Exit 266) is the same layout, but the distance there between 1-40 and
Eubanks Rd. is actually LESS than the distance at Exit 261 from 1-40 to the Service Road, and
yet the new Carraway development is looking like a successful project. There is a compromise
to all of this.
• Take the 12-acre Davis Road parcel and its driveway off the table. This idea was
actually proposed by David Blankfard, Chair of the Planning &Zoning Board!
• Do not approve the zoning change; then
• Work to develop the parcels that are already in the Economic Development area and
have been zoned with a size and scale and a use that keeps the industry and traffic on
the service road and close to the highway. You can create a bigger tax base and
balance it with the nature of the area around it; we just need to stop trying to jam that
square peg in a round hole. Work with the people in the county--not against them.
Chair Rich advised Janet Marks to send emails to the BOCC email group.
Rena Mitchell read the following remarks:
I'm part of Save Hillsborough and I have serious concerns about RTLP. Growth is great and
good. I don't want my town to look like it did in 1776 or 1876 or even 1976.
1 love seeing changes to our town, from Hillsborough BBQ to the new UNC Hospital. But this
warehouse development is a poor fit. It's out of character with the rest of the district, has the
potential to damage a significant watershed, and will absolutely increase flooding in the local
neighborhood. But the poorest fit of all is the proximity of the development's main exit to a
church, preschool and cemetery.
Let's consider Orange County's plan to guide growth and development: the Orange County
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan addresses issues ranging from land use to economic
development, to housing, to public facilities, to environmental protection and beyond. As stated
in the Plan, an underlying theme is the County's vision of becoming a more sustainable
community. To encourage desirable economic development, the Plan set aside 2,450 acres of
land in 3 areas along 1-85 and 1-40 known as the Buckhorn, Hillsborough, and Eno River
Districts.
8
The Hillsborough district, all 724 acres of it, is well on its way to completion. Much of this district
has already been built and consists of a hospital, a community college, and compact residential
housing. According to the Plan, the remaining 200 acres "will require design solutions to buffer
neighborhoods from future development." That's what the Plan says! But the RTLP project
would cover 65% of this land with 6-story buildings and parking lots. A small part of the
remaining 35% will be ornamental trees and bushes as well as some retention ponds. But the
developer wants to use the biggest portion remaining--two creeks and their corresponding
floodplains--as "buffer" too.
According to the Eno River Association, this warehouse complex would be built on a critical
conservation corridor connecting the Eno watershed with the New Hope watershed. They
understand that the site plan does not go far enough to protect water quality.
Just last year, residents temporarily lost the use of Davis Road when a 50-foot sinkhole split the
road, just downhill of the proposed access point. A 7-foot high culvert was installed and the road
re-paved several months later while the residents used Orange Grove Road instead of Old
NC86. If you examine the topography of this area, the parcels in question sit higher than Davis
Road. And we all know that water runs downhill - especially on pavement. What's the design
solution for this problem?
Finally, across the street from this warehouse complex are a church, a preschool and a historic
African American cemetery. Diesel exhaust, vibrating engines and squealing brakes are
obviously a poor fit. What's the design solution for this problem? Bushes?A few trees? And if
Davis Road needs to be widened to manage 18-wheelers trying to exit from the warehouse
complex onto this country road, how much easement is available by the cemetery to allow for
more road?
I know you'll do the right thing and require the developer to come up with better design
Solutions to make this a better fit. Thank you for your time and consideration.
William Mitchell read the following remarks:
I'm part of Save Hillsborough. I live at 310 Davis Rd and appreciate the commissioners giving
me a few minutes to express my concerns about the proposed RTLP project—and specifically
to speak about potential traffic safety issues that we feel have not been adequately addressed. I
will focus on one particularly hazardous situation that will likely arise if this development is
approved.
• As you're probably aware, the plan originally proposed by the developer's traffic
engineer was to route trucks exiting from the warehouses directly north to Interstate 40
by means of the existing service road adjacent to the 1-40 off ramp. When that plan was
rejected by NCDOT, a revised proposal re-routed the exiting traffic to Davis Road, at a
spot 1,000 feet from its T-intersection with Old NC Hwy. 86. Trucks would turn out of this
Davis Road access point to exit left from the warehouse complex--make another left
onto Old NC Hwy. 86--and then make their way to the Interstates (1-40 and 1-85).
• The NCDOT recommends that, based on the developer's traffic impact analysis, a traffic
signal would be installed at Davis and Old 86 in order to manage the large volume of
truck and vehicular traffic. What could go wrong?
• Members of our community who live along this stretch of road can tell you from first-
hand observation: there's a blind curve at Jedi Way, which meets Davis Rd. just a little
over 600 feet from the proposed RTLP exit. It is part of our everyday experience to see
drivers coming around that turn from further out in the county, often driving at a speed of
9
55 miles per hour or more until they get closer to the "rural buffer." Within the past year,
one driver flipped a car while navigating this turn at Jedi Way.
• Try to visualize this stretch of road for a moment: If the volume of truck traffic (including
18 wheelers) exiting RTLP onto Davis Rd. is anywhere close to the developer's
estimate--it's easy to believe that the left-turning RTLP truck traffic--coming out onto
Davis Rd.--would result in a long queue of residents' vehicles stopped behind those
trucks that are turning--and/or waiting for the light to change at Old 86.
• That back-up might be a minor inconvenience to eastbound drivers getting held up in
that section of Davis Rd., but it could be deadly if the line of cars gets backed up far
enough—particularly for an unsuspecting driver coming around the blind curve in
question—or for someone who is unfortunate enough to be the last car in held-up traffic.
• We think it is important for you to understand that those of us who live along this stretch
of road are not concerned simply about traffic congestion—or the obvious inconvenience
it will cause us—we're also concerned about our neighbors who live further out in the
county, and those beyond the immediate impact area as well: people driving into
Hillsborough whose lives may be endangered as they travel this road on a daily basis, to
jobs, schools, church, the pre school, and elsewhere.
• This is only one of a host of safety concerns: in our view, there would be a similar "line-
ofsight" issue—and risk of rear-end collisions--for drivers traveling north on Old 86 near
the proposed 86/Davis Rd traffic signal--because of the two turns that interrupt their
sightline shortly before they reach that light.
• If you should drive out here to see for yourself what we are talking about, please keep in
mind that Davis Rd. traffic volume is currently way down, compared with pre-pandemic
levels—as a result of schools, offices, and numerous businesses being closed.
For these reasons, we urge you to say no to the proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park.
Maryanne Ross read the following comments:
I'm with Save Hillsborough and have concerns about RTLP.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is a good-faith effort to bring our county into the 21 st century.
It's a Plan that required careful thought and planning about economic development and our
needs. Developers are able to use this document along with the UDO to guide them. They know
we have land available that is zoned for growth. But are they selling us something we want to
buy? Or just offering something they want to sell.
The Plan creates a district to be a new tax base to the city and county. The zoning helps us get
just what we need for that growth. Some developers want a quick return on their dollar. Other
developers take pride in finding the right fit for the community. If this developer is the right fit for
us, they need to step up and show us that they can be trusted. The developer can start by
showing us where their money is coming from. Who's backing the development and for how
much? A capital investor will do their due diligence requiring a Proforma and an ROI (Return on
Investment) before they hand over money. If they have a financial investor lined up already, the
developer should be willing to provide those documents proving their good faith. The developer
has only invested money in a traffic analysis and a few architectural drawings. They haven't
purchased any land --just `options to purchase' property from the landowners. The developer
isn't investing their money on infrastructure. The town and county are expected to get water and
sewer to the site, a site that shows zero occupants on the application. How can the city
calculate the cost to upgrade the infrastructure without the developer's projections? The
developer isn't investing their money on roads. The town, county and state will be expected to
10
invest our tax dollars on road infrastructure as 18-wheelers tear up roads not designed for them.
And the Planning Board's contention that Davis is a `connector road' doesn't mean it's designed
to handle that volume of traffic proposed by the developer.
It seems the developer's contribution is promised improvements on the tax base through
employment. Has the developer provided documentation to prove this? What does `4500 global
jobs' actually mean? Similar developments have employed less than 10% of that. Is a
warehouse the best use of that space in order to increase tax revenue? The capital investors
may not care how much tax revenue the development brings but we do. Speaking of investors,
the developer should be able to show us how they will make money. Who's lined up to lease
space? A capital investor would expect assurances like this before they agree to invest. Why
shouldn't we?
And if the developer is so eager to start building why haven't they provided a construction
schedule as required for zoning a Master Plan? Do they have a history of incomplete
construction development in another state? How many projects have they completed in a
reasonable amount of time besides constructing their own offices in Kentucky? They should be
proud to provide details of their successes. Don't they want us to have faith in their intention to
complete this project?
When a developer has so little skin in the game, their intent may be to do as little as possible
with their money while compelling the town or county to invest taxpayers money to improve the
infrastructure with false promises of an increased tax base. The developer can go a long way
towards good faith by answering these questions.
Ellen Mayer said she lives within 1,000 feet from this projected development. She said
she supports development, but not this project. She said she is opposed for many of the
previously stated reasons. She invited the Commissioners to visit her property.
Bob Bundschuh said he understands the BOCC has not received the full packet of
information, but he has great concerns with this project. He said traffic problems are being
underestimated, and it will be a big issue. He said the Planning Department staff has even
acknowledged this. He said the neighborhood is not opposed to development, but there must
be a better plan than the one that has been proposed. He echoed several previously mentioned
concerns.
Christine Poole read the following comments:
I'm with Save Hillsborough. Many of you who have travelled on Old NC Hwy. 86, not far off
Interstate 40, know the beauty of the thick forests and rolling hills along this road. You
understand why it is a designated Scenic Byway. Starting at Exit 261 from 1-40, you are now on
a historic road less known as "The ScotsWelsh Heritage Byway" dating back to the 1700's. Prior
to its being mentioned in historical records, this was a Native American trail and was also used
by early Settlers.
The following is taken from the NC DOT description of this road: "This Byway travels through
Orange County along trade roads used by American Indians and early backcountry pioneers.
The king of England gave much of the land along this byway to 18th century Scotch-Welsh
settlers. Generation after generation has lived and farmed this land, each leaving its own mark,
making this byway a unique journey through American history. Old N.C. 86 appears on colonial
maps dating back to 1770."
11
Per NC DOT descriptions of Scenic Byways.... "Motorists will see little or no development along
the routes, enhancing the natural character and quality of the byways. They will experience
North Carolina's history, geography, and culture, while also raising awareness for the protection
and preservation of these treasures."
Please limit the traffic using this historical route and preserve an important landmark. I am for
Economic Development, but any development near this area should be mindful of what is
harmonious with the surrounding land and rural neighborhoods.
When people drive east on 1-40 from Alamance County, this exit is the first impression they get
of Hillsborough. Do we want the Gateway to Orange County and Hillsborough represented by
vast Warehouses full of truck bays?
Keith Poole read the following comments:
I am part of Save Hillsborough. I have serious questions concerning RTLP.
In this part of the county (including south Hillsborough), we are very fortunate to have a Hospital
nearby. Davis Road and Old NC Hwy. 86 provide our access to this Hospital and also to
Interstate 40. ...So far, so good.
Now picture people in passenger cars on 1-40 westbound coming from Chapel Hill and being
stuck in slower traffic on a busy day. They need access to our local hospital. The exit is not far,
but once you get to it there is a line of 18-wheelers backed up on the off-ramp. The trucks are
backed up because they can't make a left to go to their warehouse destination. There is no
traffic light.
The car drivers can't make a right toward the hospital, because they can't see around the left-
turning stopped traffic (mainly tall trucks). Many cars and trucks that are now released from the
two traffic lights situated at Davis Road and the Eastbound exit ramp are barreling towards
them. They can't even get into the free-flowing right turn lane on Old 86 because the exit ramp
is narrow leading to this lane.
There is no way for these car drivers to drive around to pass the backed-up trucks; if one did try,
they are putting their life and others in danger.
You can SEE the hospital campus.... You just can't get to it in a timely manner! Please vote no
on the RTLP project. I am for economic development in our area. I am just asking that we put in
smart development, with all of the traffic angles thoroughly investigated beforehand.
Jackson Poole read the following comments:
I'm part of Save Hillsborough and also have concerns with the RTLP as proposed.
The steps I had to take to speak at this meeting tonight were quite involved. To share Kaila
Mitchell's experience, from the time she looked up how to join this meeting on Orange County's
website on Aug 23rd to the time she finally received the zoom link to join, the process took 6
different steps over 8 days while submitting her information to 3 different places. I share this, not
to blame the County Commissioners for the process, but to make you aware of the difficulty to
make our voices heard today.
I also want us to recognize the privilege that those of us on this call have, including access to
technology and access to information. We continue to encounter residents that know little to
12
nothing about the proposed RTLP project and how it will impact their lives. There are residents
that aren't aware that they can participate by phone on this zoom call. And people can't call in if
they don't know how to get this information in the first place.
We have been in a state of emergency since March 13th because of Covid-19. Just last month
you all, the Board of County Commissioners, extended the state of emergency through October
31 st. Let us all recognize the significance of that. Shannon Casell, Special Counsel to NC
Attorney General Josh Stein, wrote an advisory letter talking about local public bodies
conducting open meetings electronically. She recognized that electronic meetings are
reasonable for local governing bodies. She did, however state, and I quote, "When meetings of
public bodies are not necessary for immediate ongoing governance, I would encourage
postponing that meeting until a future time when the meeting can occur in-person". Does a
decision on the RTLP project meet this standard?
Because we are in a Pandemic and in a state of emergency, I urge you to please approach this
matter with social responsibility in mind. Please postpone a decision on rezoning until there is a
process where ALL voices can be heard, not just those that hold privilege.
Bryan Brice said the BOCC has an important decision to make about this project, and he
wonders if the project is worth the damage that it may cause by proceeding. He said he is
concerned about the environment, and wonders if all laws and ordinances will be complied with.
He encouraged a moratorium on the project until all environmental issues have been fleshed
out, and the applicant can show all permits have been properly obtained.
Bill Ward voiced concern about the long-term environmental impacts of climate change.
He says Orange County has the ability to make a real impact on environmental issues, and thus
improve public health.
Matt Mitchell made the following comments:
I'm part of Save Hillsborough. I'm in favor of developing this area, but have serious concerns
with the RTLP as proposed.
Many members of our group were in favor of the Settler's Point project. It proposed a mixture of
retail and business development, much of which would have benefitted the surrounding
neighborhoods, and would likely have increased property values for many homeowners in the
surrounding area. However, RTLP, as it currently stands, presents a very different situation. The
size of the development is more than double that of Settlers Point and the buffers are smaller to
accommodate such large structures. And most importantly, Settlers Point did not include the
rezoning of a residential property to allow for massive amounts of vehicular and truck traffic.
The impact of this development on local homeowners is a topic that comes up consistently, and
mitigation is in no way mentioned by the developer or the county. When the question came up
at the last planning board meeting, the developer suggested that this development might
actually increase property values. However, it's hard to make that case when they're planning to
install their primary access point 30 feet from a resident's property line. Furthermore, the
planned buffers are minimal and insufficient to protect the surrounding properties from the 60
foot tall monolithic buildings.
The county goes to great economic lengths to attract development and business, but there is no
mechanism to mitigate material monetary impacts on the use and enjoyment of one's home
when a high-density economic development is inserted into one's rural residential community.
13
As it stands, it seems as though these potential financial impacts will simply be considered
collateral damage. What can we do to ensure that these potential financial impacts will be
mitigated for the dozens of surrounding residents?
And speaking of collateral damage -- what will be the impact on the Church and Pre-school
across the street on Davis Rd? What will happen when parents pull their kids out of the
preschool because their driveway is potentially blocked by a long queue of diesel trucks? The
Church relies on the revenue from the preschool to stay afloat; so, will the church and preschool
also end up as collateral damage? I urge the commissioners to seriously consider these impacts
when making their decision, and to strongly consider eliminating the use of the Davis Road
parcel as part of this development.
Additional Issue to consider: NOISE: Orange county Noise ordinances state: "It shall be
unlawful for any person to make, create, permit, or to continue any source of unreasonably loud
and disturbing noise in Orange County." Orange County doesn't allow noises above 60 decibels
during the day and 50 decibels in the evenings at residential properties. The noise generated
from a diesel truck is between 96 and 104 decibels, 42 times louder than the ordinance allows in
the evenings. Additionally, diesel trucks typically use engine braking that creates an extremely
loud machine gun-like noise, up to 105 decibels. There are residents whose property is as close
as 30 feet to the proposed driveway. (This distance is taken from the Orange County GIS). With
only 5 trucks in the queue, the resident immediately beside the proposed access point on Davis
Rd will experience 81 decibels of sustained noise, the equivalent of standing next to a lawn
mower 24/7, and loud enough to cause hearing damage at 2 hours of exposure according to the
CDC. Orange County also specifically prohibits the use of lawn equipment after 9 pm. How can
they possibly allow diesel trucks operating overnight, creating noise more than 5 times louder
than gas powered lawn equipment? It seems impossible that this development could comply
with Orange County noise ordinances, and yet the developer has not provided a noise analysis.
The county must act to prevent the potentially massive disruptions to the sleep, hearing, and
peace of the dozens of residents, church, and preschool children in the surrounding area.
Please do not allow the rezoning of the Davis Rd parcel. The use of this land as the primary
access point will cause irreparable harm to the surrounding residents. It may take some effort
and/or creativity, but the developer can and should find alternative methods of dealing with their
traffic load. NCDOT has already laid out potential improvements that could be made to allow for
a full movement interchange at Service Rd and Old 86, but the developer has declined to
pursue this path. Rather, it seems they have chosen the path of least resistance and lowest cost
to them, at the great expense of the surrounding residence and community.
Jessie Kaufmann said the Orange County Schools Board of Education released a letter
imploring that Broadband Internet be provided. She asked the BOCC to consider using the
proposed land for broadband. She asked if the BOCC would wait to make a decision about the
land until after the presidential election. She said she is not in favor of the proposed project.
Justin Mitchell said he owns several acres of land on Davis Road, adjacent to his family,
where he one day hopes to live. He said the appeal of that dream will disappear if this
proposed project goes ahead. He said water runoff is of great concern, as there is already
excessive run off in this area, and the proposed project would only increase this problem.
Bill Aucoin thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak tonight. He said his family
has lived in Becketts Ridge for the past 20 years, and they are excited about potential
development and is frustrated by the community speaking out against it. He said it is just a
smear campaign and he finds it very frustrating. He said he is not alone in his support of this
14
project, but those voices are not being heard. He said Orange County is full of protected green
space, and there are not many options for development like this project. He said he supports
the project, and the jobs and revenue that it will bring.
Daniel Yarborough said he concurs with the previously mentioned concerns, and he is
against this project. He said the enormous amount of traffic is of particular concern.
Chair Rich said the BOCC will review this project at its September 15t" meeting, and will
have a public hearing where the public will be welcome to speak.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Bedford said she attended meetings for the Department of Social
Services, GoTriangle Advisory Board, JCPC, and the Visitors Bureau Board. She said the
Visitors Bureau's budget will be redone. She said she greatly appreciated County staff and
Chair Rich for their time.
Commissioner Greene said she received a question from a resident about voting in the
context of eviction within 25 days of the election. She said Representative Meyer said this
would not be a problem, as long as one still resides in North Carolina. She asked if staff could
follow up on this information, and publicize the information.
Commissioner Greene noted the sad passing of writer Randall Kenan.
Commissioner McKee petitioned for staff to bring to the Board a report about the
measures to provide countywide broadband, and to identify funding of up to $30 million dollars
that can be moved to afford this effort. He asked if this information could be provided by
October 31, 2020.
Commissioner Price said the 2020 Census will end on September 30, which is a month
early. She thanked staff for helping get the word out about the Census, and encouraged people
to fill out the form.
Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated Commissioner Price bringing up the census.
He said a legal challenge has been made against the Trump administration for terminating the
census process early. He said he shared Durham Tech's new Equity, Inclusivity and Diversity
Action Plan, which is a powerful document. He commended the new Durham Tech president
and the Durham Tech Board for its creation. He said there was a hearing in the ongoing
Leandro case regarding school funding, and Judge David Lee said he was going to sign a new
order first year implementation plan, specifically targeting funds for at risk students, special
education, and limited English proficiency learners. He said funding for these students is
critical, especially during COVID.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he attended Orange County Transit Planning meetings
over the summer. He said there is an upcoming Community Engagement campaign, which will
be really interesting. He said he has also been involved with GoTriangle. He said commuter
rail will not be coming to Hillsborough, due to ridership and cost issues. He said negotiations
continue between NC Railroad and GoTriangle. He said there are new CEOs at North Carolina
Railroad and GoTriangle. He said he is optimistic that commuter rail will exist between Durham
and Raleigh.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Orange County Climate Council has continued to
meet over the summer, and will soon be announcing a one-year public event, which will occur in
October. He said it has been a really good year, and it is inspiring to hear from people all
across the County.
15
Chair Rich said it has been a really busy summer, especially surrounding the opening of
the University of North Carolina (UNC).
Chair Rich said the North Carolina Housing Crescent Award went to Habitat. She said
this was the first time Habitat has received an award for senior housing, and it used some of the
2016 BOCC bond money.
Chair Rich said she sent the Board a copy of a draft letter to Attorney General (AG) Josh
Stein in support of the postage service. She thanked Commissioner Dorosin for adding three
paragraphs to the letter. She said she would like to send this to AG Stein, with the Board's
approval, along with the NC Senators and Congressmen.
Chair Rich petitioned the Board to name the Whitted Meeting Room after Donna Baker.
She said she received the naming policy from the Manager's Office, and this naming fits into
that policy. She said former Commissioners have asked that, if this naming goes forward, the
event be held live so that all can attend.
Chair Rich said she sent a resolution, for the Board to consider at its next meeting, to
decriminalize marijuana.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Resolution Honoring and Remembering Donna Baker, Clerk to the Orange County
Board of Commissioners
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution honoring and remembering Donna
Baker, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
BACKGROUND:
On July 31, 2020, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Donna Baker passed away
unexpectedly at her home in Orange County. Ms. Baker had served as Clerk to the Board for 18
years since her appointment in June 2002.
Donna graduated from high school in Georgetown, SC and subsequently from Clemson
University with Honors in 1978. Ms. Baker built a lifelong career of community service from her
early work with parents and children at The Ronald McDonald House of Chapel Hill, to positions
with Georgetown, SC County Government, and her most recent position as Clerk to the Orange
County Board of County Commissioners.
Donna was blessed with two children — Jeremy and CeCe —who are now older with families of
their own. She was an accomplished learner and reader, and was also a true lover of animals,
including adopting several rescue pets over time.
While she greatly loved Orange County, Donna also held a special place in her heart for the
South Carolina beaches, especially the Georgetown/Pawley's Island area. She spent many
years and vacations there enjoying the sea and surf.
Commissioner Dorosin read the resolution:
RES-2020-043
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION HONORING AND REMEMBERING DONNA BAKER,
CLERK TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
16
WHEREAS, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, passed away
unexpectedly at her home in Orange County on July 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, Donna Baker was appointed Clerk to the Board in June 2002 and served as Clerk
for over 18 years; and
WHEREAS, after graduating from Clemson University with Honors in 1978, Ms. Baker built a
lifelong career of community service from her early work with parents and children in need at
The Ronald McDonald House of Chapel Hill, to positions with Georgetown, SC County
Government, and to Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, Donna was blessed with and continually expressed love and support for her two
children —Jeremy and CeCe; and
WHEREAS, Donna loved Orange County and at the same time claimed a lifetime fondness for
Pawley's Island, South Carolina where she spent many years and vacations on the beach
enjoying the beautiful sunshine and relaxation of the South Carolina sea, sound, and surf; and
WHEREAS, Donna served the residents of Orange County and a total of 18 different members
of the Board of Commissioners as a dependable, smart, dedicated, steadfast, and calming
spirit; and
WHEREAS, former County Commissioner Moses Carey commented, "She was so good to all of
us. She treated County residents with special warmth when they came to her for help. She was
a real friend and dedicated public servant, especially to the Board of Orange County
Commissioners;" and
WHEREAS, former County Commissioner and North Carolina State Senator Valerie Foushee
shared, "I knew Donna for 40 years, and she remained the same person for that entire period of
time: bright, respectful and caring. She was the most trusted, respected county employee during
my time as a commissioner, and I suspect to the end. She made every commissioner feel like
he/she was her favorite. That's a gift;"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
on behalf of County residents, officials and employees, honor and remember Donna Baker for
her spirit, her energy and her innumerable contributions to Orange County and beyond; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board extends its condolences to Jeremy, CeCe, and all
of Donna's family and friends; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
expresses its sincerest appreciation and commends Donna Baker for her lifetime of service.
This the 1 st day of September, 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adopt the Resolution, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Resolution.
17
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Resolution of Recognition for Judicial District 15-B Chief District Court Judge
Joseph Moody Buckner Upon His Retirement
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution recognizing Judicial District 15-B
Chief District Court Judge Joseph Moody Buckner upon his retirement.
BACKGROUND:
Judge Joseph M. Buckner was elected as a district court judge in 1994 and was re-elected by
the residents of Orange and Chatham counties six more times after his initial election. In 1996,
the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court appointed Judge Buckner as the Chief
District Court Judge in Orange and Chatham counties and he has served in that capacity since
that time.
Judge Buckner also previously served as President of the N.C. Conference of District Court
Judges and Chief District Court Judges as well as serving as a member of the N.C. Governor's
Crime Commission and the Commission on Juvenile Crime.
Judge Buckner has served the residents of Orange and Chatham County tirelessly and with
distinction for close to 30 years as a district court judge, and announced over the summer his
retirement.
The following resolution was presented by BOCC Chair Penny Rich at Judge Buckner's
retirement event in late July 2020, and staff requests that the Board formally adopt the
resolution recognizing Judge Buckner for his service.
Chair Rich read the resolution:
RES-2020-044
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION FOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15-B
CHIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JOSEPH MOODY BUCKNER
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Judge Joseph M. Buckner has served as the Chief District Court Judge in Orange
and Chatham counties since 1996, when he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the North
Carolina Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner has served as a district court judge since his election in 1994 and
has been re-elected by the residents of Orange and Chatham counties six more times; and
WHERAS, Judge Buckner previously served as the President of the N.C.
Conference of District Court Judges and Chief District Court Judges as well serving as a
member of the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission and the Commission on Juvenile Crime; and
18
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner supervises the administration of more than 50,000 cases per year,
in addition to supervising the magistrates and the trial and judicial assignments for all the court
sessions; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner oversees the Clerk of Superior Court in the discharge of duties,
administers the drawing of jury panels, the setting of specialized court sessions including
criminal dockets, domestic issues, traffic, family violence, child support, mental health and
substance use commitments, juvenile delinquency, child abuse and neglect and felony pleas;
and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner has been a champion for individuals with mental health and
substance use disorders in our community, and started North Carolina's first mental health
diversion court (Community Resource Court) over twenty years ago, with CRC remaining a
model for the state; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner started and has strongly supported the District's first
drug treatment courts: Recovery Court and Family Treatment Court; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner created and sought funding for a Juvenile Court School Liaison
position that operates to ensure communication and services by the school system for justice-
involved youth; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner has been a champion for individuals with mental health and
substance use disorders in our community, and started North Carolina's first mental health
diversion court (Community Resource Court) over twenty years ago, with CRC remaining a
model for the state; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner started and has strongly supported the District's first
drug treatment courts: Recovery Court and Family Treatment Court; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner created and sought funding for a Juvenile Court School Liaison
position that operates to ensure communication and services by the school system for justice-
involved youth; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner started weekly Child Planning Conferences for children and families
involved in abuse and neglect cases, which has improved outcomes by providing early
interventions; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner has initiated countless improvements, innovations and
reorganizations in the court system that have resulted in an increase in efficiency and just
resolutions; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, Judge Buckner commissioned a set of historical murals by
Michael Brown that grace the main courtroom in the Orange County Courthouse showcasing
Orange County history and informing and delighting visitors and court attendees; and
WHEREAS, Judge Buckner has served the residents of Orange and Chatham
County tirelessly and with distinction for close to 30 years as a district court judge, and his
compassion and experience have touched the lives of so many individuals that have appeared
before him and he has influenced and trained numerous people that work beside him in the
justice system;
19
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners expresses its congratulations upon Judge Buckner's retirement and extends its
deepest appreciation, gratitude and respect for his leadership and service throughout the court
system for the residents of Orange County.
This the 1It day of September 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adopt the Resolution, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Resolution.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Proclamation Recognizing the Services and Contributions of Retiring Major David
Lewis Caldwell, Jr.
The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing Retiring Major
David Lewis Caldwell, Jr. for his services to Orange County.
Sheriff Blackwood, in a pre-recorded video, made the following presentation.
BACKGROUND:
David Caldwell has been a lifelong resident of Orange County, a champion for environmental
justice, a career member of the Orange County Sheriff's Office and a respected leader
throughout the Orange County community.
David Caldwell was one of the founding members and served on the Rogers-Eubanks
Neighborhood Association (RENA) as a Project Director.
David Caldwell retired from the Orange County Sheriff's Office, for a second time, in 2020 as a
Major of Support Services and Community Outreach.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE SERVICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
OF RETIRING MAJOR DAVID LEWIS CALDWELL, JR. OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, Major David Lewis Caldwell, Jr. is retiring from the Orange County Sheriff's Office;
and
WHEREAS, David Caldwell grew up in the Rogers Road area on the outskirts of Chapel Hill;
and
WHEREAS, after graduating from Chapel Hill High School, Major Caldwell graduated from
North Carolina Central University on a basketball scholarship with a degree in Recreation
Administration; and
20
WHEREAS, Major Caldwell proudly served the United States Army as a Military Police Officer,
a Town of Carrboro as a Police Officer, and the residents of Orange County as a deputy sheriff
for a combined 40 years; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, David Caldwell retired the Orange County Sheriff's Office and worked with
Orange County Government supporting community centers focusing on minority and rural
outreach; and
WHEREAS, David returned to work for the Orange County Sheriff in 2016 as a Major in Support
Services, Community Outreach, retiring again in 2020; and
WHEREAS, in carrying out his law enforcement duties, Major Caldwell jeopardized his own
safety and well-being to protect the lives and property of others and represents the finest
example of dedication to public service; and
WHEREAS, Major Caldwell has, in his personal capacity, served as a leader in his community
fighting for the rights of those not in a position to fight for themselves; and
WHEREAS, David Caldwell was one of the founding members and served with the Rogers-
Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) as a Project Director; and
WHEREAS, Major Caldwell has served as a mentor to the youth of the community by giving of
his time and money to develop and foster youth athletic, academic, and afterschool programs to
enhance their opportunities in life; and
WHEREAS, Major Caldwell has worked tirelessly in partnership with the Orange County
Department on Aging, S.A.L.T., and countless other volunteer organizations to make certain the
lives of the senior population of Orange County were afforded the opportunity to age in place
with dignity, respect, and care; and
WHEREAS, David Caldwell has been a lifelong resident of Orange County, a champion for
environmental justice, a career member of the Orange County Sheriff's Office and a respected
leader throughout the Orange County community;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby recognize the
contributions of Major David Lewis Caldwell, Jr. for his unwavering service to the people of
Orange County, and express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for his numerous and
invaluable contributions to the improvement and well-being of the Orange County community.
FURTHERMORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners determines Major David Lewis
Caldwell, Jr. is authorized to possess, and presents him with, the side-arm he carried while
serving as a member of the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
AND FURTHERMORE, the Board profoundly thanks Major David Lewis Caldwell, Jr. for his
uncompromising commitment, dedication, and distinguished service to humanity and to the
residents of Orange County and wishes him a most enjoyable new journey in the next chapter of
his life.
This 1st day of September, 2020.
21
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin
to approve the Proclamation, authorize the transfer to Major Caldwell of his service side-arm,
and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Proclamation.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Sheriff Blackwood, in a pre-recorded video, presented Major David Caldwell with his
service weapon.
Major David Caldwell said it has been his pleasure to serve Orange County, and he will
continue to serve this county in the years to come. He thanked all those with whom he served.
d. Resolution Celebrating the 55th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution celebrating the 551h Anniversary of the
passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which occurred on August 6, 1965.
Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations Director, made the following presentation:
BACKGROUND:
On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voters Rights Act of 1965,
considered the most crucial piece of legislation of the Civil Rights movement. A bi-partisan
Congress has strengthened the Act by amending and reauthorizing the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act five-time throughout the years.
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to guarantee rights granted under the 14th and 15th
Amendments of the United States Constitution so that no one, including state, federal, or local
government, could stop citizens from registering to vote or voting because of their race or
ethnicity. The Voting Rights Act contains numerous provisions for regulating elections laws.
Regulations in the Act: a) prohibited tests and other devices that were used to keep people from
voting; b) prohibitions against voting laws that would discriminate against a racial or ethnical
minority; and c) included a preclearance requirement that prevented specific jurisdictions from
making changes to their voting laws without prior approval from the U.S Attorney General of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. There is also a provision specifically for ensuring
that jurisdictions having significant language minority population provide language access
services including providing bilingual ballots and other election materials.
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 4 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which contained the formula used to identify the state and local
governments that have to comply with the preclearance requirements. The Supreme Court,
while striking down the formula, left the preclearance requirement provision intact. Therefore,
none of the jurisdictions covered by the formula has to comply unless Congress enacts a new
formula to determine whom it covers.
The United States Department of Justice's data indicates that from 1982 to 2006, 750 Section 5
preclearance objections blocked approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes. Over half
blocked more than 400 cases with specific evidence of intentional discrimination. Section 5 also
22
deterred more than 205 voting changes were withdrawn after the Department of Justice requested
additional information. The Department of Justice brought 650 successful lawsuits under Section
2 of the Voting Right Act in covered jurisdictions.
Since Shelby v. Holder, many states have adopted restrictive voting laws that impact
communities of color. These restrictions such as strict photo ID requirements, limitation on who
can provide assistance in polling places, the curbing on early voting days, and closing of polling
places has had the effect of suppressing the votes of people of color. Other measures include
purging of voter rolls and drawing election districts to dilute the power of and influence of people
of color.
RES-2020-051
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION
Celebrating the 55t" Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act
WHEREAS, on February 26, 1869, the United States Congress passed the Fifteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and subsequently ratified the Amendment on
February 3, 1870, to grant African American men the right to vote; and
WHEREAS, African American males exercised the franchise and held political offices in many
states, particularly Southern states, throughout the 1880s; and
WHEREAS, in the 1890s, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other devices to
disenfranchise African American men were written into the constitutions of former Confederate
states; and
WHEREAS, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, African American women were
granted the right to vote along with white women; and
WHEREAS, African Americans who attempted to register to vote experienced harassment,
intimidation, economic reprisals, physical violence and murder, including by lynching; and
WHEREAS, African American men and women nevertheless sought to secure their right to vote
through such organizations as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
and the National Urban League, as well as through the efforts of people such as A. Philip
Randolph, W. E. B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Baker and Septima
Clark; and
WHEREAS, in the 196os, the widely broadcast irreprehensible violence against demonstrators
brought heightened attention to the issue of voting rights — including the murders of Chaney,
Goodman and Schwerner on June 21, 1964, and the attack on March 7, 1965, known as Bloody
Sunday; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, an
"act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution," ninety-five years after it had been
ratified; and
WHEREAS, the Voting Rights Act outlawed literacy tests and provided for the appointment of
federal examiners with the power to register qualified citizens to vote in those jurisdictions
covered according to a formula provided by the statute; and
23
WHEREAS, Section 5 of the Act required covered jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from the
District Court for the District of Columbia or the United States Attorney General for any new
voting procedures and practices; and
WHEREAS, Section 2 of the Act, closely following the language of the 15' Amendment, applied
a nationwide prohibition on the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or
color; and
WHEREAS, by the end of 1965, a quarter of a million African Americans had registered as new
voters, and by the end of 1966, four of the thirteen southern states had less than fifty percent of
African Americans registered to vote; and
WHEREAS, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was extended in 1970, 1975 1982, and 2006, and
efforts currently are underway to restore certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act;
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
hereby support the passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020 and hereby direct
the Chair to have sent a copy of this Resolution and a letter to both North Carolina United
States Senators encouraging them to support the passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Act of 2020; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of
the people of Orange County, does hereby commemorate the fifty-fifth anniversary of the
signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in so doing, acknowledge the sacrifices made in
order to establish and maintain full and equal rights for all citizens of the United States.
This the 1 sc day of September, 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
approve the Resolution and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Proclamation.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Orange County Preparedness Month Proclamation
The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation declaring September 2020 as
"Orange County Preparedness Month".
Dinah Jeffries, Emergency Services Director, said Kirby Saunders, Emergency
Management Coordinator, is on parental leave
Sasha Godwin, Emergency Management Planner, was recognized
Sarah Pickhardt, Interim Emergency Management Coordinator, made the following
presentation.
BACKGROUND:
24
National Preparedness Month is recognized each September to promote family and community
disaster planning now and throughout the year. The theme of this year's National Preparedness
Month is "Disasters Don't Wait. Make your plan today."
North Carolina has experienced an unusually high volume of disasters this year, to include the
ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes. To date, Orange
County has experienced over 30 watches and warnings issued by the National Weather Service
for severe weather, flooding, and tornadic activity. The Orange County Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) has set records for activation length this year at well over 200 days. The EOC
remains activated to respond to the ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic as well as monitor for
potential threats from the 2020 hurricane season, which is predicted to be extremely active.
Sarah Pickhardt read the proclamation.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION
Orange County Preparedness Month
September 2020
WHEREAS, it is critical for every community, business, family, and individual in Orange County
to be prepared for natural and man-made disasters, including tornadoes, flooding, and
hurricanes, as well as disease outbreaks like COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, Orange County has seen a high activity of severe weather during 2019, with the
National Weather Service issuing 23 Severe Thunderstorm Warnings, two Flash Flood
Warnings, one Flood Warning, and eight Tornado Warnings; and
WHEREAS, Orange County experienced an estimated $2.1 million in estimated damages from
severe weather in 2019; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, Hurricane Florence brought significant rainfall in September, followed by
Tropical Storm Michael in October, and both storms caused widespread power outages and
flooding, with Florence resulting in more than $26 million in damages while Michael exceeded
$500,000; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners declared a
State of Emergency to coordinate the County's response and protective actions to address the
COVID-19 public health emergency and provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the
Orange County community; and
WHEREAS, community members can take a few simple steps— creating an emergency supply
kit, making a family disaster plan, and staying informed —to help make preparedness a personal
responsibility and improved health a priority in our community; and
WHEREAS, Orange County Emergency Services Emergency Management Division, along with
emergency managers throughout the nation, have collaborated to recognize September as
National Preparedness Month, and encourage Orange County community members to stay
informed and prepared;
25
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, do hereby
declare September 2020 as "Orange County Preparedness Month."
This the 1 sc Day of September 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the Proclamation and authorize the Board Chair to sign it.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Update on COVID-19 Response and Funding Allocations
The Board received an update on the County's response to the COVID-19 pandemic
with a focus on the use of supplemental State and Federal funding.
BACKGROUND:
Since March, all County operations have been adjusted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
County employees have been asked to work from home if possible, and those employees who
are reporting to a physical work location are providing services using new protocols and
procedures to minimize person to person contact and avoid potential exposure to COVID-19. A
summary of the current operational status for each County department is included as
Attachment 1.
The Health Department has guided the County's response efforts. At a policy level, the Health
Department has provided recommendations on local regulations, general public health
protocols, personal protective equipment, and re-opening strategies. At the clinical level, the
Health Department has executed communicable disease protocols and case investigations and
organized community testing events. The Department has led the County's public information
and education campaign by producing daily text messages and social media content,
maintaining a Countywide website and dashboard, and issuing weekly newsletters.
The Emergency Services Department has coordinated emergency support functions through the
Emergency Operations Center. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) has been activated
on a continuous basis since March 9, 2020. The EOC has responded to over 1,012 resource
requests from municipal and community organizations and provided over 121,000 items.
Emergency Services has also facilitated daily briefings for key staff members, organized a multi-
jurisdictional information sharing meeting, and through the Emergency Support Functions, the
Department has supported direct services related to food distribution, community testing, hotel
occupancy for the homeless population, and continues to track, report, and request federal
reimbursement for related expenses through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
This update focuses on the application of supplemental State and Federal resources designed to
respond to the pandemic. These allocations are included in Budget Amendment #1 which is on
the consent agenda for the September 1 meeting. This report does not include direct COVID-19
related expenditures for which reimbursement is expected through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
26
CARES Act Funds Allocated by the County
The County received two funding allocations through the Corona Virus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act or CARES Act. CARES Act funds were distributed to counties based on
population. CARES Act funding must be used to fund expenses directly related to the County's
response to the pandemic. These funds cannot be used to supplant currently budgeted
expenses or to replace revenues such as sales tax or occupancy tax that have suffered as a
result of the pandemic. The CARES Act funds must be used by December 31, 2020, or they will
be reverted to the State.
Orange County's allocation in each round of funding was $2,665,753 and $2,881,614 for
a total of$5,547,367. Of that total amount, the County retained $3.2 million while $2.3 million
was distributed to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane based on a per capita
allocation.
For the first round of funding, the Towns submitted requests for the use of funds to the
County. In general, approximately $400,000 was used for emergency housing assistance,
$600,000 was allocated to personal protective equipment, $500,000 was allocated to personnel
expenses, and the remaining amount for technology to support remote working and economic
support to local businesses. For the second round of funding, municipalities are required to
report their use of funds to the County by the end of August.
Approximately $1.4 million or 42% of the County's total CARES Act allocation is dedicated to
support housing needs and prevent evictions and foreclosures.
• Another $1.2 million or 36% is being used to protect employees and facilitate remote work.
• The remaining funds are allocated to other services directly impacted by the pandemic
including: o Assisting residents who must navigate the Courthouse under new safety
protocols and access community services differently,
• Acquiring and distributing food, including locally raised dairy and produce products,
• Supporting childcare and reemployment services,
• Reimbursing the County for employee leave time taken by employees who are required to
isolate or quarantine,
• Reimagining and producing tourism and marketing materials in response to changing travel
restrictions and preferences,
• Supplementing the revaluation effort that was delayed during stay at home orders, and
• Funding consulting services to plan for the County's long term recovery and resiliency.
COVID-19 Related Funds Awarded to Specific Programs
In addition to the CARES Act funding directed to the County for local distribution decisions, other
CARES Act or Corona Virus related funding has been directed to specific County functions:
• The Department on Aging received an additional $200,000 from the Area Agency on Aging
for food distribution programs.
• The Board of Elections received $153,766 to prepare for and respond to impact of COVID-
19 on the 2020 election cycle. These efforts include cleaning and sanitizing polling places
and supporting an anticipated increase in mail-in ballots.
• The Partnership to End Homelessness was awarded a COVID-19 Emergency Solutions
Grant to hire a 1.0 FTE Rapid Rehousing Case Manager to expedite permanent housing
solutions for residents who are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless. The grant runs
through June 30, 2022.
• The Partnership to End Homelessness and the Criminal Justice Resource Department were
awarded an additional COVID related Emergency Solutions Grant to implement a Harm
Reduction and Street Outreach program.These funds will support a 1.0 FTE Harm Reduction
27
Clinical Coordinator and 2.0 FTE Peer Specialists. These positions are designed to serve
individuals in the community who are experiencing homelessness and/or behavioral health
issues. The program is intended to increase access to housing, provide consistent case
management, address individual clinical needs, increase deflection from the criminal justice
system, and facilitate the transition into housing and community-based treatment programs.
This grant runs through June 30, 2022 and fills a long standing gap in the homeless service
system.
• The Department of Social Services received supplemental funding to support staffing needs
in child and adult protective services. This $66,787 award adds 3.0 FTE for six months
ending on December 31, 2020.
• The Health Department has received a total of$298,647 to hire additional case
investigators, COVID-19 testing technicians, and a temporary data analyst to monitor,
analyze, and report on COVID-19 statistics and trends.
County Economic Development Funds
Finally, the County has consolidated and reallocated small business funds to create an
Emergency Small Business Loan and Grant Program. This program has opened for two rounds
of applications and has awarded a total of$135,000 in loans and $385,000 in grants to 78 small
businesses located in Orange County. The program has a balance of$329,583.
Budget Amendment#1 proposes to reallocate $50,000 of that balance to the Arts
Commission to fund a supplemental grant program for arts organizations. The County and its
community and municipal partners are also conducting an economic impact assessment and
will use the results of that survey to recommend further distribution of funds consistent with the
needs expressed in the survey. Survey results will be available in early September.
Long Term Recovery Planning
Although the response effort to COVID-19 is ongoing, the County and its municipal
partners have allocated a total of$175,000 to retain a consultant to support long term recovery
planning. As part of the effort, the County has organized over 150 community organizations and
representatives to help create recommendations that will promote an expeditious and long term
recovery and improve resiliency. These organizations are organized into seven Recovery
Support Functions focused on the local economy, the health system, human services, housing,
natural and cultural resources, community planning, and public information. With the assistance
of the consulting group, these support functions are being asked to characterize and quantify
the impact of the pandemic, create a framework for building recovery strategies and priorities
using a social justice and racial equity perspective, and develop strategies for consideration by
local governing boards for consideration and implementation.
The Recovery Support Functions had an initial orientation and convening over the
summer. These groups are now meeting individually. An economic impact assessment survey
has been distributed to the business community. This survey is open until the end of August. A
public values survey is currently under development and will be distributed in early September
that will offer additional community context for the work of the Recovery Support Functions. The
first work product, an initial COVID-19 Impact Assessment is due in the coming weeks. Final
work products, including recommendations, will be presented to local governing boards in early
2021.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The County has received a total of$6.4 million in COVID-19 related funding as of the end of
August.
Quintana Stewart, Orange County Health Director, reported the following information:
28
• 2,305 confirmed lab cases as of today
• Actively monitoring 135 cases
Total of 50 deaths
As of 8/26 37,705 people tested (25% of County population)
• Percent Postive 12.4% last week, going down to 10% as of today. Goal is 5% or less.
• Orange County received additional testing from "Star Med," who is holding testing events
around the County.
Plan to hosting testing events weekly in various locations.
• Plan to have a consistent test site in Hillsborough once a month
• Governor's briefing has changed these plans and 2 mass-event testing sites will be
required weekly.
Quintana Stewart said the CDC put out a new recommendation last week stating that
those asymptomatic people who have had close contact with a COVID positive patient, do not
need to be tested. She said Orange County is not adhering to that, and will continue to test
those who have been in close contact with a COVID positive patient, whether symptomatic or
asymptomatic.
Quintana Stewart summarized today's Governor's briefing: all are still safer at home, but
phase 2.5 will take effect on 9/4/20 at 5:00 p.m. She said many of the state percentages are
declining, but remain too high and the state will not yet enter into phase 3. She said the
Governor changed mass gathering limits: indoors is 25 (opposed to 10), and outdoors is 50
(opposed to 25). She said play grounds are now open; museums can open 50% capacity;
gyms, bowling allies may open at 50% capacity; and bars and night clubs, amusement parks will
still remain closed— large venues are still subject to the mass gathering limits. She said skilled
nursing homes and facilities can now have outdoor visitation, as long as the facility is not in a
current outbreak status, and has a testing plan in place.
Chair Rich said Orange County's order is slightly different from the Governors order.
She said she spoke to the Mayors, and they will determine how closely to align to the
Governor's order. She said the goal is to align the order with the Governor's so it does not
confuse people, but tailgating is one area of concern.
Chair Rich said Orange County is one of the lowest in the state, and the return of the
UNC students caused a spike.
Commissioner Marcoplos thanked Quintana Stewart for her leadership and masterful
communication with UNC. He said she saved a lot of people from getting sick.
Commissioner McKee thanked Quintana Stewart for setting up a testing site at the
northern side of the County. He asked if the percentage rate was lower prior to UNC student
returning.
Quintana Stewart said confirmed cases were at 2.4% prior to the return of UNC
students.
Commissioner Price thanked Quintana Stewart and Chair Rich for all their work.
Commissioner Dorosin echoed everyone's high praise. He said he has heard concerns
about students whose homes are outside of Orange County and test positive, but are not
included in Orange County numbers. He asked if this is accurate, and will Orange County know
of these numbers, especially if students are remain here in off campus housing.
Quintana Stewart said initial student test results go to their home county. She said all
students signed an agreement, prior to returning to school, that they would report their cases to
Campus Health. She said students have cooperated. She said the Health Department gets the
numbers from campus health first, and does also eventually get the numbers transferred back
from the home county.
29
Commissioner Dorosin asked if a student lives off campus in Carrboro, is that the same
process. He asked if the result would go to Duplin County, for example, and then be sent back
to Orange County.
Quintana Stewart said possibly. She said most students that live off campus will list their
local off campus address as their residence. She said the bulk of the students whose results
are going back to their home county are undergraduates.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the daily totals are regularly updated to included even
those students whose results are initially sent to an alternate home county.
Quintana Stewart said yes.
Chair Rich said this is a great question, and sometimes numbers do not align, and this is
the reason why.
Commissioner Greene asked if on campus students' results are counted in Orange
County numbers.
Quintana Stewart said yes, it shows up on the UNC dashboard immediately, and will
eventually show up as an Orange County positive.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the Health Department had considered holding a
testing event in the White Cross area (southwest rural part of the County).
Chair Rich thanked Quintana Stewart for the update.
Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
CARES Act Funding Impacts
September 1,2020
Virtual Meeting
Summary of CARES Act Funds
Como-V 7 e,Rellel end E l m S—rftyAd[CARES Arty
7,1
oaa��s cou�Tv
Building Modifications,Signage,
Sanitation
• TotalMbratlon-i580,600
--`p�ef:WalCanry Fxifes
-:'aiavonofWvg Heucs-E19],000
fi dgsatlfbl�
ixnc bvnaiatu suems-j.E`Fm
a ORAfJ�E COUNTY
30
Building Modifications,Signage,
Sanitation
J-t-Ce t"
�R4NGE CCUNTY
Building Modifications,Signage,
Sanitation
• Planning end lnspeclbns
A
r
ORANGE CCUMY
Building Modifications,Signage,
Sanitation
. slg�sye
SIX FENTA
APA M
ORANGE COIJMY
Employee Support
• TotelNbwtion-5503,143
-Peasrnal Pntxtix Eq�ipmemtFPE�
-smcanp-e�yby�womre xmery
-Fmpamt�rm.exMm
ORWJGE COUNTY
Employee Support
ORANGE CIX Y
31
Court Navigation
Ha�abr a��m�,��reg�a®�r���a�mzm
-E�nol�o�yo�
s oaa��s mu�Tv
Human Services
-EooEAcgnabnaM os�nu<bn-alo5.o00
-ra®rpoyrarcse.�-�®
wr9wrr-sr5®
n ORAN61doli JTY
Housing
-42%ct T.IA t.unty Funtls Allocatetlto Housng Inte—i-n ne
-EmegenW Ha'�n9�`-Ynce b1253]38
LaMbN lncen br.5 b�,eDe
-LpalCaunuel br Etiabn Prevembn b115.59]
CeMraf¢d M1u ._Gls aiM Enais by Yoilr
-Cunl]rtle Pmgan Pdr�ri9ratior
o.ns Corhi.rd®-j4I®bPmmi5rabn `�-
ORANGE CWFItt
Emergency Housing Assistance
-Unique HouseholdsSmed
M�ae1wM���E�A byiih
1.2p..
z ORANGE COUNTY
Emergency Housing Assistance
-Income and Demographics of Households 3-ed
wAbynmre le.el EHAby ancerE —ty
WrilnexovxhoYs
Ow+.NGE CWNTY
32
Emergency Housing Assistance
-Amu nt ofAssistance bl Month
EHAMW lli
W"
i OKeNGE COUNTY
Emergency Housing Assistance
-Amount of Assistance by Location and Purpose
EH by Ju n iction EHA by Purpose
Gx--
s ORANGE CmOVNTY
Long Term Recovery Planning
-How Does the Community Recover,Transform,and Thrive?
-Funded through Multijurisdictional Partnership-$175,000
Per CepEsamrafms
County.Shsre-$101,500
-Gommunitywide Partiapatian
•150 CommuniTyMembers antl Organizations Representetl
•Oryenizetl in Recovery Suppotl Funtlions
-Social Justice and Racial Equity Focus
GFRE Team Members Representetl on E a&Recovery Support Furdbn
0 MGECOUNrI'
Long Term Recovery Planning
® ® 0
0
oluM��couNn
33
Long Term Recovery Planning
a 0=AIL°Wf7Y
Commissioner Price stated her questions were in a different report. She asked if the
Meals on Wheels program is taking care of any gaps within food distribution.
Travis Myren said yes, Meals on Wheels has been very active.
Commissioner Price referred to housing community and development, and said the link
is rather indirect. She asked if staff would look into this.
Travis Myren said yes.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 22 (electronic version), under the County
Economic Development Funds, and said there is a balance of-$325,000 in Emergency Loans
and Grants program. He asked if the plan is to give those funds out, continuing on a rolling
basis. He asked if these funds are being publicized.
Travis Myren said the County is distributing the funds in rounds, and has already gone
through two rounds. He said a third round would have to be opened to distribute more funds.
He said, of the remaining balance, $50,000 is recommended to fund an Arts support program,
since they did not apply for the small business grants program. He said the Economic Impact
survey has been distributed to the private sector, and about 300 responses have been received.
He said staff recommends using this data to create and execute a round 3 distribution.
Commissioner Dorosin encouraged the County to keep moving forward and get the
funds into people's hands as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Dorosin said the report notes a plan to use $175,000 to hire a consultant
to help with long term recovery plans, but this evening's presentation intimated that these funds
would be used for the actual recovery process. He asked if staff could clarify, as the County
has a recovery coordinator.
Travis Myren said the County does not have a recovery coordinator, and these funds
have been used to hire Haggerty Consulting to project manage the recovery support functions.
He said this consultant will serve in the long term recovery coordinator position.
Commissioner Dorosin pointed out a line item that has -$105,000 allocated to a
recovery coordinator.
Travis Myren said this is one and the same with the Consulting firm, and he apologized
for the confusion. He said the County has paid -$105,000 towards the total $175,000 and the
Towns will pay the balance.
5. Public Hearings
a. NCDOT Public Transportation Division/Public Transportation - 5307 Urbanized
Area Formula Grant Applications for FY2021
The Board held a public hearing on the North Carolina Urbanized Area Formula grant
application by Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS)for FY2021. In addition, the
Board considered to:
34
• Approve the grant application which includes the resolution previously adopted by the
Board authorizing the applicant to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT); and
• Authorize the County Attorney to review and complete the necessary 2021 certifications
and assurances when they are received (2020 versions attached as examples).
Theo Letman, Transportation Services Director, reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the NCDOT Public Transportation Division accepts requests for operations and
administrative needs for county-operated Urbanized Area Formula Grant applications. OCTS is
eligible to make an application for both operations and administrative funding. NCDOT has
allotted $580,654 in funds, to be divided between State funding of$290,327 and local funding of
$290,327. Article 43 Transit Tax proceeds will cover the required local match, and will propose
the allocation of these funds in a future Budget Amendment for consideration by the Board of
Commissioners.
Commissioner Price asked if the Department of Transportation (DOT) allotted $580,654,
with the State giving half and the County giving half. She asked if clarification could be
provided.
Theo Letman said the total grant application amount is $580,654, with 50% coming from
Federal funds, and 50% coming from State/local funds.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
open the public hearing.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
close the public hearing.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to:
• Approve the Urbanized Area Formula Grant application for FY2021 in the total amount of
$580,654 with a local match total of$290,327 to be provided when necessary;
• Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Local Share Certification for Funding form;
and
• Authorize the County Attorney to review and complete the necessary 2021 certifications
and assurances when they are received (2020 versions attached as examples).
35
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments— Clarification of
Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir
The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation and prior public
comment, and consider action on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) text amendments revising/updating existing guidelines associated with the enforcement
of reservoir setbacks for structures and septic systems.
NOTE: This item was continued on April 7, 2020 to this date due to COVID. Staff(including the
Planning Director) provided requested information to BOCC within a few weeks of the original
item to clarify the amendment. Specifically, the amendment seeks to establish the effective date
for the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir. If approved, the amendment will create
an exemption for parcels and development (i.e. structures and septic systems) established prior
to the creation/expansion of the reservoir, specifically February 12, 1997.
The amendment also updates existing references to the final normal pool elevation (NPE) of the
reservoir, which according to the Town of Hillsborough is going to be 642 feet. In the summer of
2019, the Town indicated the NPE for the reservoir was going to be 643.9 feet and staff
proceeded with an amendment based on this information. After being notified of the updated
NPE, the amendment now references a NPE of 642 feet.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning
Supervisor, made the following presentation.
BACKGROUND:
Section 6.13.4 Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts of the UDO
establishes a 150 ft. wide setback around reservoirs. This area is intended to be left in an
undeveloped state. Additionally, Section 4.2.9 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities of the
UDO establishes a 300 ft. setback for septic tanks from a reservoir.
Section 4.2.2, specifically subsections (F) through (1), of the UDO establishes the applicability of
watershed protection standards including establishing criteria defining those properties
(developed and undeveloped) considered to be 'grandfathered' with respect to applicable buffer
(i.e. stream and reservoir) standards.
In the 1990's The Town of Hillsborough began the necessary permitting processes at the State
level to construct the West Fork on the Eno reservoir within the Cedar Grove Township of the
county.
Work was broken down into two phases, with Phase 1 including the Town purchasing property
to expand the reservoir. The final boundary of the reservoir was established on February 11,
1997 with the recording of plats within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting
the Town's purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno. Attachment 1 contains maps
of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the
aforementioned 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas.
36
Phase 2 of the project involves the actual clearing of property and expanding the existing NPE
of the reservoir. The Town has already begun Phase 2 of the project, including land clearing
and increasing the elevation of the dam.
While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the
actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback could still potentially impact adjacent parcels of
property. Adjacent property owners have expressed concern the UDO does not specifically
reference the expansion of the reservoir, thereby making their properties potentially
nonconforming to applicable watershed management regulations (i.e. required reservoir
setbacks).
In an effort to address this concern, staff proposed a text amendment (Attachment 6) to
reference the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno from the date the Town secured property
allowing for the approved expansion. In consultation with the County Attorney's Office, staff has
determined this date is February 12, 1997. While property owners are still required to abide by
applicable setbacks per Section(s)4.2.9 and 6.13.4 of the UDO, owners will have greater
latitude in demonstrating compliance with applicable standards. This amendment will not
necessarily allow for additional development of structures closer to the actual reservoir. It will,
however, recognize the conforming status of existing development and not arbitrarily make
same non-conforming. The status can be important with respect to property transactions and
mortgage applications.
This proposal was reviewed at the November 6, 2019 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
meeting. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 2.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `...
cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners'. The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the
UDO relating to the definition of what constitutes `existing lots' and/or `existing development'
with respect to compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks. This amendment should likely
have been completed in 1997 when the Town was purchasing property to establish the
reservoir.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its February 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the proposed
UDO Text Amendment. Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting, as well as the Planning
Board's signed Statement of Consistency, are included in Attachment 3.
Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at:
https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
It should be noted the amendment presented to the Planning Board referenced changing the
NPE for the West Fork on the Eno from 643 feet to 643.9 feet. This was based on data from the
Town. The amendment package now reflects the Town's corrected NPE for the reservoir of 642
feet resulting in a slight the reduction in the 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas
around the reservoir.
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 5, and the UDO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 6.
37
As a reminder, staff was directed to provide additional information related to development
opportunities and constraints for a parcel of property located at 2520 Carr Store Road (PIN
9848-51-5777) owned by Mr. Robert Bush and Ms. Tabetha Trogdon. This information, supplied
at the original public hearing, is contained within Attachment 8.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of
County services. Existing staff, included in the Departmental staffing budget, will accomplish the
work required to process this amendment.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 11 in the electronic documents, and asked if the
difference between 4.2.2.f (regarding existing developments) and 4.2.2.i. (regarding existing
lots) could be clarified.
Craig Benedict said one has to do with a lot that was created, and does not need a
house at all. He said "existing lot" has to do with a lot of record, which has abilities to be
developed at a later time. He said, "existing development" does have a house on the land, and
what can be done with it (expansion, additional bedroom, etc.).
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the February 1997 date applies to both.
Craig Benedict said yes.
Commissioner Greene said she was one of the Commissioners that was not ready to
vote last time, but she is now satisfied that all is fine.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the LIDO Text Amendment
(Attachment 6).
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Resolution to Adopt Juneteenth as a County Holiday
The Board considered voting to adopt Juneteenth as a paid holiday for Orange County
Government thus providing an opportunity to cherish freedom, but also poignantly acknowledge
the history of slavery in the country.
BACKGROUND:
Many people in the United States recognize Juneteenth as the holiday that celebrates
Emancipation Day, the day in history when the last state ratified the Emancipation Proclamation.
This date marks the time when African Americans in Texas received notice from President
Abraham Lincoln that slavery had been abolished, a declaration that was codified in the 131n
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. June 19th also marks the day
that African Americans in the southern states exercised independence from those who
benefitted from their labors in the founding of this nation.
The journey of African Americans represents both great achievements and great hardship, and
the nation continues to witness the injustice of the African American journey. This injustice has
existed far too long. This Juneteenth celebration weighs heavily on hearts and minds in the
aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and is a reminder of others who have not
been treated equally under the law.
38
The Governor of the State of North Carolina encourages people to observe Juneteenth as an
opportunity to reflect, rejoice, and plan for a brighter future as society continues to address
racial injustices. Juneteenth is not a federal holiday, but many states and the District of
Columbia recognize it as a state or ceremonial holiday.
Juneteenth will be observed on June 1911 each year. If June 1911 falls on a Saturday, the holiday
will be observed on Friday, June 1811, and if June 191n falls on a Sunday, the holiday will be
observed on June 20tn
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total annual cost for FY2020-2021 for permanent salaries, social security, Medicare and
retirement is $63,733,708. A daily cost of$245,129. The financial impact of adding an extra
holiday (changing from a regular workday to a holiday) is on average approximately $61,000.
Commissioner Price read the resolution:
RES-2020-045
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING JUNETEENTH AS AN
OFFICIAL COUNTY PAID HOLIDAY
WHEREAS, on January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation, a document that declared: "all persons held as slaves within any State or
designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United
States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;" and
WHEREAS, the Emancipation Proclamation, primarily a wartime measure, intentionally
excluded people in the slave-holding border-states and the areas of the Confederacy that
already had come under Union control; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to United States General
Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Court House in Virginia, and on April 26, 1865, US Major-
General W. T. Sherman and General Joseph E. Johnston finalized the terms of surrender at the
Bennett Farm House in Orange County [now Durham]; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger was given command of the
Department of Texas, and on June 19, 1865, two and one-half years after the signing of the
Emancipation Proclamation, the Union soldiers led by Major General Granger arrived at
Galveston, Texas with the long-awaited news that the Civil War had ended and that enslaved
people were now free; and
WHEREAS, upon his arrival in Galveston, Major General Granger read General Order Number
3, which began: "The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from
the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of
rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore
existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer"; and
39
WHEREAS, Juneteenth — also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and
Emancipation Day— has become a special day among African Americans to celebrate the day
when all the enslaved sons and daughters of Africa in America realized their freedom; and
WHEREAS, only the State of Texas currently recognizes Juneteenth as an official state holiday;
and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue proclaimed the observance of
Juneteenth in North Carolina, and on June 19, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper proclaimed
Juneteenth Day in North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, members of the United States Congress, including Senator Kamala Harris of
California and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, recently have introduced legislation to
recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners hereby designates Juneteenth as an official County paid holiday, thus providing
the opportunity for employees and the community-at large to join together with the descendants
of enslaved Africans to observe the end of slavery and the liberation of all people in the United
States of America; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners urges state
and federal legislators to sponsor legislation making Juneteenth an official state and federal
holiday; and
BE IT MOREOVER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners directs the
Clerk to the Board's Office to forward a copy of this resolution to the Chapel Hill Town Council,
the Carrboro Town Council, the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Carrboro
City Schools Board of Education, and the Orange County Schools Board of Education.
This, the 1st Day of September 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proposed Resolution recognizing June 19,
Juneteenth, as a paid holiday for Orange County government employees effective upon
approval by the Board, and approve the attached revision to Article IV— Employee Benefits
Section 28-33 — Holidays and Holiday Pay of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.
Chair Rich requested that the Board send this item to all County Clerks in North
Carolina.
Commissioner Marcoplos requested that a copy be sent to the City of Mebane.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Travis Myren requested that the Board specifically authorize the approval of the code of
ordinances for employees.
40
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the attached revision to Article IV— Employee Benefits Section 28-33 — Holidays and
Holiday Pay of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Veterans Memorial Construction Approval
The Board considered reviewing and approving the certified budget and project design
for Phase II of the Veterans Memorial project at the Southern Campus; authorize construction of
the project; authorize the County Manager to sign the construction contract and any
amendments/change orders up to the $137,542 budgeted amount; and review and authorize the
County Manager to sign the Ownership, Operations and Maintenance Agreement.
Steve Arndt, Asset Management Director, reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND: Over the past several years, interested Orange County residents and
supporters have organized in an effort to raise funds for the construction of a Veterans Memorial
to honor the contributions and service of Orange County military veterans.
At the May 5, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Business meeting, the board voted to:
1) Approve the site for a Veterans Memorial on the former Hoyle home site at the Southern
campus.
2) Authorize the Manager and staff to participate in the ongoing project planning process.
3) Reserve the right of final construction approval contingent upon Board approval of:
a) Ownership of the Memorial
b) Design
c) Budget and certification of adequate development and construction funds raised; and
d) Ongoing operations and maintenance agreement for the Memorial.
Phase I of the project was completed in 2016 at a cost of$13,000. It was comprised of an
information kiosk, gravel path and a temporary, telescoping flag pole.
Over the past five years, fundraising efforts have progressed and funds accumulated now total
$137,542. Attachment 1 provides a certification of adequate development and construction
funds.
Swanson &Associates, a local Landscape Architecture firm, prepared design drawings for a
flagpole, concrete and stone plaza and stone bench that would comprise Phase 11 of the
memorial. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the design.
The project was placed out to bid in early October 2019 and bids were opened on October 15,
2019. Unfortunately, the apparent low bid received was $232,425. Subsequent value
engineering efforts failed to reconcile the difference between available funding and the
scope/cost of work. The architect then revised the design and on April 30, 2020, obtained two
additional quotes with the low bidder, Custom Stone NC provided a quote of$98,000. The
architect received a separate quote of$10,000 for associated electrical lighting.
Attachment 3 is an agreement for the Ownership, Operations and Maintenance of the Veterans
Memorial. The agreement stipulates that upon completion of construction, the Memorial will
41
become the property of Orange County and the County will be responsible for operations and
maintenance of the Memorial and surrounding site. The agreement also requires the Orange
County Veterans Memorial, Inc. to provide Orange County with $500/year for ongoing
maintenance and upkeep of the Memorial.
Bruce Runberg, Veterans' Memorial Co-Chair, said this has been a wonderful
partnership. He said the contractor has proposed a very reasonable fee for the project, and the
committee is eager to proceed. He said the site will be beautiful, and he thanked the
Commissioners for their support.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to:
1) Approve the certified budget and project design (Attachment 2)for Phase 11
of the Veterans Memorial project at the Southern Campus;
2) Authorize construction of the project, and authorize the County Manager to sign the
construction contract and any amendments/change orders up to the $137,542 budgeted
amount; and
3) Authorize the County Manager to sign the Ownership, Operations and
Maintenance Agreement (Attachment 3).
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Greene thanked Bruce Runberg and James Merritt for their ongoing time
and investment in this project.
d. Discussion Regarding the Recital of the Pledge of Allegiance at Board of
Commissioners' Meetings
The Board considered the recital of the Pledge of allegiance at Board of County
Commissioners' meetings.
Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Commissioners has previously received petitions requesting that the Board
consider reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at all Board meetings. This item responds to those
requests and gives Board members an opportunity to discuss the potential recital of the Pledge
at meetings.
If the Board determines to move forward with reciting the Pledge at some or all meetings, staff
will incorporate the Pledge recital into future meeting agendas as appropriate and will also draft
an amendment to the Board's Rules of Procedure, to be considered at a future meeting, to
formalize the practice.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the potential recital of the Pledge of
Allegiance at Board of Commissioners' meetings and provide any direction to staff as
appropriate.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
42
Riley Ruske read the following comments:
Human beings are imperfect, and thus their actions are imperfect; however human
beings of goodwill and character can achieve great things. 244 years ago, an imperfect, but
courageous, group of men announced the declaration of independence. This started the
journey of the creation of a great nation. 232 years ago that declaration resulted in the
ratification of the Constitution of the United States, and 229 years ago that resulted in the first
10 amendments to the constitution. The continued existence of this nation depends on the
commitment of its citizens to protect and preserve it, and the foundations upon which it stands,
while also constantly working together to improve it. If our citizens no longer fulfill this civic duty,
our nation will flounder and eventually dissolve, as have so many nations throughout history. It
is therefore helpful to continually remind our citizens and government officials of that essential
duty. 78 years ago the US Congress adopted the pledge of allegiance. One year ago the
BOCC was petitioned to recite the pledge of allegiance at every one of its meetings. The words
of the pledge not only remind out citizens and government officials of a civic duty of allegiance,
but also remind us of the aspiration of achieving liberty and justice for all. The meetings of the
BOCC are part of their duty to protect and preserve our nation and its foundations. The
Commissioners' oath of office requires an affirmation of, "that I will support and maintain the
constitution and laws of the United States." In fulfilling that oath, it is appropriate that
Commissioners and citizens, present at those meetings, recite the pledge of allegiance. Let's
start today.
Commissioner McKee said he put forth the petition to have this discussion, and he has a
prepared motion to present, or the BOCC can have a general conversation.
The Board agreed to hear the motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
open the first calendar meeting of the year, usually in late January; the last meeting before the
summer break (mid-June); the first meeting of the fall term (early September), and the
organization meeting (early December) with an invitation for the Commissioners and the
members of the public in attendance to join in the recitation of the pledge of alleigiance, should
they so choose. If approved, this practice would begin after the BOCC discontinues virtual
meetings.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the motion is to recite the pledge four times a year,
because he does not think the BOCC holds an organizational meeting each year, rather only
does so after an election.
Commissioner McKee said the organizational meeting does occur every year.
Commissioner McKee said yes, he would like to recite the pledge four times a year. He
said he sees no need to do so at every meeting, but he feels blessed to live here, and it seems
appropriate to recite the pledge to mark the beginning and end of the BOCC seasons
Commissioner Greene said she supports this motion, and she has been considering that
democracy is at risk currently, and it is important to remember the foundation of the nation. She
said the history of the pledge goes back over 100 years, and was started to teach school
children the importance of liberty and justice for all. She said she is gratified to have learned the
history of the pledge. She said Commissioner McKee's motion is more than reasonable.
Commissioner Marcoplos said his perspective is different, and he sees this as a divisive
power play to get the BOCC to recite the pledge. He said the BOCC works on real issues that
will affect those in the future. He said there is no need to say a few words to communicate any
patriotism, or wear it on one's sleeve, as actions speak much louder. He said this seems like
theatre to him, and the BOCC expresses its patriotism in its very service. He said it is time to
move on.
43
Commissioner McKee said wearing patriotism on one's sleeve would be reciting the
pledge at every meeting, and that is why he is only recommending doing so 4 times a year. He
said the pledge holds meaning for him. He said he is not forcing anyone to recite it, as his
motion specifically says doing so is optional. He said he does not disparage anyone who
chooses not to recite it.
Chair Rich stated that Commissioner Price asked if staff would look at how other local
boards handle the recitation of the pledge, and staff discovered that no other local board does
so.
Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates the conversation, and has thought a lot
about this topic. He said he, too, is grateful to live in this country, and takes his obligations to
the Board and the County very seriously. He said foremost among the rights given by the
constitution is the right to dissent. He said reciting the pledge at BOCC meetings has a
compulsory air to it, and risks alienating those that choose not to do so. He said it would place
pressure on those in attendance to participate. He said when the statement "under God" was
added in 1954, the pledge went from being a secular statement to an endorsement of religion,
and, in his opinion, violated the separation between church and state. He said in 1943, the US
Supreme Court struck down a law compelling students to recite the pledge. He said he feels a
great allegiance to this country, but does not feel residents should be required to make
compulsory pledges.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed completely with Commissioner Dorosin's
comments.
Commissioner Greene said the motion does not require participation, and this will not be
a group of impressionable school children, but rather adults who can do as their hearts convict.
She said reciting the pledge allows a reclaiming of the roots of what this country stands for. She
said the pledge should not have been captured by the right in culture wars, and her position is
unchanged.
Commissioner Price said she can go either way, and she has never felt compelled to say
the pledge. She said she has never experienced stigma for not reciting the pledge, and she
feels Commissioner McKee's proposal is a compromise. She said North Carolina Association of
County Commissioners (NCACC), National Association of Counties (NACo) meetings and
Democratic Party meetings start with the Pledge.
Commissioner Bedford said she is torn. She said the original presentation of this item
had an air of shame about it, but the current motion is a compromise. She said she would recite
the pledge, but would do so on her own.
Commissioner Rich said she is not one that supports saying the Pledge of Allegiance,
and has often felt judged for not doing so. She said the addition of"under God" made it
problematic for her to recite. She said this item was brought to the Board as a scolding, and
she does not like that. She said there is not justice for all in this country, and the pledge is not
changing that. She said she loves her country, but will not support this motion.
Commissioner Greene said there was once a debate over flag burning, and she is happy
to uphold one's right to do so as a matter of political protest. She said the pledge is full of words
that promote unity and aspirational ideals for which the BOCC is fighting.
Commissioner Price said her agreement to compromise was not in support of the
original petitioner, but rather in support of Commissioner McKee's reasonable compromise.
Commissioner Bedford said if this issue is deeply upsetting to some, she would rather
respect that by voting no. She said those in favor of reciting the pledge can do so whenever
they feel moved.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
44
VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Greene); Nays, 5
(Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Marcoplos,
Commissioner Price, and Chair Rich)
MOTION FAILS
7. Reports
None
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
Chair Rich pulled item 8-f.
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Item Removed from the Consent Agenda
f. Chair Rich said more money was requested from the ABC Board than was received.
She said Criminal Justice Resources department was awarded $25,000 from ABC board for
funds, despite requesting $32,500. She asked if Commissioner Dorosin would follow up with
ABC Board as to why the full funding was not received, as he is the BOCC representative to the
ABC Board. She said higher amounts were given in previous years, and she recalls ABC sales
being up this year, and she would like more information.
Commissioner Dorosin said he did not remember this item coming up at an ABC Board
meeting, but he would follow-up.
Chair Rich said the ABC board will provide a final report. She said drug treatment court
is important, and if sales are brisk, the BOCC should pressure the ABC board to give the full
funding. She asked if she can pull 12 out of the amendment. She said the County will take the
$25,000, but she would really like to get the additional amount.
John Roberts said the BOCC can pursue additional funds at any time.
Bonnie Hammersley recommended that the BOCC approve the $25,000, and have the
Chair submit a letter to the ABC Board requesting the additional funds.
Commissioner Dorosin said he supported this approach.
Commissioner Price said the ABC Board has a similar approach to the BOCC for
distributing funds. She asked if elected officials are allowed to vote on the use of these funds.
John Roberts said there is a way to address that, and staff will help work on this.
• Approval of Items Pulled from the Consent Agenda
45
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
approve consent agenda item 8-f, Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment#1.
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the draft minutes from May 28, June 2, June 4, June 9, June 16,
July 7, and July 14, 2020 as submitted by the Deputy Clerk to the Board.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor
vehicle property tax values for six taxpayers with a total of seven bills that will result in a
reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
tax values for forty-eight (48) two taxpayers with a total of fifty-seven (57) bills that will result in a
reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve tax
exemptions/exclusions from ad valorem taxation for twelve (12) bills for the 2020 tax year.
e. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2019-20
The Board received the tax collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent
taxes, approved by resolution the accounting thereof, and approved and approved the Order to
Collect for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, and authorized the Chair to sign the Order.
f. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #1
The Board voted to approve budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments
for fiscal year 2020-21 for Coronavirus Relief Funding; South Orange Fire Service District;
Board of Elections; Small Business Loan Program; Animal Services; Housing and Community
Development; Department of Social Services; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation; Department on Aging; Criminal Justice Resource Department; County
Manager; Library Services; Solid Waste Program Fees; and Health Department.
g. Approval of Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the attached resolution adopting
the Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan as approved by the NC Division of Emergency
Management.
h. Approval of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
The Board approved the Orange County Public Transportation's Agency Safety Plan, a
new requirement for transit agencies and sub-recipients who receive federal funds under the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Urbanized Area Formula Grants, and authorized the
submittal of the Safety Plan to the NC Department of Transportation.
i. Change in BOCC Meetinq Schedule for 2020
The Board approved changes to the Board of Commissioners' meeting calendar for
2020.
j. Performance Agreement Between the Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
The Board approved the 2020-21 performance agreement between the Town of Chapel
Hill and the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau.
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley said there is a work session on September 10.
46
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts said the legislature is returning tomorrow, with the primary stated focus of
COVID relief.
John Roberts referred to the Research Triangle Logistical Park information, which was
discussed at length earlier this evening. He said the BOCC has received a great deal of
information/communication about this topic, some of which is false and inaccurate. He said it is
unusual to have a rezoning project with such community interest, especially prior to the BOCC
even receiving the project materials. He encouraged the Board to keep an open mind.
Commissioner Marcoplos thanked John Roberts for his report. He asked if more
information can be included when notices are sent to neighbors, to better explain the process of
BOCC decisions.
John Roberts said the Planning Department gives much more information than is
required by law in its letters, but he will follow up with the exact details.
Commissioner Marcoplos said perhaps too much information is being sent out.
Bonnie Hammersley said staff is putting together an FAQ.
Travis Myren said it will be ready tomorrow.
Chair Rich said to refer the public to that page.
11. * Appointments
NONE
12. Information Items
• June 16, 2020 and July 14, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions Lists
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
• Memorandum Regarding Nature of Orange Photography Contest
13. Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
to go into closed session "To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character,
fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public
officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee;" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6).
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Board moved into closed session at 11:18 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
return to open session at 12:28 a.m. (September 2, 2020)
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
47
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adjourn the meeting at 12:28 a.m. (September 2, 2020)
Chair Rich asked Commissioners to accept a roll call form of voting and called names
accordingly.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Penny Rich, Chair
Allen Coleman
Assistant Deputy Clerk
Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board.