HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-07-2020; 8-a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 7, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes
DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board,
919-245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Interim Clerk to
the Board as listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
November 5, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting
November 12, 2020 Virtual Work Session
November 17, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY
6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
8 NOVEMBER 5, 2020
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Thursday,
12 November 5, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and
15 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, and Earl
16 McKee
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
20 Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen
21 Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
22
23 Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and asked the Board of County
24 Commissioners (BOCC) to accept a roll call.
25 Roll call ensued.
26
27 Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual
28 Business Meeting on November 5, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated
29 in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and
30 listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on
31 Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
32
33 In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment.
34 . Written submittals by email
35 • Speaking during the virtual meeting
36
37 Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this
38 agenda. (Pre-registration is required.)
39
40 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
41
42 Chair Rich requested to add consent agenda item 8-g to change the 2020 BOCC
43 meeting calendar to allow for an additional closed session on November 12, 2020, to begin at
44 5:30pm.
45 The Board agreed by consensus.
46 Chair Rich noted some additional agenda information that was received by the BOCC
47 prior to the meeting.
48
49 Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting.
50
51 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
2
1
2 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
3
4 Kaye Brown said she wanted to speak about the Buc-ee's travel center, which if
5 approved, would be very close to her horse farm, and a local road would become right turn only.
6 She said she is very concerned about this possibility. She said Buc-ee's will bring a great deal
7 of traffic, and asked if the BOCC and staff would look into this issue very carefully, and consider
8 other areas around the country where Buc-ee's already exists, who are experiencing major
9 traffic problems. She said she expects staff will find that Efland is not the right location for such
10 a project.
11
12 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
13 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
14 below.)
15
16 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
17 Commissioner Bedford said the election was a big event this week, and she expressed
18 appreciation to Rachel Raper, Director of Elections, and all poll workers. She said the election
19 was very peaceful, and reassured residents that insuring an accurate count is normal.
20 Commissioner Greene echoed Commissioner Bedford's comments.
21 Commissioner Price thanked voters for taking time to cast votes.
22 Commissioner Price said a resolution will be forthcoming in December, in partnership
23 with Commissioner Dorosin and Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations Director,
24 regarding reparations.
25 Commissioner McKee endorsed previous comments about voting, and said the right to
26 do so is a precious commodity which must be protected.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos said he had eye surgery today, and will need to rest his eyes
28 periodically during the meeting.
29 Commissioner Dorosin said election sites went well here in Orange County, but it
30 important to remember those that experienced voter intimidation in other areas.
31 Chair Rich said there were a few issues with local voting, causing the Board of Elections
32 to conduct an emergency Board of Elections meeting, and all was addressed very promptly.
33 Chair Rich asked if the Clerk's Office would provide a list of boards and commissions
34 that receive a stipend, and the type of stipend that is received.
35 Chair Rich said studies show a lot of pandemic fatigue, and there is concern that
36 numbers could rise in Orange County. She said the second peak of the pandemic is projected
37 for the second week of December, which is 2 weeks after Thanksgiving. She said COVID
38 testing sites are available and being administered by Orange County and UNC Hospital for free
39 at the current time. She said UNC Hospital announced there would be a hierarchy of how the
40 vaccine will be administered, once it is received. She encouraged residents and staff to look at
41 the COVID data available on the County's website.
42 Chair Rich said UNC will have 100 students on campus over the holidays, as these
43 students have nowhere else to go. She said plans for the spring semester are still fluid at this
44 time, with many options being considered.
45
46 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
47 NONE
48
49 5. Public Hearings
50 NONE
51
3
1 6. Regular Agenda
2
3 a. Approval and Adoption of 2021 Reappraisal Schedule of Values
4 The Board considered voting to approve and adopt the proposed 2021 Schedule of
5 Values, authorizing the Chair to sign the Order of Adoption for the 2021 Schedule of Values,
6 and directing staff to publish the appropriate advertisements.
7
8 Nancy Freeman, Orange County Tax Administrator, reviewed the item below:
9
10 BACKGROUND:
11 The proposed 2021 Schedule of Values was presented to the Board at the September 15, 2020
12 regular meeting. Immediately after, the Tax Administrator advertised in The Herald-Sun, News
13 of Orange and News and Observer notice of the availability of the Schedule of Values for public
14 inspection, and the date of the public hearing on the Schedule of Values. The Board held the
15 public hearing regarding the Schedule of Values on October 6, 2020 regular meeting. These
16 actions were taken in accordance of the North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-317(c)(1)
17 and (2).
18
19 In addition, NCGS 105-317(c)(3) states:
20 "When the board of county commissioners approves the final schedules, standards, and rules, it
21 shall issue an order adopting them. Notice of this order shall be published once a week for four
22 successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the county, with the last
23 publication being not less than seven days before the last day for challenging the validity of the
24 schedules, standards, and rules by appeal to the Property Tax Commission. The notice shall
25 state:
26 a. That the schedules, standards, and rules to be used in the next scheduled reappraisal
27 of real property in the county have been adopted and are open to examination in the
28 office of the assessor; and
29 b. That a property owner who asserts that the schedules, standards, and rules are
30 invalid may except to the order and appeal therefrom to the Property Tax Commission
31 within 30 days of the date when the notice of the order adopting the schedules,
32 standards, and rules was first published."
33
34 The timeline for the 2021 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows:
35 • September 15, 2020: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners
36 • September 16 & 17, 2020: Advertise in newspapers
37 • October 6, 2020: Public hearing on SOV
38 • November 5, 2020: Adoption of SOV
39 • November 8 & 11, 2020: Publish 1st notice of adoption
40 • November 13 & 18, 2020: Publish 2nd notice of adoption
41 • November 20 & 25, 2020: Publish 3rd notice of adoption
42 • November 27, 2020: Publish 4th notice of adoption
43 • December 8, 2020: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV.
44
45 ATTACHMENT 1
46 ORDER ADOPTING THE SCHEDULES OF RULES,
47 STANDARDS AND VALUES FOR MARKET VALUE
48 AND PRESENT-USE VALUE
49
4
1 WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 105-286, all real property in Orange County will be
2 reappraised in accordance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. 105-283 and N.C.G.S. 105-317 as of
3 January 1, 2021; and
4
5 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. 105-317, the Tax Administrator
6 submitted the proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards and Values for Market Value and
7 Present-Use Value to the Board of County Commissioners on September 15, 2020; and
8
9 WHEREAS, notice of submission to the Board of County Commissioners and the date of
10 a required public hearing was advertised in the News of Orange on September 16, 2020, and
11 News and Observer and Herald-Sun and on September 17, 2020; and
12
13 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards and
14 Values was held on October 6, 2020;
15
16 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the submitted Schedules of Rules,
17 Standards and Values to be used in appraising all real property located in Orange County as of
18 January 1, 2021 is hereby adopted. Notice of this order of adoption shall be published once per
19 week for four consecutive weeks in the News of Orange, News and Observer and Herald-Sun.
20 The adopted Schedules of Rules, Standards and Values shall be appealable to the State
21 Property Tax Commission for thirty days, ending December 5, 2020. The adopted Schedules of
22 Rules, Standards and Values is available for public inspection at the Orange County Tax Office,
23 228 S. Churton Street, Hillsborough, NC and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, 300
24 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough; and electronically on the Orange County website.
25
26 So ordered this 5th day of November, 2020.
27
28
29 Penny Rich, Chair
30 Orange County Board of Commissioners
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
33 approve and adopt the 2021 Schedule of Values and, authorize the Chair to sign the Order of
34 Adoption approving the 2021 reappraisal Schedule of Values, and direct staff to publish in the
35 The Herald Sun, News of Orange and News and Observer the proper advertisements
36 concerning the notice of adoption.
37
38 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 b. Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) Funding Recommendations for 2020
43 Affordable Housing Bond Program (RES-2020-067)
44
45 The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution awarding funds for the 2020
46 Affordable Housing Bond Program based on the funding recommendations of the Affordable
47 Housing Advisory Board.
48
49 Erika Brandt, Housing and Community Development Program Manager, reviewed the
50 item below:
5
1
2 BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2016, Orange County voters passed a $5 million Affordable
3 Housing Bond. Half of the bond funds ($2.5 million)were awarded in 2017. The 2020
4 application cycle is for the remaining $2.5 million of the bond funds.
5 Eligible projects are new construction and/or rehabilitation for homeownership and/or rental
6 development affordable to low-income households. Projects may be mixed-use and/or mixed-
7 income. No more than 20% of residential units may be set aside for people with disabilities, in
8 compliance with best practices outlined in the State of North Carolina's Olmstead settlement
9 agreement. Land banking is not an eligible use.
10
11 Eligible applicants for funding are: nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing and
12 community development (including faith-based organizations), for-profit developers, and joint
13 ventures between eligible nonprofit and for-profit entities.
14
15 The application evaluation scorecard (see Attachment 1) considers the following factors for
16 each proposed project: (1) income and vulnerable population targeting, (2) targeting of
17 households currently living and/or working in Orange County, (3) leveraging of other funding
18 sources, (4) building and site design, including environmental sustainability and accessibility
19 features, (5) community design, including neighborhood compatibility and location, (6)
20 community sponsorship, engagement, and support, (7) project feasibility, and (8) developer
21 experience.
22
23 The application cycle opened on June 8, 2020 and closed on July 31, 2020. Four applications
24 were submitted, summarized below and in Attachment 2.
25
26 Weaver's Grove (Habitat for Humanity): $817,080
27 Community Partners: N/A
28 Funds will be used to assist with infrastructure and site improvement costs for Weavers Grove,
29 Habitat's future development of 100 affordable homes off of Sunrise Road in Chapel Hill. Habitat
30 also plans to sell 136 finished lots to market-rate builders to develop entry-level homeownership
31 opportunities. The project's vision is to create a thriving, mixed-income community of homes
32 that are aesthetically pleasing, architecturally integrated, and energy efficient. This would be the
33 first affordable housing development in this section of Chapel Hill.
34
35 Chase Park Apartments Stairwell Rehabilitation (InChuCo): $165,840
36 Community Partners: N/A
37 Funds will be used to make critical repairs to 8 elevated stairwell landings between the upper
38 levels of the 4 residential buildings at Chase Park Apartments, a 45-year old complex home to
39 40 affordable units. The stairwell landings require immediate attention because of their
40 deteriorated condition. Further, heavy rainfall from Hurricanes Michael and Florence damaged
41 the road and now the creek-side lane is closed. However, HUD will not endorse a loan to repair
42 the only road into and out of the complex until the stairwell landings are replaced. The
43 complex's estimated remaining useful life is estimated to be at least an additional 40 years
44 barring any natural disasters
45
46 PEACH Apartments (EmPOWERment, Inc.): $700,000
47 Community Partner(s): Pine Knolls Community Center
48 Funds will be used to construct 8 affordable rental apartments in the Northside Neighborhood
49 Conservation District at the location of the former Pine Knolls Center. This project will produce a
50 mixed-income, multigenerational apartment building that will honor the historical culture of this
51 neighborhood.
6
1
2 2200 Homestead Road (Center for Community Self-Help): $817,080
3 Community Partner(s): CASA, Community Home Trust, Habitat for Humanity
4 Funds will be used to develop infrastructure and site improvements at 2200 Homestead Road to
5 prepare individual parcels for construction of approximately 117 affordable rental and affordable
6 homeownership units. Site development includes demolition of an existing vacant building, site
7 grading and paving, installing water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure, and construction of
8 community amenities, such as greenways, open spaces, sidewalks, outdoor seating, community
9 garden, basketball court, and landscaping throughout the site.
10
11 Applicant Funding Request
12 Center for Community Self-Help $ 1,500,000
13 EmPOWERment, Inc. $ 700,000
14 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County $ 1,500,000
15 Interchurch Council Housing Corp $ 165,840
16 Total $ 3,865,840
17
18 The Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) reviewed the applications for the 2020
19 Affordable Housing Bond Program on August 18, 2020 and scored the applications using the
20 evaluation scorecard approved by the Commissioners earlier this year (see Attachment 3).
21
22 Based on these scores and discussion of the projects, the County Manager proposes the
23 following funding recommendations:
24
25 Applicant Funding Request
26 Center for Community Self-Help $ 817,080
27 EmPOWERment, Inc. $ 700,000
28 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County $ 817,080
29 Interchurch Council Housing Corp $ 165,840
30 Total $ 2,500,000
31
32
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the scorecard in attachment 1 could be explained. He
34 said some agencies received 52 points for leveraging, and this is confusing.
35 Erika Brandt said it is a confusing category title, as it involves other criteria as well. She
36 said maximum points from leveraging is 20, but there are other criteria in that category that can
37 allow for the accrual of points, up to 35.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said those are yes or no questions, and there is no difference
39 between affordability percentages.
40 Erika Brandt said the scorecard is a tool, and certain scores were up to the Affordable
41 Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) members.
42 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a formula for how the cost per unit was
43 calculated.
44 Erika Brandt said the scorecard did not include a scoring for the number of units. She
45 said Allison Mahaley is also present from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
46 Allison Mahaley said each AHAB member scored the applications on his or her own, and
47 then reached consensus as a board for a score for each application. She said there was
48 lengthy discussion.
49 Commissioner Price said in the first section it said agencies could score a maximum of
50 20 for leveraging, but the next page showed another possible 35 points. She said this is
51 confusing.
7
1 Erika Brandt said the total possible points are 32, and some criteria are mutually
2 exclusive.
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT:
5 Delores Bailey said she is so thankful for the emergency housing program. She said
6 EmPOWERment owns 58 affordable housing units throughout Orange County, and all are full.
7 She said EmPOWERment is seeking $700,000 for 10 units. She said EmPOWERment has
8 followed the Board's request and has found a project that collaborates with government land,
9 provides more units, and has funding to leverage. She said this is in partnership with the Pine
10 Knoll community, and is named PEACH. She said all units will be affordable. She said the
11 PEACH apartments are necessary, and the funding is critical.
12 Phillip Walker said he is a lifelong resident of Chapel Hill, and would like to continue to
13 live in Chapel Hill. He said it is very difficult to afford housing here. He said he has worked for
14 the University of Nortn Carolina - Chapel Hill for 11 years, and makes $9.50/hour. He said
15 EmPOWERment has been working with him for 5 years, and an apartment in the PEACH
16 apartments would have huge impact on his life, and that of his 14-year-old son.
17 Dan Levine said he works for Center for Community Self-Help, the lead organization
18 coordinating the Homestead Housing Collaborative. He said he has lived in Orange County for
19 a long time, and sees the need for affordable housing in the area. He said the bond funds have
20 been well used thus far, and he hopes the $1.5 million will be awarded. He said the funds will
21 be stewarded well, and the project will provide the most units to those with the lowest income.
22 He said the full $1.5 million is needed to secure other funding, and fulfill the project. He said the
23 Town of Chapel Hill has provided the land, money, as well as staff support.
24 Douglas Call said he volunteers with Habitat for Humanity, and is pleased that Habitat is
25 recommended for funding, but the funding awarded is only 54% of the request made. He said
26 over the past 3 years Habitat has built over 300 homes, and has expanded its services to
27 include the repair of homes over the past 5 years. He said Weavers Grove in Chapel Hill is
28 Habitat's most ambitious project ever, and will accommodate over 100 families in affordable
29 housing, and 136 families in market rate housing that will be selling for less than median price in
30 the area. He said this affords homeownership to families that may not otherwise be able to
31 achieve it. He said the Orange County Bond award will be well leveraged, since it will lower the
32 per unit cost. He asked the BOCC to raise the award amount to the full request of$1.5 million.
33 Danita Mason-Hogans said the PEACH project will have great impact on many families
34 with deep roots in Chapel Hill. She said her great, great Uncle James Nun was born in 1882
35 and died in 1975. She said her uncle was part of a community in Chapel Hill that has been
36 mistreated for many generations. She said Dolores Bailey's ancestry is also a part of this
37 history. She said Orange County has the largest wealth disparities, and changes must be made
38 to include local people in the conversation. She encouraged the BOCC to change the narrative
39 for those who have needed help for so long.
40 David Bright said he is an EmPOWERment Board member, and expressed thanks to the
41 County for its partnership. He said he sees affordable housing as a way for those who are
42 economically disadvantaged to grow. He said he was also on the Weaver Street Board and
43 heard from employees who struggled to find affordable housing. He said the Pine Knoll
44 community is greatly involved in the PEACH project, and the project will allow those who serve
45 the community to also live in the community. He said 10 units may seem small, but it is not. He
46 said EmPOWERment is financially sound, and is ready for bigger projects.
47 Graham Smokoski said he is with Center for Community Self-Help, and is available for
48 questions.
49 Paris Miller said she is a Board member with EmPOWERment, and voiced her support
50 for the PEACH apartments project. She said EmPOWERment is a small grass roots
8
1 organization that is committed to serving the African American community in Chapel Hill. She
2 echoed comments made by previous speakers in support of this project.
3 Jess Brandes said she is with CASA, and is here to answer questions.
4 Commissioner Bedford said she had a question about the Interchurch Council Housing
5 Corporation request of$165,840. She said the BOCC received a letter from this corporation
6 stating HUD has waived a requirement for stairwells. She asked if this change impacts the
7 funding in any way.
8 Erika Brandt said she is not sure if the project can be deferred. She said staff did look
9 into available County rehab funds, but those have been used up.
10 Chair Rich said the affordable housing bond referendum did not include maintenance
11 funding, and asked if there is a reason the Interchurch Council Housing Corporation was even
12 considered. She said this project does not create any new housing, but rather is for
13 maintenance on 40 existing units.
14 Emila Sutton said she did not really know how to answer that question. She said rehab
15 was included in the first round of funding.
16 Allison Mahaley said the Affordable Housing Advisory Board did discuss this issue, and
17 while no new units will be added, 40 units will be lost if they are not maintained.
18 Commissioner McKee referred to the stairwell upgrades, and said maintenance is vital to
19 the life of properties. He said there will be a health and safety hazard if this maintenance is not
20 completed, and putting some money in now could save far more money in the future.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said he read the bond referendum language more broadly, and it
22 does not clearly state funds must be used for new housing only.
23 Chair Rich asked how the Board wanted to proceed with discussing this item.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said if the leveraging line is removed from the scorecard, then
25 the scores are much closer. He said there is value in leveraging, but that line seems to skew
26 the scores. He said he appreciated the projects proposed and appreciated the advisory boards
27 time and effort in evaluating the projects. He proposed changing the dollar amounts
28 recommended reflecting a reduction from Habitat for Humanity, and an increase in support of
29 the Homestead Road project proposed by Center for Community Self-Help. He said Habitat is
30 home ownership, while the others are rentals. He said the need for affordable rentals is greater.
31 He said Habitat is also involved in the Homestead project, and this project is really quite unique.
32 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Commissioners Dorosin's comments about
33 leveraging. He disagreed with Commissioner Dorosin on moving funds from Habitat for
34 Humanity's home ownership project, as home ownership is one of the best ways to move up the
35 economic ladder. He said the division of funds is equitable and seems sufficient.
36 Commissioner Price asked if staff knows the timeline for building Weavers Grove verses
37 the Homestead Road project.
38 Dan Levine said the hope is to break ground at the end of 2021 on the Homestead Road
39 project.
40 Jennifer Player said the timeline for Weaver's Grove is to clear the site in March of 2021,
41 with vertical construction starting in summer of 2022.
42 Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Dorosin, and said the Homestead
43 Road project is unique and timely. She said home ownership is indeed valuable, but the
44 community has a large need for immediate affordable housing for those who cannot qualify for a
45 mortgage. She said she would like to move some of the Weaver's Grove project to the
46 Homestead Road project.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a painful decision, but there is a great need for
48 rental housing. He said he wishes there could have been more funds on the bond referendum.
49 He said the Homestead Road project is $13,274/unit; EmPOWERment's PEACH project is
50 $87,500/unit; and Habitat's Weaver's Grove is $15,000/unit. He agreed that the stairwell
51 maintenance project is a good investment of funds for the future life of the properties. He said
9
1 he would like more funding to go to the Homestead Road project. He said the EmPOWERment
2 per unit cost is quite high, and should be considered carefully.
3 Commissioner McKee asked Delores Bailey if the number of units increased from 8 to
4 10 units.
5 Delores Bailey said yes.
6 Commissioner McKee said that reduces the cost per unit to $70,000. He said these
7 units are more economical than previous EmPOWERment units. He said EmPOWERment is a
8 completely local effort.
9 Commissioner Bedford referred to the costs per project, and said these reflect the
10 County funding. She said she looked at the total project costs, which removes the leverage
11 component. She said when considering the projects this way, the cost per unit is $185,841 for
12 Homestead Road; $230,000 for EmPOWERment, and $260,000 for Weaver's Grove. She said
13 the Homestead Road project is the lowest cost per unit, and echoed Commissioner Dorosin and
14 Commissioner Greene's comments. She said Homestead Road includes Habitat townhouses,
15 which are for purchase. She said she would fully fund this project for all the aforementioned
16 reasons, as well as the EmPOWERment project, and the stairwell maintenance project.
17 Commissioner Greene asked Allison Mahaley if the AHAB's reasoning for funding 100%
18 of Habitat's request could be identified, as opposed to portions of the other projects.
19 Allison Mahaley said AHAB did not make this recommendation, but rather 100% of
20 EmPOWERment's project; 100% of the stairwell rehab project; and a 50/50 split of the
21 remaining funds between the two other projects. She said AHAB agonized over these
22 applications. She said AHAB funded 100% of EmPOWERment's project due to its alignment
23 with the BOCC's social justice goals, and it being a completely local project.
24 Commissioner Marcoplos said these are County funds, and wants to put as many people
25 as possible under roofs.
26 Chair Rich said a few years ago, former Habitat Director Susan Levy presented a
27 housing community from Virginia to the BOCC that was identical to the Homestead Road
28 project. She said the mixed income housing is valuable, and she thinks the Homestead Road
29 project is important. She said she wishes there was three times the funding available. She said
30 she would like to bring the Habitat project from $817,000 to 500,000 and EmPOWERment
31 project from $700,000 to $500,000, and move the excess funds to the Homestead Road project.
32 She said she would leave the stairwell rehab project in place.
33 Commissioner McKee asked if the impact of removing $317,000 from the Habitat project
34 could be identified.
35 Jennifer Player said the impact would be huge, and 93% is already being leveraged from
36 other sources. She said a reduction in funds would require those funds to be found elsewhere.
37 She said a great deal of private funding is being pursued. She said Habitat is hyper local.
38 Commissioner McKee asked if the impact of removing $200,000 from the
39 EmPOWERment project could be identified.
40 Delores Bailey said removing $200k would be detrimental, as there are no other funding
41 sources available. She said EmPOWERment is small, and cannot compete with larger
42 organizations such as Habitat and Self-Help.
43 Commissioner McKee said he can accept moving funds away from Habitat, but cannot
44 support a request to reduce funding to EmPOWERment.
45 Commissioner Dorosin agreed, and said the Homestead Road and EmPOWERment
46 projects should be fully funded.
47 Commissioner Price said she likes the Homestead Road project, as it brings together so
48 many organizations and provides for great diversity. She said she also wants to support the
49 stairwell repair project and fully support the EmPOWERment project. She said supporting the
50 EmPOWERment project allows the BOCC to show it is serious about social justice. She said
51 she supports Commissioner Dorosin's proposal.
10
1 Commissioner Greene said EmPOWERment has worked hard to bring projects to the
2 table that are viable. She said this project is in Pine Knolls, which has not received as much
3 attention as other historically black neighborhoods, such as Northside. She said it is so difficult
4 to divide these resources.
5 Commissioner Greene asked Delores Bailey if there is an ideal timeline, and what
6 happens if that timeline gets extended due to lack of funding.
7 Delores Bailey said EmPOWERment does affordable rentals really well, and all units are
8 full. She said if funding is delayed, people will go without housing. She said there are no other
9 variables to fall in place, only funding.
10
11
12 RES-2020-067
13 RESOLUTION AWARDING FUNDS FOR THE 2020
14 ORANGE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND PROGRAM
15 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, upon
16 recommendation by the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board, approve the
17 following awards for the 2020 Affordable Housing Bond Program:
18
19 Center for Community Self-Help
20 Funds will be allocated to the Center for Community Self-Help as a grant for development of
21 2200 Homestead Road, a mixed-income rental and homeownership development in Chapel Hill
22 with 113 affordable units and four (4) market-rate units. Affordable units will be leased or sold to
23 households earning less than thirty percent (30%) and up to eighty percent (80%) of the area
24 median income.
25 (Requested amount: $1,500,000) $1,500,000
26
27 EmPOWERment, Inc.
28 Funds will be allocated to EmPOWERment, Inc. as a grant for development of PEACH
29 Apartments, a rental development with eight (8) units on Johnson Street in Carrboro. Units will
30 be leased to households earning less than thirty percent (30%) and up to sixty percent (60%) of
31 the area median income.
32 (Requested amount: $700,000) $700,000
33
34 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County
35 Funds will be allocated to Orange County Habitat for Humanity as a grant for development of
36 Weaver's Grove, a mixed-income, mixed-use homeownership development in Chapel Hill with
37 100 affordable units and 136 lots to be sold for market-rate development. The 100 affordable
38 homes will be sold to households earning between thirty percent (30%) and eighty percent
39 (80%) of the area median income.
40 (Requested amount: $1,500,000) $134,160
41
42 Interchurch Council Housing Corp
43 Funds will be allocated to Interchurch Council Housing Corp as a grant for repair of the stairwell
44 at Chase Park Apartments, an affordable rental property in Chapel Hill with 40 affordable units
45 leased to households earning less than thirty percent (30%) and up to sixty percent (60%) of the
46 area median income.
47 (Requested amount: $1,500,000) $165,840
48
49 This is the 5t" day of November, 2020.
50
51 Penny Rich, Chair
11
1 Orange County Board of Commissioners
2 SEAL
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
5 adopt the resolution awarding funds for the 2020 Affordable Housing Bond Program, and
6 authorize the Board Chair to sign the Resolution.
7
8 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
9
10 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner McKee,
11 Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 2 (Chair Rich and Commissioner
12 Marcoplos)
13
14 MOTION PASSES 5-2
15
16 c. Emergency Housing Assistance Program Update and Request for Supplemental
17 Funding
18 The Board received an update on the work of the Housing Department in pandemic
19 response through the Emergency Housing Assistance fund, and considered voting to approve
20 the transfer of$100,000 from the Local Rent Supplement Program to the Emergency Housing
21 Assistance Program to provide additional funding for ongoing eviction prevention activities that
22 are not eligible costs under other programs.
23
24 Emila Sutton, Director of Housing and Community Development, reviewed the item
25 below:
26
27 BACKGROUND:
28 In March 2020, at the onset of the public health crisis caused by COVID-19 and seeing the need
29 for increased housing assistance for those impacted, the Orange County Housing Department
30 and staff from the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough began discussions on how
31 to combine our existing eviction prevention and housing stabilization efforts to best serve
32 residents. Staff from all jurisdictions agreed that combining existing efforts into one program,
33 with one application process and singular policies, would improve provision of emergency
34 housing assistance throughout the County. The Emergency Housing Assistance program (or
35 "EHA") was created as a result, and Orange County began administering eviction prevention
36 and housing stabilization funds on behalf of the Towns as well as the County (see Attachment
37 1). At the same time, the Department also began managing Coordinated Entry for the
38 community— providing an efficient and evidence-based method of serving those experiencing a
39 housing crisis. The Department renamed and rebranded Coordinated Entry as the "Housing
40 Helpline" so residents more readily understood how assistance could be requested. Both of
41 these programs saw an exponential increase in demand quickly after the pandemic hit, and both
42 programs scaled up quickly in order to meet the increasing demand (see Attachment 2).
43
44 One way the program successfully and quickly scaled up to meet the need was by requesting
45 assistance and partnership from local non-profits. Several organizations stepped up to help, to
46 include El Centro Hispano, Refugee Community Partnership, Community Home Trust,
47 EmPOWERment, and the Community Empowerment Fund, as well as other Orange County
48 Departments such as Family Success Alliance (Health Department), Department on Aging, and
49 Department of Social Services (see Attachment 3).
50
12
1 These rapid collaborative efforts and community partnerships allowed the program to serve
2 people as they presented for assistance through the Housing Helpline and through the partner
3 referral network— and reaching a diverse range of communities to include non-English-speaking
4 households and families with extremely low incomes (see tables below).
5
6 Table 1: EHA Funding by Income Bracket of Beneficiary
7
8
9 AMI 30% 50% 60% 80% Grand Total
10 Amount $1,242,140 $387,497 $56.757 $1,095 $1,687,490
11 Percentage 73.61% 22.96% 3.36% 0.06% 100.00%
12 Client Count 562 171 29 1 748
13 Percentage 75.13% 22.66% 3.88% 0_13% 100.00%
14
15
16 Table 2: EHA Funding by Race/Ethnicity of Beneficiary
17
18 Middle Native Grand
19 RacelEthnicity Unidentified Asian Black Latinx Eastern Multiracial American White Total
20 Amount $594,230 $55,420 $394,514 $460.215 $26.453 $6,088 $8,249 $142.317 $1,687,490
21 Percentage 35.24% a26% 23.36% 27.27% 1.57% 0.36% 0.49% 6.43% 400.00%
22 Client Count 299 26 160 209 9 3 3 62 748
23 Percentage 38.77% 3.48% 21.39% 27.94% 1.20% 0.40% 0.40% 8.29% 100.00%
24
25 Financing History: EHA was seeded with local Orange County funds for Risk Mitigation and
26 Housing Stabilization activities and Town contributions, and later CARES funding from the
27 Towns and County. Due to the high demand for funds caused by the COVID-19 health crisis,
28 these funds have almost been fully expended. Since the start of the pandemic, $2.1 million has
29 been invested by the County and Towns. As of October 20, about $276,000 remains
30 uncommitted, which staff anticipate will last another two and a half weeks, based on the current
31 rate of expenditure and the queue of more than 100 applications awaiting review. As such, the
32 County sought funds from the State in order to continue the work—first through the HOPE
33 program ($797,133) administered by NCORR and second through an application to the NC
34 Commerce Department for Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV)
35 funds ($900,000). The HOPE program portion of the work began on October 19, 2020 and will
36 end December 31, 2020 per the funding regulations, and the County hopes to hear about the
37 CDBG-CV application for funding by the end of the year. Both of these funding sources are
38 limited to providing only rent and utility arrears and payments. This means that the other
39 housing stabilization activities that had been provided through other EHA funding sources are
40 not eligible under these new programs. These stabilization activities include security and utility
41 deposits, moving costs, and application fees all of which are important for helping residents
42 secure housing at a time when having a stable home is crucial for staying safe and avoiding
43 COVID exposure. Further, flexible EHA funding is needed for those residents who do not qualify
44 for the HOPE program or CDBG-CV funds, i.e. not having required documentation for federal
45 funds and/or landlord not agreeing to lease addendum required by the HOPE program. There is
46 also need for urgent funds for those facing imminent eviction or who are working with the
47 Eviction Diversion Program attorney, for those needing reasonable modifications to their homes
48 due to their disability that is necessary to keep them stable in housing, and for homeowners'
49 facing foreclosure as HOPE does not provide funds for mortgage assistance.
50
51 The Housing Department has also used flexible EHA funds to increase the utilization of Housing
13
1 Choice Vouchers. The Department recently sent out more than 100 applications for the
2 Housing Choice Voucher program for residents meeting the homelessness preference in the
3 Orange County Housing Authority's Administrative Plan. While the new Housing Access
4 Coordinator funded by the County and Towns has helped recruit landlords in accepting
5 vouchers, security deposits are needed as well as application fee assistance for these units in
6 order for residents in need of affordable housing to access them — especially those who are the
7 most vulnerable in our community. Since January 2020, 2.5% of EHA funding (about $42,000)
8 has gone to these activities. Based on these numbers and in anticipation of increased need, as
9 families fall out of housing due to lost income and the expiration of CARES funds and eviction
10 protection at the end of 2020, we anticipate that at least $60,000 is needed in order to continue
11 providing security and utility deposits, moving costs, and application fees through June 2021. In
12 order to continue providing flexible EHA rent and utility assistance for those who do not qualify
13 for the supplemental State and Federal funds, we anticipate at least $200,000 additional funding
14 is needed for EHA through June 2021.
15
16 Research shows that housing assistance, such as that provided through EHA, reduces hardship
17 and increases economic opportunity for low-income families.1 .There is also research showing
18 that preventing eviction can reduce costs to the health care system, lower costs and reduce the
19 burden on shelter and other emergency housing programs, ease the administrative burden on
20 the courts, reduce job loss, reduce negative educational outcomes, and prevent the decline of
21 communities that occurs when people are displaced.2 This combined impact is due to the
22 continuing community-wide effort to prevent evictions and homelessness in Orange County.
23
24 Additional local funds allows the Housing Department to continue this work to keep people
25 stable in housing and access new affordable housing through the County's existing Emergency
26 Housing Assistance fund.
27
28 Commissioner Bedford asked if undocumented people would still qualify for these funds.
29 Emila Sutton said yes, and the NC HOPE program also allows the department to serve
30 undocumented folks. She said approximately 20% of those served by EHA so far have been
31 undocumented.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
34 approve the transfer of$100,000 from the Local Rent Supplement Program to the Emergency
35 Housing Assistance program to provide additional funding for ongoing eviction prevention
36 activities.
37
38 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 d. Approval of Pandemic Response Payment to Permanent Orange County
43 Employees and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A (ORD-2020-025)
44
45 The Board recognized the flexibility and perseverance demonstrated by Orange County
46 employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, considered authorizing a one-time Pandemic
47 Response Payment of$100 per month to permanent County employees who have been on the
48 payroll between March 1, 2020 and November 1, 2020, prorated for permanent part time
49 employees, and approve Budget Amendment#3-A transferring funds from the County's Health
50 Insurance Reserve to a Pandemic Response Payment account to be distributed to departments
51 personnel line items according to the amount of payment required in each department.
14
1
2
3 Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources Director reviewed the item below:
4
5 BACKGROUND: On March 10, 2020, Governor Cooper, by Executive Order 116, declared a
6 state of emergency to prevent the spread of COVID-19. On March 27, 2020, Executive Order
7 121 imposed a statewide Stay at Home Order, which directed people to stay at home except to
8 visit essential businesses, exercise outdoors or help a family members. The Order also banned
9 gatherings of more than 10 people and directed everyone to physically stay at least 6 feet apart
10 from others.
11
12 More Executive Orders followed in connection with the pandemic, which dramatically impacted
13 the manner in which County services were provided and the expectations for how County
14 employees delivered those services.
15
16 • Executive Order 135 issued April 23, 2020 extended North Carolina's Stay At Home
17 Order (Executive Order 121) until May 8, 2020.
18 • Executive Order 141 issued on May 20, 2020 lifted the statewide Stay at Home Order
19 and moved to a Safer At Home recommendation.
20 • Executive Order 151 issued on July 16, 2020 extended Executive Order 141's Safer At
21 Home Phase 2 measures until at least Aug. 7, 2020.
22 . Executive Order 155 issued on August 5, 2020 extended Executive Order 141's Safer At
23 Home Phase 2 measures until at least Sept. 11, 2020.
24 • Executive Order 163 issued on September 1, 2020 revised prohibitions and restrictions
25 that moved the state to Safer at Home Phase 2.5 measures.
26 • Executive Order 169 issued on September 30, 2020 revised prohibitions and restrictions
27 that moved the state into Phase 3 measures.
28
29 During this time, the employees of Orange County have demonstrated creativity, flexibility, and
30 perseverance in the face of uncertainty.
31
32 The FY2020-21 Budget included a variety of austerity measures to preserve the County's
33 financial position. One of these measures was the elimination of a traditional across the board
34 wage adjustment and the suspension of financial performance awards connected to annual
35 evaluations.
36
37 Given the adjustments that all employees have had to make as a result of the pandemic, the
38 County Manager is recommending a one-time Pandemic Response Payment of$100 for each
39 month worked from March 1, 2020 through November 1, 2020. Permanent employees who were
40 actively on payroll during this time would receive a one-time payment of$900. Employees hired
41 during the time of March 1, 2020 through November 1, 2020 will receive $100 for each month
42 employed, and active part-time permanent employees will receive a pro-rated payment. The
43 payment would occur in the last pay period in November.
44
45 The Pandemic Response Payments would be funded through a transfer of reserve funds from
46 the County's health insurance program. This fund currently has a total reserve balance of
47 $3,985,334 as of the end of FY2019-20. As part of the North Carolina Health Insurance Pool,
48 the recommended reserve balance is $981,735 or about 1.2 months of expected claims. As a
49 result, the reserve currently holds reserves in excess of the reserve policy of$3,003,599. Of this
50 amount, $990,000 would be required to fund the Pandemic Response Payments in FY2020-21.
15
1
2 Commissioner McKee asked if the traditional wage increase was stalled until July 1,
3 2020.
4 Brenda Bartholomew said no, the wage increase was stalled until July 1, 2021.
5 Commissioner McKee said austerity measures have been put in place due to COVID,
6 and there are unknowns still ahead. He asked Bonnie Hammersley if this bonus will adversely
7 affect the overall budget.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been monitoring all elements of the budget, and the
9 Health Insurance Reserve is growing because claims are down. She said claims are likely
10 down due to COVID, as people are not going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary. She
11 said the Health Insurance Reserve fund will fund this one-time payment, and this reserve is
12 partially County funded and partially employee funded. She said the reserve is still in place to
13 handle a catastrophic event, and this one time pay-out will not impact that.
14 Commissioner Price said she is very pleased with this recommendation.
15 Commissioner McKee said he will reluctantly support this recommendation, but noted
16 there are many people across Orange County who did not receive a wage increase, or may
17 have even lost a job. He said he has no doubt about the hard work of County employees.
18 Commissioner Bedford expressed gratitude for all County employees during these
19 stressful times. She agreed there are many families that are suffering.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
22
23 • Authorize a one-time Pandemic Response Payment of$100 per month to permanent
24 County employees who have been on the payroll between March 1, 2020 and
25 November 1, 2020, prorated for permanent part time employees, and
26 • Approve Budget Amendment#3-A transferring funds from the County's Health
27 Insurance Reserve to a Pandemic Response Payment account to be distributed to
28 departments' personnel line items according to the amount of payment required in each
29 department.
30
31 Commissioner Bedford said she would like to exclude herself from the $900 one-time
32 payment, and contribute it to the Department of Social Services (DSS) needs.
33 Chair Rich said this can be done through the Giving Fund.
34 Commissioner McKee said he would also like to forego the payment.
35 Chair Rich said every single employee has worked overtime since the pandemic started,
36 and it was especially intense in the beginning.
37
38 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 e. Initiating the Process to Disengage from Cardinal Innovations Healthcare and to
43 Seek Realignment with Alliance Health
44
45 The Board considered voting to authorize the County Manager to initiate the formal
46 disengagement process from the County's current Local Management Entity-Managed Care
47 Organization, Cardinal Innovations Healthcare, and seek realignment with Alliance Health to
48 administer mental and behavioral health services for Orange County residents.
49
50 Travis Myren reviewed the item below:
51
16
1
2 BACKGROUND:
3 Local Management Entities— Managed Care Organizations (LME-MCOs) are public managed
4 care organizations that administer behavioral health services for residents in need of mental
5 health, developmental disability, or substance use services. The State of North Carolina is
6 currently served by seven different LME-MCOs divided into regions. Cardinal Innovations
7 Healthcare currently serves Alamance, Cabarrus, Caswell, Chatham, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth,
8 Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Orange, Rockingham, Person, Rowan, Stanly,
9 Stokes, Union, Vance and Warren counties. Alliance Health currently serves Cumberland,
10 Durham, Johnston, and Wake counties.
11
12 North Carolina General Statutes and the North Carolina Administrative Code authorize and
13 prescribe the process through which a County may seek permission to disengage from one
14 LME-MCO and realign with another. The final decision making authority rests with the Secretary
15 of the Department of Health and Human Services. The applicable administrative code is
16 attached as Attachment 1.
17
18 The first step in initiating disengagement is providing written notice of the County's intent to
19 disengage to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Co-Chairs of the Joint
20 Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services, and the affected counties a
21 minimum of nine months prior to the proposed effective date of disengagement. This abstract
22 would authorize the County Manager to send the disengagement notice letter and begin the
23 formal disengagement process.
24
25 Once the disengagement notice is sent, the County is required to create a plan for
26 disengagement. This plan must be approved by the Board of Commissioners and must be
27 made available for public comment for a minimum of 60 calendar days. During the comment
28 period, the County is required to solicit comments from consumers, advocates, self- advocates,
29 and State and Local Consumer and Family Advisory Committees. These public comments must
30 be posted for a minimum of 30 calendar days. The Board of Commissioners must also approve
31 a written plan to ensure continuity of services during the transition and a plan which provides for
32 distribution of real property if applicable.
33
34 In April of 2019, the Board of Commissioners approved a letter to the North Carolina
35 Association of County Commissioners expressing its preference to become part of a Tailored
36 Plan region that included Durham and Wake County. The Tailored Plan letter is attached as
37 Attachment 2. While that action did not initiate the formal disengagement process, the same
38 justifications for realigning with other counties in the Triangle Region are applicable. This prior
39 action was also similar in terms of timing. The County was asked to express its preference for
40 Tailored Plan regions prior to the implementation of Medicaid Transformation. At that time,
41 Medicaid Transformation was scheduled to be implemented in February 2020. Implementation
42 has since been delayed until July 2021.
43
44 Travis Myren presented the following PowerPoint presentation:
45
46 Slide #1
47
48 ORANGE COUNTY
49 VUK'1'li CAKULINA
50
51 LA4E-MCO Disengagement
and Realignment
November 5-2020
Virtual Meeting
17
1
2 Slide #2
3 LME-MCOs in North Carolina
4
5 Administer Mental and behavioral Health Services
6 Each LME-MCO has Service Area or Catchment
7
8 7
9 _ -
10
12 ....,._�
13
14 ORANGE COUNTY
n
15
16 Slide #3
17
18 Context and Timing
19 Other Counties Take Action in October
20 •• Unini and Cebanus Cwnlios Vote On Inn,ni iv❑i5 gepa born Cardinal
21 Imma➢On5 Heallhcaro and Aoelydn Mth Partners Heallh 6fanagomonl
22 — hlpcklwburg ands FerSylh CwntieS Iswo Leltor tp Cardinal Inn aton5
Heailh re RequeSlnp Corrective Action Plan by November 9,=iI
23
24
25
26
27
2 o ORANGE COUNTY
O 1
29
30 Slide #4
31 Context and Timing
32
33 Medicaid Transformation-Now Timeline
34 swword Plena�itecd-Jury 1,2921
hahrdn Alo+Ye6oidPe4wrwMlAdbFhbr bhariorilM>waw�r
• rgrsprgJy>.dMbrriaap CaP�rrr4 al`1t4.U�IrIlWlnrr.ale
35 AF#CO CdvwbPrwN SenrtxbM nLxynCan
36 rpllne Plpns tneGme July 1.2W2
a �
37 ca r a�A•ra.eblAeaco,:nyrw aon
- car r�,wb>m-ta.mnwneo..a l.Me•rrrrJ,brTppip xiaaor.�avrm
38
39
40
41 ORANGE GOE1N7Y
r<unpHc WIJNn
42
43 Slide #5
44 Disengagement Process by Statute
45
46 Disengagement Authorized by G.S-122C-115
47 " Su6Jed W the Approval of the Seuelary of Health and Hannan Sernces and Free
Broad Guelchnes.
48 1 , m�nnF�.n"�u d nim di..n np—ni
49 2. Tireor—KiaPg county caner n in complwncc or pWns W mere[am an area
aulndrty Mete n eempluncer paMBMn requirenxnee pra r e in G.S.I=.
5 0 11N.)of pe aeabn
3. TM amino or ltre dh*ng.o is Kwunloe for and does a al tAm%a wfth scamp
capi611oeratn.
51 ! ■dealvi Gnr tft*pm,,*d W me as%W tw ke .1c GYpa hrcnl d Hearth one
Haw SOMOM 04 the 0angnd
5. Pi—tar dsuMmnn or any real property no anger x nWe[alchnn arcs of are
am auarodry
s ORANGE CwCUMY
18
1
2 Slide #6
3
4 process to Disengage
5p[� wW�agR
7
9
10 °
1 1 CCh�.pU�g9�-.Rn
•FO�x Heap p�d�K'lp lm,[n Rp
12pd
•Y�rq,.W�%�e.[nvnn n�MYn'aM NH�t
13
14
15 Slide #7
16
177 Considerations for Approval
18 Rules Outline Informelion for Secretary of DHHS to ConsMer
19
20
21 5 Ca�pxy wsi lYyrq Wo'rve�4ea[Nwce Heaml
6 G,npewen Sewq Gyweon Pan
22 f F,unry vueryp Gnpapert M[oicxsav imov' ,
A Cw,ge,reRyWaemm�m,`A0.400,
v �'pY4tlu SNY',WM�te�e N'wn,
23 owwAwq ^^r x�aln aaM ^Namn ontpsene bPr enx,
,1 Oycra,vW Inpxtad PeaF nem rtYeem C�eo�aµ,�Semee Uelner�am'Mu
24
25 Secretary Shall iuue Decision wlthln �a� e.nays or
Receiving Request
26 ORAiJCf O01MY
27
28 Slide #8
29
30
31
32
33 Discussion and Questions
34
35
36
37
3 8 OR
-
3 9
40
41
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the total length of time this process would take could be
43 identified.
44 Travis Myren said a minimum of nine months, as long as no other circumstances are at
45 play.
46 Commissioner Greene asked if the County moved to enter a contract with Alliance,
47 would it still have the ability to disengage within the four years.
48 Travis Myren said the clear message to County administration is that once the County
49 engages in the four-year relationship, disengagement will not occur.
19
1 Commissioner Price asked if staff had spoken to Alliance about accepting the Orange
2 County service area, and if the services are comparable. She asked if the Alliance Board would
3 vote prior to the Secretary making her decision.
4 Travis Myren said staff did speak with the CEO, but the decision would be up to the
5 Alliance Board. He said the CEO was helpful.
6 Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline on when the County would know if the
7 Alliance Board has accepted the change.
8 Travis Myren said the Alliance Board would have to agree prior to the Secretary making
9 her decision, and Alliance would vote within the next nine months.
10 Commissioner McKee asked if the start date for the four-year relationship would be
11 effective for July 1, 2022.
12 Travis Myren said that is correct.
13 Commissioner McKee asked if, given that date, the BOCC could delay its decision to
14 September 2021 instead of deciding now.
15 Travis Myren said there is some flexibility, but there is a lot of preliminary work that
16 needs to go into effect prior to those tailored plans going into effect. He said those receiving
17 services need time to transfer to new providers, etc.
18 Commissioner McKee asked if the number of disengagements that have occurred in the
19 past few years is known.
20 Travis Myren said he knew of one.
21 Commissioner McKee said the disengagement is not a given.
22 Travis Myren said no, it is not.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT:
25 Rosemary Waldorf, Club Nova Board, said the timing of this action could not be worse.
26 She said Club Nova has spent seven years raising money for a new clubhouse, and has fully
27 met all negotiations to receive the $500,000 pledge agreement from Cardinal Innovations (CI).
28 She said the funds have been raised within the required timeline, and Club Nova has secured a
29 bridge loan. She said it has been very difficult to raise funds, and she is unsure what Cardinal
30 will do if the County disengages. She said this could be severely detrimental to the success of
31 the project.
32 Karen Dunn, Club Nova Executive Director, said Club Nova was taken by surprise that
33 the possibility of disengagement is back on the table. She said losing the $500,000 pledge from
34 Cl would be highly detrimental. She said if the County chooses to disengage from Cl, it should
35 find the funds to cover the loan loss. She said the State already required the LME MCO to
36 remain the same through 2025, and she does not see that disengagement will be allowed. She
37 highlighted some of the negative impacts of using Alliance for services, including lowered
38 reimbursement rates, greater administrative demands, etc.
39 Alex Harrison said Club Nova saved his life, and his mental illness is self-destructive.
40 He said the plan to cut $500,000 gives him great anxiety. He said he does not know what he
41 would do without Club Nova.
42 Tanya Pace said the current pandemic has placed a greater burden on serving those
43 with mental health needs, and the services of Club Nova are vital. She said this potential
44 disengagement will negatively impact the building construction, and the Club itself. She said the
45 Club desperately needs more space to serve more members safely.
46 Matthew Cox said he is member of Club Nova, and a present Board member. He said
47 Club Nova is a life saving community that reduces isolation for those suffering with persistent
48 mental illness. He said these services save the County and community a great deal of money,
49 and Club Nova partners with local law enforcement to create positive and productive
50 relationships. He asked the BOCC to not disengage from Cl, but if it does, to cover the loss of
51 the $500,000.
20
1 Gary Weaver echoed comments of previous speakers about the risk of losing funding if
2 the County disengages from Cl. He said the current Club Nova building is too small and not
3 handicap accessible. He said the services are essential to him, and many others.
4 Charlene Lee said she has been a member of Club Nova for 14 years, and it has been
5 such a gift to her. She echoed previous comments, and said the work of fundraising has been
6 done by many of the Club Nova members, including the first fruits of her own paycheck. She
7 said putting this new building in jeopardy breaks her heart. She asked if the BOCC would
8 please postpone this vote.
9 Commissioner Greene asked if there is a representative present from Cardinal
10 Innovations.
11 Trey Sutton, Cardinal Innovations, said he appreciates the partnership with Orange
12 County. He said over the past couple of months there have been several gaps in service, and
13 common themes have emerged. He said some changes have already been made including
14 additional providers and reduced administrative costs. He said Cl has spent the last week and
15 a half working with Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and has created an
16 effective plan to offer a better experience with Cl. He said he does not recommend instability at
17 this time, and suggested the BOCC allow the plan a chance to succeed. He said it is important
18 for County partners and funders to hold CI accountable. He said now is not the time for a major
19 change. He said Cl has provided COVID relief grants, as well as other funds to help with
20 stabilization in provision of services. He said Cl is proud to partner with Club Nova, and
21 disengagement is a parameter of this agreement.
22 Commissioner Greene clarified that the County remaining with CI is a part of the Club
23 Nova grant agreement.
24 Travis Sutton said yes it is, and he would be happy to readdress this issue with the CI
25 Board.
26 Commissioner Greene referred to Cl board meeting notes, which mentioned an
27 extension of the agreement until December 30, 2020. She said Club Nova will meet this
28 deadline, and is relying on this promise for the creation of the building. She said it would be
29 wrong for Cl to withdraw its $500,000 regardless of what Orange County does.
30 Travis Sutton said he would be willing to readdress this issue with the Cl Board.
31 Commissioner Greene said the BOCC is considering beginning disengagement through
32 a public process, which requires the BOCC to go through many steps. She said the statutory
33 process is to come together to discuss next steps. She said it is unclear of the pros and cons of
34 Cl and Alliance, and she would like to see a true public conversation to hear from all
35 stakeholders that would be impacted by a disengagement decision. She said she does not
36 want to proceed on this vote tonight.
37 Commissioner McKee asked if CI can give any assurances to the residents, clients, and
38 Board members that things will change with Cl if the County remains with them. He said
39 systemic problems have existed for years, and he wants to know what will change. He said,
40 from his opinion, the corporate mentality trumps the client need at Cl.
41 Trey Sutton said Cardinal Innovations does not have a corporate mentality, and
42 members are the number one priority. He said Cl is putting a concrete action plan in place with
43 dates and measurable outcomes. He said services are being reviewed to see which can be
44 auto authorized, and new providers have been added to the network. He said the foster care
45 population is a friction point, and Cl has committed $1 million to the County over the next two
46 years to make investments into foster care. He said Cl is co-locating with DSS to allow for
47 faster and more efficient service.
48 Commissioner McKee said he appreciates these changes. He asked if there is a date
49 when the BOCC, clients and the public can expect to see this action plan.
50 Travis Sutton said next week, after discussions with Mecklenburg and Forsyth counties.
21
1 Commissioner Price said a public hearing has not been conducted and she is hesitant to
2 jump into a new agreement not knowing if the grass is greener on the other side. She said she
3 has no idea of what Alliance offers and if it will benefit the residents of Orange County.
4 Commissioner McKee said he expects this conversation tonight to have no impact on
5 the $500,000 going to Club Nova.
6 Commissioner Price agreed that there has not been a full public hearing, and she would
7 also like more details about Alliance and how it would be an improvement over Cl. She said
8 she has received few complaints about Cl over the years, and would like to know what makes
9 Alliance uniquely better. She asked if staff could research these details. She said if Cl fails to
10 pay the $500,000 to Club Nova, the County must find a way to cover the funds.
11 Commissioner Bedford said she wants to make sure the BOCC understands the
12 timeline, and the vote tonight is only an intent to disengage, and does not necessarily determine
13 the final decision.
14 Commissioner Bedford said she has a daughter with dual diagnoses, who receives
15 services through Cl. She said she has a personal interest and experience with Cl. She said her
16 entire pubic life is as a result of her daughter. She said her daughter requires a lot of care, but
17 noted she does not have an axe to grind with Cl. She said she has been an advocate for these
18 areas for many years, and is the BOCC representative on several boards related to these
19 issues. She said she contributes financially to Club Nova, and greatly supports its mission. She
20 said she also declines the $50 from Cl for mileage, etc.
21 Commissioner Bedford said she asked Cl for several records, but was declined. She
22 said she has tried to follow Cl board meeting conversations, but it is very difficult. She said Cl
23 does not try to engage the public, and does not post its minutes.
24 Commissioner Bedford said she checked Club Nova financials in October and the
25 $500,000 was present. She said she greatly supports this, and it is horrified that all involved
26 with Club Nova expects Cl to withdraw the funds if the County disengages from Cl. She said
27 this is not the type of organization with which the County should be aligned. She said better
28 services are needed for Orange County residents. She said she has done some research on
29 Alliance, whose minutes are posted publicly. She said Alliance plans to open a Children's Crisis
30 Center in June 2021, and is ahead in many other ways. She highlighted several statistics
31 showing the differences between Alliance and Cl, particularly ways that Cl has denied services
32 in larger numbers than Alliance and complaints made about the MCO. She said these statistics
33 show that Alliance is providing better services.
34 Commissioner Bedford said she does not want to give credence to the fear mongering
35 about what will happen to clients with switching providers, as she does not believe it to be true.
36 She said Cl does not allow a BOCC member to have a voice on its board, whereas Alliance
37 does. She said Cl has failed to provide any clear data, and to involve county stakeholders in its
38 governance.
39 Commissioner Bedford said the timing of this process would allow the BOCC to do it
40 properly, and to the best interest of Orange County residents. She said many local providers
41 already have contracts with Alliance, and the transition will not be as difficult as some fear. She
42 said there is power in the collective voice, and Orange County is not alone in raising this alarm.
43 She said she expects the State to listen more carefully now, and she said Ci's proposed action
44 plan is too little, too late. She said it is time to start this process, and research an alternate
45 option, as nothing can be worse than the current situation.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Bedford's research and commitment to this
47 topic is much appreciated. He said he has never received positive feedback regarding Cardinal
48 Innovations, and there is a serious lack of accountability. He said the BOCC has been mulling
49 this conversation for months, and the only reason offered to stay with Cl is to insure that Club
50 Nova receives $500,000. He said this is close to extortion, and the County needs to find a way
51 to secure those funds, if necessary. He said when he served as the BOCC liaison with Cl, he
22
1 was asked to sign a document that required him to put CI over his role as a Commissioner. He
2 said he will vote to start the process of exploring disengagement, and perhaps Cl will make real
3 changes this time. He said it is time for action.
4 Chair Rich agreed with Commissioners Dorosin and Bedford. She said the BOCC is
5 fully behind Club Nova, and wants to see the new building come to fruition. She said she feels
6 Cl never intended to give Club Nova the money, and the members of Club Nova have put
7 extreme effort into fund raising. She said CI agreed to give the money, and Club Nova has met
8 every requirement made of them by Cl, thus Cl must make good on giving the $500,000. She
9 said Orange County has been a Cl client for many years, and Cl has benefitted from County
10 funding, and needs to keep its pledge to Club Nova, regardless of what the County decides to
11 do. She said Commissioner Bedford has laid out the details clearly, and this will be a long
12 process if the County remains partners with Cl. She said it is possible that Cl will make great
13 strides and changes, and the disengagement may not be necessary. She said these concerns
14 have been discussed in the BOCC for 8 years, and all she ever hears from residents are
15 complaints and concerns. She said these are difficult situations and families are fragile and
16 need help, not roadblocks. She said she will support Commissioner Bedford's recommendation.
17 Commissioner McKee said he will vote to initiate the disengagement process, and will
18 observe how CI responds.
19 Commissioner Greene said this has been a good discussion. She said there are serious
20 concerns among the community, and she will not support the motion to initiate the
21 disengagement process. She says the statute reads to her as this being a vote to disengage,
22 not one to consider disengagement.
23 Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with Commissioner Greene, and said he will vote no to
24 initiating this disengagement process.
25 Commissioner Price said she needs more information before making a decision on
26 disengagement.
27 Chair Rich said there has been a great deal of dialogue and information received on this
28 topic, and, while it is complicated, she thinks staff has laid out a good and timely plan.
29 Commissioner Bedford said in February 2019 a letter was sent from Deputy Secretary
30 Dave Richards, which said the MCOs were not to offer an inducement to change or maintain
31 affiliation. She said CI has completely violated this with the $500,000 to Club Nova.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
34 authorize the County Manager to initiate the formal disengagement process from the County's
35 current Local Management Entity-Managed Care Organization, Cardinal Innovations
36 Healthcare, and to seek realignment with Alliance Health to administer mental behavioral
37 services for Orange County residents.
38
39 Trey Sutton said Cl posts current meeting minutes online, and meetings have never
40 been moved. He said Cl has been completely flexible with Club Nova, and has never moved
41 the goal post. He said much of Commissioner Bedford's comments are inaccurate, and
42 apologized that Commissioner Dorosin was asked to sign something with which he felt
43 uncomfortable. He said this practice was before his tenure at Cl. He said this is a serious
44 decision, and asked if the BOCC would slow down.
45 Commissioners Price said her request for more information is related to Alliance, as
46 opposed to complaints about Cl. She said there is no one on the Cl board because no one from
47 Orange County applied.
48 Commissioner Bedford said CI asked her to sign a conflict of interest statement in 2018,
49 which is during Trey Sutton's tenure.
50 Commissioner Greene asked Commissioner Bedford to restate her comments about the
51 February 2019 letter, and prohibition on inducements.
23
1 Commissioner Bedford said counties were notified that they could send an alignment
2 preference to the NCACC, and there were guidelines from the Deputy Secretary that said there
3 could be no inducement to change or maintain affiliation with MCOs.
4 Commissioner Greene asked if Trey Sutton could respond, as this $500,000 sounds like
5 an inducement.
6 Trey Sutton said he was happy to speak with Cardinal Innovations Board. He said this
7 was a parameter of the board's decision.
8 Commissioner Greene said Trey Sutton has said he will honor the pledge, but that is
9 likely not within his authority.
10 Trey Sutton said it is not, and he will have to talk to his board.
11 Commissioner Greene said this is why she would like to notice a public hearing within
12 the next 30 days, and hear from the public.
13 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
14
15 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner McKee,
16 and Chair Rich); Nayes, 3 (Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Marcoplos, and
17 Commissioner Price)
18
19 MOTION PASSES 4-3
20
21 7. Reports
22
23 a. Interim Alternative Implementation Approach (IAIA) — Upper Neuse River Basin
24 Association (Falls Lake Rules)
25 The Board received information on joining the Upper Neuse River Basin Associations
26 (UNRBA's) planned and coordinate multi-jurisdictional implementation approach to
27 implementing Stage 1 of the Falls Lake Watershed Rules, promulgated by the N.C. Division of
28 Water Resources and consider voting to authorize Commissioner Greene to indicate Orange
29 County's intent to participate in the I.A.I.A. at the November 18, 2020 UNRBA Board meeting,
30 with formal approval and action to be forthcoming in 2021.
31
32 David Stancil, Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
33 Recreation (DEAPR), reviewed the item below:
34
35 BACKGROUND: Orange County was a founding member of the UNRBA, which was created in
36 the 1990's to coordinate mandatory watershed protection efforts among the jurisdictions of the
37 Falls Lake watershed. Falls Lake (henceforth, "the Lake"), located in Durham and Wake
38 counties, serves as the primary water supply source for Raleigh and many Wake County
39 municipalities. Most of central, eastern and northeastern Orange County is located within the
40 Falls Lake watershed (please see Attachments 2 and 3).
41
42 As the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (henceforth, "the Rules") was adopted in 2011
43 to address nutrient loading in the Lake (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), the UNRBA began
44 to work as a coordinating entity among the jurisdictions to address this effort and to pursue a
45 reexamination of the Rules. Implementation of the Rules, which would occur in two stages, has
46 been estimated to cost the combined watershed jurisdictions over $1.5 billion in total to address.
47 In addition, evaluation of the Rules by water quality consultants has determined that the
48 proposed reductions as originally adopted are not technically feasible and that a new method is
49 needed. (Prior estimates of Orange County's likely costs to address the Rules, if it acted on its
50 own, have ranged as high as $46 million over a 10-year period.)
51
24
1 As a result, the UNRBA jurisdictions collectively worked to encourage a re-examination of the
2 Rules, with an alternative method of addressing nutrient reductions for the Lake. Rather than
3 trying to implement jurisdictional load reductions on their own - at great cost and questionable
4 results - the UNRBA and its member local governments have spent the last few years working
5 with consultants and in coordination with the NC Division of Water Resources to find a preferred
6 and "doable" alternative approach to meeting the nutrient reduction goals. Note: Considerable
7 additional detail and information about the Falls Rules, UNRBA findings, types of reduction
8 measures, and the "Path Forward"to identifying an alternative approach, may be found on the
9 UNRBA website at www.UNRBA.orp.
10
11 To this end, since 2018 the UNRBA has been developing an alternative option for achieving
12 compliance with Stage I existing development nutrient load reductions that would be required by
13 the Rules. This alternative approach would promote a commitment to additional actions directed
14 at reducing nutrient loading impacts from existing development, using both existing and new
15 and innovative measures, to improve the water conditions in the Lake. Titled the "Interim
16 Alternative Implementation Approach" or IAIA, this program is considered interim because it
17 would apply only during the period between the time this alternative approach is initiated and
18 when the Rules are readopted (expected to occur in 2025 or later). However, it is important to
19 note that it is anticipated that the experience and use of this approach may very well inform and
20 serve as a model for the future readopted Rules to be implemented beyond 2025. A summary of
21 this document (in draft form) may be found as Attachment 1.
22
23 The IAIA is based on voluntary participation of UNRBA members in the Program, and will allow
24 participating jurisdictions to achieve compliance with the Stage I requirements. Choosing not to
25 participate in the IAIA would result in a jurisdiction having to comply on their own by developing
26 a Stage I local program consistent with the Rules and the Model Program as written. Phase 1
27 compliance without the IAIA would require installation of nutrient-removing measures in direct
28 relation to Orange County's prior nutrient loading. In other words, the County would need to
29 install enough nutrient-reducing ponds or similar SCMs to compensate for the amount of
30 Nitrogen and Phosphorus added to Falls Lake from Orange County between 2006 and 2012.
31
32 Participating in the IAIA will allow a jurisdiction, in the interim period, to achieve full Stage 1
33 existing development compliance. The IAIA also allows for credit for land conservation. There is
34 currently no credit for land conservation, of which Orange County has achieved considerable
35 success, except through the IAIA (until such time as the rules may be revised to include this
36 measure). Under a local-only program outside of the IAIA, the nutrient reduction would need to
37 be accomplished with traditional Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs - ponds, permeable
38 pavement, green roofs, etc.) or other structural controls.
39
40 As noted, the NC Division of Water Quality has been advising on the IAIA and has indicated
41 support for this alternative approach to date.
42
43 At this time, the UNRBA has completed work on the IAIA and is asking all member jurisdictions
44 to tentatively commit to participating in this effort beginning in FY 2021-22, before authorizing
45 staff and consultants to complete the actions that would be needed to formally implement the
46 program. Staff from DEAPR, Planning and the County Attorney's office have been involved in
47 the development of the IAIA from the outset, and recommend participation in the program as a
48 more cost-effective, collaborative and technically-efficient way to address the nutrient loading
49 issues that will be needed for Falls Lake.
50
51 Commissioner Greene serves as the County's member on the UNRBA Board of Directors, with
25
1 Commissioner Bedford as alternate. At the November 18 UNRBA Board meeting, each delegate
2 will be asked to participate in an initial vote to indicate intent to participate in the program
3 beginning in FY 2021-22. (Formal approval and action would come in 2021).
4
5 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The IAIA program is based on the organization's cost-share basis, which
6 reflects a combination of water usage from the Lake and the amount of watershed area in the
7 jurisdiction. The annual commitment for funding participation in the IAIA for Orange County is
8 $161,943 per year, anticipated to continue through FY 2024-25. This is based on the
9 participation of 12 jurisdictions that have indicated to date an interest in participating at the staff
10 level.
11
12 This contrasts to the projected cost of Orange County's requirement to develop its own
13 individual program for Rules implementation, expected to be in the millions of dollars each year,
14 depending on the actual jurisdictional loading rate. Phase I compliance without the IAIA would
15 require installation of nutrient removing measures in direct relation to Orange County's prior
16 nutrient loading. In other words, the County would need to install enough nutrient-reducing
17 ponds or similar SCMs to compensate for the amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus added to the
18 Lake from Orange County between 2006 and 2012. Some estimates have projected the total
19 cost of this individual program to be approximately $46 million for Orange County.
20
21 Based on the development of the IAIA over the last few years, the current Capital Investment
22 Plan or CIP (and the proposed FY 2020-25 CIP) includes a Falls Lake Nutrient Management
23 Strategy item that allocates $175,000 per year during the years of the IAIA implementation. This
24 funding would begin in FY 2021-22. In addition, some of the work and funds of the Lands
25 Legacy program in the Falls Lake watershed will also count toward the funding commitment.
26 This model approach, if successful, may be used in the future phase of the Rules, resulting in
27 considerable cost savings to the County and all jurisdictions.
28
29 David Stancil made the following PowerPoint presentation:
30
31 Slide #1
32 „ram
pocr.wnmi r,.:.-,a
33 kca I=M 77
RA
34 Q ORTHECAROINA COUNTY nd
35
36 Interim Alternative
38 Implementation Approach
39
40 Upper Neuse RIVer Basin Association
41 November 5,2020
42
43
44
45 Slide #2
46
47 What is the Upper Neuse River
48 Basin Association (UNRBA)?
49
50
51 Orange County was a
founding member of
i the UNRBA,created in
the 1990's to
coordinate mandatory
watershed protectlon
efforts among the
Jurisd let Ions of the
m 1. I ns
Falls Lake watershed.
26
1
2
3
4
5
6 Slide #3
7
8 %Vat arsheds
9
10 -
12 - _
13 -- A closer took...
14
15 �-
16 - --
17 -
ORANGE COUNTY
,tA
19
20 Slide #4
21 What is the Interim Alternative
22 Implementation Approach (IAIA)?
23
24 , S1 nce 201 R,UNRBA exploring altern at lve way to achieve
25 compliance with Stage I Existing Development nutrient load
reductions required by Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
26 , Interim as it would apply only during the period hatween the time
27 Init Iated and when the Falls Lake Rules are readopted(expected In
28 2025 or later).But could be a model for future rules approach
29 • Voluntary part€cfpatlonlfunding of UNRBA members-scientifically-
based,technologically supportable,and economically viable
30 approach that will he more reasonable than that required under the
3 1 current rules.Other partners appear to support.
�)RAUGECOUNTY
32 ruk 111 r_nlwukk
33
34 Slide #5
35 What are the goals of the IAIA?
36
37 Continue to Improve water quality In Falls Lake and watershed
38
untlI re-examination of Stage II comp feted&new strategy adopted
39 Engage each jurisdiction In a collaborative,watershed-focused
40 approach to nut rl ent reduction through variety of measures
41 P-roovide flexlbllltytoIurlsdlctlons In cost-effectiveness,types of
42 SI�p gcwhere to implement projects,and who to partner with
43 C� a
44 What will it cost Orange County?
45
46 LevTable 1, Local Government Financiai Commitment Fiscal Year
e Choose ls far Members the[ to Participate in the Stage I ED WA
47
48
4n T—alauteer 523.393 Tereef Hllhbere $3e,221
y 6[of treedrnoor 515,926 Ora [aunt 5161 3
50 [k el Du ham s337,567 Person Leant $114,394
p.rh—CA-ty S133.300 P[r al xalelph sa66.081
51 Fr AIIe County S19,15R Wakr Caurrry S88.%8
fy-yawo"MV SIM453 To"0 wake we" $13.692
ORANGE CIXJNTY
27
1
2
3
4
5 Slide #7
6 What if Orange County chooses
7 not to participate in the IAIA?
8
9 . County would have to comply on Its own by developing a Stage 1
local program consistent with the current Falls Lake Nutrient
1 O Management Strategy and the Model Program as written
ccg
11 Stage I compliance on Its own would require in sta l lat l on of
nutria nt-ramovl ng measures In direct relation to Orange Cou nty's
12 prior nutrient loading.Costs could reach Into the ml Ilia ns of$
's'
13
In other words.the County would need to Install enough
14 stormwater control measures[SCM's]to compensate for the
amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus added to Falls Lake from
15 Orange County between 2006 and 2012.Costly.no partnerships
16
17
18 Slide #8
19
20 Tonight's Decision:
21
22 To authorize the Board's representative on the t1NRBA
23 Board of Directors to indicate intent to participate in the
24 IAIA-a planned and coordinated multi jurisdictional
implementation approach to implementing Stage I of the
25 Falls Lake Watershed Rules.
26
27
28
29
OUNCE COUNTY
r.�kni wwuw
30
31
32 Commissioner Greene said this was a thorough presentation, and underscored that this
33 decision to join this coalition is only voluntary to the extent that not joining would cost the County
34 millions of dollars in going it alone. She said this path is an incredibly creative and sensible way
35 to maintain the water quality of Falls Lake.
36 Forest Westall, UNRBA Executive Director, said he has been involved in this process for
37 44 years, and thanked the Commissioners for their service. He said the NGOs and
38 environmental community has worked on this project, and all are supportive. He said this is a
39 model for dealing with existing development, and the commitment is for 5 years to maintain the
40 water quality. He said the Lake is in good shape, and all want to keep it that way. He said this
41 vote is intent to participate, as final details are worked out. He said if Orange County is not a
42 part of the IAIA, it will have to submit its own plan. He said the implementation will begin in July
43 1, 2021. He said this is a joint effort by all involved.
44 Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 8, and said there is a reference to Orange
45 County going out alone, and the compensatory costs would range from $49,000 to $46 million.
46 He said this is a useless statistic, and should be more accurate.
47 David Stancil said the exact loading rate is really unknown, and it is more likely to be on
48 the upper end of the range. He said he understands Commissioner Dorosin's comment.
49
50 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to
51 authorize Commissioner Greene to indicate Orange County's intent to participate in the IAIA at
28
1 the November 18, 2020 UNRBA Board meeting, with formal approval and action to be
2 forthcoming in 2021.
3
4 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 8. Consent Agenda
9
10 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
11
12 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
13
14 Commissioner Dorosin referred to item 8-g, and asked if there is a reason for this closed
15 session to be added before a meeting, as opposed to the typical practice of afterwards.
16 Chair Rich said this is a meeting to discuss applications for the Clerk position, and staff
17 thought the BOCC may be more fresh at the beginning of the evening.
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this will take 90 minutes, and could the Commissioners
19 come into the meeting with their top 5 candidates to expedite the process.
20 Chair Rich said yes, this was already staff's suggestion. She said this item is on the
21 consent agenda, as the meeting must be added to the BOCC calendar.
22 Greg Wilder said no action is needed if the BOCC does the meeting at the end of the
23 already scheduled work session. He said action is only needed if the BOCC wants to add it
24 prior to the work session.
25 Commissioner Bedford asked if the work session agenda is full. She said she is flexible.
26 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the agenda items for the work session.
27 Commissioner Greene said she would defer to Commissioner Dorosin's request.
28 Commissioner Marcoplos suggested starting the work session at 6, and having he
29 closed session afterwards.
30 Commissioner McKee said he would prefer to meet afterwards.
31 Commissioner Price said she would prefer to start earlier.
32 Commissioner Greene said this will be a work session, and not full of complex decisions.
33 Chair Rich asked if the BOCC can start the work session at 6:00 p.m.
34 Commissioners Greene and Dorosin said they would prefer to start at the normal time of
35 7:00 p.m.
36 Commissioner McKee said he cannot imagine the first run through of candidates will
37 take 90 minutes.
38 Commissioner Marcoplos said to leave the work session at 7:00 p.m.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
41 to remove item 8-g from the consent agenda.
42
43 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
44
45 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
46
47 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
50 approve the consent agenda.
29
1
2 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
3
4 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
5
6 a. Minutes
7 The Board approved the draft minutes from September 24, October 6, and October 8, 2020 as
8 submitted by the Interim Clerk to the Board.
9 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
10 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
11 property tax values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of nine (9) bills that will result in a
12 reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. (RES-2020-068)
13 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
14 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
15 values for twelve (12) taxpayers with a total of thirty-three (33) bills that will result in a reduction
16 of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. (RES-2020-069)
17 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
18 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve tax
19 exemptions/exclusions from ad valorem taxation for thirteen (13) bills for the 2020 tax year.
20 (RES-2020-070
21 e. Appointment of County Review Officer
22 The Board approved a resolution appointing Rebecca Lee to be the Review Officer for Orange
23 County, and removed two (2) review officers that are no longer employed by the County. (RES-
24 2020-071)
25 f. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment#3
26 The Board voted to approve budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal
27 year 2020-21. (ORD-2020-026)
28 g. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2020 (added)
29 The Board voted to add a virtual Board meeting on November 12, 2020 at 5:30 pm for the
30 purpose of convening a Closed Session to discuss personnel and other matters. This additional
31 meeting precedes a Board work session that was previously scheduled and is already included
32 on the 2020 Board Meeting Calendar.
33
34
35 9. County Manager's Report
36 NONE
37
38 10. County Attorney's Report
39 NONE
40
41 11. *Appointments
42 NONE
43
44 12. Information Items
45
46 October 20, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
47 Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
48 Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
49 Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100
50
30
1 13. Closed Session
2 NONE
3
4 14. Adjournment
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
7 adjourn the meeting.
8
9 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
10
11 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
12
13 The meeting was adjourned at 11:21 p.m.
14
15
16 Penny Rich, Chair
17
18
19 Allen Coleman
20 Assistant Deputy Clerk II
21
22 Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY
6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 VIRTUAL WORK SESSION
8 NOVEMBER 12, 2020
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Work Session on Thursday,
12 November 12, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and
15 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Mark
16 Marcoplos
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
20 Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen
21 Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below.)
22
23 Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked Commissioners to accept
24 a roll call.
25 Roll Call ensued.
26
27 Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual Work
28 Session on Thursday, November 12, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners
29 participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to
30 view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at
31 http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on
32 channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
33
34
35 1. Financial Report for the First Quarter of FY2020-21
36
37 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, presented the item below:
38
39 BACKGROUND:
40 The COVID-19 induced recession resulted in County measures as part of the FY 2020-21
41 Adopted Budget. This first quarter report provides a status of Revenue and Expenditure of the
42 County's Operating Funds as compared with the prior fiscal year. Budget versus Actual financial
43 analysis are a key focus to identify and report any material performance variances.
44
45 Gary Donaldson made the following PowerPoint presentation:
46
47 Slide #1
48
49 ORANGE COUNTY
50 NORTH CAROLINA
Financial Report-First Quarter FY 2020-21
en.rd o,[ci.ory[oinoocari.io
Won Sea.ion.
2
1
2
3
4 Slide #2
5
6 Economic outlook
7 we gm an.<s-c��[.ad way .<d wee n.ann
8 ryr.[�o,..rrnrr,.nnexn.nv.,�.e[enam��nre,pvnrwea"rn,n,m..w
res iM fTax 3•a[lmiun xiU Lomb W mpnl[ged In
rrWlpn.M1ip wfn lmf impa[t on y4y tv aM clwgr.Ipr xrvkn[eymy�,
9 WTamUHC-CNarWtte1011F[omml[fine[asl�Hease05ep1emlln l3,
jp]fl lS frll[]lMaIOI ypJ[[P.1PY.IlNCC NlI IifRP ECMMNI[fONY![[llIY G[Of5
10 kPpd nl�SPla 36#fp 70ll a.cpmpa ae[vafp ayd GSop JS
':Iy Soto
1 1 Ilrcnglvpne+i[me laeurttd ro.omnue io drelaie[o s.lY ba
fx .e r7Wk.
12 SMx u!(ilu v[rcupW[n h wl dro MrNeaxdF mAr i9.
lvao •�
13
14
15 Slide 3
16 General Fund Revenue Budget
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 `
24
25
26 Slide #4
27
28 General Fund Expenditure Budget
29
30
31 -
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 Slide #5
39
40 General Fund
41 -
42 --- - - - -
43
44
45
46 -----
47
48
49 Commissioner McKee asked if the 2.92 % total revenue variance is growth.
3
1 Gary Donaldson said yes.
2 Commissioner McKee asked if the projected growth for this year is known.
3 Gary Donaldson said the projected growth was for the increased debt service. He said
4 this amount also includes a fund balance appropriation of$8.2 million. He said for FY 2020
5 there was no fund balance appropriation that was used.
6 Commissioner McKee asked if the appropriated fund balance is down, are projected
7 revenues ahead or behind from what was originally projected. He said it is his understanding
8 that revenues were originally projected to be down considerably.
9 Gary Donaldson said the sales tax difference is $3 million. He said the revenue and
10 expenditure trends have no alarms at this point, since this was based on the property tax
11 revenue, which usually peaks at the end of the calendar year.
12 Paul Laughton, Deputy Financial Services Director, said the Intergovernmental Account
13 reflects the CARES Act funding, which was a huge driver for the overall 2.92% increase in
14 revenues.
15 Commissioner McKee said he is curious for numbers that have atypical revenue sources
16 removed, in order to get a clearer picture of the actual situation.
17
18 Slide #6
19
20 Property Tax Revenues
21 �"ro T.mlmcrs re]65sdlk mdrrm .b.*K-pve.UA de"Mm
wr do H"W-O w,ae 0.*WM 1wn
22 Seim do mx .AKme pam nrwss ndmWnmmc Aa ud
VYa AY iT,Wa�I'�sin4•r e C Wuv,].dVO lreppRrty'y�rNl n1h4 hY
23
24 � �mar>Ydcarl9�d Ve Nxuvdoe n>4<ncwrta+eeml6[n4es�kola
25 ��M1ad vN -tW nx4 rrt A ftnr k@W MA Ire L}XMI
�a � a
26 W wde mesh w(ieonik rtl�cF—A d.w C[rse b mm�,A.IN
27
28 Slide #7
29
30 Sales Tax Revenues
31 .M1 T'MaVreenuc ram 14 Poi.N M0.••.�d@e,m INTM mtbhW
32 m dhMmx rKv ncd a Ntt,k Coe.. v NC70,Wtfaw dlwmias
itt kha 62%t kf.Ar OID.4rs rm rd PrNpctSYe rn¢a A Amfth%C ALI
33 Ulm r*K.a t or'"m drurrd 4wxw"Wxi m34
de
;.,
35
• r�ryawnwmrn hrru,es r+ra wcaw++rcan
36Ea .
37
38
39 Slide #8
40
41 Sales Tax Annual Trend
42 „s
43
44
45 15
is,6rek15.m 52]p11S18.6F 513.,1GMl.l]5 a39s7tlm
46
47
48 Commissioner Price asked if the negative 9% was budgeted.
49 Gary Donaldson said yes.
50
51
4
1
2
3 Slide #9
4 Other General Fund Revenues
5
6
7 � a�ra�o�19A%dn�e�gYa:,�d+opa%�arm r�m�.,rE
adnrsltnbaa w CIIrIDl9 a6k nWlh ur�wecf xrmde R�Oii+l{r d,r[wn'r Mecmn
Cenar ylKhreSxM CaPAIOvrd[mn>ifwrlL•cmc reme7hom de kdcY Wrer+mex
8 +gq k.TW 5m�ad DWk P�m:e+c`ama kn a,$F floa H M&rw ON&
9 :9,dMV�mea
10 , ____�r:enad&A%dh4eLtmre ma mWamd m&t%Mv pw A"ter
11 ssRMt*rxLzof[i6n DfJM.41tV An Gr"fiM de&r*4 iw61c&.hFGV ilpd,N
Of,k! K.Qr rkx luny moment�negs
12 )"oMwarawwdnkn
13
14 Slide #10
15
16 General Fund Expenditures
18
19
....e...r e.J...v.w,...r,r.a,e,•N�e w�.e
20M��•r, .
21 n••,'S�i mwM n rt,�d.uY[5 ewer a.d er,e,n..ed Jr��vJ nn•en..,i..�in.ri..nn..d fk.W red:y.p,p ti.J v^�
22
23
24
25 Slide #11
26
27 'd ur County Funds
28 - _
29 _- - -
30 I =
31
32
33
34
35 Slide #12
36
37 COVID Impact
38
39 �..., ., _.,..
40
41
42 -
43
44 Slide #13
45
46 COVID Impact
47
48 Mont hly Occupancy Tax
49
1=
50 "'°m°51
su 1
5
1
2
3
4 Slide #14
5
6 Management Response
g visitors Bureau Fund-Identified$329.000
in additional cost containment measures
9
10 Sportsplex Fund-Initiatives include
11 furloughs and discretionary spending
12 Second Quarter Update and monthly
13 monitoring of key revenue and expenses
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the funding for SROs expenditures has come back to the
16 County.
17 Gary Donaldson said this is an ongoing discussion, and SROs are still being utilized for
18 other services at the school facilities.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said there are no students at the schools, and he asked if there
20 is a reason the schools are receiving funding for SROs.
21 Bonnie Hammersley said currently Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) are not
22 being paid for SROs. She said Orange County Schools (OCS) SROs are employed by Orange
23 County, and the County has kept all employees employed. She said the County is not paying
24 for SRO services at this time.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like more information on this issue. He said
26 CHCCS should not receive funding for SROs, if they are not working in the schools. He said if
27 the OCS SROs have been redeployed to other tasks by the Sheriff's Office there should still be
28 some excess of funds somewhere.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said she could get more information from the Sheriff's Office for the
30 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). She said the Sheriff's Office is doing a lot of food
31 delivery, and the SROs may be the manpower for this service. She said the invoicing is done
32 differently between the two school districts. She said school nurses have been deployed to do
33 contact tracing, and are thus still employed.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said the schools are not invoicing the County, so there should be
35 unspent funds, which should be reflected in the financial reports.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said it is hard to make decisions on the first quarter report, but the
37 point is noted.
38 Commissioner McKee said Orange County Schools is using their SROs in the teaching
39 pods, if that is the right term. He said the BOCC should get a report from the Orange County
40 Sheriff, and clarification from both school districts, as well as an update on return to school
41 plans.
42 Chair Rich said the teaching pods are called learning centers.
43
44 2. Update on CARES Act Funding Allocations
45
46 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, presented the following:
47
48 BACKGROUND:
49 The County received two funding allocations through the Corona Virus Aid, Relief, and
50 Economic Security Act or CARES Act. CARES Act funds were distributed to counties based on
51 population. CARES Act funding must be used to fund expenses directly related to the County's
6
1 response to the pandemic. These funds cannot be used to supplant currently budgeted
2 expenses or to replace revenues such as sales tax or occupancy tax that have suffered as a
3 result of the pandemic. The CARES Act funds must be used by December 30, 2020, or they
4 will be reverted to the State.
5
6 Orange County's round one allocation was $2,665,753. The round two allocation was
7 $2,881,614 for a total of$5,547,367. Of that total amount, the County retained $3.2 million
8 while $2.3 million was distributed to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane based on
9 a per capita allocation.
10
11 The County has used its $3.2 million CARES funding allocation to support a range of expenses
12 directly related to response efforts. The following table details how the funds were allocated to
13 various expenditure categories and the amount spent from those activities as of the end of
14 October as recorded in the County's financial system. Spending is occurring in each of the
15 spending categories, but that spending may not have been recorded in the financial system
16 yet.
17
18
19CARFSAct Arnount Spent as of
20 '
21 Building Modifications,Sanitization,and Signage $ 405,000 $ 158,822 I $ 246,178
22 Terdhnologyto Support Remote Work $ 451,741 ; S 159,566 ; $ 292,175
23 Court Navigator -6manths $ 31,457 17,815 $ 13,642
24 Food Acquisition and Distribution $ 106,000 ; 5 88,313 $ 17,687
25 Reemployment Services $ 50,000 ; $ 14,c45 i $ 35,955
26 Child Care&Support Services $ 60,000 $ 50,312 $ 9,688
27
28 Landlord Incentives $ 50,00c $ $ 50,000
29 Emergency Housing Assista nce j $ 1,157,0c0 j $ 1,157,000 $
30 Emergency Ho using Assistance Administrator $ 25,000 $ 4,434 $ 20,566
31 Rapid Rehousing Case Manager $ 30,202 i $ 30,202 $
32 Legal Counsel for Eviction Prevention Translation $ 115,590 ; $ 32,261 ; $ 83,329
33 Reimbursement forEmployeeCOVIDLeave $ 255,046 ; $ 104,067 $ 151,979
34 VisrtorsBureauAdvertising $ 65,00c $ 40,207 $ 24,793
35 Revaluation StaffngSupplement $ 40,00c 24,099 $ 1.5,912
36 LongTerm Recovery Consultant i $ 101,500 i $ 1o,c00 $ 91,500
37 Emergency ServicesNonrCongregaleLodging $ 90,000 $ 90,00)0 j $
38 Free Flu Vaccines @ Testing Sites ! $ 10,000 ! $ $ 1c,c00
39 Li6raryCurtisideEquipment $ 4,800 $ 160 $ 4,640
40 4rangeCountySchoolsHotspots $ 120,000 $ 120,000 j $
41 Public health Education Campaign $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000
42 DSS Personal Protective Equipment and Other Supplies $ 38,136 $ i $ 38,136
43 :F
44
45 Allocation Amendments
46 Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has required funding flexibility as initial cost
47 estimates were more than actually required, new needs emerge, or existing needs require
48 additional support. The Board of Commissioners has facilitated this flexibility by approving
49 several reallocations from the original funding categories.
50
7
1 • $75,000 was transferred from Building Modifications, Sanitation, and
2 Signage to supplement the Emergency Housing Assistance Program.
3 • $90,000 was transferred from Building Modifications, Sanitation, and
4 Signage to fund non-congregate (hotel) housing for residents who have
5 been exposed to COVID-19 or test positive for the disease and do not have
6 access to housing that would allow for appropriate isolation or quarantine
7 protocols.
8 • $10,000 has been transferred from Technology to Support Remote Work to
9 pay for flu vaccines that have been offered free of charge at Public Health
10 sponsored COVID-19 testing sites.
11 • $120,000 was transferred from Emergency Housing Assistance to Orange
12 County Schools to purchase hot spots for remote learning.
13
14 Funding Allocated to Towns
15 The Board of Commissioners also approved allocating $2.3 million to the Towns of Chapel Hill,
16 Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane for pandemic response related expenses. While the
17 Towns used some of this funding for personal protective equipment, personnel expenses,
18 remote work technology, and small business grants, the Towns have also contributed to the
19 Emergency Housing Assistance Program. These funds have provided direct rent assistance to
20 Town residents as well as staffing support to administer the program. These contributions are
21 represented in the following table.
22
23
24 Arnou nt Available for Local
25 Town Rernittance CARES Allocation EHAContribution
Spending
26
27
28 Chapel Hill $ 1,553,263 " 954,186 599r077
29 Carrboro 554,736 $ 434,753 $ 119,983
30 Hillsborough 165,422 141,514 24,908
31
32 Mebane $ 55,474 $ 55,474 -
33 Town AllocaitionTOTAL
34
35 This partnership with the Towns has resulted in an additional $743,968 for Emergency Housing
36 Assistance and $1,585,927 available to the Towns to pay for local needs.
37
38 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, provided the following PowerPoint presentation:
39
40 Slide #1
41
42 11„V2020
vrtuai
1 work session
Agenda Item 2
43 ORANGE COUNTY
44 NORTH CAROLINA
45
46 CARES Act Funding Update
47
48
November 12,2020
Virtual Work Session
8
1
2
3
4
5 Slide #2
6
7 Summary of CARES Act Funds
8 Coronamus Aid,Relief,and Economic Secunty Act(CARES Act)
9 Pederal Wrids 03mbined 1e slates
• %nh Carolina climmU red hnWe m Ca blrs Lased on population
10 Orli ge County oiemnubun
12
13
14 ][Ss' � �u9
15 �a
16
17
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked if these allocations are based on population.
19 Travis Myren said yes, these allocations are based on the approved per capita
20 distribution.
21
22 Slide #3
23
24 Approved Reallocations
2 C Emergency HousmgAssislance
J —M.000—nurshr+N h—8—� M-rkaeons.Su, + ma Sq ca
26 lWki e "En,er�H."^%rnW.EVWram
27 Nan-Congregate Quaranline and taalatmn
—Wit——InnWmp eam BYia�IApemrieyis.S.wG9w,YU s�agr W
RNn nmrmyryam rmailauisng
2'" Free Flu St,ots al C0V1D Testing Snes
29
519.000�a Mn uanf erceE from i Mdepv o S ppn Remek'.Yut a
yr a�yaws y PypSr;HHryn sps�rprW COYII)-,91n1nq yps
30 Hot spots for Orange County schools
31 -s,mooti.,..ea.nrn,au r�nErl�..�yns.n"�'Wor.�y.
eou,tr sa,aario wrdua.na rws ar rrmele ramna
32
33 Slide #4
34
35 Spending Status
36
37 i-
38 J � .
�_,�r_
39 _ -- -
40 U� -
41
42
e3 i W Terel Allecaiinn Expenh.d
43 A.of I0,11 e2020
44
45 Slide #5
46
47 Building Modifications, Signage,
48 Sanitation
49 Total Allocation•5405-000
50 Baniess ai Public C—um
51 Signage n cnun y Fan iue:
-Saneatland Vetnp Prennels.$50,o0u
•Water Fountain Fa—tc m Fill Cuy..and Borges
MAC id Allen 8 All S—bt-c.$128,680
9
1
2
3
4
5 Slide #6
6
7 Advertising and Signage
8 • News of Orange Advertisement
9
10 Daily Weekday COVID-19 Testing
11 Daily,9am-5pm
12 Testing is drive through or walk up.Parking lot in front of the
13 Whitted Human Services Center,300 W.Tryon St.Pre-registration
is encouraged and may be done online.Select Orange County
14 when registering.www.orangecountync govfTesting
15
16 Slide #7
17
18 Marketing&Small Business Support
19 • Visitors Bureau Advertising-$65.000
20 -Get Cul-Gwe Back Campaign
21
22 nos',Auwbyz 756N&M
23 —shop Lacai for the Holidays—C:omog Soon
24 T�VKMLfwL"" 4� hukdw„
25
26 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the Landlord incentives line item, and asked if
27 examples could be given.
28 Travis Myren said an example of incentives is funding a security deposit to ease fears to
29 rent to someone with a housing voucher.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos asked about the Emergency Housing Assistance money.
31 Travis Myren said Housing is currently using NC HOPE funds and new CDBG money
32 that was allocated.
33
34 Slide#8
35
36 Employee Support
37 500 Caun�.nphyn.•.o hYp «.y-5651.7R 5
38 o
39
40 RarNnnlfo l+�tlPd.nrd1AYC�Y a�
41
•Frer Flu Shgc-NeAW
42
43 Pod i(4uiflllen.M IIW tips•S,�e.mu
44
45
46 Slide #9
47
48 Human Services
49
50 -Libra ry Curbside Services-54.BOO
51o� ., �..a...
rarr axn .ays
10
1
2
3
4
5 Slide #10
6
7 Housing
8 -43%of Toial County Funds Allocated to Pausing lniarven5ons
9
10 L. �0.ron
1 1 lynrs.+cr�w.a.s•�.. __s____- I.�n-aoo
r vrer�w.a.s•.ww.+e..m...lnw s MM
12 ,. P � 5 >o
LyYLaee.lb E--P�NI - 5 1111011,
13
14
15
16 Slide #11
17
18 Housing
19 -Over 52.13 nttlllon in Total County Emergency Housing AEeisiance
Awarded
20 _
21 "°'°' e.Wn ,1-..4 eWu.tw. OWN*
22 (066LY Scam Aku.n0 �� O I(23
5>rn M SIM." ..Area
23 r lull Sew 5119.99e me .12: E...
24 —D
25 u clMe ll 51!oM So *A
26 °C_uen sloo,000 50 c.... 3
Elu Fid. SKM So
27
28
29 Commissioner Greene said Damon Seils, from the Carrboro Town Council, asked her if
30 the County is applying for funds to support local businesses, in addition to supporting Housing
31 programs.
32 Travis Myren said funding can be used in various categories, but County staff
33 recommended using it all in housing. He said these funds are available for the Towns to submit
34 unique applications, separate from the County.
35 Commissioner Greene asked if the CDBG was now being allocated to counties.
36 Travis Myren said counties have been allowed to apply for CDBG funds due to Covid.
37
38 Slide #12
39
40 Housing
41 _ Town Collaboration
42
43
44 V.Ub S
45 5 55�7 5 �3An $ 11N9p
�niiy 5 IN.3N 5
46 ! 5
47
48
49 Slide #13
50 Emergency Housing Assistance
51
-unique Households Served
Households Served lb,/EHA by Month
'10
+00
11
1
2
3
4
5 Slide #14
6
7 Emergency Housing Assistance
8
9 -krcane and f]emogryPhics W Households Served
10 ERR Iy IMeg,s LwN FJIA b�RaWEUni[Ry
lynM+re lMu,eM1ofds
1 1
12 -•
13
14 .m _... ,..
15
16 Slide #15
17
18 Emergency Housing Assistance
19 _Arnourri of Anistana by Month
20 EHA Actuals by Month
21 ,�®m
22
23 �
24
25
26
27
28 Slide #16
29
30 Emergency Housing Assistance
31 -Amount of Assistance by Location and Purpose
32 EHA by WrIbdiclion EHA by fhapoef
33 �=
34
35
36
37
38
39 Slide #17
40
41 Long Term Recovery Planning
42 -How does the community recover,transform,and thrive?
43 -Funded Ihraugh multqunsdrehonal partnersh ip-$175,DW
• Per CaPH+arecaeen
44
45 -Racial Equity FmmewDrk
C�Aihi pnF"Egwy MA.RE1 Turn members emgayedin
46 �,sWpwr Fynr s
•Cary v Lead.F—Grows C—d
47 Fdmp iS75 es6 pr—dw by Emerge,ry Manari-nt Performance Gram
ry erharced cemmwry cwe.cn
48
49
50 Chair Rich said she appreciated staff going into the community to conduct the surveys,
51 and it is important to widely engage the community.
12
1 Travis Myren said staff is learning a lot about survey work, and self-selection involves a
2 bias. He said using different communication networks are important to reaching more people.
3 Commissioner Price said it would be helpful to go into different communities and find
4 trusted messengers to help accomplish this task, similar to the census.
5
6
7 3. Update on COVID-19 Long Term Recovery Planning
8
9 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, presented the following:
10
11 BACKGROUND:
12 Although the response effort to COVID-19 is ongoing, the County and its municipal partners
13 have allocated a total of$175,000 in CARES Act funding to retain a consultant to support long
14 term recovery planning. As part of the effort, the County has organized over 150 community
15 organizations and representatives to help identify needs and create recommendations that will
16 promote an expeditious and equitable long-term recovery while improving the County's
17 resiliency to respond to future events.
18
19 These organizations involved in the Long Term Recovery Planning process are organized into
20 seven Recovery Support Functions focused on the local economy, the health system, human
21 services, housing, natural and cultural resources, community planning, and public information.
22 With the assistance of the consulting group, these support functions have been asked to
23 characterize and quantify the impact of the pandemic, create potential recovery strategies, and
24 establish recovery priorities using a social justice and racial equity perspective. These strategies
25 will ultimately be presented to each of the governing boards in the County for their consideration
26 and implementation.
27
28 During the work session, the County's Long Term Recovery consultant, Hagerty Consulting, will
29 present an overview of the project, a status update on the activities that have occurred to date,
30 and a timeline for completing the project. The consultant is presenting the same information to
31 Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, which are actively participating in project management
32 and sharing in the cost of the consultant. A copy of supplemental questions submitted by the
33 Chapel Hill Town Council is attached for additional information and context. Final work products,
34 including recommendations, will be presented to local governing boards in early 2021.
35
36 Kayla Slater and Michael Levkowitz, Hagerty Consulting, made the following PowerPoint
37 presentation:
38
39 Slide #1
40
41
42 Orange County
43 Recovery and Iransfonnaflon Planning Pioie&
44
45
46 '$r�
47
48 Slide #2
49
50
51
OverviewProject
Planning St s Update
. .
13
1
2
3 Slide #3
4
5 Project Intent and Deliverables
6 liie iraeF« iiiti W.. •n ne.l l r.iii,...tw.1-W.A.g N,j,i-iiti.: Ii Li..lte1l.
[h-et�e otutt... il�tti.i¢irip¢Iili-i—i,. rr¢¢t the�01 yu0ee0W.
8
9 '
10
.'ova*acarn.no�. r�..w.vro.�.e
11 �w�n�we�t¢on •«¢'^n wr�oe� �,d_to��vm
12
13 Slide #4
14
15 Orange County Recovery Support
16 Functions
-
17 ..�
RSF is ECum'J¢
18
19
W a:Hb
20 ,: �a�� .�e�«
27 Ysf 6:Comrtu�h Pk rv�Mo nCopan aWn�q
1 vsr is nrcepo.emrnenrm n�ro�,w.�ryeEc ruamnrn ascen
22
23
24 Slide #5
25
26
27 Project overview
28 • •
29 Upcoming Recovery Activities
30
31
32
33 Slide #6
34
35 Project Phases
36 O U IP
38 Phn1.1 Mello Ph.-3 (PM-Al
39 * »
40
41
42
43 Slide #7
44
45 Recovery Activity Update
46
47
48
49
50
51
14
1
2
3 Slide #8
4
5 Key Findings:Community Values Survey
9
10
12
13
14 Chair Rich asked if the Department of Social Services (DSS) and Family Success
15 Alliance (FSA) were included in this group.
16 Kayla Slater said not in the original framework process, but they will certainly be
17 included in the larger focus group.
18
19 Slide #9
20
21 Website Launch o,a^9eNcra Nor .orQ
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -
29
30
31 Slide #10
32 Key Findings.Impact Assessment
33
34 �I '�ry.royFM[In1Fr•.....Jh p 41
n�;3�.i�hrrl u,mupnd��li Ncyy,�rx .vluo naq�[ouon
35
xu�pr iiL ra9hY-_3 r•.MpM bnib i6wriii il�Nr.,w�ul un,�a,ec.x aed w_�u
36 A e,., . ...
37 • &mwa lui�rn niN]�Ir.��.�nr!4ni�e Cwiiinfixrinin l[ovuurAwF.m FuFO blgd
dnert 1�:luuuiwldr rrwu nvvm.o�m bmrinrora.wiucuM,o ali hwxb-iL n am9
Ivaw�.uri«.e,
38 oew�Ww w�u.w�mawnoa.a wwwr enmi vavu•ten
in,cxuge['ourc.�nH soup hoe""•-u>ailrwuthe,.rc iwdrcrnxd L�broxl,w rcl
39 K�
40
41 Slide #11
42
43 Recovery and Transformation Goals
44 nWrlau,nUgsuP>,un-r—, Nrel„61,,,A ea[an�ennzng.IIf- C LA tiv�,
IIo.0 runureln r:J1.1-9 LLY.rir,n.•n.l:rkIL13 nr ln1nol.:end nnrenou3.1ty..-h P-M l IF—SL nw•
45 Cm'ID-s91,np®rr A.--I.
46 rar'°Term Recovery and TranOwmaH on Goals
.Wlrcss f.M. enrnl Fens of.0 resW-11:
47 Errol.yarn.IIA11.N,d.ff*."k
48 rromotp i&Lwirrk,cvrutAblr.%ndswt.di b P mn-ine—m.-
49 Sumulu,Cn[orEaln[amu,mriM• r�FR�:,nd
50 CF6dtIi,-pti-efetsofson.1�sr F�
51
15
1
2
3
4 Slide #12
5
6 Project Overview
7 . . Planning Sfalu3 Update
8 Upcoming Recovery Acfivifie6
9
10
11
12 Slide #13
13 Upcoming Recovery Activities
14
15 F4
16 TM17
18 -
19 •WdF%wlln the Oeporiment❑f Humdn •COn rIpliw,"'0
20 Rfghk Ond RelotlonS 10 engpge WOC StrOt"IeS IXWCI On Cammunny and
Lommurwy leaden to Vpllaale ana StOMhW rnpV%tO Infgm fhe
2 1 help UeSM�n the ReCDvery dnd ReCOvery dnd UprY.fdrrrgtidn PIOn.
iramioffnalbn 4i,:n
22
23 Commissioner Price asked if the 113 responses were from rural or urban residents.
24 Kayla Slater said most likely it was from urban residents.
25 Commissioner Price said rural residents were missed, and that is an important gap.
26 Kayla Slater said fliers were distributed via library checkouts.
27 Commissioner Price asked if the various local community centers were contacted, such
28 as the Marian Cheek - Jackson Center, United Voices of Efland Cheeks, or Cedar Grove
29 Community Center.
30 Kayla Slater said no.
31 Commissioner Price recommended these centers be contacted, and brought in as
32 partners.
33 Commissioner Price asked if the consultants or the community created the survey
34 questions.
35 Kayla Slater said the consultants.
36 Commissioner Price said it may be helpful to include community members in the
37 creation of the questions.
38 Commissioner Price said she hears many concerns from the community about education
39 and broadband. She said the Consultant should follow up on these issues.
40 Michael Levkowitz said the bucket listed as "others" included a great deal of responses,
41 and education and broadband were brought up often.
42 Chair Rich asked if the 150 stakeholders included community members.
43 Kayla Slater said it is mostly government and non-profit staff. She said there is a goal to
44 engage community leaders specifically.
45 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the White Cross area has been tapped into, and
46 suggested some good partners in that area.
47 Kayla Slater said the point was noted.
48 Commissioner McKee asked if he heard correctly that the survey results were mostly
49 from older white women, and if rural outreach was at the Carrboro Farmers' Market.
50 Kayla Slater said yes, that most responses were from older white women, and most
51 responses were from more urban areas, as opposed to rural.
16
1 Commissioner McKee echoed concerns about reaching out to the rural community, as
2 the results are skewed without hearing from everyone. He said Orange County is heavily urban,
3 but is not exclusively so.
4 Kayla Slater said she understands this concern, and it is what is driving the engagement
5 of local community leaders.
6 Commissioner McKee asked how many Community Leaders were pulled from the rural
7 pockets.
8 Kayla Slater said she does not know, but will find out.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said this issue highlights a broader challenge the County has
10 with outreach and engagement, and the dependence on electronic sources to gather data and
11 conduct outreach. He said the pandemic has hindered typical ways of on-the-ground outreach,
12 and the need for creativity is great. He said several County agencies have been addressing this
13 issue of engagement, and networks had been created to effectively touch those different areas
14 of our communities. He said Advisory Board members are community leaders that could be
15 utilized.
16 Travis Myren said it is more balanced on the urban/rural than the survey demographics
17 would suggest.
18 Commissioner Greene suggested reaching out to Schley Grange, Meals on Wheels, and
19 possibly even churches, such as Lattisville Church to help with this community engagement.
20 Chair Rich asked if staff would follow up with the BOCC letting it know where outreach is
21 conducted.
22
23
24 4. Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment—Appointments Discussion
25
26 BACKGROUND:
27 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
28
29 POSITION NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
30 NO. REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
31 3 Thomas ETJ orJPA First Full Term 0613012023
32 Wortman i Appointee {re-appointment)
33
34 A recommendation was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
35 Price to appoint Thomas Wortman to position number 3 on the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment.
36
37 The Board agreed by consensus.
38
39 5. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointment Discussion
40
41 BACKGROUND:
42 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
43
44 NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
45 REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
46 TERM
47 Aubrey Orange First Full Term 12/31/2023
48 Williams County/Hillsborough
49 Chamber of
Co m me rce
50 Anthony Carey Economic Second Full Term 12/31/2023
51 Development (re-appointment)
Advisory Board
Dan Mayer Orange County Arts First Full Term 12/31/2023
Commission
17
1 Commissioner Bedford said the Visitors Bureau installed a separate sub-group to work
2 on diversity for this advisory board.
3
4 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner
5 McKee to appoint Aubrey Williams, Anthony Carey, and Dan Mayer to the Chapel Hill Orange
6 County Visitors Bureau.
7
8 The Board agreed by consensus.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said there is a vacant position from the Chapel Hill Chamber of
10 Commerce, which he would like to fill.
11 Commissioner McKee said he would remind the Chamber about this vacancy.
12 Commissioner Dorosin said there is an applicant who is a non-white woman, who has a
13 non-profit background.
14 Commissioner Bedford asked if the committee could have a little more time, and she will
15 remind the Visitors Bureau about this pending applicant.
16 Commissioner Greene said to remove Robert Morgan's name from the list, as he passed
17 away this week.
18 Chair Rich said the BOCC will fill this position at the next work session.
19
20 6. Chapel Hill Parks, Greenways, and Recreation Commission —Appointment
21 Discussion
22
23 BACKGROUND:
24 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
25
26 POSITION NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
27 NO. REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
28 TERM
29 1 Alice K. Orange County First Full Term 06/30/2023
30 Armstrong Representative --.re—appointment;
31
32
33 A recommendation was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
34 Price to appoint Alice Armstrong to position number 1 on the Chapel Hill Parks, Greenways, and
35 Recreation Commission.
36
37 The Board agreed by consensus.
38
39 7. Commission for the Environment—Appointment Discussion
40
41 BACKGROUND:
42 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
43
44 NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
45 REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
46 TERM
47 Kim Livingston At-Large First Full Term 12.31/2023
48 (formerly Land (re-appointment)
Resources)
49 Kim Piracci At-Large Second Full Term 12/31/2023
50 (re-appointment)
51 Jeremy At-Large Second Full Term 12/31/2023
Marzuola (re-appointment)
18
1 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner
2 Bedford to appoint Kim Livingston, Kim Piracci, and Jeremy Marzuola to the Commission for the
3 Environment.
4
5 The Board agreed by consensus.
6
7 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner
8 Bedford to appoint Eric Sheier to the At-Large position on the Commission for the Environment.
9
10 The Board agreed by consensus.
11
12 8. Human Relations Commission —Appointment Discussion
13
14 BACKGROUND:
15 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
16
17 NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
18 REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
19 TERM
20 Ana M. Garcia- At-Large Second Full Term 06/30/2023
21 Turner (re-appointment)
22 Allison Town of Second Full Term 06/30?2023
23 Mahaley Hillsborough (re-appointment)
24 Dion Graham At-Large First Full Term 06?3012023
25 i re-a ointment
26 David LaBarre At-Large First Full Term 06?3012023
27 Ellis Driver At-Large Partial Term 09?30?2022
28
29
30 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner
31 Bedford to re-appoint Ana M. Garcia Turner, Allison Mahaley, and Dion Graham, to the Human
32 Relations Commission.
33
34 The Board agreed by consensus.
35
36 A recommendation was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
37 Price to appoint David LaBarre and Ellis Driver to the Human Relations Commission.
38
39 The Board agreed by consensus.
40
41 9. Mebane Board of Adjustment—Appointment Discussion
42
43 BACKGROUND:
44 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
45 NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
46 REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
47 TERM
48 David Ferraro Mebane ETJ First Full Term 12?3112023
49
50 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner
51 Greene to appoint David Ferraro to the Mebane Board of Adjustment.
19
1
2 The Board agreed by consensus.
3
4 10. Orange County Board of Adjustment—Appointment Discussion
5
6 BACKGROUND:
7 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
8
9 NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
10 REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
11 TERM
12 Samantha At-Large Second Full Term 0613012C22
13 Cabe
14
15 Commissioner Bedford said she reached out to the County Attorney about a conflict of
16 interest for Judge Cabe. She said appeals from this board of adjustment would never go to
17 district court, but rather to superior court, and so there is no conflict; however, the BOCC just
18 passed a policy not to appoint elected officials.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC should honor that policy, and there is an
20 appointed alternate that could sit while the position of re-advertised.
21 Commissioner Price agreed.
22 Commissioner Bedford said she admired Judge Cabe, and this is about the policy, not
23 her.
24
25 The Board agreed by consensus to decline this appointment.
26
27 11. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointment Discussion
28
29 BACKGROUND:
30 The following appointment information is for Board consideration:
31 NAME REPRESENTATION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
3 APPOINTMENT DATE
2 TERM
33 To Cedar G.- First Full Term 091MV2023
0stemlm'. To shlp
34 BOCC No Appl ionls
A mtmenl
To Be Eno T.—hip Partial Term M3012022
35 Detennir d
aocc
36 Appointmeni
To Be Hillsbomugh First Full Term 0913012023
37 Detemined T mshlp
aQCC
Appolmmenl
38 ro 6B UMQ RNer HIM FUII Term OW3012023
Deterrnined Township
DCC NoApp�ana
39 B
Appvirdmenl
40 To BB At-L&W First Full Tam W13012023
Oetermirled
BOCC
41
Appoltmeni
42
43
44
45 To At Ls ga First FuN Term 09:30'2023
Defermined
46 ��
47
48
49 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner
50 Marcoplos to appoint Josh Mayo for an at-large position.
51
20
1 The Board agreed by consensus.
2
3 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
4 Bedford to appoint Jamie Crandell for the Eno position and Tom Gray for the Hillsborough
5 position.
6
7 The Board agreed by consensus.
8
9 Commissioner Price said Bonnie Houser's name should be removed from the applicant
10 list, as she is now an elected official.
11 Chair Rich asked if staff would go through the lists and remove any elected officials.
12
13 A recommendation was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
14 Bedford to appoint Heather McAndrew to an at-large position.
15
16 The Board agreed by consensus.
17
18 12. Closed Session
19
20 "Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(6) "to consider qualifications, competence, performance,
21 character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual
22 public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee."
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to go
25 into closed session at 8:54 p.m.
26
27 Chair Rich called the roll.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
34 return to open session at 9:44 p.m.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 Adjournment
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
41 adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45
46
47 Adjournment
48
49 The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
50
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
1
2
3 Penny Rich, Chair
4
5 Allen Coleman
6 Assistant Deputy Clerk II
7
8 Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY
6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
8 NOVEMBER 17, 2020
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday,
12 November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and
15 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, and Earl
16 McKee
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
20 Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen
21 Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
22
23 Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked Commissioners to accept
24 a roll call.
25 Roll call ensued.
26
27 Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual
28 Business Meeting on November 17, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated
29 in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and
30 listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on
31 Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
32
33 In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment.
34 • Written submittals by email
35 • Speaking during the virtual meeting
36
37 Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this
38 agenda. (Pre-registration is required.)
39
40 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
41
42 Chair Rich requested to add consent agenda item 8-f, to consider the change in the
43 2020 BOCC meeting calendar allowing for an additional virtual special meeting on Saturday
44 November 21, 2020 to begin at 8:30 a.m., for the purpose of convening a Closed Session to
45 discuss personnel.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
48 add item 8-f to the Consent Agenda.
49
2
1 Chair Rich noted the following items were sent to the Board electronically, prior to the
2 meeting:
3 - PowerPoint for item 6-a
4 - PowerPoint for 6-b
5 - PowerPoint for 6-c
6 - PowerPoint for 7-a
7
8 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting.
13
14 2. Public Comments
15
16 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
17 Janine Zanin said she lives in Efland, and is concerned about the Buckhorn area plan.
18 She said big changes are planned for this area, and she has been attending planning meetings
19 in Mebane, and is confused why the public has not been more involved, as well as the County
20 itself. She said this seems to be a change to the comprehensive land plan, which she believes
21 the County is required to be involved with. She said the process has been backwards, and
22 encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to look closely at this area.
23
24 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
25 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
26 below.)
27
28 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
29 Commissioner Greene said she had no comments tonight.
30 Commissioner Bedford said there would be a drive through job fair from 10 a.m. to 2
31 p.m. tomorrow at the Department of Social Services (DSS).
32 Commissioner Bedford said donations were down for the Holiday Toy Chest through
33 DSS.
34 Commissioner Price said the information item included in tonight's agenda package,
35 related to the US15/501 Corridor Study, has been discussed multiple times, and has been a
36 disappointment, as it encourages more cars to be on the road.
37 Commissioner Price said all Board members should have received an email from the
38 Orange County Rape Crisis Center about this week being Transgender Awareness Week. She
39 encouraged the BOCC to continue looking at, and seek to eradicate, all forms of discrimination.
40 Commissioner McKee said he had no comments tonight.
41 Commissioner Dorosin referred to a story in the News & Observer, which said 10% of
42 Raleigh residents is over age 65; 11% of residents in Durham is over age 65; and 15% of
43 Chapel Hill residents is over age 65. He said this is something to consider moving forward. He
44 said another set of statistics that came out was about wealth in the local community. He said
45 the median household income in Chapel Hill has increased by 7% to $90,400 annually; the
46 median home value is $410,000; and 58% of renters in Chapel Hill are spending more than 30%
47 of their income on housing. He said these are important demographic statistics.
48 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the US 15/501 Corridor study, and said he has had
49 many discussions with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), GoTriangle, and Durham
50 BOCC, and this corridor is so important to the greater regional transportation connectivity.
3
1 Chair Rich said the weekly COVID-19 update was shared with the Commissioners this
2 evening. She said Orange County is clocking about 7 cases per day, and remains in the lowest
3 zone, per the Governor's measurements. She said even though people have pandemic fatigue,
4 it is important to stay safe, wear masks, and follow proper protocols.
5 Chair Rich said she spoke with Jennifer Player, Executive Director of Habitat for
6 Humanity. She said Habitat scored the highest on the bond funds housing matrix, but received
7 the least amount of funds. She said many Habitat homeowners are African American, and the
8 lack of funding is a real loss to the community. She said she is not convinced the matrix
9 worked.
10 Chair Rich said she spoke with Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) colleagues in
11 Durham County, and agreed the 15-501 corridor is so important for transportation and
12 connectivity. She said regional transit must be prioritized.
13 Chair Rich said she received several comments from the Human Relations Commission
14 about feeling neglected in decision making. She encouraged the BOCC to utilize this
15 commission when appropriate, and to its fullest ability. She said this is a good commission that
16 could be doing much more.
17 Commissioner Greene said she received notification that Cordelia Heaney, Executive
18 Director of Compass Center for Women and Families, has resigned from her position and is
19 moving to New Orleans. She commended Cordelia Heaney for her work while in Orange
20 County.
21
22 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
23 NONE
24
25 5. Public Hearings
26 NONE
27
28 6. Regular Agenda
29
30 a. Proposed Merger of Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee and
31 Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee
32
33 The Board discussed the proposed merger of the Adult Care Home Community Advisory
34 Committee (ACHCAC) and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee (NHCAC) into one
35 committee.
36 Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board, reviewed the item below:
37
38 BACKGROUND:
39 Over the past few years, it has become increasingly more difficult to recruit qualified applicants
40 for both the ACHCAC and NHCAC. Some of this is due to the time required to perform the
41 duties of facilities inspection. Many of the positions are "At-Large" while other positions are very
42 specific to a certain professional background. More recently, in the current COVID-19
43 environment, both committees have become inactive given tight restrictions on entering
44 facilities. This reality has impacted attracting new potential volunteers/appointees.
45
46 It should be noted though that both Committees continue to be led by very active Committee
47 Chairs, Shade Little for ACHCAC and Vibeke Talley for NHCAC, who along with their fellow
48 members have invested significant time and resources to serve the needs of the public.
49
50 COMMITTEE OVERVIEWS
4
1
2 Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee
3 Members are appointed by the Board of Commissioners to all positions. The Regional
4 Ombudsman assigned to Orange County is Autumn Cox who works for Triangle J Council of
5 Government (TJCOG). Prior to any appointment, Autumn Cox vets applicants. If a qualified
6 applicant is selected, that individual must attend state mandated training and must pass the
7 course before being recommended for appointment. There is an initial one-year training term,
8 with subsequent eligibility for three additional two-year terms. The Committee works to maintain
9 the intent of the Adult Care Home Residents' Bill of Rights for those residing in licensed adult
10 care homes. The members of this Committee also promote community involvement and
11 cooperation with these homes to ensure quality care for the elderly and disabled adults. The
12 members of this committee make visits to facilities no less than annually.
13
14 Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee
15 Members are appointed by the Board of Commissioners to all positions. The Regional
16 Ombudsman assigned to Orange County is Autumn Cox who works for Triangle J Council of
17 Government (TJCOG). Prior to any appointment, Autumn Cox vets applicants. If a qualified
18 applicant is selected, that individual must attend state mandated training and must pass the
19 course before being recommended for appointment. There is an initial one-year training term,
20 with subsequent eligibility for two additional three-year terms. This committee helps to maintain
21 the intent of the Residents' Bill of Rights, promotes community involvement and provides public
22 education on long-term care issues. The members of this committee make visits to facilities no
23 less than quarterly.
24
25 After completion of the visits, the team members of both committees prepare a state report of
26 their findings during the visit. The report is then presented at the regular committee business
27 meetings. The report is discussed and a vote is taken to gain approval of the report. The
28 Ombudsman then formats the report for submission to the particular county. The information is
29 then published on the county's website for public view.
30
31 LIST OF CURRENT VACANCIES
32
33 Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee
34
35 POSITION DESIGNATION EXPIRATION DATE VACANCY INFORMATION
36 At-Large 10/31/2021 This position has been vacant since 07/15/2020.
37 At-Large 06/30/2022 This position has been vacant since 05/12/2020.
38 At-Large 10/31/2022 This position has been vacant since 8/2/2019.
39 At-Large 10/31/2021 This position has been vacant since 10/31/2017.
40 At-Large 06/30/2022 This position has been vacant since 06/03/2020.
41 At-Large 06/0/2022 This position has been vacant since 1/16/2020.
42
43 Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee
44
45 POSITION DESIGNATION EXPIRATION DATE VACANCY INFORMATION
46 At-Large 09/30/2020 This position has been vacant since 11/06/2019.
47 Nursing Home Administration 06/30/2023 This position has been vacant since 06/21/2017.
48 Nursing Home Administration 06/30/2023 This position has been vacant since 03/29/2019.
49 At-Large 03/31/2023 This position has been vacant since 05/18/2020.
50 At-Large 06/30/2023 This position has been vacant since 02/25/2018.
51
5
1 Victor Orija, Ombudsman Program Specialist, Autumn Cox, the Regional Ombudsman
2 with TJCOG who is assigned to Orange County, and Kim Lamon-Loperfido and Janice Tyler,
3 Department of Aging Director, were available during the meeting.
4 Autumn Cox said according to state statute the ACHCAC should have 8 members, with
5 the BOCC being able to appoint up to an additional 5 members, which is what happened in
6 Orange County. She said NHCAC should have 7 positions, which would mean the current
7 County NHCAC is full. She said the ACHCAC has 6 candidates, with 3 ready for training, which
8 has been put on hold due to Covid.
9 Chair Rich asked if the committees were to be combined would the membership
10 numbers be 15.
11 Autumn Cox said no. She said a joint committee would require 13 members, with the
12 BOCC being able to add up to 5 additional members, if so desired.
13 Vibeke Talley, Chair of the NHCAC, she said there are 5 nursing homes in Orange
14 County. She said she does not recommend combining the 2 commissions, as the proper level
15 of attention will not be applied to the details of the work, and advocacy for the care facilities'
16 residents would be compromised.
17 Victor Orija agreed with Vibeke Talley.
18 Autumn Cox said if the groups merge, all members would have to go through additional
19 training, which would take a fair amount of time.
20 Commissioner Price asked if there are committee members waiting for both groups.
21 Autumn Cox said no, there are only pending candidates for the ACHCAC.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said the number of vacancies on these commissions motivated
23 this conversation. He asked if the impact of those vacancies could be described.
24 Vibeke Talley said as long as there are 7 people on her committee, it can work
25 effectively. She said more people would be helpful, but 12 are definitely not necessary.
26 Autumn Cox said the ACHCAC is also doing well, and would be even better if the 3
27 pending members could be brought in.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said his primary concern was seeing all of the vacancies, and he
29 wanted to ensure these committees were able to still do their work with limited members. He
30 asked if there is any benefit to combining the two groups.
31 Vibeke Talley said more work will be created if the two groups are combined, and likely
32 less people to do the work.
33 Janice Tyler said she defers to Vibeke Talley, and would recommend keeping two
34 groups, but reducing the numbers slightly.
35 Vibeke Talley agreed, and recommended 10 members for the NHCAC.
36 Chair Rich asked if 10 would be a good size for the ACHCAC.
37 Autumn Cox said yes. She said a current member has to leave due to a conflict of
38 interest due to a family member being in a care facility.
39 Commissioner Greene said she is glad to be having the conversation, and it sounds like
40 a merger is not a good idea.
41 Commissioner Price asked if there has to be a quorum for these boards to work.
42 Autumn Cox said yes, there must be a quorum for business meetings.
43 Commissioner Price said a spot must be kept for a nursing home administrator on the
44 NHCAC, even if the numbers are reduced.
45 Autumn Cox said she works in several counties, and other counties do not keep track of
46 the specific position designations.
47 Thom Freeman-Stuart, Assistant Deputy Clerk I, asked if it would be acceptable to fill the
48 positions with people who do not fit the designation.
49 Victor Orija said no, and the most important detail is to avoid any conflicts of interest.
6
1 Janice Tyler said if it is not required by state statute, she would recommend doing away
2 with the designations.
3 Commissioner Price said if the statute requires the designations, then they should
4 remain, but the overall numbers can be reduced.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said her recommendation was for 13, due to the difficulty in filling
6 positions. She said staff can figure out designations, and it would probably be best to keep two
7 boards, but reduce each committee to 10 members.
8 Chair Rich echoed Commissioner Dorosin's concern regarding the difficulty in filling
9 these boards. She said she would like to revisit these boards if the difficulty continues.
10 Thomas Freeman-Stuart said Covid-19 has prevented visits to these facilities, and asked
11 if enticing applicants will be even more difficult than it already was.
12 Victor Orija said Covid has made things difficult, but there are volunteers who really love
13 to serve in this capacity, and he is hopeful for the future.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
16 keep the committees separate and reduce the number of positions to ten (10) total for both the
17 Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee and the Adult Care Home Community Advisory
18 Committee.
19
20 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 b. Discussion and Acceptance of the FY 2020-25 County Capital Investment Plan
25 The Board discussed the updated outstanding amendments to the Capital Investment
26 Plan, and considered voting to approve the acceptance of the FY 2020-25 County Capital
27 Investment Plan (CIP).
28
29 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, reviewed the item below:
30
31 BACKGROUND: During the Intent to Adopt Budget work session on June 9, 2020, the Board
32 approved amendments to the Capital Investment Plan that advanced the expansion of the
33 Durham Technical Community College and amended several projects in Year 1 (FY 2020-21)
34 intended to offset the cost of advancing that project.
35
36 The Board postponed making decisions on proposed project amendments in Years 2 through
37 5 that are intended to more fully offset the cost of advancing the Durham Tech Expansion
38 project into Years 1 — 3. The Board reviewed the proposed amendments at the September 10,
39 2020 work session, and provided direction to staff. At that time, the Board reached consensus
40 on all of the amendments as represented in Attachment 1 with the exception of a $250,000
41 reduction in vehicle replacements in years 2 and 3. Therefore, Attachment 1 contains two
42 options. The first option is to implement the $250,000 reductions in Years 2 and 3. The second
43 option eliminates those reductions.
44
45 The Vehicle Replacement project in the Capital Investment Plan has been used to replace
46 public safety vehicles. As a result, the $250,000 reduction in Years 2 and 3 would result in the
47 replacement of fewer vehicles in Emergency Services and the Sheriff's Office. If the reduction
48 were balanced evenly across those two agencies, Emergency Services would forgo one
49 ambulance remount or three supervisory vehicles scheduled for replacement over this two
7
1 year period, and the Sheriff's Office would forgo five to six patrol or investigative vehicles due
2 for replacement.
3
4 The Board also directed staff to adjust the IT infrastructure amount to minimize the number of
5 replacements that were six years old or older. That resulted in no reduction to IT infrastructure
6 for computer replacements compared to the Manager's Recommended Budget. Given this
7 level of funding, 270 units would be 7-9 years old in FY2021-22, 88 units would be 7-9 years
8 old in FY22-23, and 247 units would be that same age in FY23-24. No units would exceed nine
9 years of age at this funding level for the next four years.
10
11 The CIP summary tables that would be amended by the Board's action are included as
12 Attachment 2— Updated CIP Summaries, Option 1 and Option 2, and the detailed project
13 pages that would be amended by the updated amendments are included in Attachment 3—
14 Relevant CIP Project Pages.
15
16 The Board requested additional information on the County's vehicle replacement program as it
17 relates to the Capital Investment Plan. The age and mileage for the Sheriff's Office fleet and
18 the Emergency Services fleet is provided in Attachment 4, Vehicle Fleet Information for
19 Emergency Services and Sheriff's Office.
20
21 Attachment 5— Debt Metric Models, provides the impact of the proposed amendments, as well
22 as the two (2) scenarios for vehicle replacements amendments, and how they impact the
23 County's 15% Debt Capacity Policy and the Tax Equivalent impact on the Debt Service.
24
25 Note: There is one budget amendment change that needs Board approval in adjusting the Year
26 1 (FY 2020-21) funding in the Information Technologies Infrastructure Capital Project from
27 $340,000 to $434,500. This increase of$94,500 would be included under the Desktop/Laptop
28 Replacement appropriation section of the project. In reviewing the Approved Meeting minutes
29 from the June 9, 2020 Board meeting, the Board approved a budget amendment reduction of
30 $500,000 instead of the previously amount of$594,500 that was reduced from the project
31 when the Board approved the Year 1 (FY 2020-21) CIP funding on June 16, 2020. This change
32 is reflected in this project in Attachment 2, Updated CIP Summaries.
33
34 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, presented the following PowerPoint
35 presentations:
36
37 Slide #1
38
39 •t.:>�� .,,�°�.-dam
40 ORANGE COUNTY
41 NORTH CAROLINA
42
43 Acceptance of the Amended
44 FY202❑-25 Capital investment Plan
45
46 November 17.2020
47 Virtual Business Meeting
48
49
50
8
1 Slide #2
3 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
4
5
6 Amendments Adopted 619
7
8
9 Total Adopted
10 Project Amendment Expenditure Amendments
Amount
11 Durham Tech Expansion Move the Durham Tech Expansion Project
12 Project Planninq up to Year 1 $ 1,00D.000 $ 1,000,00
1 3 Durham Tech Expansion Move the Durham Tech Expansion Project
Project
ro ect Phase 2 up to Year 2 $ 14 000 000 $ 14,000,000
14 Durham Tech Expansion Move the Durham Tech Expansion Project
15 Project Phase 3 up to Year 3 $ 11,547,911 $ 11T547,911
16 Total $ 26,547,911 $ 26,547,911
17
18 Slide #3
20 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
21 Amendments Adopted 6/9
22 Amendment Total Adopted Notes
23 Expenditure Amount Amendments
24 Delay the following CIP projects from Year 1 (FY 20.21)to Years 6.10
25
26 Roofing Projects-Library Design $ (25,000) S (25,000) mfect Withdrawn by
Staff
27 EMS Substation-Morgue Project $ (675,000) $ (675.000) mfectBudgetReduced
2 O S525,000
O Blackwood Farm Park $ (35D,000) $ (350,OD0) emediateand
2 n ehabifdate Farm Noose
7 T-Infrastrudure,LaptoplDesktop S (900,000) $ (500,090) 934,500 Total Budget
30 e lacement C berSecuri
1,261,634 Total County
31 ehldeReplacements $ (250,000) $ (250,OD0} 2ricedReplacements
32 Total S (2,200,000) S (1,800,00D)
33 Recommend TechnrcalAmendment
$594,500 Reduction in Approved Budget Ordinance but
34 6/9/2020 Minutes Reflect$500,000 Reduction
35
36 Slide #4
37
38 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
39
40 Total Enpendilore Coun y Debt Finan ed Coon y Deb Ficed
anendrnemn Prnie�t .arnoant n,nognt{optpn ll .arnpgmloptinanpn zl Ivntes
41 Year 2-FY 2021-22
42 z 21ar-oos ae�.tom $ IQ,se9.0001 S I4.ss9,wol S (4,s%DMP) Dd n WYar:6-10
43 x 21ap RFib,Connectivity $ 11,1W,DDo) $ 11,160,W01 $ [1,150,W0) Deferd W Years 6-ID
44 20-21aP fake Orange Dam Rehabllitatbn $ 15,5261 $ [50,5261$ (50,526) Defered tn Years 6-10
45 zo-zlav-Dos Lttle Ri etv i..Ph—ii S (a .rOo) S (—rCo)S Izoo uool Deis dm Years 6-ID
46 20-21aR ROnBng and BAdfng F.Szde Projects$ [250,0001 $ [2w,W01$ (z50,OW1 DcT—d Main tib.ry—f
47 "PA.en,enttpY—&M
48 2D-21aP win Creeks Park $ [22a,BOD1 $ [220,W01$ (220,0W1 Deferred to Years 6-10
49 2o-uaP-0tI Oldc—h—sq- $ (z .DDO1 $ [zno,Wol$ IzoD,BW1 oererd to Years 6-ID
oererd w rears 6-ID(option 3):
50 2021tlP-005 ehiden pla em�Hs $ 250,OW1 $ 25,W01$ —in$250,—op—2l
Deferd to Years 6-10,this amount is
xIF21aP-DD5 Millhouse Rwd Park $ [4W,o0o) $ - $ - profsianal se7 for the a mount
defrred in Year 3
ear 2Tote1: S l],519,s26} $ (6,919,526) $ 1[6,W,5261
9
1 Slide #5
2
3 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
4
5 �� etd�enenar auab Dee twu,eca auabprat tnuKca weaer
6
Year 3-FY 2022-2,
7 xa.em ,wuua0.y r w nwaacai: iaxa mr...bw
8
10
11
12a.w a rawv a mom s ya mI •
.w.busavov xaw�:
13
14
15 Slide #6
16 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
17
18
19
20
21 Dal Frpend ure cowryaebt Nnan d County Debt Nuanced
Amendment Project Amount AnwuM(Option I AmouM(Option 2, Notes
22
23 Year 4-FY 2023-24
oe erted—lobos Faci€ry in
24
2-1-16 Emergenrysere—.b:tatmns S 10.o�.�i S l4,oag000l $ 14,000,0001 he Northern�mdorm nears
10
25
26 Yeara TMal: S la,t>oo,opo]S Ia.AAA.000l S I4€uopool
27
28 Slide #7
29
30 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
31
32
33 Total Enpenddure CountyOebEfinapred [awho<btTmam<d
Amendment Project /ImouM Amount Eoiroan 1] Amount(Option 2� Notec
34 Year 5-FY 2024-25
35 20.2 c-1T Fadliry AaessibilltY.S fdy,a,M $ ,1,O95,99Oi$ (1,095,980( $ (1,O95,9>N]Oef rted to rears G]O
36 n dri mp a�n<M
37 0.21C P-01] akeo ange Dam Rehahtl anon 5 11.voo,000l 5 19W,000] S 19OO ppp}Oefemd Spillway Channd
peplar—m to Y.rs 6-M
38
39 D,f ned Nex Cnu.1—
z—C€P-01]rtvac Prn rn S I1z4,00a1 S flza,pool S I1z4,aop1 rrvACr�la�memmrears
o-10
40
YearSTMd: $ M11 —)S MM" $ [3x".w
41
42
Grand 43 T..1 5 42 7195 2 ]9506 21 195
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10
1 Slide #8
2 Vehicle Replacement Impact
3
4 Option 1-$250,OOG Reduction in Years 2 and 3
5 - Sheriffs Office=MOW Total Funding Over Two Years
• �elern l 1%Vehk"G—r 150,000M
6 Fr. m R.pla�F.15)lb$m(el rhyink,C rr T—Vr W-rid
7 - Emergency Services=$1,004,540 Tolal Funding Over Two Years
I—[el!,rtu —01-r,50.Wa Mke
8 r.v 121 Ad iv Mahe VN.des0 .150000 Miles
• Frvda m Wppla�Twe[2}Amhul.rieeR and Three(119upervianry Vehdna fhn T.v Y.ex
9 Option 2-No Reduction in Years 2 and 3
10
1 1 - Sheriffs Office=$480,907 Over Two Years
• huMs[a rMWaEkvcn I11110[l2}511mnLTRi[ks Orr ie'oT rs
12 — Emergency Services=$1,254.540 Total Funding Over Two Years
13 FurWxmih pl:��Tnv[]]A.MruLincex fli.ll]Ri�muin,
nrd Than lt]Cipermr Vcheirs[]rn Twn Yc.�rz
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the difference between option 1 and option 2 is 6
16 vehicles in the Sheriff's Office, and 1 remount in Emergency Services.
17 Travis Myren said yes.
18 Commissioner Price asked if staff is using mileage or vehicle age as the determining
19 factor for replacement.
20 Travis Myren said he was using this as a guide, and 200,000 miles is the real breaking
21 point. He said he is looking ahead a year, and the mileage will likely reach 200,000 by that
22 time. He resumed the presentation:
23
24 Slide #9
25
26 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
28
29 Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Analysis
7 15°I Pollcy Target
30 op`
1 ov�n2
31 R.p md.d Fig A"Mv.d 2 D.Q V V.hW. Ne V.hla.
Y.ar _,P Am dm.ms R.plae.m.nt R.prewm.nt
R.dvclion in R.ductlon in
32
202$ 14.12% 14.1 111 14.1
33 2022 1e.43
1e.4 eao lean
2Q23 16.1 16.2 1E 17' 1E 17.
34 2W4 16 18 1e 3y. 184o
7Q25 t5.1a 15. 153a t
358 t441 1st] ,44f 14A7
36
37
38 Slide #10
39
40 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
41
42 Tax Equivalent Debt Service Analysis
43 in Cents per$100 Valuation
44 Op9on 1 Opll..2
I W9
45 axeo,000 Y.hlci. Ho V.hIcM
1'.ar .emlprnd.d ClP Amndm� rHplac.m.nt R.plae _
R.d—lm In R.du.&.In
46 Y. 2d8 Y...2a8
ar t.aT ar ar
47 34e wn 344 344,
48 2D24 o.se 4.01 nss
49 ren 111
Ru ax1 6.55 e.as nao
50
11
I Slide #11
2
3 Capital Investment Plan Amendments
4
5
6 • The Manager recommends that the Board accept the remainder of
7 the FY2020-25 Capital Investment Plan by
8 — Approving a 594,500 budget amendment in Year 1)FY 2020-21)in the Information
9 Technologies Infrastructure Capital Project as reflected in the June 16,2020 meeting
minutes:and
10
11 — Approving either the amendments listed on Option 1 or Option 2 in Attachment f to finalize
12 the FY2020-2025 Capital Investment Plan.
13
14 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the Parks projects would be banished to years 6-10,
15 or if they could be pulled back in earlier.
16 Travis Myren said staff reviews this plan every year, and projects can always be moved
17 around.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if members of the Public were engaged on this item,
19 and changes.
20 Chair Rich said she has heard from the Durham Tech people, who are excited.
21 Bonnie Hammersley said Commissioners vote on the funding annually, and this item is
22 just the plan. She said the public may be more vocal around funding discussions. She said the
23 plan does move the County forward with Durham Tech, and there will be other issues moving
24 forward.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said he has heard from many members of the public, not just
26 Durham Tech, and all comments have been very positive. He said he appreciated receiving all
27 of the additional information, and would be in favor of voting for the option that saved $500,000,
28 which will keep the CIP more balanced. He said he would be in favor of option 1.
29 Commissioner Price clarified that option one contained the reduction.
30 Travis Myren said yes.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
33 approve the amendments presented in option 1 and to accept the remainder of the FY 2020-
34 2025 Capital Investment Plan.
35
36 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the name of Durham Tech could be changed to
37 Durham-Orange/Orange-Durham Technical Community College.
38 Chair Rich said Bonnie Hammersley will begin those conversations.
39
40 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
41
42 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner
43 Marcoplos, Commissioner Price, Chair Rich); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Bedford,
44 Commissioner McKee)
45
46 MOTION PASSES 5-2
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to
49 approve the $94,500 budget amendment adjustment to Year 1 (FY 2020-21) funding in the
12
1 Information Technologies Infrastructure Capital Project as reflected in the June 16, 2020
2 meeting minutes,
3
4 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 c. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA)
9 (RES-2020-072)
10 The Board considered an amendment to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning,
11 and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) in the Town of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction in
12 response to a petition from property owners, and considered voting to adopt a resolution which
13 approves designating 11 parcels (totaling 31.88 acres) in question as being located within the
14 "Primary Service Area" for water and sewer services. In addition, the Board considered
15 providing feedback on whether staffs of the five WASMPBA parties should commence work on
16 a policy for resolving minor discrepancies in the future through GIS analysis and staff
17 interpretation.
18
19 Perdit Holtz, Planner III, reviewed the item below:
20
21 BACKGROUND:
22 In mid-February, the petition in Attachment 1 was received by the five signatories of the
23 WASMPBA. (Link to the Agreement). An Information Item regarding the petition was on the April
24 7, 2020 Board of County Commissioners agenda. While the petition is in regards to two lots that
25 were formerly (pre-2000) within the Town of Chapel Hill's "urban service area" and the ability to
26 tie-on to OWASA facilities that are currently "stubbed out" to the lots, further analysis by staff is
27 recommending that all or part of 11 lots (31.88 acres total) be added to the "OWASA Primary
28 Service Area" (see map in Attachment 2). The nine additional lots currently have homes on
29 them and are served by OWASA services. Water and sewer lines were installed to serve the
30 neighborhood in 1997.
31
32 The neighborhood in question predates adoption of WASMPBA in 2001. At that time, the Town
33 of Chapel Hill had an interest in reducing the size of the water and sewer service area in
34 southern Chapel Hill. OWASA and the Town put a policy in place that allowed lots to still receive
35 water and sewer service if the "structure existed before May 8, 2000 and is located on a lot
36 adjacent to an OWASA water or sewer line that was installed before May 8, 2000" (Attachment
37 3).
38
39 During meetings on this matter, staffs of the five signatory parties discussed the
40 appropriateness of a minor boundary amendment to prevent the boundary line from bisecting a
41 neighborhood and makes all lots in the same neighborhood eligible for public water and sewer
42 service. Staffs believe that, particularly in cases such as this where services already exist and/or
43 are being provided and property owners are requesting inclusion, it is appropriate to include
44 served parcels in the "Primary Service Area" for water and sewer services. OWASA staff has
45 advised that, from an engineering perspective, it is feasible to provide water and sewer service
46 to all 11 lots under consideration (9 of the lots already receive services).
47 The meeting schedule for the five WASMPBA parties to consider this amendment is as follows:
48 Chapel Hill — October 28
49 Hillsborough — November 9
50 Carrboro — November 10
13
1 OWASA— November 12
2 Orange County— November 17
3
4 As the initiator of this amendment, since the parcels in question are within its planning
5 jurisdiction, the Town of Chapel Hill's resolution requested that the governing boards of the
6 Town of Carrboro, the Town of Hillsborough, Orange County, and OWASA consider approval of
7 the amendment.
8
9 Potential Map Interpretation Policy
10 This is not the only instance where natural features (e.g., a stream or ridge line) are meant to
11 serve as boundaries of a service area. Natural features were not surveyed when the WASMPBA
12 boundaries were mapped. Technology has improved since 2001, including GIS tools for more
13 accurate topographic mapping. Staff from the five WASMPBA parties have discussed a
14 potential policy for resolving minor discrepancies in the future through GIS analysis and staff
15 interpretation, rather than through the existing process which requires formal action by each of
16 the five governing boards. Staffs of the WASMPBA parties are requesting feedback from each
17 of their governing boards on whether staff should pursue developing such a policy to be
18 included in the WASMPBA. If authorized, staffs would work together on language and bring an
19 item forward for future consideration.
20
21
22 ATTACHMENT 4
23
24 RES-2020-072
25
26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF THE WATER AND
27 SEWER MANAGEMENT, PLANNING AND BOUNDARY AGREEMENT (WASMPBA) TO
28 DESIGNATE 31.88 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CHAPEL HILL AREA AS "OWASA
29 PRIMARY SERVICE AREA"
30
31 WHEREAS, in 2001, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Orange County, and the Orange
32 County Water and Sewer Authority ("OWASA") adopted a Water and Sewer Management,
33 Planning and Boundary Agreement ("Agreement"); and
34
35 WHEREAS, the Agreement was last amended on October 6, 2020; and
36
37 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill residents Frank Baumgartner and Rachel Sumney submitted a petitions
38 to each of the WASMPBA signatories in February 2020, requesting approval to hook up to
39 existing water and sewer lines at 1204 and 1205 Bayberry Drive in Chapel Hill; and
40
41 WHEREAS, the two lots in question are immediately adjacent to other residential lots that
42 receive OWASA services, and are located on the eastern side of the Hunt's Reserve
43 neighborhood which is predominately located in the "OWASA Primary Service Area" as defined
44 in the Agreement; and
45
46 WHEREAS, OWASA staff have advised that, from an engineering perspective, it is feasible to
47 provide water and sewer service to all lots in the Hunt's Reserve neighborhood; and
48
49 WHEREAS, Orange County staff has determined that it is reasonable to include all lots and
50 portions of lots accessed via Bayberry Drive within the boundary of the OWASA Primary Service
14
1 Area, in order to provide consistent water and sewer policy for all lots in the Hunt's Reserve
2 neighborhood; and
3
4 WHEREAS, eleven lots or portions of lots accessed via the eastern end of Bayberry Drive,
5 constituting a total area of approximately 31.88 acres, are currently designated as "OWASA
6 Long-Term Interest Area" in the Agreement; and
7
8 WHEREAS, amendments to the Agreement require the approval of all signatories to the
9 Agreement.
10
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
12 the Board approves the amendment to Appendix A of the Agreement to designate
13 approximately 31.88 acres in the southeast Chapel Hill area as an addition to the "OWASA
14 Primary Service Area", as shown on the map attached hereto.
15
16 Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was
17 adopted this 2020. day of
18
19 I, Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY
20 CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a
21
22 meeting held on , 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said
23 proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board.
24
25 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2020.
26
27 SEAL
28
29 Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
30
31 Perdita Holtz, Planner III, presented the following PowerPoint Presentation:
32
33 Slide #1
34
35
36 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and
37 Boundary Agreement
38
39
40
41 Board of County Ccimmmmoners Meeting
42 November 17,2020
43 Presented by- Perdita KD[tz,AJCP,Planner HI
44 and Craig Benedict,AICP,Planning Director
45
46
47
48
49
15
-
Brief Overview
•WASMPBA adopted in December 2001 to establish water and sewer service
boundaries and other relevant parameters
• Five parties:
•Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro,and Hillsborough
• Orange County
• OWASA(Orange Water and Sewer Authority]
1 • In February,a petition was received from two property owners within
Chapel Hill's ETJ(Extraterritorial Jurisdiction)requesting that two lots be
12
13
added to"Primary Service Area"
•All five parties to the agreement must approve changes such as this.
SlideAmendment Map
17
37.
15
16
Location
• •Vicinity Map in Attachment 2 shows
zoomed out location -southeast
• Chapel Hill.
1 •2 lots pertaining to petition are
undeveloped by have water and
sewer stub outs.
22
•Staffs recommended that 9
23
24
25
additional lots (11 total)in the
same subdivision also be added to �
Primary Service Area.
• Already served by OWASA water and
sewer lines
• —
Slide27
28 •4
• Process
1
31
32
• Initiated by Town of Chapel Hill since lots are within Town's ETJ
33
• Review Schedule:
• Chapel Hill October 28(approved)
i35
• Hillsborough November 9(approved)
• Carrboro-November 10(approved)
• OWASA November 12(approved)
• • Orange County November 17
37
•Town of Chapel Hill's resolution requested that the governing
38
39
boards of the Town of Carrboro,the Town of Hillsborough, Orange
County,and OWASA consider approval of the amendment.
' 1
41 Slide
42
43
Potential Map Interpretation Policy -
Feedback Request
..
•Staff requests feedback on whether the staffs of the 5 WASMPBA parties
'46
should commence work on a potential policy for resolving minor
discrepancies in the future through GIS analysis and staff interpretation,
47
48
rather than through the existing process which requires formal action by
each of the five governing boards.
• If authorized, staffs would work together on language and bring an item
i •
forward for future consideration.
• Parameters expected to include consideration of future land use
1 categories and existing zoning,serviceability,amount of land affected,
and distance from existing similar WASMPBA designation (Primary
Service Area vs. Long-Term Interest Area)
16
1 Slide #6
2 9auNary Companw
3 -
4BouMary
6
7 ~�
9
10 ...-
11
12
13 Slide #7
14 Recommendation15
16
17 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment 4 which approves designating the
11 parcels(totaling 31.88 acres)in question as being located within
18 the"Primary Service Area"for water and sewer services on the map
19 in Appendix A of the WASMPBA.
20 feedback Provide
policy for resolving minor discrepancies
21 in the policy
22 would need
. . . .
,. .
23
24
25 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this item is about 2 lots, and the other nine are
26 already hooked up.
27 Perdita Holtz said essentially it is 2 lots, which already have stub outs, but need service.
28 She said the additional 9 are being added for consistency.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if these two lots were stubbed out prior to the boundary
30 agreement being made.
31 Perdita Hotlz said service to the subdivision began in 1997, but in 2000 the Town of
32 Chapel Hill was working on its comprehensive plan, and pulled back the urban service boundary
33 at that time. She said the preexisting stubs outs were not taken into account, and she does not
34 know why.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Price to
37 adopt the resolution which approves designating the 11 parcels (totaling 31.88 acres) in
38 question as being located within the "Primary Service Area" for water and sewer services on the
39 map in Appendix A of the WASMPBA.
40
41 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Chair Rich said the discussion can now move to the second part of the item.
46 Commissioner Greene said she heard that other districts are in favor of pursuing a
47 policy, but she is not. She said these boundaries were drawn with great deliberation, and
48 should come back to the Board on a case by case basis. She said she is really opposed to an
49 abstract policy on these matters.
17
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he has the exact opposite opinion. He said it is bad
2 planning to have parcel and zoning lines that do not match. He said going through these issues
3 is not a good use of a Board's time. He said zoning lines run through parcels, and the rural
4 buffer, etc. He said this is a matter of cleaning things up, and not wasting resident, staff, and
5 Board time in the future.
6 Commissioner Bedford said she fully agrees with Commissioner Greene, and partially
7 agrees with Commissioner Dorosin. She said she would favor staff looking at areas of obvious
8 concern, if staff has time to do so. She said the definition of"minor" will vary, and she does not
9 want a policy, but would be in favor of doing the work.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with Commissioner Dorosin, and said 99% of the time
11 it would be an easy fix. He said Commissioner Greene's concerns could be included in any
12 policy, giving neighbors a chance to weigh in. He said if there were disagreements, then the
13 boards could get involved.
14 Commissioner Price asked if staff could clarify the exact policy that is being proposed.
15 Perdita Holtz said staff is having preliminary discussions, and suggested having the
16 policy be some sort of parameters with a maximum distance/square feet/acres that the
17 WASMBPA line could be changed to better match a zoning line.
18 Commissioner Price asked who made make the ultimate decision.
19 Perdita Holtz said the staffs of the five parties.
20 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said in the majority of cases, the water sewer line was
21 a ridgeline. He said the maps were drawn by hand in 2001, and current technology could be
22 more accurate. He said the policy would say what is considered minor, and what could be
23 agreed to and handled by staff. He said major decisions would come back to the boards.
24 Commissioner Price agreed with streamlining the process, but said she is a little leery
25 about leaving staff responsible for these decisions, and determining minor versus major.
26 Commissioner Price asked if staff could bring the minor, easier, decisions to the five
27 boards for one large approval, and go through the more major decisions over time.
28 Craig Benedict said yes, and it would take a while for staff to come up with the
29 parameters.
30 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin, and said he is confident in
31 staff's judgement.
32 Commissioner Greene agreed that this particular one was obvious and minor, but said a
33 policy would take a lot of work. She said she would rather staff bring a slate of these minor
34 fixes, and have the boards approve them in one fell swoop.
35 Chair Rich reminded the Board that a vote is not necessary at this time on this particular
36 section. She said staff can bring back minor and major examples, and a policy may come out of
37 that.
38 Commissioner Greene said it is her understanding that this evening the BOCC is being
39 asked to direct staff on formulating a policy or not. She said she is not in favor of a policy on
40 this issue, but rather bringing items to the BOCC as they arise, or as staff is able to review
41 them.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Greene's suggestion is how the process
43 currently works, and any changes will still have to go through all 5 boards, which is inefficient.
44 Commissioner McKee said he did not want to speak for Commissioner Dorosin, but
45 believes they are in agreement. He said if staff brings back several of these issues, and the five
46 boards disagree on one particular property, the process gets bogged down in bureaucracy. He
47 said it is this type of situation that frustrates residents.
48 Commissioner Bedford said even with a policy, there will be 5 staffs that have to agree.
49 She said some of these issues will be difficult, and possibly very political. She said she
18
1 supports the rural buffer and these boundaries, and it is important that the BOCC still have veto
2 power. She said she does not want to turn the power of the elected official over to the staff.
3 Commissioner Greene said these are political decisions, and she is not in favor of
4 delegating these to staff.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said there are levels of decisions that get made, and some are
6 so minor that having all 5 boards involved is micromanaging. He said the process has been
7 prioritized over the substance, and it makes it so frustrating for residents.
8 Commissioner Marcoplos said he thinks the BOCC has completed its work for tonight,
9 and staff should be allowed a chance to draft a policy taking the BOCC's comments into
10 account.
11 Commissioner Greene said the BOCC should vote, because she is not in favor of
12 wasting staff's time on a draft policy.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Commissioner Greene's suggestions are a type of
14 policy.
15 Commissioner Greene said she does not think so. She said staff can look at a map and
16 bring back examples that need addressing and let the boards rule. She said these are
17 proposed action items, and that is different than a policy. She said she would be open to doing
18 many at one time, but with decisions being made by the boards, not staff.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price for
21 staff to move forward with bringing the BOCC potential action items to change these boarders
22 consistent with staff recommendations, on staff's timetable; and for the four other jurisdictions to
23 review.
24 Commissioner Bedford said she supports this motion, as it is proactive. She reminded
25 the BOCC that it has voted no on these issues in the past.
26 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a plan to handle a potential disagreement on one
27 property in a packet of 10. He said the disagreement on one will send the entire group of 10
28 back.
29 Commissioner Greene said the BOCC could vote on each of the properties in a packet.
30 Commissioner McKee said he still favors a policy.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said the other four partners have already approved the possibility
32 of staff developing a policy.
33
34 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
35
36 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair Rich, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Bedford,
37 Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, and
38 Commissioner Marcoplos)
39
40 MOTION PASSES 4-3
41
42 d. Orange County Broadband Task Force
43
44 The Board considered a charge and composition for the proposed Orange County
45 Broadband Task Force.
46
47 Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager, reviewed the item below:
48
49
50 BACKGROUND:
19
1 At the September 1, 2020 Board of Orange County Commissioners business meeting a petition
2 was submitted by Commissioner McKee to create an Orange County Broadband Task Force.
3 Stakeholders would include the County Manager, Information Technology Department Director,
4 a representative from the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT),
5 Orange County Schools Superintendent, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Superintendent and
6 Community members living in the unincorporated areas of Orange County who are
7 underserved, including those with an interest in resolving the digital divide in Orange County.
8
9 The Task Force charge will include but not necessarily limited to:
10
11 1. Discuss broadband solutions that will improve the quality of high-speed internet services to
12 Orange County residents;
13 2. Recommend a plan to the Board of Orange County Commissioners that will expand reliable
14 high-speed internet services to all county residents and businesses.
15
16 Position # Special Representation Appointee
17 1. County Manager (Designee)
18 2. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Superintendent (Designee)
19 3. Orange County Schools Superintendent (Designee)
20 4. NC Department of Information Technology (NCDIT) Representative
21 5. Board of Commissioners— 1
22 6. Board of Commissioners— 1
23 7. Orange County Resident—At Large
24 8. Orange County Resident—At Large
25 9. Orange County Resident—At Large
26 10. Orange County Resident—At Large
27 11. Orange County Resident—At Large
28
29 Chair Rich said the full Board would approve all members of this Task Force, including
30 BOCC appointments.
31 Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to include a position for a
32 representative from Durham Tech.
33 The Board agreed by consensus.
34 Commissioner McKee said his primary reason for bringing this petition forward was the
35 large number of residents who were underserved as schools closed. He said the Board is
36 aware that he cannot attend BOCC meetings at home because of this issue, and he has come
37 to realize that this is about much more than schooling. He said broadband is needed for
38 employment, everyday shopping, and everyday living. He said the emergency services task
39 force was started in a similar way, and has had great results. He said he is hopeful that this
40 taskforce will be as successful. He said efforts thus far have been slow, and he wants to find a
41 better way.
42 Chair Rich said other experts can be brought in as needed. She said Dr. Felder, OCS
43 Superintendent, was quoted in the New York Times, and this is a rural problem all over the
44 country. She said the 2016 law that prevents counties from providing broadband was also
45 mentioned in the article, and is the biggest obstacle to fixing this problem. She said the
46 composition of the Task Force is great.
47 Commissioner McKee said he is well aware of the state law, but he is willing to push the
48 boundaries to the absolute limit. He said he is no longer willing to wait, and this task force can
49 move the process forward one way or another.
20
1 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 approve the charge and composition (12 total positions) of the Orange County Broadband
3 Taskforce and authorize the Clerk to the Board to advertise for residents to apply for the Task
4 Force.
5
6 Commissioner Bedford asked if Commissioner McKee can be added to this task force
7 now.
8 Chair Rich said to fill all the slots and vote on the appointments at one time.
9 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 7. Reports
14
15 a. Update from the Orange County Food Council
16 The Board received an update from the Food Council about activities in the 2020-2021
17 fiscal year and a preliminary report on the state of food insecurity during the COVID-19
18 pandemic.
19
20 Ashley Heger, Food Council Coordinator, reviewed the item below:
21
22 BACKGROUND:
23 The Food Council Coordinator was hired in July 2019. This new Coordinator position was
24 approved through an interlocal agreement process and is jointly funded by Orange County,
25 Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Carrboro. The Coordinator is charged with coordinating the Food
26 Council and helping it achieve its goals. This presentation will provide an update of the
27 Coordinator's work and progress since July 2019 plus an overview of the Food Council's actions
28 and plans in the 2020 - 2021 fiscal year. The Coordinator will also be providing an update about
29 food insecurity in the County during the Covid19 pandemic. A food security presentation was
30 shared during the County Commissioner's board retreat in January 2020 and the update will
31 focus on new information gathered since the start of the pandemic.
32
33 Ashley Heger, Food Council Coordinator, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
34
35 Slide #1
36 iromn
•• M1yriJ Iki-i
38 ORANGE COUNTY
39 ��� ® FOOD COUNCIL
40 '�"�
41
42
43 2019 Review a
44 2020-2021 Scope of Work
45
46 Slide #2
47 I. Progress report 2018 - now
48
49 II_ Scope of work for the 2020 -2021 fiscal year
50
III.Update an the state of food insecurity
(follow up from the BOCC January 2020 Board Retreat)
21
1 Slide #3
2 2018 Work Plan Progress Report
4 The 2018 work plan was designed to be a living document.This plan was shared with all
elected boards during the process to approve the MOU to create a Food Council
5 Coordinator position.Any changes made to the Food Council's work plan and/or the
6 Coordinator's scope of work have been approved by the County Manager and the
,7 Council's Executive Committee.
8 * Progress made in all identified priority areas
9 t Changes to actions came through collaboration with
10 nonprofit agencies,community members,food system
11 stakeholders,and countyltown departments
12 ,t Moved towards centering racial equity and lived experience
13
14 Slide #4
15 Facilitated partnershipswithOCS,UNC,local childcare centers,
16 and Farmer Food share to increase localfoods in schools
17 � Created a Community Food Resource Guide available in multiple
18 languages
19 Facilitated Social7uOice &Racial Equityworksltops
20 Met with food service providers to share &develop best practices
for a justice approach to addressing hunger
21 —i Presented a `State ofFood Security'report at the County
22 Commissioner annual retreat;continunig to work with countyand
23 town staffand comaiunity partners to better understand the
24 challenges and opportunities for addressing hunger
25
26 Commissioner Greene asked if Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)were
27 included in the School partnerships.
28 Ashley Heger said CHCCS is a little unique because it does not have in house child
29 nutrition services, but Orange County Schools do. She said CHCCS currently contracts out its
30 Nutrition programs, and the contract was just renewed for the next year.
31 Commissioner Greene asked if Ashley Heger could elaborate on the difference between
32 Charity approach and Justice approach.
33 Ashley Heger said a Charity approach means that those who sit in the seats of power
34 determine what services are needed, as opposed to the Justice approach, which involves, and
35 values input, from those who are actually receiving the services. She said the Charity model is
36 necessary, but involving stakeholders is essential, and the desire is to move along the spectrum
37 towards greater involvement of those receiving services, such as through surveys or board
38 participation.
39 Commissioner Greene asked if the Food Council is following the Justice approach.
40 Ashley Heger said yes, the Food Council is trying to do so, and lead by example for
41 other food organizations. She said many organizations are doing this well, and the Food
42 Council can learn from them. She resumed the presentation:
43
44 Slide #5
45
46 i Created educational infographic to show relationship between
47 food security.affordabte housing-and systemic racism
� Facilitated re laIionships to red tic e food waste iii schools and with
48 to cat food businesses
49 rt Lead the development ofa regional food eouu6l collaborative
50 4 Su pporred the developmenr ofSOP's at a state levelfor reducing
food.caste and increasmir safe food recovery practices
—� Creased an AgriculturalTrust Fit ad proposa1.couducted a racial
equity assesament,aad Ira nsitioned this effort into the creation of
au Ora uge Couniy Black Farmers think[auk
—> Coord inate weekly turned m oathly food system calls for Covid
related efforts
22
1 Slide #6
2
3 2020 - 2021 Goals&Scope of Work
4 Develop a Food Policy
Recruit new members to sit
5 Agenda(FPA is intended to
be a 2+year processy on the Food Council
6 - `
7 Support the Support th® 1\
8 Relationships play pp , development of a
a central role in the coordination Racial Equity
9 FPA design and of partners Community Data
implementation and activities Index in collaboration
10 process in the local with the Health Equity
11 food system Council
12
13 Slide #7
14
15 What is a Food Policy Agenda?
1" FOYA IIfY....
E R5U5 EQUITY
17 ��
18 oz 19 Law
20 .en
21 �. etas►, .. - �. 7='
22
23
24
25
26 Slide #8
27 Purpose &Structure
28 Identify gaps and Develop an agreement Provide
29 opportunities for between partners recommendations for
improving the local where lived experience practices and policies;
30 food system and racial equity is recommendations will
centered and everyone be part of an
31 understands their role accountability
32 in this work framework to ensure
actions create
33 necessary change
34 guided by the
community
35
36
37
38 Slide #9
39 FPA design process in 2020 - 2021
40 - Lived experience centered in design process
41 - Focuson accountability+transparency
42 - Relationships with those m ost im patted essential for
43 effective change
44 - Data Index as a corn plim entary tool for tracking ❑utcom es
45 - Participating in other long-term planning processes to help
46 identify areasfor deeper collaboration and shared learning
47 across sootorsandiurisdictions
48
49
50
23
1 Slide #10
2
5 P
6 Q State of
7 ',rood Insecurity
8 L During the
9 Covid 19 Pandemic a 4►
10 Z4
11
12 . �
13 Ask*
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the mission or goal of this think tank/advisory board
16 could be identified.
17 Ashley Heger said the goal would be to advise the Food Council on how Orange County,
18 through local government, can create a more racially just and accessible agricultural
19 community, which may be achieved through land use policy, capacity building on the ground
20 with Black farmers, having additional caucus opportunities, etc. She said those working in this
21 think tank will provide valuable expertise, and it is hoped that there will be a long-term
22 relationship.
23 Commissioner Price said she is a little concerned about this think tank, as Black farmers
24 have been expressing ideas and thoughts for years, to no avail. She said issues are well
25 known, and she is not sure that a think tank is needed, as far as access for Black farmers to
26 participate in the market. She said she appreciates the intent, but is a little cautious about the
27 charge/mission of the group. She said solutions are needed, as the questions are already
28 known.
29 Ashley Heger said the issues are known, but the capacity is not in place to give Black
30 farmers access. She said the goal is to have farmers who have succeeded to share how they
31 did so with those who need to build capacity. She said all can learn from this process.
32 Commissioner Price said an example would be how does a Black farmer get his/her
33 produce in Wegman's. She said the farmers often have all the knowledge, but simply cannot
34 gain access, due to the color of their skin.
35 Ashley Heger said the Food Council hopes to provide resources to level the playing field,
36 and leverage relationships that have been built over the past few years. She said the goal is to
37 have Black farmers lead this effort, as opposed to the Food Council telling them what to do.
38 Chair Rich said it is a great idea, and the more people can be brought together the more
39 ideas will be created. She said she looks forward to a future report on this item.
40 Ashley Heger said other food councils are doing this work around the country, and
41 Orange County wants to bring those best practices here.
42 Commissioner Greene referred to the food distribution system breakdown at the
43 beginning of Covid, and said CSAs were suddenly booming. She said she would like to hear
44 the big vision of how to make it possible for Orange County to be more self-reliant on local
45 produce, as opposed to relying on produce from around the country.
46 Ashley Heger said one cannot grow everything in Orange County, but NC State is a
47 wonderful resource, and there is a lot of work being done to allow local food to serve the local
48 community. She said there are also discussions underway about how to bring certain foods
49 back to Orange County, such as dairy, in a meaningful way. She said Covid has provided a
50 sense of urgency to these issues, and other crises will arise in the future. She said many
24
1 people who were not food insecure prior to Covid, became so. She said there is a desire to
2 build upon the momentum created by Covid to encourage more local food sources. She
3 resumed the presentation:
4
5 Slide #11
6
7 Trends in the (limited)data
8 Initial spike in need happened in April followed by slow decline
9 in May but numbersaretrending up again
10 I m pact of federal programs
11 Changes from April to now
What to expect in the com ing months
12
13 Learning from those with lied experience
14 Intersectional nature of food insecurity
- rent eatsfirst
15
16 How race and place impact food insecurity
17 - systemic issuesthat have been exacerbated during the
pan deco is but predate this crisis)
18
19
20
21 Slide #12
22 Food and Nutrition Services
23
24 ChS Ap011ntlons Su mlrind Mom hly
25 E '`
26
27
m ta,
Jf0
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Slide #13
35
36 Numbers from Food Providers
37
3 p Month Meals served Caloric Intake
O March 2020 34,000 23,606,800
39 April 2020 99,491 61,976,540
May 2020 69,999 48,111,345
40 June 2020 86,622 57,654,660
July 2020 28.240 19.344.400
411 August 2020 18,45a 12,636,250
September 2020 18,310 12,542,350
42 2 Ochober2020 14,030 9,610,550
Total 369,142 24S.MA,94S
43
44 Average of 4BK meals served weekly since March 2020
45
46
47
48
49
50
25
1
2 Slide #14
3 Foo0InsacuWyIn 9nelfe County
4
5
5 Imm
7 I n f o g r a p h c d�l
8 from
February 2020
9
10 _-
11
12 i.
13
14
15 Slide #15
16 Food Insecurity Report
17
1 8 Coordinator will share this report by early December with all the jurisdictions in
Orange County
19
29 - More details from frontline com m unities and food providers
- Supplychain challenges and lessons
21 - Updated infog raph ic to show chang es d ue to the pandem ic
22 - Com parison of overall FNS participation from 2019 to now
23
24 Slide#16
25
26
27
28
29 QUESTIONS?
30 ►�,
31 �� Ashley Heger i
,A aheger0orangecountvnc,gov
4-S1.24
33
�o m a i l.ca m
34
35
36 Commissioner Dorosin said it is exciting to see the expanded scope of the Food Council,
37 and the presentation was very encouraging.
38 Commissioner Greene said the presentation was very informative.
39 Chair Rich said Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools' Child Nutrition program is contracted
40 with Chartwells.
41 Chair Rich said over the summer she and Mike Ortosky, Agriculture Economic
42 Developer, made several presentations over the summer, and Orange County is a leader in the
43 Food Council community. She said the support of local elected officials is crucial to its success.
44 She thanked the Food Council board for all its efforts.
45
46 8. Consent Agenda
47
48 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
49 None
50
26
1
2 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
3
4 Commissioner Greene said she was very pleased to see the Upward Mobility Program.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
7 approve the consent agenda.
8
9 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
10
11 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
12
13 a. Minutes
14 The Board approved the draft minutes from the October 20, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting as
15 submitted by the Interim Clerk to the Board
16 b. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment#4 (ORD-2020-027)
17 The Board voted to approve budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
18 2020-21 for the Health Department; Efland Volunteer Fire Department; Criminal Justice
19 Resource Department; Coronavirus Relief Funding; and Housing and Community Development.
20 c. Upward Mobility Proposal
21 The Board authorized the submission of a grant application to join the Boosting Upward Mobility
22 from Poverty Cohort through the Urban Institute and to express the Board's ongoing support of
23 this initiative if Orange County is selected to participate.
24 d. Contract for Orange County Fire Marshal Division to Provide Fire Code Enforcement
25 in Town Limits of Hillsborough
26 The Board voted to approve an agreement between Orange County Fire Marshal Division and
27 the Town of Hillsborough to provide fire code enforcement in the town limits of Hillsborough, and
28 authorized the County Manager to sign the agreement.
29 e. Amendment to the Contracts of the Attorney, Clerk, and Manager
30 The Board voted to approve amendments to the contracts of the three employees directly hired
31 by the Board of Commissioners, and authorized the Chair to sign.
32
33 ADDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING
34
35 f. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2020
36 The Board voted to amend the BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2020 to add a Virtual Special
37 Meeting on Saturday, November 21, 2020 for the purposes of convening a Closed Session to
38 discuss personnel.
39
40 9. County Manager's Report
41 NONE
42
43 10. County Attorney's Report
44 John Roberts asked if the Board could provide clarification on prior discussions about
45 elected officials serving on boards. He said some boards are not covered by advisory board
46 policies, such as quasi-judicial, short-term task forces, joint boards with other jurisdictions, etc.
47 He said he does not recommend revising the advisory board policy, and asked if the Board
48 could advise on how to proceed with the desire for elected officials not serving on advisory
49 boards. He said there are a few elected officials that are currently serving. He said this may be
50 a topic best suited for a work session.
27
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he would advise informing any elected officials that have
2 applied, or are currently serving, that the BOCC will be discussing this topic, and not accept any
3 applications from elected officials in the meantime. He said he would freeze the status quo.
4 The Board agreed by consensus.
5
6 11. *Appointments
7 NONE
8
9 12. Information Items
10
11 • November 5, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
12 • US 15/501 Corridor Study— Public Comments
13
14 13. Closed Session
15 NONE
16
17 14. Adjournment
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
20 adjourn the meeting.
21
22 Chair Rich called each Commissioner by name (roll call).
23
24 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
25
26 The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
27
28
29 Penny Rich, Chair
30
31
32 Allen Coleman
33 Assistant Deputy Clerk II
34
35 Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board