HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11-16-2021; 8-a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 16, 2021
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes
DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board, 919-
245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board
as listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
Attachment 1: October 5, 2021 Virtual Business Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
Attachment 1
1
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
5 October 5, 2021
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday,
9 October 5, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Renee Price, Vice Chair Jamezetta Bedford,
12 and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Jean Hamilton, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Anna
13 Richards
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Price called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21
22 A roll call was called; all members were present.
23
24 Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual
25 Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 5, 2021. Members of the Board of Commissioners
26 participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to
27 view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at
28 http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on
29 channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
30
31 In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment.
32 • Written submittals by email
33 • Speaking during the virtual meeting
34
35 Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this
36 agenda. (Pre-registration is required.)
37
38 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
39 None.
40
41 Chair Price dispensed with reading the public charge.
42
43 Public Charge: The Board of Commissioners pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks
44 those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward
45 each other, county staff and the commissioners. At any time should a member of the Board or
46 the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum.
47 Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess
48 the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The
49 BOCC asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should
50 please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone.
2
1
2 Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting.
3
4 2. Public Comments
5
6 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
7
8 Delores Bailey said she is the owner of a home located at 203 N. Graham Street in
9 Chapel Hill; a stone house built in 1942 by the Campbell brothers. She said her family has lived
10 there since 1975. She said she is speaking tonight due to the taxes on this home. She said the
11 tax assessor and her staff responded to the distress of families living in Northside, and she is
12 one of those people. She said she completed an appeal application for her home and
13 participated in several talks with residents of Northside, and other areas of Orange County, who
14 were experiencing high tax increases. She said she followed all the appropriate steps, and in
15 her letter, she requested someone come by her home while she was there so she could walk
16 through her home and property with them to understand the tax value. She said she did not get
17 a visit and did not receive notification of anyone having come by her house. She said when her
18 tax bill came she called the tax office because she knows and followed the process. She said
19 her concern is that in 2019 her house, which is a 3 bedroom stone house that has not changed
20 very much in its lifetime, was valued at $192,000. She said when she received the letter from
21 the county on August 26, her home is now valued at $233,000, which is a 21% increase. She
22 said she called the tax assessor and was told staff did what they were supposed to do. She said
23 she told the tax assessor that she did not receive a visit and did not have anyone talk to her.
24 She said she appreciates the tax assessor's office efforts around the matter, but this process
25 did not help her and she does not understand why her 1400 square foot house on % of an acre
26 is valued that high. She said there is something wrong with that.
27 Chair Price said she is sure staff will follow up with Ms. Bailey about her comments.
28
29 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
30 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
31 below.)
32
33 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
34 Commissioner Hamilton said she attended the Eno Arts Mill grand opening on Friday,
35 October 1St, which was a great time. She said there were lots of people and beautiful art, and
36 she is looking forward to see how it grows and the county's ability to support local artists and
37 increase access to the art for residents, especially in the Northern part of the county. She said
38 on September 29, she attended the board meeting for the Orange County Partnership for Young
39 Children. She said, just like the school system, preschools are facing shortages of teachers
40 and struggling to deal with COVID. She said she was surprised to hear the price of
41 cybersecurity insurance is going up because of more hacking, and some of the funding issues
42 make it hard for providers to survive. She said all should be aware young children are at risk of
43 not getting the services they need and the Partnership is doing everything it can to make sure
44 there is funding and support for providers and children.
45 Commissioner Hamilton petitioned to have a subcommittee of the Board of County
46 Commissioners (BOCC) work with staff to establish a temporary workgroup of community
47 partners to look at how Article 46 Sales Tax money has been spent and determine the county's
48 priorities moving forward. She said the BOCC agreed, in 2011-2012, to split Article 46 sales tax
49 proceeds 50-50 between schools and economic development. She said 10 years is up and it is
50 time to look at how the money is being spent.
3
1 Commissioner Greene said she also attended the Eno River Mill event and found it
2 delightful. She said it is wonderful that there is a lot of space for studio artists now, something
3 that has been needed in the county for a long time. She said October is also National Arts
4 Month, celebrated by Americans for the Arts, as well as National Endowment for the Arts. She
5 said the latter founded it in 1985, as a way to celebrate the ways arts bring value to our lives.
6 Commissioner Fowler said she attended the Chamber of Commerce's State of the
7 Community report on September 30 and found it very interesting. She said Orange County has
8 grown by 11% over the past 10 years, which is above the state average of 9%, but below
9 neighboring counties. She said she also attended the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
10 (JCPC) meeting on October 1, and there is an unallocated balance of$36,000 that will be given
11 out again to current organizations and programs, as funds not allocated by the end of
12 December will return to the state. She said the group heard updates from various organizations
13 like the Dispute Settlement Center, Exchange Club, Volunteers for Youth, and Wren House and
14 all are providing services to slightly fewer clients than they had estimated, but increased
15 compared to prior six months of COVID. She said there is a new DPS area consultant,
16 Tasheena Wiggins and she reported that the State bill 207 was passed and signed by the
17 Governor, which raised the age for violent crimes for children by a few years. She said bill 615
18 also passed, which requires all juveniles with suspected mental health issues to have a
19 comprehensive clinical assessment. She said another ongoing bill would raise age of dropping
20 out of school from 16 to 18. She said she also attended the Eno arts event and is glad there is
21 additional space for arts and classes.
22 Commissioner Bedford petitioned the County Manager to determine next steps to review
23 the three county community centers facility needs, particularly an expansion to Rogers Eubanks
24 Neighborhood Association (RENA). She petitioned the county to develop an Orange County
25 Climate Plan that is integrated across all departments. She said the commission for the
26 environment says it is beyond its capacity and a third party consultant may be needed. She
27 said Carrboro and Chapel Hill have a plan, and Hillsborough is about to finalize its plan. She
28 petitioned the Manager to bring next steps and possible processes to develop a county climate
29 plan. She said she has attended three Climate Council meetings, and petitioned that the group
30 be reviewed and restructured. She said it could be done like the review of the climate tax, when
31 three commissioners met after the first year to do work or some other arrangement.
32 Commissioner McKee said he had no comments.
33 Commissioner Richards said she also attended the Eno River Mill event and looks
34 forward to spending more time there. She echoed the petition made by Commissioner Bedford
35 for the Orange County Climate Plan.
36 Chair Price said she was at the Eno River Mill grand opening and gave kudos to Katie
37 Murray, Arts Commission Director, and the Arts Commission for putting the event together. She
38 said she has been meeting with Mayors Hemminger and Lavelle and staff about the Greene
39 Tract. She said conversations are moving along and a community meeting should be possible
40 soon for awareness and feedback. She said she attended the Durham Technical Community
41 College Board of Trustees meeting today and one of the things they are looking at is affordable
42 housing near campus for students and other residents. She said this is Breast Cancer
43 Awareness Month and she highlighted the Health Department's newsletter discussing the topic.
44 She said Monday is Indigenous Peoples Day, and local indigenous tribes asked that this
45 observance continue.
46 Chair Price said the Board retreat happens every year in January, and she has asked
47 Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner Fowler to work on the
48 retreat and they have all agreed. She said Commissioner Bedford has done this before, and
49 she will take the lead. She encouraged the Board to contact Commissioner Bedford with any
50 ideas.
51 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
4
1
2 a. Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
3 The Board considered approving a proclamation designating September 15-October 15,
4 2021 as Hispanic Heritage Month in Orange County.
5
6 BACKGROUND:
7 Hispanic Heritage Week began in 1968 under President Lyndon Johnson. President Ronald
8 Reagan extended Hispanic Heritage Week to 30 days in 1988. Hispanic Heritage Month starts
9 on September 15, as that date is significant to several Latin American countries. Independence
10 Day for the Latin American countries of Costa Rica, EI Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
11 Nicaragua is September 15. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence days on
12 September 16 and 18, respectively. Dia de la Raza, recognized throughout Spanish-speaking
13 countries, celebrating Latin American heritage and cultural diversity occurs on October 12.
14
15 In 1987, when Representative Esteban Torres of California proposed extending the week-long
16 celebration to a month, he noted that supporters of the legislation "want the Amerian people to
17 learn of our heritage. We want the public to know that we share a legacy with the rest of the
18 country, a legacy that includes artists, writers, Olympic champions, and leaders in business,
19 government, cinema, and science." Representative Torres' bill died in committee, but the
20 Senate passed a similar bill, and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
21
22 The 2021 theme for Hispanic Heritage Month is "Esperanza: A Celebration of Hispanic Heritage
23 and Hope." The theme invites everyone to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month and reflect on
24 how great tomorrow can be if we hold onto our resilience and hope. The theme encourages
25 everyone to reflect on the Hispanic community's past and future contributions.
26
27 Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations Director, reviewed the background
28 information for this item. She introduced Marlyn Valeiko, Language Access and Outreach
29 Coordinator, who is well respected in the community. She said Marlyn Valeiko found out that
30 there was a big need for masks in the Hispanic community and was instrumental in over 5,000
31 being distributed to community members.
32
33 Marlyn Valeiko read the proclamation:
34
35 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
36 HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH PROCLAMATION
37
38 WHEREAS, Hispanic Heritage Month heritage began as Hispanic Heritage Week, established
39 by legislation sponsored by Rep. Edward Roybal of Los Angeles and was signed into law by
40 President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968; and
41
42 WHEREAS, in 1988, the commemorative week was expanded to a month — September 15 to
43 October 15 — by legislation sponsored by Rep. Estaban Torres, amended by Sen. Paul Simon
44 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan; and
45
46 WHEREAS, September 15 was chosen as the starting point for the commemoration because it
47 is the anniversary of the Cry of Dolores, early morning of 16 September 1810, which marked the
48 start of the Mexican War of Independence and thus resulted in independence for the New Spain
49 Colony, now Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, el Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua in
50 1821; and
51
5
1 WHEREAS, throughout the year and especially during Hispanic Heritage Month, Americans
2 embrace, honor and celebrate the Hispanic community and its traditions and contributions; and
3
4 WHEREAS, Orange County has a diverse population and Hispanic residents constitute the
5 largest ethnic group in Orange County; and
6
7 WHEREAS, the Hispanic residents in Orange County are a diverse group with roots stretching
8 throughout North, Central, and South America, and many trace their heritage to the original
9 indigenous peoples of Latin America and Africa; and
10
11 WHEREAS, many Hispanic people came to this country as immigrants and have fought for
12 state and national initiatives providing pathways to citizenship and protecting the right to vote —
13 i.e., Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status holders, farmworkers, and essential workers; and
14
15 WHEREAS, throughout the history of the United States, members of the Hispanic community
16 have helped shape the social, political, and economic landscape of this Country and our
17 community; and
18
19 WHEREAS, in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the Hispanic community
20 helped keep our neighborhoods and communities vibrant and prosperous as our front-line
21 workers, teachers, business owners, scientists, soldiers, farmworkers, first responders, artists,
22 activists, colleagues, and friends;
23
24 NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby proclaim
25 September 15 through October 15, 2021, as Hispanic Heritage Month in Orange County,
26 affirming the 2021 theme of"Esperanza: A Celebration of Hispanic Heritage and Hope," and
27 calls upon all residents of Orange County to celebrate this month through activities and
28 programs that enlighten and inspire our understanding of the amazing heritage of our Hispanic
29 families, neighbors and friends.
30
31 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this the day of October 2021.
32
33
34 Renee A. Price, Chair
35 Orange County Board of
36 Commissioners
37
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to
40 approve the proclamation designating September 15-October 15, 2021 as Hispanic Heritage
41 Month in Orange County.
42
43 Roll call ensued
44
45 VOTE: Unanimous
46
47
48 5. Public Hearings
49 None.
50
51
6
1 6. Regular Agenda
2
3 a. Presentation of Final Report from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group (BEAG)
4 The Board received the Final Report on the Process for Electing County Commissioners
5 in Orange County from the BOCC Elections Advisory Group.
6
7 BACKGROUND:
8 At the Board of Commissioners' April 7, 2020 Virtual Business meeting, a request/petition was
9 presented that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under which
10 some or all Board members are elected.
11
12 The Board subsequently discussed the issue at its May 5, 2020 Virtual Business meeting and
13 voted to:
14 1) Establish a committee to study alternative methods of election;
15 2) Select members for the committee no later than January 31, 2021;
16 3) Have the committee review options and report back by July 31, 2021; and
17 4) For the Board to review the recommendations, and if necessary conduct public
18 hearings and make a decision in time for the March 2022 primary election.
19
20 The Board subsequently discussed the proposal further at its September 10, 2020 work
21 session. Staff requested direction from the Board on:
22 • the total number of members the committee should include;
23 • whether the committee should consist entirely of residents;
24 • whether election or other experts would be considered/appointed;
25 • whether there should be representation from nonprofit entities;
26 • whether there would be a formal application process; and
27 • any other details regarding the establishment of the committee.
28
29 Based on direction given at that meeting, the Clerk's Office solicited applications from Orange
30 County residents for fifteen (15) seats for the BOCC Elections Advisory Group, with
31 appointments to be made by January 31, 2021. The Group materials noted that the purpose is
32 to "study alternative methods/districts to elect the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and
33 make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners."
34
35 Staff advertised the application opportunity on the county website and also published two Public
36 Service Announcements regarding the Group. The opportunity to apply to serve was shared on
37 WCHL radio station. An announcement also occurred at the Board's October 20, 2020
38 Business meeting that the county was recruiting for potential appointees to the BOCC Elections
39 Advisory Group and that applications were available on the county website under Board of
40 Commissioners -Volunteer Advisory Boards & Commissions. The county received applications
41 from twenty-three (23) interested individuals.
42
43 At its February 2, 2021 Business meeting, the Board of Commissioners appointed fifteen (15)
44 members to the BOCC Elections Advisory Group. The Board directed the Group to select Co-
45 Chairs, with one individual from the District 1 electoral area of the county and one individual
46 from the District 2 electoral area of the county. The Board also approved a charge and timeline
47 for the Group, with the Group to provide its report back to the BOCC by July 31, 2021.
48
49 The BEAG subsequently convened seven times, with its first meeting on February 25, 2021.
50 Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan joined the Group as its Facilitator at the Group's second
7
1 meeting on March 25, 2021. At that same meeting, Group Members Lisa Hazirjian and Patrick
2 Mulkey were elected as the Group Co-Chairs from Districts 1 and 2, respectively.
3
4 In concert with the BOCC's May 18, 2021 agreement by consensus to extend the BEAG's report
5 deadline to August 15, 2021, the BEAG approved its Final Report on the Process for Electing
6 County Commissioners in Orange County at its last meeting on August 5, 2021. That Final
7 Report, which is attached, details the Group's activities, discussions and materials reviewed,
8 and provides recommendations for BOCC consideration.
9
10 BEAG Facilitator and Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan will be joined at the meeting by
11 Group Co-Chair Lisa Hazirjian and Group Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey to present the Final Report
12 to the Board. Other Group members may also be present to help address any questions.
13
14 Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, noted that Patrick Mulkey is present for this item,
15 but is joining by telephone and will not have video. He reviewed the background information for
16 this item.
17 Judge Jay Bryan, Dr. Lisa Hazirjian, and Patrick Mulkey made the following PowerPoint
18 presentation, with Judge Jay Bryan starting:
19
20 Slide #1
BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP
Process for Electing County Commissioners
41 Orange County
FINAL REPORT
Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners
October 5,2021
21
22
23
8
1 Slide #2
Members of the BOCC Elections Advisory Group(BEP4G)
were gpp_qj=by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners in February 2021 based on submitted
applications. The BEAD membership reflects geographic,
ethnic, racial and political diversity from across Orange
County.
GROURMEMBERS
Ralrick 446t1dc —District 2,Ca-Chair
Dr.Lisa dRtaU—District 1,Ca-Chair
District t Susana Q-O, y,
Kathy Arab Dr.Krishna Mp XW
Nicholas Batman Dr.JonathanVt*ff
(DpAgW¢as of May,2421) District 2
Dr.Nathan Boucher Brian Crawford
Dr.Jennifer Bremer Martha Jenkins
SaVd Alicia Reid
2
3 Slide #3
Jenn Sykes
Rex Williams
BOCC Elections Advisory Group
Charge
To review,research,and evaluate the current method of electing commissioners,
as well as any altemative electoral methods or models,including but not limited to
single member districts,aligning primary and general election methods,multi-seat
elections,and the number of commissioners.The Advisory Group shall assess all
options and altematives pursuant to the following criteria:
Constitutional and statutory requirements and voting rights law,
Y Proportionality
7 Equity
T Uniformity
>Simplicitylclarity
i Maximizing voter engagement
The Advisory Group's assessment should incorporate, to the extent passible,
anticipated population distribution changes based on the 2420 census.
4
5
9
1 Slide #4
The Advisory Group may consider options that require enabling legislation;
however, it must present to the BOGC options that do not require such
authorization.
2
3 Slide #5
CURRENT VOTING METHOD FOR ELECTING
MEMBERS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Currently Orange County elects seven (7) commissioners_ Two
commissioners are elected at-large, meaning candidates must reside
somewhere in Orange County,and voters from the entire county vote on
these candidates in both primaries and general elections_ There are two
mufti-member districts. District 1 encompasses the Chapel Hill and
Carrboro area and has three seats_ District 2 includes the rest of Orange
County and has two seats. Candidates for these seats must reside in the
district in which they are running_In prim4ries,voters living in District One
vote only on District One candidates; and voters from District Two vote
only on District Two candidates. In general elections, voters from the
whole county can vote in both District One and District Two races.
4
5
10
1 Slide #6
Election Methods for County Commissioners
Authorized by North Carolina General Statute
• Single-member districts where voters in a district choose one representative
for their district
• Multi-member districts where voters In a district choose multiple
representatives for their district.
• At-large seats voted on by all voters in the county.
• A combination of single-member districts and at-large.
• A combination of multimember districts and at-large-
2
3 Slide #7
RESOURCES AND INFORMATION REVIEWED
- Presentation and information From Prafessor Robert Jayne and the UNC Schad of Government
regarding"al options used it other counties and the legal options available til Orange County,
- Presentation and inFormation slides from DirectprDr.Rebecca Tippp and the UNC Demography
Center an demographic features or Orange County;
- Demographic information related to the urban and rural populations,and changes since the 2010
Census:
- Information on areas mrrenity experiencing growth,or areas expected th experience growth(an
example being the MebanaiEftand area);
Information on recently approved and proposed large residential developments in the Counry,
- Demographic information on the two county school systems,and county funding levels for earm
district (Note: the Chapel HWCarrbora School; have additional funding based on a voter
approved tax surcharge that is dedicated to the schools assessed on the residents of the school
district.):
- Population information for Orange County broken down by precinct;
Current method for etecting members of the Orange County'Board of Commissioners
• Election resins from 2000 through 2020 from the North Carolina Board.a1 Elections and Orange
County Board:(if Elections for seats on the Orange County Board of Commissioners;
- Information from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners(NCACG)on elaetion
methods for all 100 North Carolina counties;
- w v.faircountiesnc.orp
- h1p:lAwnx.nrace.oM11 PiElection-Results-Compiled by NCACC-Provides county-by-ocunty
elections demographics(race,gender,and poitical party)for boards of commissioners for North
Carolina's 100 counties;
Public lnpat Sun my implemented by the BERG.
4
5
6 Dr. Lisa Hazirjian continued the PowerPoint presentation. She said the group decided it
7 needed to rely heavily on this survey for public input, due to pandemic. She said a lot of time
8 was spent preparing and revising the survey:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
11
I Slide #8
PUBLIC INPUT SURVEY
The BEAG developed a 16-question Public Input Survey to solicit
feedback from the general public regarding the election of county
commissioners in Orange County. There were 413 completed surveys
submitted in the two-week response perlod- Some of the aggregates from
Survey responses were as follows:
Demographic Responses
•89.3%of respondents said they always vote
• 16.46%said their voices were often heard,37.29%said sometimes,28.5%
said rarely and 17.69%said their voices were never heard
•35.53%said they arrived at the polls surprised at who they were voting for,
64.4%were not surprised
• RacelEthn city of respondents: 59.76%white,3.98%African American,
2.92%Hispanic,2.12%murk-racial,212%Asian and 1.59%another race.
17.51%preferred not to answer.
2
3 Co-Chair Patrick Mulkey continued the PowerPoint presentation:
4
5 Slide #9
Election Method Responses
•23.95%said they were satisfied with the current election method,41.05%
said they were not satisfied and 35%were unsure
• 30.79%preferred single member districts,13.95%preferred a combination
of single member districts and at-large seats- 1526% preferred a
combination of mlll ber districts and at-large seats;14.47%preferred
multi-member distracts with no at-large seats.and 10.79%preferred all at-
large seats.
• 00.37%said they thought only people living in a bistdd should vote for that
districts commissioner
6
7 Dr. Lisa Hazirjian continued the PowerPoint presentation:
8
9 Slide #10
BOCC ELECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP
RECOMMENDATION SIFINDING S
1) The current system of mixing multiple representatives
and at-large districts, where people vote in the
primaries in the districts,and the whole county votes for
district representation in the general election, is
unsatisfactory and not acceptable based on the
Group's research, 5AVjpt ry,M; r responses, and
experiences of members as voters and precinct chairs.
10
12
1 Dr. Hazirjian said the current system is among the worst legal options. She said at-
2 large elections are largely discouraged due to discriminatiroy impacts on racial minorities. Multi
3 district seats are confusing, and survey respondants agreed that only residents in the district
4 should vote for those who represent them.
5 Patrick Mulkey resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
6
7 Slide #11
2) The BEAD recommends seven single member
residency districts where candidates living in the district
are voted on in both the primary and general election
by only the voters in the respective districts (True
Election District)_ One member voted against this
option, believing that the county could benefit from
some at-large districts.
8
9
10 Dr. Hazirjian continued the PowerPoint presentation. She said only BOCC has the
11 authority to adopt new distict maps. She said many see it as a conflict of interest when elected
12 officials can draw own district maps, so an independent party would help with this. She said
13 there are many experts in this area locally.
14
15 Slide #12
3) The BEAD strongly recommends that the Board of
Commissioners establish a multi-partisan+ncn-partisan
independent advisory group and process in order to create
the seven single member districts. The BEAD recommends
that the criteria outlined in the Charge (Constitutionality,
statutory requirements; voting rights law, proportionality;
equity, uniformity, §j�fclarity and maximizing voter
engagement)be paramount in drawing districts_ In addition_
the drawing of districts should keep communities of interest
intact (geographic, socia-economic and racial-ethnic) and
avoid splitting precincts.
16
17
18 Patrick Mulkey continued the presentation. He said he agrees with making running for
19 office more affordable. He said there should be a number of public hearings, and he is not a fan
13
1 of zoom, as his internet is unreliable. He said his would like for people to see each other in
2 person and give their comments to the BOCC personally.
3
4 Slide #13
4) The BEAG recommends that the BOCC hold a series of
public meetings and listening sessions to allow public input,
and that the BOGG act in time to allow for a public
referendum in 2022.
5
6
7 Slide #14
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS???
8
9 Chair Price asked if the BEAG members could be named aloud.
10 Dr. Hazirjian listed the members, noting that Nicholas Batman had to resign.
11 Commissioner Fowler thanked the group for its efforts and appreciated the rubric of
12 criteria. She asked if the group received any information or tutoring before filling out the rubrics
13 or if answers were based on opinions. She said multiple districts are considered inequitable,
14 but in that case people can single shot and that way minority groups have a better chance of
15 being elected. She said most indicated that this system was inequitable, and asked if there was
16 basis for that.
17 Judge Bryan clarified that Commissioner Fowler is talking about the decision-making
18 grid. He said the criteria were discussed as part of a motion by the board that approved it
19 without any definition of what those criteria meant. He said he did research but since he was
20 not part of the group and had no understanding of what the proponent of the group meant by
21 those simply, he created this with staff so there was some way to understand how to use the
14
1 criteria versus the different methods. He said the questions were designed to help people think
2 about what the issues were.
3 Dr. Hazirjian said she cannot necessarily parse what went into everyone's calculations,
4 but there was a great deal of discussion over the course of meetings about economic barriers to
5 service, issues related to having a great deal of population density in one area of the county and
6 spread out in other areas, etc. She said, in theory, at-large districts can give people an
7 opportunity to be represented by a local person, but in this particular county, due to how the
8 population is divided, it is thought to be a foregone conclusion that the person elected is very
9 likely to be from District 1.
10 Patrick Mulkey said he is from the rural area of the county and there are different things
11 to deal with there. He said there is no garbage truck to pick up trash or recycling, as there is in
12 the towns, and if the water does not work, rural residents do not call the water department, they
13 have to call a plumber because they are all on well systems. He said these are some of the
14 things in rural areas, for which residents do not call upon government, and taxes go up, but no
15 one knows who is listening on the county commissioner level. He said with a single member
16 district, residents could pinpoint that person and give them a call.
17 Commissioner Richards thanked the group for the thought it put into this report. He said
18 part of her goal is learning more about District 2, because she lives in, and is more familiar with,
19 District 1, but sees herself as a commissioner for the whole county. She asked if there is
20 thinking about what provincial single districts are versus commissioners who look at the whole
21 of the county. She asked if there are any thoughts about how a "One Orange" approach may be
22 discouraged by having the separate districts. She said if she were to be representing just
23 Chapel Hill, for example, her motivation to learn about the rest of the county may be different.
24 Patrick Mulkey said a lot of discussion dealt with confusion that voters have in trying to
25 figure out whom to call and who will represent them. He said he understands the issue that
26 single member districts will not create a unified Orange County, which he thinks is unrealistic.
27 He said it will come down to the character and trust in candidate, just like every election, and
28 being able to hold a candidate accountable, which he thinks is more easily done with single
29 member districts. He said it is a hard thing to negotiate at the county commissioner level, and
30 cited the difference in per pupil funding between the two school districts.
31 Dr. Hazirjian said in the group's discussion, several people, including herself, felt there is
32 value in at-large districts because those elected at-large are supposed to be thinking about the
33 whole county.
34 Dr. Hazirjian exited the meeting due to technical issues.
35 Commissioner Hamilton thanked the group for its thoughtful work. She said she is
36 concerned about the evidence used to reach the conclusions.
37 Dr. Hazirjian's connection was re-established and Chair Price invited her to finish her
38 comments.
39 Dr. Hazirjian said there is the concept that there is a closer tie between single member
40 districts and the members they serve, but everyone is entering into conversation with fellow
41 Commissioners with concern about the whole county. She said it comes down more to who is
42 elected, rather than whom they represent. She said in a system where there is no at-large,
43 there is a sense that the people representing the districts are not just about their districts but
44 also think about what is better for the whole.
45 Commissioner Hamilton said she was thinking about the evidence that supports the
46 recommendations of the BEAG and has a number of concerns, one being the public input
47 survey. She said 413 individuals divided by the number from the 2010 census of folks over 18
48 years of age is 0.3% of the county, which is not a sample that would be considered
49 representative. She said the breakdown by race, ethnicity, age or voting, may not actually
50 represent the viewpoints of the county, so for her it does not provide the evidence that
51 necessarily supports the conclusions. She said given that the survey was conducted over two
15
1 weeks in June during COVID, it is understandable why there is a small sample and why it may
2 not be representative. She said there is also a lack of analysis of past elections and election
3 results to demonstrate who is or is not being represented under the current system, under the
4 previous system when there were only five at-large commissioners, etc. She said a historical
5 perspective would help identify the problem that needs to be fixed. She said if the problem is
6 voters not being educated that is something that can be dealt with without having a new system.
7 She said it is nice and important that the viewpoints of the group and experience are brought to
8 the table, but she hopes experience is used to get evidence that is more objective and
9 understanding of the pros and cons of the different voting systems that are out there. She
10 agreed that single district commissioner, might not view the county as a whole, and it is
11 important to get more information about how this works in other counties and around the
12 country. She said she sees the time and effort put into this and the careful deliberations and
13 would think the evidence brought forth to support it could be more robust than what is seen.
14 Chair Price said the report was so thorough and she gave kudos to the group and staff
15 for their work. She said she holds a district 2 seat and, in one sense, the general election
16 allows people to say "I voted for you" and she knows she is working for the whole county. She
17 said the work of the BOCC has countywide impact so she definitely tries to think of the entire
18 county. She said she has special passion for District 2 and acknowledged that Chapel Hill and
19 Carrboro have town councils to represent them, but many parts of District 2 do not. She said
20 she also gets calls from District 1 residents and helps all the same. She said her concern with
21 single districts, and no at-large seats, is the possibility that Commissioners would feel they only
22 represent their specific district, rather than the entire county. She thanked the group for
23 attempting outreach and getting community input. She said it is often hard to get the community
24 to take a survey. She said she is uncertain about it right now, because she wants to avoid the
25 domination of one area over others.
26 Commissioner Fowler asked which rubric would represent the possibility of the current
27 system, minus the at-large positions.
28 Dr. Hazirjian said the county currently has blended districts with at-large on top of that.
29 She said there are only two counties in the State with a combination of at-large and multi-
30 member districts. She said it is very unusual.
31 Commissioner Fowler said it looked like there were others that had both districts and at-
32 large.
33 Chair Price said Orange County is different in having voting in the district for the primary
34 and everyone votes in the general elections.
35 Commissioner Fowler said since she is an at-large representative, she agrees that at-
36 large positions may benefit Chapel Hill-Carrboro area over the rest of the county, although in
37 past elections folks from District 2 have won that seat. She said she can see how getting rid of
38 that might make things more equitable geographically. She said her concern is how different is
39 one side of Chapel Hill is from another. She said if Chapel Hill and Carrboro were split up into
40 some sort of pie, it could make it even worse for the county in terms of equity. She said, as an
41 at-large candidate, she did have to campaign across the entire county and get to know people
42 she was representing across the county.
43 Dr. Hazirjian said the concern about the pie option, is why the group said to keep
44 communities of interest together and avoid splitting precincts. She said she is not sure how the
45 map would be most equitable. She said in terms of population there would likely be four
46 districts carved out of something close to district 1 and three out of something close to District 2.
47 She said it would not guarantee more representation for District 2.
48 Commissioner McKee said he has dej6 vu reading some of the comments in the
49 appendices because they are similar to those brought up during discussions when the current
50 system was being developed. He said he was involved in that process many years ago and, at
51 one time, he might have made those comments himself. He agreed that representation is
16
1 heavily weighted toward urban areas of the county, because that is where people live. He said
2 he still agrees with the belief that single member district is beneficial for accountability. He said
3 holding a district 2 seat demands more accountability to those who have lived in Orange County
4 for generations, as well as those who have just moved here. He said he does not agree that 7
5 separate districts would create a more divisive board, but it may encourage more discussion.
6 He said he holds a rural seat, and if he had not spoken out against light rail because he saw no
7 benefit to those in the rural areas, while the tax burden would have applied to whole county, it
8 would not have allowed for a fairly robust conversation over a multi-year period. He said he is
9 open to healthy discourse as long as it is not vicious. He said if the BOCC can figure out how to
10 draw the districts, he can see benefits to single member districts. He said he strongly supports
11 District nominated, District elected. He said it makes no sense to be nominated by District 2
12 and voted on by the whole county. He said in Orange County, winning the primary equals
13 winning the election. He said the question for him is how to draw districts and how to ensure if
14 a change is made, it allows for a broader range of political views to be present.
15 Commissioner Greene thanked the group and staff for the thorough and informative
16 report. She said the only thing she is really clear on right now is that, whether there are only
17 districts or combination with at-large, district candidates should be nominated and elected only
18 by one district because current process is confusing. She said in a way it is causing
19 commissioners to serve two masters. She agreed with Commissioner Hamilton that more public
20 input is needed before a referendum.
21 Chair Price said to be clear, the Board will not be doing an up or down vote on anything
22 soon, until a group is put together to look at how to draw the districts, which would require public
23 input.
24 Commissioner Greene said seven districts may not even be the right number, and more
25 conversation is needed.
26 Chair Price agreed.
27 Commissioner Bedford asked if the group had more time, is there anything else it would
28 have wanted to study or explore.
29 Patrick Mulkey said possibly nonpartisanship, but to him, that is a joke, as there is no
30 way to really hide one's political leanings.
31 Judge Bryan said a couple of members discussed needing more time, but because of
32 deadline from the Commissioners, the group did not really discuss other potential paths
33 because it was trying to meet the deadline for the referendum. He said a person in a district
34 seat should think about the county as a whole, and commissioners could take a pledge
35 promising to do so. He said there was good conversation about what at-large could provide and
36 what seven districts and no at-large would provide. He referred to the question from
37 Commissioner Hamilton about desiring more substantial evidence of what the group found to
38 support this recommendation, and said more information can be gathered.
39 Commissioner Bedford thanked the board and staff for their hard work. She agreed with
40 other commissioners that the survey sample size of 413 is a little weak, and just means more
41 public outreach and representation is necessary. She said she is not sure that the public was
42 demanding this discussion. She said the previous discussion was not about districts, but really
43 focused on methods that do require general assembly approval, especially district nominate,
44 district elect, with which she agrees. She said she is in District 1, and has struggled with some
45 of the recent zoning requests. She said it felt that there was more pressure on the two District 2
46 and two At-Large Commissioners, and she felt less accountable. She said when Commissioner
47 Dorosin and Commissioner Rich presented this they were more focused on having the two
48 District 1 candidates in that one election, and the fact that they lost and single shot voting. He
49 said in talking with Commissioner Dorosin and trying to get him to explain it, he argued that
50 typically single member districts help minorities get elected. She said that that logic here does
51 not hold water because a Black woman just won by over 2000 votes. She said other reasons
17
1 were put forth but she said it was from two commissioners who had lost a race and not from the
2 public that brought this forth at this time, and she voted against it because she did not want to
3 spend a lot of time and money and concern on this from sour grapes. She said all this work has
4 been done, and she thinks far more public outreach would be needed. She said with the
5 General Assembly drawing districts, now is not the time to be doing this. She said if pandemic
6 numbers come down and children can be vaccinated, that opens up a window later to have the
7 real public outreach, the in person meetings and in-depth study that would truly be needed for
8 everyone. She said it is pretty bad that people do not know whom to call. She said the survey
9 shows more voter education is needed on that, but she is not persuaded either way. She said
10 she thinks the Board should wait and see, and really consider whether or not to proceed with
11 any additional changes, or whether to proceed incrementally by just focusing on district
12 nominate, district elect as a first step and get public input on that.
13 Commissioner McKee said his main concern is that if a change is made, he wants to
14 make sure it is to a better system. He said if it goes to seven districts, he is concerned about
15 how those districts will be drawn, and if it will have an impact on how well people feel they are
16 represented. He said there are no uniform worldviews in Orange County, and neighbors of all
17 kinds are living peaceably with each other. He said if these discussions happen, they need to
18 happen in public, in multiple places across the county, and the group chosen to redraw the
19 districts has demographic, geographic, and political diversity.
20 Chair Price said Commissioner Dorosin brought this up last, but the issue has come up
21 many times in the past. She said it is confusing and residents of District 2 want to feel they are
22 choosing their representative, and not Chapel Hill.
23 Chair Price said there is a need for further information, before moving forward with
24 possibly redrawing districts.
25 Commissioner Hamilton said before having a group redraw districts, she wants more
26 input from the community to see if it even wants to visit this topic.
27 Commissioner Bedford said she would like to wait to discuss next steps because the
28 BOCC will receive an update on the census in October. She suggested adopting 1-4 at this
29 time.
30 Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Hamilton and Commissioner Bedford.
31 Commissioner McKee said before moving forward, there should be in person meetings
32 in various places across the county for the public to attend.
33 Chair Price said there seems to be no urgency to get this on the 2022 Ballot. She said
34 the report should be widely distributed and feedback gathered. She said the BOCC has heard
35 the desire for a change in the system for years. She asked if the Board wanted to sunset this
36 committee or use it for future discussions.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
39 accept the Manager's recommendations 1-4.
40
41 Commissioner Fowler asked who the BOCC would use to gather more community input.
42 Chair Price said it would be staff.
43 Commissioner Greene said this can be decided at a future meeting.
44 Chair Price said, in short, it would be staff as this committee is being sunsetted.
45
18
1 Roll call ensued
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 Chair Price thanked the BEAG for its service, and said the Board looks forward to
5 reviewing the census information.
6 Greg Wilder said the 2020 census information is available, and staff has evaluated the
7 numbers given the current electoral districts. He said the BOCC will review this at the October
8 1911 business meeting, per the recommendation of the County Attorney. He said the BOCC will
9 be looking at the census given the currently electoral districts, not any potential districting
10 changes.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to
13 take a 3-minute break at 9:01 p.m.
14
15 Roll call ensued
16
17 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
18
19 A motioned was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton,
20 to reconvene the meeting at 9:04 p.m.
21
22 Roll call ensued
23
24 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
25
26 Bonnie Hammersley suggested the Board postpone item 7-a to the next business
27 meeting, in the interest of time.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
30 move Item 7-a to the October 19, 2021 Business Meeting.
31
32 Roll call ensued.
33
34 VOTE: Unanimous
35
36 b. Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Program
37 The Board considered approving the implementation of the proposed program design for
38 the Longtime Homeowner Assistance Program.
39
40 BACKGROUND:
41 At its June 15, 2021 Business meeting, the Board of Commissioners allocated $250,000 in
42 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for a new program to assist households affected by
43 revaluation of property tax bills. The current staff proposal creates a program to cover the
44 increase in property taxes due to revaluation and would serve Orange County homeowners
45 who:
46 • are at least 50 years old;
47 • earn below 80% of the area median income;
48 • have lived in their home for at least 10 years; and
49 • experienced an increase in property taxes during the 2021 tax revaluation
50
19
1 Staff from the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department (OCHCD),
2 Tax Department, and Finance and Administrative Services Department met over the summer to
3 coordinate, design and begin implementing the proposed program. Staff created a draft program
4 application (Attachment 1), a proposed plan for reviewing and approving applications and
5 outlining each department's role in process (Attachment 2), and a proposed communications
6 and outreach strategy to share information about the program with County residents
7 (Attachment 3).
8
9 Housing and Community Development Department staff will be primarily responsible for
10 administering the LHA program — collecting applications and supporting documentation from
11 applicants, and verifying program eligibility for each applicant. The Orange County Housing
12 Helpline will play a key role in assisting county residents with completing applications and
13 gathering documentation. The Tax Department will provide some of the eligibility verification
14 details to Housing and Community Development Department staff during application review.
15 Once an application is approved for assistance, Housing and Community Development
16 Department staff will coordinate with the Finance and Administrative Services Department and
17 Tax Department to issue a credit towards the taxpayer's property tax bill. The program has a
18 proposed launch date of October 8, 2021. All applications must be received by 5:OOpm on
19 December 15, 2021 to allow time for processing.
20
21 Corey Root, Housing and Community Development Director, reviewed the background
22 information for this item. She said $48,400 is 80% AMI for a single person and $69,100 for a
23 family of four. She said the current proposal allows people to layer different types of assistance,
24 and thus could qualify for the Jackson Center program, as well as this program through the
25 county. She said, due to tax deadlines, the goal is to have this up and running by October 8,
26 2021 if approved. She said staff will have online and physical copies of applications available in
27 multiple areas of county for easy access. She said partner agencies will be available to assist
28 residents with completing applications, and applicants can also receive assistance by called the
29 Housing Helpline. She said due to a conflict of interest, the Tax Office cannot receive these
30 applications, so the Housing and Community Development Department will play that role. She
31 said there is currently no award cap, realizing that could be an equity measure. She said staff
32 has a robust communication plan for the program, if approved, to get information to residents
33 who need it.
34 Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, said the amount of the award would be based on
35 the difference in the amount of county tax from 2020 to 2021, as opposed to it being based on
36 the full tax bill. She said this program seeks to cover the county portion of tax bill, which was
37 impacted by the revaluation.
38 Chair Price said when she proposed this program back in June, she was thinking of
39 ways to help homeowners regardless of age, because the goal is neighborhood preservation, in
40 addition to keeping people in their homes. She said with criterion here of having to own the
41 home for 10 years, the youngest anyone would probably be to benefit would be about 30 or 31.
42 She said she is thinking about younger families, and wants to be able to protect them as well.
43 She suggested eliminating the age requirement and moving forward with the other criterion.
44 Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification that there is no limit to the value of the
45 home for assistance.
46 Corey Root said that is not currently part of the proposal.
47 Nancy Freeman said capping the value of the home was not something staff observed in
48 other programs while researching.
49 Commissioner Fowler reiterated that this program is designed only to cover the
50 difference in tax bill from 2020-2021, so would benefit only those residents with increases from
51 the revaluation.
20
1 Nancy Freeman said yes.
2
3 Public Comment
4 Delores Bailey said she supports this proposed program and applauds the Board for its
5 effort; however, this program will not apply to people like her and she wonders how many other
6 people also fall in this same category. She said this program misses those in the middle. She
7 said EmPOWERment is a HUD certified counselor and has been talking to homeowners about
8 how this program may benefit them. She said her concern is for people who, because of AMI,
9 do not qualify for this. She said the difference in her taxes between 2020 and 2021 is $40,000.
10 Chair Price asked if a different AMI level would be better.
11 Delores Bailey said she applauds the program, but if her taxes increase by the same
12 amount again next year, she will not be able to hold onto her home.
13 George Barrett, Executive Director of the Marian Cheek Jackson Center for Saving and
14 Making History, said he has been an Orange County resident for over eight years. He said the
15 Jackson Center is located in the Northside Community, one of three historically Black
16 neighborhoods the center works with. He said the Board is aware that in April, the new
17 inequitable revaluations were seen in Northside, disproportionate to other communities. He
18 said he supports the work to continue correcting the inequitable system, and he thanked county
19 staff for the considerations made with this program so it can have the most impact. He said he
20 appreciates 80% AMI limit, as well as ability to layer relief because concentration of
21 development in these areas has caused increased tax burden to residents. He said the Board
22 should continue to listen to residents and leaders who are talking about inequities like this that
23 burden residents. He said he is excited to move forward with this program.
24 Commissioner Richards asked if Ms. Bailey's valuation or tax bill is up 21%.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said the payments through this program are for the increase of the
26 tax bill, not the increase in the valuation. She said a $41,000 property value increase would
27 equate to a $340 increase in the county portion of the tax bill.
28 Commissioner Richards thanked the Manager for clarifying, and said she has been
29 trying to understand the age requirement. She said if the goal is to support residents who have
30 experienced the increase, she supports the 10 year home ownership because it is geared
31 towards long term homeowners, but would support removing age requirement.
32 Commissioner Hamilton thanked staff for its work on this. She asked if the application
33 should have more than one space for homeowner name.
34 Corey Root said that is a great point and the application can be adjusted to reflect that.
35 She also noted that the date of birth question would be removed if the age requirement is
36 removed from the criteria.
37 Commissioner Hamilton said otherwise, she felt the application was clear. She said she
38 also supports removing the age criteria. She asked if community centers, schools, libraries, and
39 senior centers will be included in outreach efforts.
40 Corey Root said those groups are on the current distribution list and staff will do a
41 special push for them.
42 Chair Price said the Department on Aging has a good listserv, as well as churches and
43 other faith communities.
44 Commissioner McKee asked if the current AMI in Orange County can be identified.
45 Corey Root said it changes based on the number of people in the household, but a
46 house of 4 is $69,100.
47 Commissioner McKee asked if the number of many homeowners that would be eligible
48 for this could be identified.
49 Travis Myren said there are about 10,000 households that have owned a home for 10
50 years or more, and experienced an increase in the tax bill due to revaluation. He said using the
51 countywide percentage of people making 80% AMI or higher, it leads to a number of 1378 and
21
1 average increase among that group was $158, equaling $218,000 in estimated exposure. He
2 said he feels less confident that this cohort represents income distribution of the entire county,
3 but this was the best estimation staff could measure to determine if the allocated $250,000
4 would be sufficient.
5 Commissioner McKee said this would mean $218,000 per year escalating and ongoing.
6 He said every time there is a revaluation in Orange County values will increase, minus a
7 catastrophic event. He said even if values do not go up, the county can expect $200,000 plus in
8 ongoing costs for this program. He said this will be paid with ARPA money this year, and asked
9 if this will have to come from county funds going forward.
10 Travis Myren said it will be a board policy decision of how to fund the program in future
11 years.
12 Commissioner McKee said it would likely be funded through other sources. He said he
13 owns and runs a farm, and benefit from a lower tax rate due to him farming the land. He said if
14 he sells the land, the money has to be paid back. He asked if the homeowner passes away and
15 house is sold, is there a clawback provision on this tax advantage. He asked if the home is
16 handed down to the next generation of family, will this be a generational subsidy to the family
17 over time. He said the original proposal did not have an age limit, but asked if the Jackson
18 Center age limit was 65.
19 Travis Myren said the age limit for that program is 62.
20 Chair Price said this program would not decrease the value of the property, so it is
21 dependent on the homeowner, and the next generation will be liable for the value of the home.
22 Commissioner McKee said he understands. He said there is a subsidy to the taxes paid,
23 and he gets an advantage of paying a lower tax rate on his farm, for which he would required to
24 repay should he sell the land.
25 Chair Price said Commissioner McKee's benefit is due to the use of his land, as
26 opposed to his income.
27 Commissioner McKee said he is asking these questions because he does not believe
28 this program will stop, nor should it, once started due to the gentrification seen across the
29 county. He said he wants to think about the long-term implications of the program.
30 Chair Price said she wants to hear from George Barrett on the Jackson Center's
31 program.
32 Commissioner Greene said the Jackson Center uses age 62, but it is flexible based on a
33 formula that they use. She said she understands why Chair Price wants to decrease the age to
34 at least 50, and she has gone back and forth herself. She said Commissioner Richards has
35 brought up a good question about the basic purpose of the program. She is on the side of
36 getting rid of age limit in favor of preserving community. She said Commissioner McKee has
37 brought up some good questions about the sustainability of the program and she wonders if
38 there should be a clawback provision. She said if someone is going to buy a property at a
39 gentrified inflated price, why not have a provision where the county would get maybe three
40 years of the tax back, and let the buyer and seller work it out about who pays.
41 Chair Price said her original intent was to help preserve the neighborhood, and perhaps
42 with an extra push for seniors who may have lived there for half a century.
43 George Barrett said there is no age limit in the Jackson Center property tax program. He
44 said age is taken into account and is used it to weigh the award amount. He said the
45 community did not want to include age limit when creating the program, because there are
46 people across age groups dealing with these issues.
47 Commissioner Richards said the issue of heir's property came up while she was looking
48 into this program. She said the idea of a clawback is something that might be included if the
49 home in sold to developer or investor, instead of being passed down to an heir if concern if
50 neighborhood preservation is the goal. She said this is a way to sustain the program once
51 ARPA money is gone. She said part of concern with age is if there is a 25 year old that inherits
22
1 a property and wanted to stay in the neighborhood, the tax impact will be the same to them.
2 She said for future funding it could be treated one way if it is an heir property, even though it
3 would require more investigation for county staff. She said this would have to apply across the
4 county. She said she thinks this is an interesting concept if the property will be sold for
5 investment.
6 Nancy Freeman said if the property is being sold or passed down, there is still the
7 requirement that the property has been owned for 10 years, and that time clock would start over
8 again at that time.
9 Commissioner Hamilton said she looks at this program as a way to help people who
10 barely make enough to make ends meet, and to stretch money more. She said for these types
11 of residents clawbacks are needless complications, and each homeowner should be considered
12 on their own income. She said she understands the point of funding the program in the future.
13 She said this program can be viewed as a pilot and, based on impact, the Board can determine
14 whether to continue funding or not.
15 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Commissioner Greene clarifying the
16 clawback on farm use, as it is not necessarily the seller who pays it, and is quite often the
17 buyer. He said the reason he brought that up because if the home is sold for development, it is
18 coming out of what the goal of the Board is. He said he doubts a buyer in Chapel Hill or
19 Carrboro will flinch at a few thousand more dollars for the necessity of covering the payback of
20 the subsidy. He clarified he is not interested in a generational clawback. He said he thinks the
21 program is trying to maintain the ability of residents to stay in their homes, while their home
22 values are increasing. He said he is glad to hear the reminder from Commissioner Richards
23 that this will be a countywide program, because a lot of discussion surrounds urban areas. He
24 said his only issue with program is the age requirement, and he would like to keep the focus on
25 the aging population near retirement age
26 Chair Price said she would like to see this program without age limits, since there are
27 other relief options with age requirements.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton,
30 to approve the proposed Longtime Homeowner Assistance program design, with the removal of
31 the age requirement.
32
33 Commissioner Bedford asked for clarification on whether or not the calculations Travis
34 Myren mentioned earlier only included those over age 62.
35 Travis Myren said no.
36 Commissioner Greene said she is struggling with the age, and age 50 could be a
37 compromise. She said since this is a pilot, would it be better to start with less restrictions and
38 add more later, if necessary, or have age limit now and open it up in the future.
39 Chair Price said she wants to keep people in their homes, regardless of age. She said
40 there are young families who may have lost jobs over the past year, but want to stay in the
41 same home. She said gentrification may continue, and it may be difficult to maintain income.
42 She said the point of the program is to keep people in homes regardless of age.
43 Commissioner McKee said if someone qualified based on AMI, and then changes jobs to
44 a higher salary, they be removed from the program. He asked if the 10-year ownership
45 requirement would reset at that time, and if all four criteria have to be met.
46 Commissioner Richards said that was her understanding from talking with staff. She
47 said if funds are available and this is a pilot, it should be open to more people since the
48 calculations were not limited to an age group.
49 Corey Root said the requirements all have to be met, but the 10-year requirement only
50 applies to home ownership. She said it does not require that someone make less than 80%
51 AMI for 10 years, for example.
23
1 Commissioner McKee said that information answers his question.
2 Nancy Freeman said this application would need to be redone on an annual basis to
3 ensure qualification.
4 Corey Root said yes, for income verification.
5 Commissioner Bedford said Commissioner Greene's question is important and she does
6 not have an exact answer, but because of pandemic she wants to "go big", recognizing that the
7 ARPA funding will be gone after this year. She said it is hard to cut back on programs after they
8 have started, but the Board has to be prepared to make changes after getting data from the pilot
9 program about future funding.
10
11 Roll call ensued
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 Chair Price said the social justice fund is another possible source of funding for the
16 future.
17
18 c. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2050
19 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
20
21 The Board received a presentation from Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC)
22 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff on the 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
23 (MTP) Alternatives Analysis.
24
25 BACKGROUND:
26 The DCHC MPO is responsible for long-range transportation planning for Durham County
27 and parts of Orange and Chatham counties, and the organization is updating its MTP. In
28 Orange County, the DCHC MPO planning area covers the areas around Hillsborough,
29 Chapel Hill and Carrboro delineated by a blue line in Attachment 1.
30
31 The MTP, which is required by Federal law, recommends major transportation projects,
32 policies and strategies designed to maintain existing transportation systems and to plan for
33 the region's future travel needs. The Plan must be fiscally constrained, which means that
34 projected revenues must cover the anticipated costs. Projects must be in the 2050 MTP to
35 receive any state and federal transportation funding through the State Transportation
36 Improvement Program (STIP). Projects are selected from the MTP and processed through
37 the State's prioritization process (SPOT) for inclusion in the STIP, which is a 10-year funding
38 program. This requires several steps over a multi-year timeframe, and not all projects listed
39 in the MTP will be included in the final STIP.
40
41 There are several steps involved in the MTP Process (Attachment 2), and the current focus is
42 on the Alternatives Analysis. Goals and objectives were identified previously, and the
43 Deficiency Analysis and Needs Assessment were completed in May 2021. An Alternative is
44 a combination of improvements to a transportation network. This includes a set of highway,
45 transit, other transportation improvements (such as bicycle and pedestrian improvements),
46 and a land use scenario that depicts the distribution of population and employment for the
47 year 2050. These Alternatives are then analyzed using the Triangle Regional Model (TRM),
48 which forecasts future travel statistics based on assumptions concerning the highway
49 network, transit service and other transportation facilities. It is very unlikely that one of the
50 Alternatives in its entirety would be advanced as the Preferred Option. Most likely, the final
51 MTP will be a combination of the various Alternatives.
24
1
2 Attachment 3 provides the full schedule of MTP Local Input meetings on the Alternatives
3 Analysis. Press releases and public engagement events have been posted on the county's
4 website throughout the planning process. More information on the 2050 MTP can be found
5 on DCHC MPO 2050 MTP website.
6
7 MPO Next Steps
8 Over the next few months, the DCHC MPO Board will use comments collected from the
9 public and local governments to direct the development of a Preferred Option. The Preferred
10 Option becomes the Draft 2050 MTP, which is anticipated to be released in October 2021.
11 The Final 2050 MTP is tentatively scheduled to be adopted by the MPO Board in December
12 2021.
13
14 Staff Involvement
15 Orange County Transportation Planning staff attends bi-weekly meetings at Triangle J
16 Council of Government (TJCOG)where TJCOG, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
17 Institute of Transportation Research and Education (UNC ITRE), the Federal Highway
18 Administration (FHWA), the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the
19 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), DCHC MPO, and local technical
20 staff discuss every aspect and detail of the Community Viz model and the Triangle Regional
21 Model (TRM). Both programs analyze the transportation network in a comprehensive and
22 multimodal manner. The TRM is vetted by multiple agencies including UNC's ITRE (ITRE),
23 TJCOG, CAMPO, and DCHC MPO technical staff. Throughout the planning process, Orange
24 and Durham County staffs worked with local jurisdictions and regional agencies in multi-step
25 data review including:
26 • Community Viz— Current and Future Land Use parcels, including Certificate of
27 Occupancy
28 • Network Analysis — Road network data review, including lane and shoulder width
29 • Employment Analysis— Point data for all places of employment
30
31 Attachment 4 is a list of Orange County (including municipal) major highway projects in the
32 Alternatives Analysis. Any specific comments on the list are welcome at this time and may
33 assist with the selection of highway projects to be included in the Preferred Option (Draft
34 2050 Plan). Transit, bicycle and pedestrian project lists are not yet available from the MPO.
35 However, it is expected that the Orange County transit projects will be initially taken from the
36 Orange County Transit Plan (2017) and any new or different projects resulting from the
37 Transit Plan Update (2021) will be incorporated at a later date.
38
39 Key highlight in Draft 2050 MTP highway projects:
40 9 Due to the financial constrained nature of the MTP, when highway projects are
41 removed, they are replaced by other highway projects per state and federal transportation
42 funding regulations.
43 o Example: Orange Grove Road extension (2045 MTP) was removed from the State
44 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This allows for Orange County's priority— NC-
45 86 improvement from US-70 to NC-57—to be added to the 2050 MTP.
46
47 OUTBoard Action
48 On September 15, 2021, the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) provided the
49 memo at Attachment 5 for the BOCC's consideration. Highlights of OUTBoards comments
50 are provided below:
25
1 • The OUTBoard recommends that Orange County collaborate with other local
2 jurisdictions to add off-street bicycle and pedestrian corridors within Orange County to
3 the MTP, with an emphasis on linking parks, population centers, and other
4 destinations.
5 • Recreational facilities available for the public use in a manner that is multi-
6 generational and accessible to all county citizens at both the countywide and
7 community level. (Orange County Comprehensive Plan - Park and Recreation Goal
8 #3)
9 • An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural
10 environment and community character. (Orange County Comprehensive Plan -
11 Transportation Goal 1)
12 • A multi-modal transportation system that is affordable, available, accessible to all
13 users, and that promotes public health and safety. (Orange County Comprehensive
14 Plan - Transportation Goal 2)
15 • A countywide and regionally-integrated, multi-modal transportation planning process
16 that is comprehensive, creative and effective. (Orange County Comprehensive Plan -
17 Transportation Goal 4)
18
19 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner II, introduced the item and Andy Henry.
20 Andy Henry, Transportation Planner DCHCMPO, gave the following PowerPoint
21 presentation:
22
23 Slide #1
DCHC
Mr IR�PQLeTAN PLAILtYING OFGPTlQ,9T!ON
2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
—Alternatives Analysis —
www.bIt.Iyl2050MTP-AltsAn
Andy Henry, October I
24
25
26
27
28 Slide #2
26
O TRM Clary
C=). PagW^�ry What is DCHC
' �[AMPOBounesry
1=C—fyMPO Area?
S '
av—nn NdVd.
1 .".elh G.-
3
r 3 Slide #3
Transportation Planning Framework DCHC
i 4y4pp Ma,2011 [emprehlrnlV! SSat•rrqulnr.Tank}Or RIF9L and RPOs,
Traegperlaiien P]en rlanetlmi plan tb edNlss future
10•Yr•r MPO
iAdoPled.��S'2019 i RfWwW}edhr•Ily f9rhkPGSpdr.
Mfkropcdkan ' igxludeg figtel tenebNM1t
Trafwpartaklfn P1-
".. PriPTlk;$a[iPn Precr�s-theafSm•y
Intatnl STm
70=YfsT Statf
T—p.n.fl n
Improv—t Pundtd prflkcki,
R-V..(STIP] ,I Inela& ALPO-A TIPS plug rural pr*l a
[nritgytars•d0.rysnP, ilJeral Appeval n}flrt 4 ylen
tdttmjymri-deuNepre ul
STIP]
MTP is fisc aIIy+constrained.thus,it
will be a subset or the CTR
4
5
6 Slide #4
Previous Public Comment DCHC
Before review Deficiency Analysis data,remember what public has already told us
MPO Goals Survey MPO Cows Survey
Highest rankedIrxoicies: Most common themes:
• Encourage biking and walking f Reduce personal vehicle
• Increase transit service dependence
•
Coordinate land use and - Protect environment; increase
transportation sustainability
• Increase car pools and ride • Support low-income&minority
shares populations
- Enhance transit connectivity
- Increase bicycle and pedestrian
See Gogh wen page(click herel infrastructure
For Goals&Ok+Jectives and
surrey response details.
8
9 Slide #5
27
Demographics DCHC
20?0 NC TRIANGLE REGION ESTIMATED MPO
2650 POPULATION&JOBS GROWTH DCHC
fffftff
ffit'�`f +
19mlllbn I.a nplllwl 3.1 rt4faA �� 91Yr, 3054 KCha�
y Clntlom• 4fi,C61 1LB�6S 4],391 f3A%
y+ MR,11111
Ovlvn 9tg99 456,906 L7,967 52%
G�Gy+i�i y. y y�y _ + 0.%. WETS 199AP 49,799 35%
® 141e� 7md 4Qtdd8 756T
26sbdi 54k
t mduon am.m to minion M�w
M %0.,w
4.4m x3a68 ns%
atxf9 194:064 85%
36,783 45,353,364 34'x,3.75 91%
o.rk..e�.v�,atm.ra.,cv,ronmoxvl.0
1
2
3 Slide #6
Alternatives Analysis DCHC
Purpose: staff, public and Board discuss different
land use and transportation possibilities
Preferred Option likely to be mixture of the
assumptions and projects from Alternatives
Analysis scenarios
Alternatives not fiscally-constrained
Today's presentation has overview-- Full
complement of tables and maps on Wed site
4
5
6 Slide #7
The Scenarios DCHC
'Plans&Trends Scenario i Includes N•S BRT,CRT Our•Ral
Also known as business-as-usual,this scenario distributes 2050 population ;Includee la5xidenig,end 11570
and employment based on current land use plans and policies,and creates and NC 54mademisx4on
an improved transportation system based on the current long-range
transportation plan.
Shared Leadership Scenario
This scenario could tallied the we-ran-do-better scenario.It increases
the intensity and mix of land use at major employment hubs and travel
corridors,and assumes additional transportation funding for transit
facilities,services,and a few roadway Improvements. 4 P,dd15.601 BRT,Irgh CRT Dw-Ra4
All Together Scenarist
This balanced-and-equitable scenario increases the intensity and mix of
land uses at major employment hubs and travel corridors,and works to
link minority,low-income,and zero-car households to jobs.This scenario
Scenario descHpfJons—Link I focuses on biking and walking facilities,and provides transit services in
major commuting corridors,often instead of increased roadway capacity.
}Add GRTThMebane NG 54 BRT Hini�Fi ra Fbnr,,Hbom C— to Streets
7
8
9 Slide #8
28
Metrics: VMT and VHT DCHC
T.W Daffy VWr&VHT C—p—dta E+C Compared to the E+C scenario(No
Build):
�* s� VMT(vehicle miles traveled)
P increases except for the All
Together scenario.
• VHT(vehicle hours traveled)
decreases in all three scenarios
• At the regional and MPO level,there is
little difference among the three
scenarios in VMT,VHT,travel time,
travel distance,overall congestion,and
mode share. All Together has slight
Ful*I*of Mossur sarEn.c&onmi Eio-Link advantage,e.g.lower VMT and UHT.
• K®y MOE Waphe—Link
1
2
3 Slide #9
Metrics:
Key Performance Measures
Key Measures
DEF'
CI€NCI€S PLANS H SHARED ALL
E,NEEDS TRENDS LEAOERSHIp TOGETHER
• As we invest more,the Measure: (0-SELINE)
measures move in a
positive direction.
�- Jul� Ihl. R .1w,11146 as
• However,the err 3 *
movement is not large.
Measure values are
very similar. rw
+�
+IIS € +M tm+=
Hit"" **fliirf fffi**Otf frlFNfrfr 01
G 0 0 V
.. � v 0 0 a
5
6 Slide #10
nN Sh—d L•ed..Np
Metrics: Congestion Maps —
—oa.as Fn,.nwt
oe-+n,vwa>Ee
• This is the congestion map for the Shared — �
Leadership scenario,which has the highest
highway investment among the scenarios.
• Congestion will persist on the interstatesand major _
commuting corridors.
8
29
1 Andy Henry said the orange roads mean the volume of the roadway equals the capacity.
2 He said red roads mean the volume of the roadway equals 120% of the capacity.
3
4 Slide #11
Metrics: Equity Measures DCHC
On average,communities of color have
lower vehicle ownership rates,
five further from work,
are more likely to depend on public tTansportation,and,
aye mote likely to be involved in a msh as a pedestrian.
m
5
6
7 Slide #12
Metrics _ DCHC]
Measure of Effectiveness (MOEs) ,.... ;. ......................... e......... ........................................
...6—. .-.................n............,..........,............................
Current measures: safety; travel time;and "
TDM program
Travel Choice Neighborhoods tin =e
development)
Isochrone maps =
Travel Time
8
9
10 Slide #13
Schedule & Public Engagement DCHC
Released July 29th web page —Click Alternatives tab at this link
• Comment Period: survey --rink
7/29121 through Online workshops (WthcAMPo)
9115121 (exceeds42•day
policy) Present to local boards and commissions, list
on web page
Four Focus groups for community of concern
Public hearing at September 1St Board
meeting
Notifications: Email service; public affairs notices;
social media
11
30
1 Slide #14
Next Steps oCHC
Complete public engagement activities and review feedback
Joint DCHC MPO and CAMPO Board meeting,September 29
Release Preferred Option in October, two versions:
Follows vision of Goals such as multi-modal,fight climate
change and equitable
Follows funding restrictions,thus majority of investments in
roadways
Coordinate with Durham and Orange county transit plans
2
3
4 Commissioner Greene thanked staff for the presentation. She said she watched the
5 September 1 st meeting when the elected officials in the room had pointed comments about the
6 three alternatives, and them being all highways and lacking in the shared values of public
7 transportation, walkability and green spaces. She said the presentation tonight shows that this
8 feedback was heard, and she looks forward to seeing the proposal.
9 Commissioner Richards began having technical issues.
10 Commissioner Bedford asked if there is an opportunity to mix and match between the
11 two alternatives.
12 Andy Henry said yes.
13 Commissioner Bedford said because of funding shortfalls and increased costs of
14 construction, there has been a stop in the concentric circles, and MPOs are reevaluating current
15 projects with the funds that are available.
16 Nish Trivedi said
17 Commissioner Bedford said due to fiscal constraints, all must consider the different
18 options. She said safety needs have to be blended in with population growth and area values.
19 She said some road improvements are still needed as well. She said land use decisions
20 interrelate with all of this.
21 Commissioner Fowler said she reviewed the OUTBoard recommendations and agrees
22 with adding off street bicycling and pedestrian corridors. She asked if the Board's endorsement
23 of these suggestions would have any impact.
24 Nishith Trivedi said there is a chapter in the MTP about Bike/Ped projects. He said the
25 MTP is broken down into transportation modes. He said a preferred plan will be sent out
26 including all modes of transportation.
27 Commissioner Fowler clarified that the Board's endorsement of the OUTBoard
28 suggestions may impact the MPO's plans.
29 Nishith Trivedi said yes.
30 Commissioner Fowler said the second bullet is recreational facilities and asked how that
31 relates to transportation
32 Nishith Trivedi said it refers to greenways. He said there are bike routes in Orange
33 County, which are also used for transportation.
34 Chair Price asked if this is similar to the American Tobacco Trail.
35 Nishith Trivedi said yes, something like that, or the river walk, or Mountains to Sea Trail.
36 Commissioner Fowler said since it was a different bullet point it seemed like it was
37 different.
31
1 Andy Henry said it may have been classified as recreational because bike lanes and
2 sidewalks are in the right of way of a roadway. He said a path for bikes that do not run beside a
3 roadway would be considered recreational.
4 Commissioner Fowler said these types of pathways would not necessarily help someone
5 commute to work.
6 Chair Price said it depends on where you work.
7 Commissioner Bedford asked if staff could change the wording from recreational or
8 elaborate on it to make it clearer.
9 Nishith Trivedi said the wording could be revised during public review period
10 Commissioner Hamilton asked if"modernization of roadways" could be defined.
11 Andy Henry said in rural areas that normally means widening roadways and shoulders,
12 which makes them safer. He said in urban areas it means sidewalks, bike lanes, a side path,
13 traffic signals, turn lanes, etc. He said it is basically trying to bring the roads up to standard. He
14 said it does not mean adding any more lanes, just improving what is there.
15 Nishith Trivedi said many Orange County roads are one lane and undivided. He said
16 many are not wide enough, and are unsafe. He said the wear and tear due to population growth
17 has had an impact. He said the NCDOT is trying to further define modernization, but the goal is
18 to improve the roads, especially in rural areas.
19 Commissioner Bedford referred to the projects in attachment 4, and asked if there is a
20 good representation of projects across the county.
21 Nishith Trivedi said this list is just the highway list of projects
22 Commissioner Bedford asked if this list is constrained by cost, or if it includes all of the
23 projects.
24 Nishith Trivedi said the list includes all projects with current costs.
25 Chair Price asked if the BOCC is prepared to endorse the recommendations of the
26 OUTBoard.
27 Commissioner Greene said she is happy to endorse the OUTBoard's recommendations,
28 and she is interested in seeing a plan that reflects a vision that gets away from highways and
29 towards multimodal, climate sensitive transportation options.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
32 endorse the OUTBoard comments (Attachment 5), as modified by, to reflect BOCC comments
33 for staff to convey to the DCHC MPO Board.
34
35 Roll call ensued
36
37 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner Greene,
38 Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Bedford, Chair Price)
39
40 Commissioner Richards did not vote because her meeting connection was lost.
41
42 d. Proposed Performance Agreement Provision Requiring that Non-profit
43 Organizations Receiving Funds through the County's Outside Agencies Process
44 Provide the Opportunity for Public Comment at Regular Meetings
45
46 The Board considered approving a proposed Performance Agreement provision
47 requiring that non-profit organizations receiving funds through the County's Outside Agencies
48 Process provide the opportunity for public comment at regular meetings.
49
50
32
1 BACKGROUND:
2 At the September 2, 2021 Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) Business meeting,
3 a petition was submitted by Commissioner Earl McKee for the Board to consider a policy
4 requiring any entity receiving county funds include on their regular meeting agendas an
5 opportunity for public comments.
6
7 Each year Orange County allocates over $1 million to local non-profits to provide various
8 services and meet needs across the community. Applications for funding are submitted by the
9 non-profits through the County's Outside Agency process. The applications are assigned to
10 appropriate county advisory groups and staff based on subject matter, and reviewed and scored
11 based on an established matrix. As part of the county's annual budget process, the Manager
12 then makes funding recommendations for each non-profit to the Board of Commissioners, and
13 the Board approves the final funding amounts for each entity.
14
15 Recipient organizations subsequently sign performance agreements with the county agreeing to
16 utilize the funds as proposed and in compliance with other provisions. It is proposed that the
17 Board consider a Performance Agreement provision requiring that the non-profit organizations
18 receiving funds through the County's Outside Agencies Process provide the opportunity for
19 public comment at their regular meetings.
20
21 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed background information for this item.
22 Commissioner McKee explained the basis for his petition. He said the county provides
23 over$1 million of taxpayer funds to nonprofits to help the county with the provision of services.
24 He said he is petitioning that these non-profits allot time on their regular agendas for public
25 comment. He said he is not asking the non-profits to engage or reply to the commenters, just
26 allow people to speak, with the parameters left up to the agencies themselves. He said he is
27 aware that there are some outside agencies that deal with highly emotionally charged issues,
28 and they may be excluded from the provision if the Board approves. He said he is convinced
29 anyone spending public money should be obligated to accept public comment.
30 Chair Price be clarified that the request is for public comment to be taken at the board
31 meetings, as opposed to a staff meeting for example.
32 Commissioner McKee said yes.
33 Chair Price asked if this would be only for agencies who are part of the outside agencies
34 funding process, or any non-profit that the county funds.
35 Commissioner McKee said he proposed it with outside agencies in mind, and would stick
36 with that.
37 Commissioner Greene said the county does give money to nonprofits outside of the
38 outside agency funding process, and Chair Price's question needs to have a clear answer. She
39 said it will be very hard to carve out the agencies that are sensitive in nature, and it would make
40 more sense to limit it to organizations where people who they serve are the direct beneficiaries
41 of the service. She said a nonprofit does not represent or serve the entire county the way
42 government does. She said this petition is a very dramatic departure from way nonprofits
43 ordinarily function, but she does see the logic of taxpayer money being used. She credited
44 Commissioner Richards for considering which agencies that do something for the county that is
45 really important, i.e. provide housing. She said those agencies have tenants or homeowners
46 that may have very legitimate complaints. She said it is reasonable to ask that subset of
47 nonprofits to create a grievance procedure that's viable for those that are being served. She
48 said this could be done in a variety of ways. She said she understands the impulse to say it is
49 public money, so public comment should be accepted, but she is coming from perspective of
50 nonprofits who do not operate that way traditionally. She proposed to focus this on nonprofits
51 that house residents, but to not act on this tonight. She said she would like to invite nonprofits
33
1 to come to the Board to discuss how they currently handle grievances and help craft a
2 reasonable way forward.
3 Commissioner Hamilton said she is concerned about making a decision too hastily and
4 echoed Commissioner Greene's idea to get input from the nonprofits about how it would impact
5 their service to residents. She said she also thinks it is a good thing for the public to come to
6 BOCC with these issues so it hears about how things are going and can hold agencies
7 accountable. She said she is not ready to vote on this petition.
8 Commissioner Fowler said she also needs more information before a vote. She said
9 she wants to know if there is currently an opportunity for any public comment, what are
10 grievance procedures, how the policy would affect them if there are none already in place, etc.
11 She said she wants to know if such a process would be helpful.
12 Chair Price said this petition came as a result of a nonprofit that did not have a
13 mechanism in place for public comment.
14 Commissioner Bedford said the issue with exempting groups with sensitive topics is that
15 sensitivity fluctuates, so it would not be consistent and difficult to put in writing. She said
16 considering agencies that have direct recipients and looking at existing grievance procedure
17 would be helpful. She said there is a Sheriff present at BOCC meetings, which provides a layer
18 of safety. She said this petition could create a safety and logistical burden on these non-profits,
19 but also understands the logic behind receiving county funding should equate to ensuring the
20 opportunity for public comment. She said this type of issue has not often been raised, and
21 wonders if creating a policy over one instance is going to be a burden to other funded agencies.
22 She said perhaps the Board should suggest this one organization that is having issues go to
23 mediation, or create a grievance process. She said it is definitely worth talking to this agency.
24 Commissioner Richards said she has a couple of concerns. She said when contracting
25 with nonprofits, the county is empowering them to act on its behalf and expects them to deliver
26 service with same values as the county, including honoring people and communication. She
27 said she struggled with the idea that people do not have the right to come and speak to a
28 nonprofit, because that does not reflect the county's values and practices. She said this all
29 speaks to the county's expectation of the agencies it funds, and how those agencies act with
30 residents of Orange County.
31 Commissioner McKee said he will not make a huge fuss over this issue, but he is
32 dedicated to the notion that any entity that is spending tax money, they are obligated to hear
33 public input. He said this circumstance is not a one-off. He said has attempted to address this
34 issue without making it a public issue, and even tried to attend a meeting himself and was told
35 he could not speak. He said this is important enough to him that he will not let it loose.
36 Chair Price said she has been a part of non-profits, and some are very open to allowing
37 guests to speak while others are more closed. She said the idea that non-profits would need to
38 have a Sheriff's deputy there, etc. is going beyond the issue of this proposal. She said she
39 doubts there would be issues of public safety, but she could be wrong. She said she sees the
40 value in looking at a sampling of organizations to see how they handle the public, if at all. She
41 said if this petition is not approved tonight, maybe there is another way the Board can hold
42 organizations accountable when receiving public money. She said something needs to be
43 done.
44 Commissioner Bedford said some of these boards could have very controversial
45 members of the public show up to make a point.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to
48 direct the County Attorney to bring to a future work session, the wording of a possible provision
49 in performance agreements requiring that non-profit organizations receiving funds through the
50 County's Outside Agencies Appropriation provide the opportunity for public comment at regular
34
1 board meetings and include more information on outside agencies or other entities spending
2 public funding that might need to be exempted.
3
4 Bonnie Hammersley recommended changing the word process to appropriation in the
5 motion.
6 Commissioner McKee agreed.
7 Commissioner Greene asked from whom the data and information will come.
8 Commissioner McKee said he wants the attorney to bring wording to a work session on
9 a performance agreement requiring that agencies that receive funding through the outside
10 agency process be required to receive public comment.
11 Commissioner Greene said she will not vote for this until the Board hears from non-
12 profits.
13 Commissioner Fowler agreed with Commissioner Greene.
14 Chair Price said the attorney can bring some possible wording as a starting point.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said there is only one more work session for the year, in November,
16 and the next viable work session would be in February or March. She said the outside agency
17 process begins in March 2022, and she can gather this information through the outside agency
18 process, and it should be asked for from all of them.
19
20 Roll call ensued
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 7. Reports
25
26 a. Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness —2021 Data Update
27 The Board reviewed updated data about homelessness in Orange County submitted to
28 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) earlier this year.
29
30 BACKGROUND:
31 The Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH) was created in 2008 to
32 coordinate funding and activities to end homelessness in Orange County. OCPEH is jointly
33 funded by Orange County (39%) and the Towns of Carrboro (15%), Chapel Hill (41%), and
34 Hillsborough (5%).
35
36 OCPEH Manager Rachel Waltz will present the updated data and discuss how current data
37 relate to identified gaps in the homeless service system.
38
39 This item was postponed until the October 19, 2021 Business Meeting.
40
41 8. Consent Agenda
42
43 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
44 None.
45
46 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
49 approve the consent agenda.
50
51 Roll call ensued
35
1
2 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
3
4 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
5 None.
6
7 a. Minutes
8 The Board approved minutes from the September 2, 2021 Virtual Business Meeting, and the
9 September 9, 2021 Virtual Work Session.
10 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
1 1 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
12 tax values for six taxpayers with a total of twelve bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
13 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
14 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
15 values for eighteen taxpayers with a total of twenty-one bills that will result in a reduction of
16 revenue.
17 d. Applications for the Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
18 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, approving three untimely
19 applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for three bills for the 2021 tax
20 year.
21 e. Amendment to Personnel Ordinance, Section 28-38(j) Reqardinq Special Separation
22 Buyout for Law Enforcement Officers
23 The Board considered approving an amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances
24 providing an option to elect a lump sum buyout of the Special Separation Allowance for
25 qualifying Law Enforcement Officers for early retirement or in the event of disability.
26 f. Performance Aqreement Between the Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
27 The Board approved the 2021-22 performance measure between the Town of Chapel Hill and
28 the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau.
29 g. Approval to Transfer Properties Back to West Orange Fire Insurance District from
30 Cedar Grove Fire Insurance District
31 The Board approved the transfer of fifty-five properties back to the West Orange Fire Insurance
32 District that had previously been transferred to the Cedar Grove Fire Insurance District.
33 h. Updates to the Assistance Policies for the 2021 North Carolina Housing Finance
34 Agency (NCHFA) Urgent Repair Program (URP21)
35 The Board approved and authorized the County Manager to sign the URP21 Assistance Policy.
36 i. Advisory Boards and Commissions—Appointments
37 The Board approved the Advisory Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and
38 discussed during the Board's September 9, 2021 Work Session.
39
40 9. County Manager's Report
41 Bonnie Hammersley reminded the Board of the joint meeting with the Fire Chief's
42 Association on Thursday, October 7, followed by a work session, and she reviewed the agenda
43 for that meeting.
44
45 10. County Attorney's Report
46 John Roberts said in a previous closed session, the Board authorized the pursuit of a
47 settlement in Russell Griffin v. Orange County. He said the Board would not usually see
48 settlements in amounts discussed here, but because it was discussed in closed session,
49 General Statute requires him to provide an update to the Board. He said the case settled for
50 $50,000, with insurance covering most. He said Orange County is required to cover $12,500,
36
1 which will be paid to the insurance provider, who has already distributed the funds to the plaintiff
2 in exchange for a voluntary dismissal of the case.
3
4 Commissioner Richards said she made a mistake, and did not realize that the Board
5 does not discuss items in the consent agenda unless a Commissioner pulls an item.
6 Chair Price said that is correct. She said if Commissioner Richards has additional
7 questions staff can help answer them.
8 Commissioner McKee asked if the item could be brought back to a future meeting.
9 Chair Price said the Board has already voted.
10 Commissioner Richards said she was interested in item 8-e, and has already spoken to
11 staff, which was very helpful, but she wanted to talk to the Board as well.
12 John Roberts said the Board can revisit an item if someone from the winning side of the
13 vote makes a motion to reconsider it.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
16 reconsider item 8-e.
17
18 Commissioner McKee suggested the item be discussed at a future meeting.
19 Commissioner Fowler said if the item was pushed to another meeting, the current vote
20 would stand for people to act on.
21 Commissioner McKee withdrew his comment about pushing the conversation to a future
22 meeting, and seconded the motion as stated by Commissioner Bedford.
23
24 Roll call ensued
25
26 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner McKee,
27 Commissioner Richards, Commissioner Bedford); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Hamilton,
28 Chair Price)
29
30 Motion Passes
31
32 Commissioner Richards said she questioned staff about item 8-e, and staff was very
33 helpful. She said no other county in North Carolina has a similar benefit, and she was
34 concerned whether Orange County is competitive in its pay structure for law enforcement. She
35 said staff provided information and Orange County is competitive to nearby surrounding areas.
36 She said surrounding areas use bonuses to attract good candidates to come in the first place,
37 as oppose to the end of a career. She said since 2016 only three law enforcement officers have
38 retired, so this is not likely to affect a large group. She questioned what the county is
39 incentivizing, and should this be reconsidered given the fact that no other county offers this.
40 Chair Price said it is not to incentivize, but rather it is beneficial to law enforcement as
41 well as the general public when law enforcement takes early retirement, due to the demands of
42 this kind of work. She said this benefit would serve as a bridge to those who retire but are not
43 yet eligible for other forms of retirement benefits (such as social security).
44 Bonnie Hammersley said the Sheriff would make the recommendation to the County
45 Manager and it would have to be approved by the County Manager. He said it is not a given
46 that all law enforcement would receive it. She said the County Attorney's office and human
47 resources would also be involved. She agreed that this benefit is a bridge for those who may be
48 in a situation where they are not fit for duty, and it would be best for public to provide this
49 benefit.
50 Commissioner Hamilton asked if it would have been acceptable for the Board to reopen
51 this item at a future meeting.
37
1 John Roberts said yes, the Board could have voted to withdraw that vote and put this off
2 to another meeting.
3 Commissioner Hamilton said she asked the question because when topics are visited
4 after 11:00 pm, it is hard to focus on and if there is more flexibility, the Board should take it.
5
6 11. *Appointments
7 None.
8
9 12. Information Items
10
11 • September 2, 2021 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
12 • Memo Regarding Administrative Updates to the Eno River Voluntary Water Management
13 Operations Plan (WMOP)
14
15 13. Closed Session
16 None.
17
18 14. Adjournment
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to
21 adjourn the meeting at 11:19 p.m.
22
23 Roll call ensued
24
25 VOTE: UNANMIOUS
26
27
28 Renee Price, Chair
29
30
31 Tara May
32 Deputy Clerk to the Board
33
34 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.
35
36
37
38