Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-16-2021 Virtual Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 3/16/21 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2021 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Renee Price, Vice Chair Jamezetta Bedford, and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Jean Hamilton, Sally Greene, and Earl McKee COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mark Dorosin COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Price called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. A roll call was called; all members were present except for Commissioner Dorosin. Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2021. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. • Written submittals by email • Speaking during the virtual meeting Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda The County Manager said a new abstract was sent out earlier in the day, for item 8-e, because of a change in the contract cost due to bonding needs for the fiber contract. Chair Price dispensed with reading the public charge. Public Charge: The Board of Commissioners pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, county staff and the commissioners. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fails to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The BOCC asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 2 Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Janine Zanin read the following comments: My name is Janine Zanin and I live in Efland. First, I want to thank you for the effort and careful consideration that you gave to your deliberations on the Efland Station proposal. I appreciate the way you examined the representations made by the developer about phase 2 prospects, electric charging stations, and whether the "park-at-the-pump" model was necessary given the 500+ parking spots for travelers. The developers' responses revealed that they were not the kind of good faith community collaborator they held themselves out to be and, of course, they ultimately decided that they would rather walk away from the deal than be held accountable to their representations. It also became clear to me that THIS Board of County Commissioners is invested in making good decisions about land use in our part of the county. My recent experiences with county government leading up to that meeting had left me with some doubt. Now, I know that many of my neighbors did NOT take away the same impressions from your deliberations. At the same time, a pivotal moment for me was observing what happened when you made the decision to restrict additional public comment on the project. Efland residents still got up to speak, but when they had to speak in generalities instead of speaking about the Efland Station project, it was easy to see that although we had different opinions about Buc-ee's, we shared many of the same desires for our community. That is, we want responsible development that serves the citizens of Efland and we feel we've been overlooked and ignored for far too long. I think that one gentleman said something along the lines of "we want you to shine us up a bit." There also seems to be clear consensus that we are looking for something beyond windowless warehouses. I'm concerned that through its narrow vision of land use planning in this part of the county, and poor communication, that knowingly or unknowingly, the Planning Department has pitted us against each other to accomplish the agenda of the planning director without regard to the opinions of duly elected public officials or Orange County citizens. The less than transparent communication and notice surrounding the Buckhorn Area Plan has been divisive, at times attempting to pit the City of Mebane v. Orange County, residential v. non-residential development, citizens vs. elected officials, incorporated towns vs. unincorporated areas. This either/or view is mainly a symptom of a lack of vision around Economic Development, a lack of creativity, and years of passive or reactive planning. Citizens in this area are energized and want to be proactive. There are land-owners who want to sell or lease their property. Let's come together and move beyond the singular focus on "big game hunting" that has come at the expense of ignoring other local community development needs. It doesn't represent the complete picture of a good quality of life for citizens in Western Orange County. Later tonight, you'll hear about the Buckhorn Area Plan, a study that from its inception had one goal and ONLY one goal in mind: expand the boundaries of the Buckhorn Economic Development District to facilitate more big industrial development. That is, by definition, it was not an objective land use study. In public meetings with the City of Mebane our planning director has consistently repeated that the uses they are looking for are large industrial uses. There's nothing within the plan to definitively limit those uses along the banks of Seven Mile Creek, next door to residential properties, on land that's currently designated critically protected 3 watershed, on the land surrounding our public middle school, and nothing to limit turning West Ten Road into a tractor trailer by-pass of the weigh station. Finally, the plan ULTIMATELY demonstrated that the MOST SUITABLE PARCELS for industrial development are ALREADY IN OUR EDD. If county staff and our elected officials want to do more big game hunting, they should focus their efforts there. Margo Lakin read the following comments: Good Evening, my name is Margo Lakin and I live in Hillsborough. In the past eight months, I've seen proposals for a 2.5 million square foot logistics warehouse surrounded by residential homes and a 120-nozzle gas station on a critical watershed make their way from the Planning Advisory Board to the BOCC. And now, the citizens are faced with the Buckhorn Area Plan to facilitate industrial development on a much larger scale. I'm getting a clear message from our planning process that western Orange County's future is fast tracked to become nothing more than an industrial brownfield. Projects fall under the lowest tiers of development (for example warehouses). And the wants and needs of the community and the safety of the environment often take a back seat to taxes. That's not progress. Where's the diversity and imagination in these projects? Where's the sustainable and progressive development for our neck of the woods? When do we get libraries and grocery stores and community-based facilities to improve our towns? When will imagination, creative thinking, and forethought reach rural Orange County? Can we expect more ill suited proposals that don't meet the zoning, Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, or UDO? Can we expect proposals that create a citizen outcry so large it requires three public comment sessions? I'm tired of it—aren't you? Yes, our county needs taxes, but there are things the residents need, too. Like roofs over our heads and clean drinking water, schools not surrounded by industrial pollution, a respect for the quality of life we moved here for (be it 20 years or 20 days ago), and we need assurance that the regulations and plans put in place—the same ones we looked to when deciding where to put down roots—will be protected and upheld. Thank you. Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations Director, shared the winners of the Pauli Murray award, which will be presented on February 28". She said Nikki Giovanni, Jaki Shelton Green, and Alani Rouse will present, and the theme is "words have meaning." b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner Bedford said she had no comments. Commissioner Fowler said she attended a Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) meeting, where she heard presentations from several groups working with youth. She said the groups have received fewer referrals during the pandemic. She said the JCPC released an RFP released for programs on a variety of skill building, teen court, temporary shelter, and counseling services. She said she attended the agricultural summit last week, which highlighted health, in particular mental health and farm related stress. She gave the phone numbers for assistance programs for those experiencing mental health crises. She said she also attended the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) meeting, and the public can find information on TARPO projects on the TARPO website. Commissioner Hamilton said she had no comments. 4 Commissioner McKee said he attended the ABC board meeting this morning, and there will be upgrades to several of the stores, especially the store in northern Hillsborough. He said the store south of Hillsborough has become a destination store, and it is the newest store in the County. Commissioner Greene said she also attended the Agricultural Summit last week, and was impressed by a presentation on food access, and how farmers are getting their product to market. She said on the last day there was a presentation from a person who teaches area farmers how to grow Asian products. She said the transit policy steering committee met last week, and the committee is beginning to set priorities and will seek public comment. She said the idea of a connection between Durham and Orange Counties is still a priority. Chair Price said she missed most of the Agricultural Summit, but is glad to hear of its success. She said the Board received an email regarding a mobility-on-demand program from the Transit Department, and asked if a follow up presentation could be provided to the Board Of County Commissioners (BOCC). She said she previously requested a presentation form the pre-trial working group, which the Board will receive next month. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Proclamation Recognizing Robert A. Marotto The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing and expressing gratitude to Robert A. (Bob) Marotto for his devotion and service to Orange County, and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair Price introduced the item, Animal Services staff and advisory board members who wanted to recognize retiring Animal Services Director Bob Marotto. BACKGROUND: After 16 years of dedicated service to the Orange County community and animals, Bob Marotto is retiring on March 3, 2021. Bob Marotto began his career of service with Orange County in 2005 in the newly created job as the director of Orange County Animal Services (OCAS). However, his career did not begin as an animal welfare professional and advocate. Prior to that, Bob had completed his education at the University of California, Santa Cruz, earning a Ph.D in Sociology. He taught at the University of Dayton for a while but missed working in the world outside of academia, and subsequently moved to Minnesota, acquired two dogs and began training them. Bob's interest in animals grew, facilitated by CENSHARE (Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments), and he began building his animal-related skills. This included working at Petco stocking shelves. Mr. Marotto became an accomplished dog trainer teaching "reactive dog" classes and working with aggressive dogs. In 1994, Mr. Marotto joined the City of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control Program as an Animal Control Officer, then moving to Supervisor, leading him to serve as the program manager. In his 11 years there, he worked successfully with many different people and organizations as well as oversaw the multiple program developments, new shelter construction and handling and policy practices for the care, dispositioning and placement of animals. Bob served as a board member for the National Animal Control Association and worked occasionally for The Humane Society of the United States conducting animal shelter and program evaluations. After discussing with his wife the need to relocate to a warmer climate, Bob transformed from a Gopher to a Tar Heel. 5 With OCAS, Bob has been involved in the creation and management of numerous programs and progressive initiatives. He helped lead the major building project for the new Animal Services Center, procured multiple grants to offset cost for spay and neuter programs for Orange County residents' pets, increased donations to aid in the care and comfort of Orange County animals and worked diligently with Orange County attorneys and District Courts to assure the protection of animals and that those responsible for the neglect and ill treatment were held accountable. Mr. Marotto took a struggling animal shelter and animal control program and brought his knowledge, tenacity and creativity to provide the residents and animals of Orange County a state of the art facility and improve both shelter and animal control operations. This resulted in more animal rehabilitations, adoptions, public awareness and education and less animal euthanasia. Also during his time here, Bob has spent many hours resolving community concerns and restoring the community's confidence with OCAS. Mr. Marotto currently serves as an officer of the North Carolina Animal Federation and is involved in a community index project for animal welfare supported by PetSmart Charities in partnership with The Association for Animal Welfare Advancement. Additionally, Bob has written essays and editorials that have appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, News & Observer and The Herald Sun. Irene Phipps, Animal Control Manager, mentioned a few of the things she enjoyed about working with Bob Marotto, spoke of his support in her career, and how much the staff would miss him. Chair Price asked Commissioner McKee to read the resolution: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING ROBERT A. MAROTTO, RETIRING DIRECTOR, ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES WHEREAS, in 2005, Robert A. (Bob) Marotto continued his career of public service and animal welfare by joining the Animal Services Department as the director; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marotto's first task as director was overseeing the startup of the County's first free-standing and full service Animal Services Department; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Marotto's years with the County, he has implemented multiple programs and policies that set the tone and direction for a progressive and top notch operations which have benefitted both the residents and animals of Orange County; and WHEREAS, Bob's understanding of the human/animal bond has impacted many positive outcomes for animals and their owners; and WHEREAS, while Mr. Marotto has always practiced education over enforcement, that has not deterred him from pursuing and advocating for the protection of animals and assuring they have a voice in seeking justice for the neglect and cruelty inflicted upon them; and 6 WHEREAS, as Director, Bob has established cohesive working relationships with other County departments, local law enforcement, district courts, animal rescue groups and other animal welfare agencies; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marotto's commitment to community and outreach has been evident in his participation in multiple speaking engagements, special events and published essays and editorials; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marotto has never put a dog and cat in the same cage and is known for grabbing a control pole and jumping in to help capture the most aggressive and elusive Chihuahua; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marotto is retiring from Orange County on March 3, 2021 after 16 years of service and devotion for both people and animals, and will be missed; NOW THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby recognize and express deep appreciation and respect for the services rendered by Robert Marotto to the Orange County community, and wish him well in his retirement. This the 16t" day of February, 2021. Renee Price, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the proclamation recognizing and expressing appreciation to Bob Marotto for his service to the people of Orange County and wishing him well in his retirement and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS Amanda Schwoerke, Animal Services Advisory Board, read a statement of the board's appreciation to Bob Marotto: We the undersigned members of the Animal Services Advisory Board, on the occasion of the retirement of Orange County Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, wish to memorialize our profound admiration and appreciation for his many years of service. Following a nationwide search, Bob became Orange County's first Director of Animal Services in July 2005. He came to Orange County after 11 years at the City of Minneapolis' Animal Care and Control Program, where he began as an Animal Control Officer and became Program Director. Orange County Animal Services was born with Bob's arrival in 2005. At that time, Animal Control resided within the Health Department, while the old shelter was administered by the non-profit Animal Protection Society of Orange County. Under Bob's direction, animal control and animal care were brought together, both operationally and, eventually, under one roof with the opening of the beautiful new Orange County Animal Services building in 2009. When Bob arrived in 2005, the intake level of animals was approximately 5,000 per year and the live release rate was approximately 50-60%; today, 7 Orange County Animal Services can boast of intake levels under 3,000 animals per year and live release rates near to or exceeding 90%. A professional veterinary practice has been established within the new shelter, and a vigorous spay and neuter program has been instituted in the county following vast improvements in community outreach on the importance of avoiding pet overpopulation. Today, Animal Services in our county stands as a model program, leading initiatives and setting standards to be followed across the state. These changes, of which we are so proud, would not have happened without the guidance and leadership of Bob. Bob has been the consummate professional, always ready to work long hours, overseeing any number of Board meetings, and keeping County Commissioners and citizens engaged in developments at Animal Services. Often the best of Bob was revealed at the most difficult of times; during a Dangerous Dog Appeal hearing that could stretch for hours and exhaust the emotions of both the appellants and panelists, Bob would demonstrate his expertise with kindness, fairness and equity in mind. We have all enjoyed working with Bob over these many years. He will be sorely missed. Ashley Miller, Animal Control Officer, thanked Bob Marotto for the support he's given her, and said she admires his integrity, experience, and perspective on cases. She said she will miss having his support professionally and personally. Marcus Gamez, Animal Control Officer, thanked Bob Marotto for the opportunities he hass given to him, and for his willingness to support and guide employees. He said he is happy for Bob Marotto's retirement, but will miss him. Commissioner Greene recounted when she first met Bob Marotto at the installation of an art piece by the Animal Services building. She said Bob Marotto was welcoming to her, as a new commissioner. She noted his participation in meetings and the new perspectives he brought to meetings such as the Justice Advisory Commission. Commissioner Fowler thanked Bob Marotto for his service, and wished him well. Commissioner McKee wished Bob Marotto well for both him and Commissioner McKee's pet dog. Chair Price expressed appreciation for Bob Marotto's service in animal cruelty cases, and providing advice and support. Irene Phipps read a message from Officer Michael Hess: "Let the force be with you." Bob Marotto said he was touched by the kind words, and mentioned times that he worked with various Commissioners. He spoke of visiting the Caldwell Hunt Club with Commissioner McKee. He spoke of elevating the status of cats in the shelter and community. He referenced a bird issue that had a sad ending. He said Orange County Animal Services is a place others try to emulate. He expressed appreciation to the Animal Services Advisory Board, and said outstanding care is important. He said the Commissioners affirm the value of what Animal Services does and supports them doing good work with the community. He said doing this work was an extraordinary opportunity, and thanked the commissioners. He said he hopes the vision they created is preserved and furthered by the next group of leaders at Animal Services. b. OWASA Annual Update Presentation The Board received a presentation and information from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on recent activities. Chair Price introduced the item and Ray DuBose, OWASA Board Chair. BACKGROUND: At the beginning of each calendar year, OWASA representatives appear before the Board of Commissioners to make a presentation on recent OWASA activities. This year an update on OWASA's Long-Range Water Supply Plan will also be provided. 8 OWASA Board Chair Ray DuBose and Board Secretary Jody Eimers, Orange County appointees to the OWASA Board, will present the annual update. OWASA Planning and Development Manager Ruth Rouse will provide an update to OWASA's Long Range Water Supply Plan (LRWSP). Ray DuBose said Jody Eimers could not attend this evening. He thanked the BOCC for appointing himself and Jody Eimers to the Board, and said Jody Eimers will be eligible for reappointment this spring. He said the OWASA board received a diversity and inclusion update earlier this year, and will be focusing on these areas in the coming months. He said there may an apprenticeship program, trainings are being done, and OWASA is participating in the County's equity efforts. He said said there is still a temporary moratorium on collections until April, and customers will not incur penalties and interests until then. He said once collections resume, OWASA will work with customers on payment plans. He said an affordability program helped OWASA to challenges posed by the pandemic. He said the Orange County Housing Department has helped implement the program. He said OWASA still applies for state and federal funding. Todd Taylor, Executive Director, reviewed a testing program of wastewater samples to track COVID-19. He said OWASA is working with NCDHHS to participate in a nationwide surveillance monitoring program to gather data pertinent to COVID-19. He said this data will help public health officials better understand infection rates in the community. Todd Taylor said OWASA is developing energy efficient projects. He said OWASA is installing rooftop solar panels via a public private partnership. He thanked the Commissioners for a Climate Action grant for a solar panel project at Cane Creek Reservoir, which was tabled due to the pandemic. He said this was done in an effort to avoid a rate increase, due to the pandemic. Ruth Rouse made the following PowerPoint presentation: SupplyrLong-Range Water 9 •Provide information on work completed to-date on OWASA's Long-Range Water Supply Plan •Receive questions and feedback on that work •Receive feedback on proposed path forward Uni•«+ISY L.w Key Messages •We have a low risk of running out of water. •Our largest vulnerability is in extended drought. -Jordan Lake alternatives appear to be most cost- effective option for increasing resiliency. Innke on Gne Creek Reurv•ir Ensuring Long-Range Water Supply Resiliency � 2 ._u. 10 r ''' �3 s s 7 6 Ruth Rouse discussed the community engagement OWASA has undertaken to get feedback on the Long Range Water Plan. 10 OWASXs Water Supplies W; •Local Water Supplies "�°� • ® �,a,„ •Cane Creek Reservoir { •University Lake •Quarry Reservoir •Jordan Lake ® Z � Jordan Lake •Federal,multi-purpose reservoir • Flood control •Watersupply Downstream water quality • Recreation •OWASA has had an allncatinn since 1999. •Practice has been to only use Jordan Lake during water shortage •We have no guaranteed access to Jordan Lake. Jordan Law. 9.0 24,000 Water Sales and Accounts — 0. 37,000 Q 8.0 r AV G 7.5 I- 20,000 m Seasmel 6 f � 7.e 0 leseao " a 6.0 Ircreasfng Ifi,000 ' BWrk RaTes � rd 5.5 14,000 Redd—d water —On0- n' 17,000 4.5 4.0 . . . . .,g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lop 10,000 b-P� yeti 40 w"' "I e e e I-:"'A 411,O•t'L$1 do"b$1 —Actual Water sales —Customer Accounts 11 SupplyOur Water Under Most Conditions 16 14 a E 12 Yield d 1D a y Actual '+�• gaseline,lst, F ;w• Demands and 99th z Percentile Projections D 19N 1990 2000 2010 202C 203C 2040 2030 2060 2070 Fiscal Year Our Water Supply $ g Risk is Low Rae�W .__ �� �_ .__ .._ .. � Dom' �•Cuv Gpei H� • our predecessors set us up well eowr •Supply _ •[onservarion u • Cane Creek Reservoir has small watershed relative to Its storage • Long refill times following drought • Our main vulnerability Is extended draught a- • Plan to proactively use Jordan Lake allocatlon �➢ • Reducevuln—bility ». . • Reduce droughtsurchargesSustaina - ..octal • ty Partnership Principles i Financial Environmental 12 • Identifying Alternatives to Evaluate > rrEllatron � Narrowing the 106 All Ideas Field of 6 0O • • Meetings • Potential water supply or Apples to apples • Plans savings comparison across 3 OWASA Board • Incremental costs pillars of and others Implementation sustainability Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Alternativm supply - AlternatIves Demand • Do not meet long-term 9A Zane° demands 0 1 A ,=per • Cost-effective strategies I A 6Ae° will be considered in Water Conservation Plan R d 6A S.S I hliwd MSart•°NC la�ee°5 as Appendix to LRWSP sA wrote C 1 �S llAe° 3` we 1°Ae° �R[Wel Wa[Q Salsa �0�5[oma lw'[oun[s 13 SupplyOptions •Deep Quarry a • Ooes not diversitywatersupply • High capital cost •Potable Reuse Ia• Options not legs or have uncertain permitting process •High capital cost •Jordan Lake • Meets long-term needs and diversifies our water supply • Lower capital costs • Several potential ways to use Jordan Lake •Largely rely on our 3local supplies Where are we headed? • Report to Board of Directors on community engagement-March • Develop guiding principles to evaluate Jordar Lake alternatives—May/June • Continue to evaluate Jordan Lake-FY22 • Mutual aid agreements • Full partner In new Intake and plant on western side of Jordan Lake • New agreement with Western Intake Partners to guarantee access to our Jordan Lake allocation 5elect draft preferred alternative-FY22 • Engage the community • Develop final Long-Range Water Supply Plan with preferred alternative Questions an• Discussion ❑o the Commissioners or community mern6ers have any questions on our long-range water supply planning process? What feedback would you like shared with the DWASA Board of Directors regarding future evaluation of Jordan Lake water supply alternatives? Dther? Ruth Rouse/rrouse@owasa.org Commissioner Bedford asked if water is pumped from Cane Creek Reservoir to fill the quarry. Ruth Rouse said it is not done routinely, but would be if there was a water shortage. Commissioner Bedford referred to PFAs and chemicals in water. She said OWASA water has a reputation of being very clean, and asked if Jordan Lake water is the same quality. Ruth Rouse said water can be cleaned to meet requirements, and Jordan Lake does provide drinking water for parts of Wake County. Commissioner Bedford asked if the process to remove the chemicals could be explained. 14 Ruth Rouse said she is not sure what Wake County does, but OWASA uses carbon. Todd Taylor said PFAS chemicals are monitored for, and are present, in Cane Creek. He said OWASA's treatment techniques are effective at controlling the levels, primarily due to the carbon that is used to treat the water. He said any water from Jordan Lake would be treated to meet drinking water standards, prior to OWASA being willing to receive it. Commissioner Greene said she had a memory of a quarry project not coming online for 30 years. She asked if there was another part of the quarry that has not yet come online. Ruth Rouse said there is an expanded quarry project adjacent to the current quarry, of which Commissioner Greene might be thinking. She said this will increase the supply when it comes online. Commissioner Greene discussed the quality of Cane Creek Reservoir and said Jordan Lake was not created to be a drinking water source. She said, historically, community leaders felt it should not be used as a water source unless absolutely necessary. Commissioner Fowler asked if there is a reason why the quarry water is too clean to treat. Todd Taylor said the treatment process is predicated on having cloudiness to the water, so the particles can settle. He said when water is pulled from quarry it needs to be mixed with water from other reservoirs. Commissioner Fowler said the most cost effective has been chosen, but asked if more details could be provided. Ruth Rouse said OWASA would evaluate other options besides Jordan Lake, such as partnering with neighboring counties for an intake plant, and using mutual aid agreements in advance of drought. She said a third option is to look at a new agreement with neighboring counties, where Orange County would make an annual payment to have access to a plant. Commissioner Fowler asked if OWASA had decided on an alternative. Ruth Rouse said no, and no option is off the table. Commissioner Greene asked if the decision maker could be identified. Ruth Rouse said staff makes recommendations, which are presented to the communities for feedback, and then the OWASA board will decide how to move forward. Commissioner Bedford asked if there are any agreements with Hillsborough and Alamance County. Ruth Rouse said there are mutual aid agreements with Hillsborough and Chatham County. She said Hillsborough does not have much excess capacity right now. She said Durham currently provides the best access to more water. Chair Price thanked the OWASA representatives, and encouraged other Commissioners to tour the OWASA properties. 5. Public Hearings None A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to recess the meeting 4 minutes. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE THE MEETING 15 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to reconvene 8:24 p.m. Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Approval of the Disengagement Plan to Disengage from Cardinal Innovations Health Care and Realign with Alliance Health The Board considered voting to approve the Local Management Entity/Managed Care Organization (LME/MCO) Disengagement Plan continuing the process of disengaging from Cardinal Innovations Health Care and realigning with Alliance Health to administer mental and behavioral health services for Orange County residents. BACKGROUND: North Carolina General Statutes and the North Carolina Administrative Code authorize and prescribe the process through which a County may seek permission to disengage from one LME-MCO and realign with another. The final decision making authority rests with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Board of Commissioners initiated the disengagement process by approving the County's Intent to Disengage on November 5, 2020. This formal notice was transmitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Co-Chairs of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services, and the affected counties on November 16, 2020. In addition to the Intent to Disengage, the Board of Commissioners is required to approve a Disengagement Plan. This abstract would approve the Disengagement Plan (Attachment 1) as required by law and initiate a sixty (60) calendar day public comment period. During the comment period, the County is required to solicit comments from consumers, advocates, self- advocates, and State and Local Consumer and Family Advisory Committees. Following the sixty (60) day comment period, the comments must be posted on the County's website for a minimum of thirty (30) calendar days. Disengagement Plan Highlights The Disengagement Plan details the disengagement process and efforts to involve stakeholders in this process. The important elements of the Plan include: • Creating a Realignment Committee consisting of key county officials and agencies, Alliance Health and Cardinal Innovations Health Care representatives, and other appropriate stakeholders. • Creating a Continuity of Services Plan to ensure continuity of services during the transition. Alliance intends to honor current service authorizations, annual plans and other authorizations essential to ensure a smooth transition and intends to honor provider rates following a financial due diligence period that is currently underway. • Engaging the public and stakeholders impacted by the transition. These engagement efforts will include notification to affected providers and Medicaid recipients and those 16 Orange County residents receiving state-funded services through Cardinal Innovations Health Care, and a concentrated effort to solicit comments, feedback and suggestions from consumers, advocates, providers, State and Local Consumer and Family Advisory Committees (CFACs), and other interested parties. The engagement efforts will use a variety of communication methods including a dedicated website, mailings, stakeholder meetings, press releases, and social media messaging as appropriate. Additional Agreements In addition to the process and commitments contained in the Disengagement Plan, Alliance Health has also agreed to provide the following to Orange County: • One seat on the Alliance Health Board of Directors, • Participation on the Alliance County Commissioners Advisory Committee, • Access to the Alliance Health Child Crisis Facility, • Completion of a services needs and gaps analysis during implementation prior to final realignment, • Participation on the Alliance Health Consumer Family and Advisory Committee (CFAC), • Participation on Alliance Provider Advisory Committee (APAC), • Establishment of Community Directors Meeting in Orange County, • Provider invitations to All-Provider Meetings and Learning Collaboratives, • A dedicated Hospital and Court liaison, and • Collaboration with the County to locate space for group or individual meetings. Timeline Upon approval of the Disengagement Plan by the Board of Commissioners, the process will proceed on the following timeline: • February 17, 2021 — Publish this Disengagement Plan for public comment (60 days) • April 18, 2021 — Post public comments received (30 days) • May 19, 2021 — Submit the formal Request to Disengage to the Secretary with the required documentation. A decision by the Secretary is required within 90 days. • August 17, 2021 —Anticipated approval by the Secretary • Following Secretary Approval - Implementation phase • January 1, 2022 — Effective date of transition Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: �1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA LME-MCO Disengagement Plan February 16,2020 Virtual Meeting 17 LME-MCOs in North Carolina Administer Mental and Behavioral Health Services Each LM E-M CO has Service Area or Catchment �0 0 ' ORANGE COUNTY ] Ne]]n]l l GAOLINA Context and Timing Board of Commissioners Action merit Ie Disengage-November 5,2020 Fonnal Wrlaen Notice of Irier0 io Disengage-November 10,2020 • Medicaid Translormation—New Timel1no - standard Plans Effective July 1,2021 • In[Idrs N.lbdrrid Re[ipems MIh kNm WWI—BHaeoral H®br Gaposrs vn�nlesllNe ales unteo Heemmre,ek. • ufa�co5 cominoem pmxdesa.w5mgve c�rade[ws� - Tailored Plans E}fecgve July 1,2022 Wwbpnetal0iusxbiloes or T�wnao&unhsnl�'"'use Deuoer,rcelxn�l am Dceh Auercea[o LrnEAlcOe in rrerJ�ne mat £oerY�r Canlra[I5-Caenlles a[Ned lnw LIAEJACDS ror TaibreO%en Adnlnlslrellm ORANGE COUNTY Disengagement Plan Contents Justification and Rationale • Realignment Planning - Creation of RealWrmenI Cammbtee • G—dORci—WAee—UFpm WPmje[iNengeirem - Creallonofa Contimity of Services Plan • Hmar(Lrem Bernie ANM1airaliva Imces w wro-vrouec[nnlrene ere donee,arer®oetatlmne uagerce - Pawic Engagement Pisces • Canawre�Admnra Rai&re ORANGE COUNTY Disengagement Plan Contents • Add ltlonalCommitments - One seal on the Allance Healb,Board of Dlwtom, - PaNclpatlan on the Allance County Commissioners Advisory Commbtee, - Access 10 the Ali—Health Chip Crisis Facility, - Completion of a s IM needs and gaps arWysls duMg Implemelttatlon prior to finer realignment. Padimpallon on the Allance Health Consumer Family and Advlsmy Committee, - Pedicipalian on Alliance Provider Advisory Committee, Esiabllshmem of Commmity Dlwwm Meetly In Orange CowLy, Provider invllabons to Al•Provlder Metrims and Learning Colahoratives, - A dedicated Hospital and Court liaison,and Collao—lan win the Coumy m locale apace for group or Indlvldual meetlngs. ORANGECOUNTY 18 Tentative Schedule ggenpge - - - - •BOCCAp.M •Poel❑®enggrxren[Plen on Webao• •M14rirxm of W Lelmtlnr Deye m cismpagemerrt Plan - •Lwnamin,4dmcaEfs.5014dmcatn •Poel Putic Cnmmer�on WebsRe •A4.�nirr Pf9p CPlwdir Drys •9000Appravelof DiemgeAemerRPlm App.. Provalaf Cn hpM P18irvlcnr>t�r - - •0.PpPVN cy PN R�cwlnp MCO Bartl •YJmLen fihticeto Cauragee in QarerR ServiceAaea •WMNn NOtK.m P-Id— Tentative Schedule •Impeclsd PWlic CamrerAa •Ctwn[�s af.npepwwntPgn •CPugysCanlMnrly WSirv;rn Plin •Gompliancexift Adrrrehahue Cotle Pmceee _ _ •CPMIgJy xtth Wl�nlnp MCO Suxc.Arw •C1lirupllw�9itbg CipnefPn AMn •Financial Viability of DieergegeE MGD •GomPll.0hoSaw's i al Pequiremenrs •SIPb+IV aflh.SlPtf's HfPlm«en Sxfefm •MPw lgwngpimw wlll AttictSaruu FofiawiAg VS AP., •Dyxatimel Impact of fieeliArwnent an..IP�mn:IUPn waParPr�.ma.,wa P o ldi: - -- -- •Prrarmraar,ma Pfarrlmpamsrmmr,{Inr2�z� Discussion and auesiions ...:ram a O r�`orz nGcEu O�uMY Trey Sutten, CEO of Cardinal Innovations, spoke about the services Cardinal provides, and the motivation behind them. He said each county is assigned to an LME-MCO, and said it is Cardinal's desire to address gaps within the services being provided. He said Cardinal is not perfect, but it is a different organization than it used to be. He said statutes complicate the ability to provide services, but Cardinal is improving service delivery in authorizations. He said Cardinal is listening to residents and members, and a possible disengagement is concerning. He said it is most concerning for those in need of Cardinal's services, and he asked the Board to allow Cardinal to continue to serve Orange County. Commissioner Bedford said one provider on the planning committee for disengagement might not be enough, and she is glad that the Manager can add as needed. She said she would like to know what the financial due diligence of the plan is. 19 Travis Myren said this work is currently underway, and Alliance is conducting comparisons of rates that are publically available. He said after tonight's vote, Alliance can work with Cardinal on the rates that are not publically available. Commissioner Hamilton asked if there is a plan in place to receive input from the public. She said the people Cardinal serves are vulnerable, and emails may not be enough. She said a plan with community partners is important. Travis Myren said the current members are all known, and there will be direct mailings to existing members and provider networks. He said social media will also be used. Commissioner Hamilton asked if there will be multiple ways for people to provide input and feedback. Travis Myren said there will be email available, and traditional mail can be sent to the Manager's Office. He said staff may hold virtual events, as well. Commissioner Hamilton encouraged staff to check with service providers on best practices. Commissioner Fowler asked if Alliance will pick up all of the Cardinal providers. Travis Myren said yes, all providers will be picked up at, or above, their current rate, pending the due diligence period. Commissioner Fowler asked if Alliance will continue to use the same service plan held by a member until the member is due for a new yearly plan. Travis Myren said he thinks so, but would follow up on this. Chair Price asked if it known how long the rates would stay the same. Travis Myren said this has not yet been determined. Chair Price said she would like that information, and would want the rates to stay stable. Chair Price asked if the liaison position to the hospitals would be County employees. Travis Myren said no, they would be MCO/Alliance funded positions. Chair Price asked what happens during the 30-day comment period. Travis Myren said it is a time for the comments to be digested, and allows time for staff to make any necessary changes. Chair Price asked if any further comments could be received after the 60 days. Travis Myren said staff is flexible to accept comments at any time, but would encourage them during the 60 days. Chair Price asked if the seat on the Alliance board would be for a Commissioner. Travis Myren said yes. Chair Price highlighted a letter she received from the Freedom House Recovery Center expressing support for Cardinal. She said she will share this letter with the Board. She said she also received comments Karen Dunn, who felt the disengagement plan was vague, and wanted specifics on what members would gain or lose under the change, in order to provide meaningful comments and input. Commissioner Bedford asked if Travis Myren had the letter from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), supporting disengagement. Travis Myren said yes, and he will disseminate all of this information to the BOCC. A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the Disengagement Plan (Attachment 1), and authorize the County Manager to take all necessary steps to implement the Plan. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS 20 b. Re-naming the New Orange County Environmental Agricultural Center (EAC) to the Orange County Bonnie B. Davis Environmental and Agricultural Center The Board discussed re-naming the new Orange County Environmental Agricultural Center (EAC) to the Orange County Bonnie B. Davis Environmental and Agricultural Center. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following background: BACKGROUND: Bonnie B. Davis joined the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service in the 1950's. Bonnie retired from Orange County Cooperative Extension Department in 1990 after over 40 years as the Family & Consumer Sciences Agent. She died on July 27, 2018. • Bonnie B. Davis was appointed the first Orange County "colored" Home Demonstration Agent (now known as Family and Consumer Sciences Agent), a job she retained for 40 years. • Bonnie B. Davis leadership strengths served as a foundation to facilitate racial integration in the Orange County Extension office. Her positive attitude spread among 4-H youth, home demonstration club members (better known now as Extension & Community Association), and Extension employees. • Bonnie B. Davis drove to rural parts of the County to help youth practice demonstrations for 4-H short courses. Ms. Davis believed that everyone, regardless of where they started in life, could excel given the right opportunity, the necessary training and resources. • Bonnie B. Davis displayed her steadfastness when she returned from maternity leave in 1956. The new courthouse had opened with a kitchen for the use of white agents and their clubs, but no facilities for the black agents and their clubs. Mrs. Davis resisted this injustice and worked with the County Commissioners and others resulting in a new addition at the corner of Court and King Streets for the use of agricultural extension. • Bonnie B. Davis was a founding member of Friends of Department of Social Services and the Women of Distinction Extension Club. She was an active member of the Mars Hill Extension Club and other Extension Clubs and these clubs have served as the community connection for the NC Cooperative Extension FCS program for years. • Bonnie B. Davis was the Chairperson for the Board of Social Services, was a founding member of Orange Congregations in Mission, a member of the Regional Library Board of Trustee, and was an active board member of the Orange County Literacy Council. • Bonnie B. Davis received many state and local awards and was a recipient of the Orange County Pauli Murray award in 2000. • Bonnie B. Davis was a lifelong active member of Delta Sigma Theta and the Links Inc. She was a devoted member of Mount Bright Baptist Church for over 70 years, serving as a Deaconess, Co-Chair of the Kitchen Committee and the Christian Education Board. In memoriam and appreciation of Bonnie B. Davis, the proposal to rename the new Orange County Environmental Agricultural Center (EAC) to the Orange County Bonnie B. Davis 21 Environmental and Agricultural Center is presented to the Board of Orange County Commissioners for consideration. Ivelisse Colon, Family and Consumer Science Agent for NC Cooperative Extension in Orange County, spoke in support of this renaming. She said Ms. Davis has a strong commitment to serving the County, and improved the lives of many. She said Ms. Davis reminds the County to serve with equity and excellence. She said Orange County is forward thinking, and this renaming is one example of this. She said if this renaming occurs, it will be the first Ag Center to be named after an African American woman. She said Orange County would be an example to others in the state. Dr. Fletcher Barber, Jr. thanked the Manager for her comments about Bonnie B. Davis. He said he is the retired extension director, and worked with Ms. Davis. He said she was a servant leader, and a legend within cooperative extension. He said one had to be on point when working with a legend. He said she received all of the state and national awards one could receive as an extension employee, and was especially proud of receiving the Pauli Murray award. He said she stood for what was right, and did not wear a watch, because she did not want to be hindered by time when working with families. He said it is fitting to honor to rename the center after her. Commissioner McKee praised Ms. Davis and whole-heartedly endorsed renaming the center after her. He said she was very smart, dignified, and a force to be reckoned with when she wanted something done. Commissioner Fowler said after reading all of the letters in support of her, it was clear Ms. Davis was a remarkable woman. Commissioner Hamilton said she is proud to be an African American woman standing on the shoulders of someone like Ms. Davis. She said she supported the renaming. Commissioner Bedford said reading the letters of support transported her to a time in Orange County history that she did not know. She said Ms. Davis created the leaders of today, and mentioned it would be good for the schools to know about her work. Chair Price said lifting up someone like Ms. Davis is heart-warming, and she whole- heartedly supports the action. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton to bring forward a resolution to rename the building after Ms. Davis. Roll call ensued. VOTE: Unanimous. Chair Price said it would be good to bring the family to the naming of the building when it opens. 7. Reports a. Buckhorn Area Plan (Study) The Board received a presentation on the Buckhorn Area Plan (Study). BACKGROUND: In recent years, the City of Mebane has experienced increased interest in the development of properties in Orange County that were not addressed by its existing 2017 Comprehensive Land Development Plan (LDP), Mebane By Design. Per North Carolina General Statutes, the City of 22 Mebane has an obligation to update its long-range plan so that its actions on development proposals, rezoning and annexations are consistent with its adopted plans. The City of Mebane and Orange County have coordinated to provide utilities in the greater Buckhorn area (Efland and westward to Mebane city limits) and have a Utility Service Agreement (2012 was the most recent update) that identifies a service area that, to a significant degree, coincides with the scope of the Buckhorn Area Plan. This Agreement is in need of an update due to new developments and growth pressures in and around the existing Mebane LDP, Efland Mebane Small Area Plan, and City of Mebane/Orange County Utility Service Agreement. The Buckhorn Area Plan may help inform future agreements or amendments. As suggested by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in late 2018, staff was to research the development potential of existing designated economic development zones, as well as other viable sites. A prior engineering analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) by Timmons Group of the economic development districts bolstered the need for additional study. Orange County's Planning and Economic Development departments worked together with their Mebane counterparts on this plan. As such, both jurisdictions funded the planning study to help inform future land use and potential utility service that could be mutually beneficial. Orange County utilized funds available in the FY 2019-2020 budget to reimburse the City of Mebane for half of the consulting expenses of the Buckhorn Area Plan. The original goals have been to work together with a consultant to further analyze areas within Orange County— adjacent to and near Mebane — and to develop recommendations for a growth strategy. In January 2020, Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC) was selected as the consultant, and beginning on February 6, 2020, Orange County, Mebane, and PTRC have met monthly to discuss the geographic area of the study, the parcel development suitability criteria and mechanisms for feedback on the analysis. During the course of the study, there have been developments in Orange County brought to Mebane with a focus to rezone and to annex into Mebane. Any development proposals that are in Orange County and that fall within the study area have been noted as such in Orange County Planning's feedback to Mebane during the informal courtesy review process. While Mebane has the ability to annex properties that are willing to be annexed pursuant to state law without County `approval', Orange County Planning Staff's review of proposals has included language that informally recommends Mebane delay any further development of parcels that fall within the Buckhorn Area (but outside the existing utility service agreement) until the Plan is finalized and has been shared with the public and elected officials. The BOCC received an Information Item on the Buckhorn Area Plan in its December 15, 2020 agenda packet. THE BUCKHORN AREA PLAN (STUDY): Staff will provide an overview of the Buckhorn Area Plan, which functions as a technical study, at the BOCC meeting. Some key aspects are provided as attachments herein. A copy of the full document can be downloaded via the following link: https://www.i)trc.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=10489 The study uses GIS mapping to determine parcels most suitable for development within the focus area. The process allows for a technical review of multiple development factors including: developable acres, preservation areas, mean slope, watershed, sewer infrastructure, water 23 infrastructure, interstate access, interstate visibility, roadway access, and access to existing rail. In addition to the parcel-level scoring based on objective suitability criteria, there are a few areas of clustered parcels that have been recommended for long-term growth based on a combination of final score and high economic development use potential. The focus area (Attachment 1) for this study was defined after significant consideration of existing land uses, environmental impacts, and economic development potential. This does not mean that all areas in the study are proposed for potential change but just an area/base element of research. The boundaries for the focus area are the rail line to the North; Ben Wilson and Mattress Factory Roads to the west, Mt. Willing Road and parcels along the 1-85 connector to the East; Bushy Cook Road and Seven Mile Creek to the South. The City of Mebane and Orange County Planning, Administrative, Public Works, and Economic Development staffs worked with the Piedmont Triad Regional Council to ensure parcels with the highest potential were included in the analysis. It is worth noting, however, that parcels with significant public utility (schools, churches, cemeteries) were marked as not available for development, regardless of how well they scored on the parcel suitability criteria. Attachment 2 indicates the suitability criteria and values used in the scoring analysis contained in the study. Through the scoring analysis, five potential areas for growth based on size, access, and needs are identified in Attachment 3. The identification of these five potential growth areas is the key outcome of the Buckhorn Area Plan (Study). If and how all five potential growth areas or a sub-set are further pursued through any changes to County land use plans or agreements is vet to be determined. Growth Studies or Small Area Plans are researched based documents, which can recommend or inform future land use plan or ordinance amendments. The adoption of such a study would provide a more formal planning and agreement process (could include multiple implementation options), which would need to be decided upon in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance. MEBANE PLANNING BOARD MEETING/FIRST PUBLIC MEETING: The Mebane Planning Board reviewed the Buckhorn Area Plan and accepted public comment on November 9, 2020. This meeting was available to join online via Zoom, in-person (limited to 7 members of the public due to coronavirus protocols), and available to stream and re-watch on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ci2UakUtAD8). A notification of the Planning Board and first virtual public meeting was mailed to all property owners within the Buckhorn Focus Area. A short presentation was given by the Piedmont Triad Regional Council outlining the planning process, parcel analysis, and recommendations. The Mebane Planning Board passed a motion to adopt the Buckhorn Area Plan and to amend the Mebane Comprehensive Land Development Plan. The same night, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Buckhorn Area Plan to the Mebane City Council. MEBANE/ORANGE COUNTY OPEN HOUSE MEETING: On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, the City of Mebane and Orange County held a public meeting on the Buckhorn Area Plan. The meeting was held on Zoom and welcomed guest questions, comments, and concerns after a short presentation on the overview of the plan. These questions and comments were taken into consideration, and changes were made to reflect the needs and concerns of property owners. Primary concerns were about development standards such as traffic, buffering, noise, and lighting. The meeting was two hours long, and 25 people attended. 24 MEBANE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The draft Buckhorn Area Plan was presented at the December 7, 2020 Mebane City Council meeting, and a public hearing was held and continued to January 4, 2021. At the January 4, 2021 Mebane City Council meeting, the Council continued the public hearing before closing it that evening. A decision was deferred until the January 7, 2021 City Council meeting. During the meeting on January 7, 2021, the City Council agreed to take NO action on the Buckhorn Area Plan until Orange County reviews the Plan and offers comments. In the interim and in response to recent developer initiated requests for annexation and Mebane utility connections, the City of Mebane has amended its Comprehensive Land Development Plan (LDP), Mebane By Design, to include three properties south of West Ten Road and Future Growth Area "A". Maps are provided as Attachment 4 illustrating the LDP before the recent amendment and after. Growth Area "A" is labeled in Attachment 3. While the Mebane City Council believes that the Buckhorn Area Plan offers good guidance in determining the economic development potential of additional properties in the utility service area, the Council is not in favor of increasing the geographic extent of its LDP to include any portions of Areas B, C, D, or E without explicit Orange County support. NEXT ORANGE COUNTY STEP: The Orange County BOCC is scheduled to meet in a joint meeting with the Mebane City Council on March 9, 2021 at 7:00 pm via Zoom. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, introduced the item, and presented the first few slides of the following PowerPoint presentation. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Buckhorn Area Plan (Study) Craig Benedict, Director Tom Altied, Planner Ill Tom Ten Eyck,Planner II reomary 15,2021 Purpose To receive a presentation on the Buckhorn Area Plan(Study) Craig aenedIct-Presenter O RANGE RYLY 25 Background • Mebane has had increased interest from developers in developing properties in Orange County that are not captured in its Comprehensive Land Development Plan (CLDP), Mebane By Design • Coordinated policies between Mebane and Orange County(2012 Utility Services Agreement)also in need of update with Mebane's growth in Orange County Cralg Benedlct-Presenler O RANNGI SOIJ Background (continued) • Orange County Planning and Economic Development Staff were tasked by the BOCC in 2018 to research the development of potential`Economic Development'zones • Both Mebane and Orange County underwent a joint venture to study land use and potential utility service that would be mutually beneficial for these purposes Cralg Bened let-Presenter omM COINMY Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, presented the following PowerPoint slides: Presentation Table of Contents 1. Purpose/ _ Background 2. Buckhorn Area ® - Han(study) 3. Attachment Information 4. Mebane's Actions and CLDP 5. Ne)d Orange J,P'"`�=" County Step Link to the Plan on Piedmont Triad Websitet 6. Recommendation https.itwww.ptroorgMomelShow Dom ment?id =1Q489 Tom Amen•Presenter ORAz GE COUNTY 26 Attachment 9 — Focus Area ;r ORANGE COUNTY fuortn I ra�L7Nw Buckhorn Area Plan (study) • GIS parcels were analyzed for most suitable development in focus area -The focus area was determined after considering existing uses, environmental impact and economic development viability • Suitability criteria were determined based on analysis of objective criteria • Five potential"growth areas"were identified as a key outcome of the study ORANGE COUNTY NORT3[GR�1L[N.� �•�� ^�•• �° Attachment 2 Suitability •�YCEIrt wolf 3 RnnerveticnArce• YOI�MIMY�iPNlICt ; Criteria and Oen„rvwbn•M,w,n�xM,nrpMAn, .2 �•-�•El.w.��ow.o.•. Values MNnBbP! •,� , NA14,Mwd .� lwwrintiWudWn 4 7 �Mm p YYLEee MeeWcM Av�II�W o 2 1•winl�l�o awn 7 ulwwlrwa.rvr p �w.w ua.s NNNn 1/mlb•lNlrolMnpw 2 Ilkw,nn Ybxemw yiespr Ya Gww•nl 7 Rmdwy�me•e 1RpubW MICE[nMOwgw y ■uueaelc E�B,Ibq RN ra 7 QRANGE COUNTY i 171I CA LINA 27 Attachment 3 -- Potential Growth Areas 1 ORANGE COUNTY Noon[uROLIN. Mebane's Actions to Date • Nov 9,2020: Mebane Planning Board reviewed the BAP and accepted public comments • Nov 10,2020: Mebane/Orange County Open House Meeting to address public questionslconcems • Dec 7,2020: Mebane City Council receives BAP and opens a public hearing on the topic • Jan 4.2021: City Council continues public hearing and closes it;postpones decision until Jan 7 • Jan 7.2021: City Council decides on NO ACTION until Orange County reviews ORANGE COUNTY wO [CR LINE Mebane's Comprehensive Land Development Plan Amendments • While no action was taken on the BAP by Mebane's City Council, an update to their CLDP was made to allow Mebane to be in compliance with state statutes -Area along West Ten Road and Growth Area"A" • Mebane's City Council feels that the BAP does offer additional guidance for potential economic development properties, but will wait until after comments are received from Orange County before considering any formal action ORANGE COUNTY No,rn c uno— 28 Attachment 4 CRY OF MEBAlE —Mebane �. p C L D P {Before} E" Y A ORANGE COUNTY NOICT3[C.4ROLINA Attachment 4 `rc`°`""""` — Mebane CLDP (After) 't Oie»b A:V S r�A�� �r..rylRF-iti- ORANGE COUNTY MOM I CAROLINA Tom Altieri said Mebane requested changes, which were primarily made along West Ten Road, extending the extent of the land development plan to the south of West Ten Road. Mebane Comprehensive Land Development Plan Extent Modifications and Buckh—Area Plan Future Growth Areas L C3 VKANSat LVVNTY WORT][CAROLINA 29 Tom Altierei said Growth area A was already included in the City of Mebane's land development plan, and was amended to include portions of areas B and C. Relationship of Areas A-E to Orange County Future Land Use Map Next Orange County Step The Orange County BOCC is scheduled to meet with the Mebane City Council on March 9,2021, ORAVGU2NTY The Manager Recommends the Board: 1. Receive staff's presentation-, and 2. Discuss as appropriate. ORAn�E cOVY Commissioner Fowler noted that the suitability criteria do not include proximity to residential or agriculture, and asked if it was correct that these issues do not affect staff opinion. Tom Altieri said there are areas with small lot residential developments, which are identified as needing additional buffering. Commissioner Fowler said Preston Loop was previously in the Mebane plan, and asked if it has been taken out. Tom Altieri said yes. Commissioner Fowler asked if there is a reason why this action was taken. 30 Cy Stober, City of Mebane Development Director, said Preston Loop was omitted at the request of residents and property owners. He said the Town Council directed staff to omit those properties. Commissioner Greene said including areas B, C, and D, would be breaking the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). She said the public input meeting was held after the Planning meeting, and Orange County commissioners did not have a chance to hear about the plan. She said the reasons for not including some of the areas are compelling. She said there is a lot to discuss and she looks forward to meeting with Mebane. She said the new line that Mebane is drawing near Squires Road and Medline is logical. She said if the area were expanded to include B, C, and D, Gravely Hill Middle School would be included, and this is the lowest wealth part of the County. She said she has concerns about doing this, and there are a lot of problems with going below West Ten Road. Commissioner McKee said he wanted to see the B, C, and D expansion areas blown up with parcels. He said there are larger parcels on the south side of west ten, and asked if the number of large parcels within these three segments is known. Craig Benedict said area B has 4 parcels, totaling 250 acres. He said C and D have smaller acreage size per parcel, and staff can get bring blown up maps to the March 91n meeting. Commissioner McKee said large parcels contiguous to each other are more attractive to developers, and would have less impact to immediate neighbors. He said he is aware of the WASMPBA agreement, and he would be reluctant to reject the idea of increasing the Buckhorn EDD without speaking with WASMPBA partners. He said there are other businesses in these areas already, and this is an attractive area for development. He said this area needs good paying jobs, and there must be a middle path to pursue that protects the environment but secures good jobs. Chair Price asked if the owners of properties in B, C, and D are known. Craig Benedict said he would get the list of owners in the area. He said the owners in area A, some owners in B, and owners in area C north of Ten Road, are interested in selling. He said these owners are familiar with the study area, and are interested in the planning process. He said owners in area B are interested in selling, due to the proximity to Medline. Chair Price recalled the County saying there would be no development south of West Ten Road, and while she knows circumstances can change, it feels like the County is pressuring people to change that original plan. Craig Benedict said in the implementation process, the County could choose not to address this issue until a person comes forward with a request. He said land use could stay as it is, and requests to change could be addressed as they occur. He said it is up to the property owner. Chair Price said area D is designated as agricultural residential, and asked if there is a reason this is being changed to economic development. Craig Benedict said no change is being made, but the study has shown that this area has economic development potential based on viability criteria scores. He said there are no recommendations to change anything. Chair Price said when things are put on a map, and changes proposed, it sends a message to the community. Craig Benedict said areas of C, D, and E have low interest, and maybe they should not be part of the plan. Chair Price asked if there were public comments made by those who would be immediately affected. 31 Craig Benedict said the main concerns were about traffic on West Ten Rd, and impacts on the watershed. He said these areas are not in a protected watershed. He said concerns were also raised about proximity of non-residential to residential. Tom Altieri said there were also concerns about lighting, noise, and requested buffering. Commissioner Greene said people looking at the economic development district (EDD) as defined would think it was decided. She said having the EDD would then lead to rezoning. She said there is an assumption that it would happen. She said changing a WASMPBA line is a serious decision. She said the existing EDD has areas that are ripe for development. Commissioner Bedford asked if the process for annexation could be identified. Cy Stober said it is a 2-month process. He said the item, with all proper documentation, goes before City Council, a public hearing will be held, and the request considered at the next meeting. He said the City may provide utilities without annexing, and there is a lot of non- contiguous annexation in Orange County portion of the City of Mebane, and there is no cap on this. Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a property within the Orange County portion of the City of Mebane, and a conflict arises between the City's plan/UDO and the County's plan/UDO, which plan wins. Cy Stober said the City plan would be followed. Craig Benedict said State statutes give powers to the Cities in annexation. Commissioner Bedford asked if the City of Mebane is a signatory on WASMBPA. Cy Stober said no. Commissioner Bedford clarified that the City could take action regardless of WASMBPA. Cy Stober said yes. Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a plan in place if road improvements are needed in an area that straddles two MPOs. Cy Stober said Mebane enjoys a very productive working relationship with the County on transportation matters. Craig Benedict said the Comprehensive Transit Plan is a joint effort, adopted by local MPOs, and is consistent to what would be needed to make road improvements. He said the Department of Transportation (DOT) is still part of the process for roadway impacts, and meeting certain criteria in Mebane is the same as meeting criteria in Orange County. Commissioner Bedford said she read the Buckhorn Area Plan last night, and expanding area B makes sense to her. She said Orange County has locally designated critical areas for the watershed, which are not in the plan. She asked if clarification could be provided on this, as it could remove area D altogether. Craig Benedict said he could speak on that at a future meeting. He said Orange County went beyond what the state designates as critical areas. He said there is a County policy to focus growth on a 10% area of watershed and allow 70% impervious surface. He said this growth is focused around the interstates. He said Mebane can use Orange County's system or use its own. Commissioner Bedford asked if part of area B had been gifted to a non-profit. Cy Stober said the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association is working with a non-profit on about on a 25-35 acre wedge in this area. He said he does not yet know the details of this partnership, but will include it on future maps. Commissioner Bedford said she shares some of Commissioner Greene's concerns about transitioning the area near the school. She said there is mention of a new zoning area, and asked if clarification could be provided. Cy Stober said the council of governments drafted a document so that Mebane could develop a similar structure to Orange County for industrial zoning. 32 Craig Benedict said local ordinances are being compared side by side to insure proper development. He said whether annexation occurs early or late, the land development standards do not want to be changed dramatically. Commissioner Bedford said there may be a nature preserve around Seven Mile Creek, and asked if this could be included on maps. She said it would be good to have all potential items on the map, both development and items that could benefit the community. Craig Benedict said he would show where the existing nature preserves are. Commissioner McKee said the original thinking was for the EDD to focus growth along the interstate. Craig Benedict said these areas along the interstate were designated for commercial industrial transition activity nodes in 1981. He said the change was made to EDDs in the 1990s, and the land was pre-zoned at that time. He said this allowed EDDs to be close to transportation corridors. He said the County owns the school site, and recreation area next to it. He said Medline took 176 acres, and there is interest in the flea market. He said interest is coming around. Commissioner McKee referred to the current parcels in the existing EDD, and asked if anyone has ever been forced to sell land in an EDD. He said zoning does not force someone to accept an offer. Craig Benedict said if there was pre-zoning, the Planning Department would work with the property owner to see if they were interested. He said no one is forced to sell. Commissioner McKee said he would not anticipate that all of the land in the EDD would be sold, thus it makes sense that contiguous land to the EDD, which scored high, would be a natural step to include. Commissioner McKee said he had several questions, for which he would appreciate staff researching the answers: -How much money has been spent on infrastructure for development? -The investment, to date, which that infrastructure has brought to the County? -How much tax revenue, jobs, and average salary have been generated by the investments made due to the infrastructure? Commissioner Greene said there is an overlay map on page 38 in the agenda packet, where one can see the contiguous parcels. She said there is a great deal of information that could be gathered about these parcels, and she would be curious to know what the land south of Route 10 might be worth if it were used for producing crops. She said some of these areas would require significant infrastructure investment in order to develop. Commissioner Hamilton reminded the BOCC of the importance of explaining things like WASMBPA, and its context in County history. She said scoring metrics are weighted, and those weights will influence how one views a property. She said she would like a sense of what types of developments are being considered for these areas, the potential benefits and the potential costs. She said she wants to understand trade offs, and to remember the environment. She said people do look at theses maps, and will make decisions based on them. PUBLIC COMMENT: Beth Bronson read the following statement: Good evening County Commissioners, My name is Beth Bronson and I reside in Cheeks Township, the census tract under consideration in The Buckhorn Area Plan. Data used to curate and finalize the Buckhorn Area Plan comes mere months before updated census information is released, and the tightrope process of redistricting begins. The request for fast tracking approval also comes ahead of 33 state required updates to each municipality's Universal Development Ordinances. Changes that would include much needed verbiage for the regulation of rural development and the removal of conditional use permits. The Buckhorn Area Plan will determine the future of 1000s of acres. Economic AND Residential. As noted earlier, a handful of non-contiguous parcels are already annexed into Mebane city limits, and the remaining, are a majority agriculture and rural residential parcels (R1) within county jurisdiction. While I understand this plan does not force the selling, re-zoning, or annexation of rural residential within this commercial-industrial transition activity node (CITAN), this area has been under review for decades without much established. Now both planning departments want to justify extending the scope of prospective commercial development areas. This is curious, as the plan before you does not incorporate prior recommendations within existing comprehensive land use or transportation plans. To clarify, I have, and I know my neighbors have, worked extremely hard to make ourselves familiar with both municipality's comprehensive guidance documents, plans, and the multitude of land use maps. • If plans for this EDD have been in process, why haven't capital improvement projects such as roadways and telecommunications been at the forefront of these discussions? • If four out of the 5 growth areas —the primary outcome of the BAP lie mainly within OC and outside of Mebane's city limits and their ETJ, I hope to understand why Orange County would not have held the responsibility of reviewing and adopting/recommending a plan such as this before being presented to Mebane City Council? The Mebane Planning Board and City Council have been gracious in considering our input of the Buckhorn Economic Development District. However, as inquiring Orange County residents, we cannot help but feel discounted in our efforts. Point in fact, that they do not owe us representation. To Mebane, Orange County is the driver of this expansion because they quote: "wanted to bring water and sewer out this way," [03Feb21 Mebane Council Meeting] and we should have expected this when we made our investments. In every existing future land use map, as current as the 2019 E-B-M AMP, [Efland Buckhorn Mebane Access Management Plan] this economic development district has been clearly delineated between commercial use, and rural residential: discouraging commercial development south of West Ten Rd, citing access to utilities and important watershed protections. There is an obvious need for both municipalities to incorporate mutually agreed upon regulation to protect existing and future residents and our surrounding environment. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the collaboration of both governing bodies to execute a growth strategy that is thoughtful about how and why economic development should occur, rather than simply where. Chair Price lost connection to the meeting at 10:16 p.m. Vice Chair Bedford led the meeting until Chair Price was able to return. Fiona Johann read the following statement: Hello, I'm Fiona Johann. I live in Mebane and have been an orange county resident for 20 years. I am speaking today in opposition of the Buckhorn Area plan (BAP) as it stands. I speak as someone who has been following this plan progress through the Mebane City Planning Board since the November 9 meeting. 34 This plan goes against the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan, the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Parks and Rec yearly reports. These are the documents that local home buyers had available to them when choosing where to invest their hard earned income while buying homes. All of the aforementioned plans make it clear that the area NORTH of West Ten was slated to be developed into an industrial zone and I assumed, perhaps naively, that Orange County and Mebane City would stick to these plans in fairness to local land owners. The BAP will make it very easy for developers to extend industrial zoning into rural residential areas. Creating a rural industrial zone that none of the neighbors signed up for. What baffles me is why both Orange County and Mebane are looking to extend this industrial area before the land that was previously slated for this type of development has been used to its capacity. I could image in 20 years if or when all that land is actually developed that city and county alike might want to venture outside this area, but why now when there is so much open land available in previously industrial slated growth areas? I ask that instead of the BAP as it is currently stands that Orange County and Mebane City come together and create a binding land use plan that encompasses the original industrial growth area, south of highway 70 and north of West Ten Rd, as seen in the 2030 comprehensive land use plan. This would provide Orange County residents with assurance that both Orange County and Mebane City must be in agreement before any more properties are annexed to Mebane City and rezoned for industrial use. I would also ask that all the building "recommendations" currently listed in the BAP be made requirements of any developer looking to build. A binding joint land use plan would mean that those of us in the area can count on our elected officials to have a vote instead of the City of Mebane simply annexing our neighboring lots to be rezoned to industrial sites. This is already happening in the area; as an example I give you 6016 West Ten Road. It was recently annexed into Mebane and then rezoned to M-2. Many neighbors argued against this, a city council member used you, Orange County, as an excuse for why this rezoning happened, all the while this rezoning was never brought to orange county, meaning area citizens had no elected representation in the matter. This is why I am asking for a BINDING LAND USE PLAN as an official policy document adopted by both Orange County and Mebane City, encompassing the original industrial development area indicated on both the Orange county and Mebane city land use plans. I ask for this so that your constituents are not repeatedly left in a grey area of non-representation by elected officials. Thank you for your time. Aimee Tattersall said she has lived on the west side of Squires Road for 35 years. She said her neighbors on the east side are within 300 feet of Area B. She said her neighbors received a letter dated October 28, 2020 that felt threatening, about property being in the study area. She read the opening paragraph of the letter, and then read the following statement to the Board: Are you Commissioners are aware of that letter? The Mebane planning board discussed the plan on November 9 and the city had a public meeting on November 10. The planning board approved the plan without, to my knowledge, any planning board member actually looking at the land from Squires Road or any of the other roads off West 10. (and neither have any of you since Medline started construction). Did anyone from Piedmont Triad Regional Council actually walk any of the roads, rather than relying on GIS maps? 35 This plan was presented to the Mebane City Council on Dec 7th. That was when all of us-- mayor, council, residents—realized there was no plan to bring the proposal to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Fortunately the Mebane City Council postponed any decision. The BAP Overview only considers M-2 zoning (research, office, manufacturing, warehouse, etc.). It mentions walkability but makes no mention of other options such as housing (owner and or rental) that Orange County needs, especially but not only places for employees of Medline and Neyer (6016 West 10) to live in the county where they work. Area B could be zoned for homes with public trails through the property to the proposed park, Seven Mile Creek, Gravelly Hill and the soccer complex. Think beyond more warehouses. There are at least 100 dwellings along West 10 between Mt. Willing Road and Buckhorn Road if you include the roads that end at West 10, such as Squires Road (with 14 homes and 3 unbuilt lots) and Coleman Loop (more than 20) and Bushy Cook Road. Also two churches and Gravelly Hill Middle School. Two warehouses on West 10 are already more than enough light manufacturing. Instead focus your attention on areas already designated as economic development zones. I ask you to delay any decision about the Buckhorn area plan until Orange County, Mebane and most importantly the residents who live here can assess traffic, water runoff, noise and pollution from the two warehouses already approved for West 10. Let's work together and think strategically about the needs of the Buckhorn Area. Thank you. Chair Price returned to the virtual meeting at 10:20 p.m. Patty O'Connor read the following statement: My name is Patty O'Connor and I live on Squires Road, directly across from the Medline Distribution Center and adjacent to the recently re-zoned Neyer property at Buckhorn and West Ten Roads. With the completion of Medline and the 500,000 square foot warehouse to be built on the Neyer land, there will be 1.7 million square feet of warehousing on a quarter mile stretch of road. When Medline develops their rezoned property on the south side of West Ten, the sweet, wooded Squires Road community will sit embedded in a rural industrial park with hundreds of estimated daily truck trips around us and all of the accompanying congestion, noise, and diesel fumes. And let's not forget to mention the environmental and aesthetic degradation. This part of Mebane is absolutely NOT going to be charming. Our ways of life, our homes and land values stand to be negatively impacted. I am asking tonight, that you, the BOCC, assume a larger role in partnering with Mebane for the Buckhorn Area Project. The residents living along this corridor chose their homes for a reason and most probably believed that the zoning of the lands around their homes would offer some protections. After all, that's the purpose of zoning. The Buckhorn area, even if some rezoning takes place, does not have to be a stretch of warehouses from one end of the road to the other. There is other development more suited to these rural areas and I ask that you task the planning department with being more creative in their thought processes and seeking citizen input when considering any development of these areas. In addition to pursuing sources of tax revenue, the goal should be to seek useful development that enhances a community while preserving its character. The residents at the western end of end of West Ten Road stand to pay a terrible price for the lack of thoughtfulness in planning for these semi-rural lands. Andrea Riley read the following statement: My name is Andrea Riley and I have lived in Efland for thirty years. I want to talk to you tonight about the desire of Orange County residents to be involved in Orange County's future planning 36 for its land use development. It has been 14 years since the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan was written, and there has been no appreciable public input to an updated plan since then. The fact that there was so much public interest expressed in the recent proposal to rezone the 104 acres at the intersection of Mt. Willing Road and 1-40/1-85 in Efland should indicate just how strongly the citizens of northwestern Orange County, and indeed all of Orange County, feel about the kind of development they want to see going forward. There is an opportunity at this point in time, following the heightened interest that the Efland Station proposal has aroused in this community, to take advantage of this energy and focus, by inviting as many groups as possible to participate in making the land development decisions for all of the communities of the Efland/Mebane area. The Mt. Willing Road/1-40/1-85 site is still a prime area for development under the O/RM zoning ordinance. The Buckhorn Area Plan involves land in both the Efland and Mebane communities and should respect the Economic Development Districts already identified. Now is the perfect opportunity for a joint citizens' task force to be implemented which could look at the Efland Station site and the Buckhorn Area Plan to determine what kinds of development would meet the needs and wants of both communities. There seems to be a fixed determination on the part of the Orange County Planning Department and Economic Development to look for only the large industrial developments that will take advantage of the interstate highway. Why is industrial development the only type of development being considered? These developments will disrupt the existing neighborhoods and ecosystems already in place and will need to be factored into the planning by the people in Efland and Mebane who understand their value and want to see them preserved. There are many citizens of northwestern Orange County who want to contribute to the process of identifying and recruiting businesses and services, which truly meet the needs of all of the citizens of this area of the county. We would like to see the county take a more proactive approach to land use in this area, using its resources to identify and incentivize development that serves the local citizens who have been long overlooked. Protection of the environment is an essential concern for the citizens of Efland and Mebane and we wonder why, in the Buckhorn Area Plan that you see tonight, under"Environmental Impact", it states, "There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impacts associated with this item"? The residents of Efland and Mebane want their concerns for Seven Mile Creek and its tributary streams addressed in any land use plan affecting this fragile area. We hope you will see that there is a need for cooperative planning involving the citizens of the Efland/Mebane Small Area and Buckhorn Area in concert with the Orange County Planning Department, and that you will provide us with that opportunity. Thank you. Commissioner Greene said she has visited the area, and the traffic will be terrible, even with just the addition of Medline. She said the BOCC will need to adopt a traffic plan. She said there is digital development going on, and residents are getting letters regularly from developers to sell, so there is pressure out there. She said drawing a line will increase this pressure. Craig Benedict said if the BOCC wants any additional information prior to the March 9`h meeting with Mebane, it can forward those request to him. He said this area plan was developed in concert with the County's Economic Development Department, and it goes far beyond just land use. He said some of this evening's questions will be answered by Economic Development Department, and others, he will answer. 37 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Items 8-b • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to remove item 8-b, and approve the remaining items on the consent agenda, with 8-e as revised and discussed at the beginning of the meeting Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANMIOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 8-b. Chair Price said Leon Meyers was mentioned during the February 9, 2021 work session as a potential nominee for an At-Large appointment to the Board of Adjustment. She said Leon Myers expressed a willingness to serve. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Mr. Meyers to the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Bedford offered a friendly amendment to the motion, to also appoint all of the other individuals listed on the consent agenda item 8-b to their respective Advisory Boards and Commissions, as well as Mr. Meyers. Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner McKee accepted the amendment. Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANMIOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the draft minutes for the January 5, 2021 Virtual Public Hearing (continued to January 12, 2021) and the January 19, 2021 Board of County Commissioners Virtual Business Meeting. b. Advisory Boards and Commissions —Appointments The Board approved the Advisory Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed during the February 9, 2021 Work Session. c. Resolution Acknowledging February 23, 2021 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County, North Carolina The Board adopted an official resolution, which is incorporated by reference, declaring February 23, 2021 is "Spay Neuter Day" in Orange County, authorize the Chair to sign, and receive a written update about the County's spay and neuter program. d. Designation of 401 Valley Forge Road, Hillsborough, NC as Surplus Property The Board voted to: 1. Approve the designation of 401 Valley Forge Road, Hillsborough, NC as surplus property; 38 2. Approve the selection of Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services to market and solicit offers necessary to sell this property; and 3. Authorize the County Manager to sign a contract with Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services. e. Contract Approval for Fiber Backbone Connecting the West Campus to the New North Campus The Board authorized the Manager to execute an Agreement with NetPlanner, Inc. in order to connect facilities with County owned fiber optic backbone, thereby distributing network and phone services to the following facilities: 1. West Campus 2. Whitted Building 3. North Campus a. Detention Facility b. Environment Agricultural Center c. Parks Operations Base. f. Lease of Land for High Rock Waste and Recycling Center The Board authorized entering into and the execution of a twenty (20) year lease of land for the High Rock Road Waste and Recycling Center. g. Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Revision in the Resolution Adopted April 21, 2020 That Authorized the Orange County FY 2020-2021 HOME Program Design The Board approved a revision in the resolution adopted April 21, 2020 that authorized the Orange County FY 2020-2021 HOME Program Design. h. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for Efland Station — Notice of Application Withdrawal The Board formally acknowledged the withdrawal of a Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) application. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley highlighted an information item in the agenda packet, regarding the use of school nurses and School Resource Officers during COVID-19. She said the second quarter financial report is also included. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts highlighted information in the agenda packet on increasing affordable housing through the UDO. He said some options are easy to accomplish, some are difficult, and others would be politically unpopular/difficult to accomplish. Commissioner Greene petitioned the BOCC to have a work session on this topic. The Board agreed by consensus. 11. *Appointments NONE 12. Information Items • February 2, 2021 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Memorandum —Annual Report of the Community Child Protection Team (CCPT) • Memorandum — Financial Report- Second Quarter FY 2020-21 • Memorandum — Options for Increasing Affordable Housing in Orange County Through the Unified Development Ordinance 39 • Memorandum — Use of School Nurses and School Resource Officers by Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools during the COVID-19 Pandemic 13. Closed Session NONE 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to adjourn the meeting at 10:39 p.m. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANMIOUS Renee Price, Chair Laura Jensen Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.