Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11-18-2025; 8-a - Minutes for October 21, 2025 Business Meeting 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 18, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 8-a SUBJECT: Minutes for October 21, 2025 Business Meeting 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 21, 2025 Business Meeting FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • GUIDING PRINCIPLE — COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS We provide information and opportunities for engagement in a transparent manner so that all in our community have knowledge, understanding, and a voice. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve minutes as presented or as amended. Attachment 1 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 October 21, 2025 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 9 21, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton 12 and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, and Earl McKee 13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Phyllis Portie-Ascott 14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin 16 Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 17 appropriately below) 18 19 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present, 20 except Commissioner Portie-Ascott. 21 22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 23 Chair Bedford read the public charge. 24 25 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 26 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 27 There were no comments. 28 29 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 30 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 31 32 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 33 Chair Bedford announced that former commissioner Mark Marcopolos passed away over 34 the weekend. She highlighted some of his accomplishments while he was a commissioner and 35 expressed sympathy to his family. She said that there will be a celebration at the Efland 36 Community Center on Thursday for a new renovated space. She said that at the next meeting 37 commissioners will decide on who will serve on the retreat committee. 38 Commissioner Fowler sent her condolences to the family of Mark Marcopolos. She said 39 she met with the IDEAL Communities Collaborative, which is planning a state legislature tour and 40 visit to Grosvenor Gardens, a model of inclusive housing in Raleigh. She said they will have a 41 tour and then discussion on policy, including low-income housing tax credits to help with housing 42 for those with IDD. 43 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she attended the Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning 44 Organization Transportation Advisory Committee meeting and there was a report on the 45 prioritization 8 projects. She said the MPO will submit bus rapid transit projects for routes between 46 Carrboro and Mebane and Mebane and Winston-Salem to see how the state will score the 47 projects and the possibility for funding. 48 Commissioner Greene said she was sorry for the passing of Mark Marcopolos. She said 49 she attended the Visitors Bureau meeting where they received a presentation from the president 50 of PHE in Hillsborough on their efforts to increase market share and their work as a good 51 corporate citizen. 2 1 Commissioner McKee said he served with Mark Marcopolos for one-term and encouraged 2 those who are interested in elected office to keep pursuing. He said he attended a gathering in 3 Cedar Grove for the naming of the ball field for Lawrence Vanhook. He said he met with folks 4 from the southern part of the county for a question-and-answer session on county issues. He 5 said the Board needs to do a better job of community outreach and considering impacts on various 6 segments of the county. 7 Commissioner Carter extended condolences to the family of Mark Marcopolos. She said 8 she attended the event honoring Lawrence Vanhook. She said that Piedmont Food Processing 9 Center will host an open house on Thursday, October 23 and encouraged those who are 10 interested in attending. 11 Chair Bedford said there will be a community listening session at the Bonnie B. Davis 12 Center on October 22. 13 14 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 15 None. 16 17 5. Public Hearings 18 a. Public Hearing and Resolution for Orange County to Participate in the North Carolina 19 Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) Program 20 The Board held a public hearing, received public comment, closed the public hearing, and 21 approved a Resolution for Orange County to Participate in the North Carolina Commercial 22 Property Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) Program. 23 24 BACKGROUND: At its Business meeting on October 7, 2025, the Orange County Board of 25 Commissioners adopted a Resolution of Intent to participate in the Commercial Property 26 Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) program and scheduled a public hearing on the program 27 for the Business meeting on October 21, 2025. 28 29 This public hearing and the authorizing resolution are required for Orange County to participate 30 in C-PACE which allows commercial property owners to finance energy efficiency, renewable 31 energy, water conservation and resiliency improvements through low-cost, long-term financing. 32 The County is not providing funding or financing, nor will it perform any billing or collection 33 functions related to C-PACE projects. 34 35 C-PACE was authorized in North Carolina in July 2024 with the North Carolina General 36 Assembly's adoption of Senate Bill 802 (Sections 1-3) authorizing the creation of a statewide 37 Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure (C-PACE) program. This program allows 38 commercial property owners to finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation, 39 and resiliency improvements through a voluntary special assessment on the property. 40 41 C-PACE enables property owners to finance up to 100% of eligible upgrades (not to exceed 35% 42 of the property's expected stabilized value), with repayment spread over the useful life of the 43 improvements. This structure often results in lower annual payments and positive cash flow, 44 providing financial benefits such as reduced energy costs, increased property value, and 45 potentially more favorable interest rates due to the low-risk tax assessment model. 46 47 Already implemented in 40 states and Washington, D.C., C-PACE is now available in North 48 Carolina. The program is administered by the Economic Development Partnership of North 49 Carolina (EDPNC), with property owners working directly with private lenders. Repayment occurs 50 through a property assessment and lien, which may allow financing over longer terms than 51 traditional loans. 3 1 For Orange County property owners to participate, the County was first required to adopt a 2 Resolution of Intent, followed by a public hearing and adoption of a final Authorizing 3 Resolution. If adopted, the County's responsibilities will be limited to education and outreach, 4 executing agreements, recording liens, and coordinating with EDPNC — requiring minimal 5 administrative effort. The County will not provide funding, financing, billing, or collections for C- 6 PACE projects. 7 8 Amy Eckbert, Sustainability Manager, made the following presentation: 9 10 Slide #1 GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA C-PACE Public Hearing and Resolution to Adopt Amy Eckberg Sustainabillity Programs Manager October 21 , 2025 11 12 13 Slide #2 What is G-PAGE? C-PACE =Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure Statewide program enacted thru NC 'Senate Bill 802 (July 2024); 40 other states have adopted C-PACE Voluntary financing program for commercial property upgrades for clean energy, energy efficiency,water conservation and resiliency projects Program Administered by Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina (EDPNC) Benefits include: Low cost,long-term financing 14 4 1 Slide #3 How It Works: -County joins the program — The County adopts resolutions and holds a public hearing to join the statewide NC C-PACE Program. -Property owner applies —A business or property owner applies to EDPNC for project approval. -Private lender fu rids the work —A private lender provides the upfront money for improvements like energy efficiency, solar, or resilience upgrades. -Paid back over time —The property owner repays the loan through a special assessment tied to the property. Billing and collection are handled by the lender, not the County. -No County cost or risk — The County helps enable the program but doesn't handle money or take on liability. 2 3 4 Slide #4 f j r Who Can Take Advantage: • Industrial • Agricultural • Nonprofit • Multifamily Residential (5 or more units) • New Construction or Renovations 5 5 1 Slide #5 C-PACE Program Key Points: ➢ No budgetary impacts No exposure of County to financial or legal liability ➢ Strategic Plan and Climate Action Plan Alignment ➢ County adoption enables Town participation-Towns support Benefits: -Utility bill savings -Energy savings -Enhanced building resilience -Potential property value increase Economic development -Reduced GHG emissions 2 3 4 Slide #6 C-PACE Adoption: 3-Step Process: 1. Adopt Resolution of Intent 2. Hold a Public Hearing 3. Adopt Final Resolution to formally join the C-PACE Program 5 6 6 1 Slide #7 For more details/questions on the C-PACE Program: Mr. Larry Price Director of Finance Economic Development Partnership of NC 2 3 Amy Eckberg said Larry Price, the Director of Finance for the Economic Development 4 Partnership of NC was in attendance. 5 Commissioner Carter asked if there would be an impact to C-PACE given the uncertainty 6 of state and federal funds. 7 Larry Price said EDPNC is planning to run the program with existing resources and that 8 they are petitioning for funding. 9 Commissioner Fowler asked if there is an administration fee. 10 Larry Price said for every project that closes, EDPNC will collect 1% of the loan value up 11 to$25,000, and there are additional $750 and $500 application fees. He said that funding supports 12 the C-PACE program at the state and county level. 13 14 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to open 15 the public hearing. 16 17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 18 19 Jon Hartman-Brown, Economic Development Director for the Town of Carrboro, said the 20 town supports the adoption of the C-PACE program. He said the tool aligns well with the shared 21 goals climate action, economic development, and community resiliency. He said C-PACE 22 empowers commercial property owners to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy 23 without upfront costs and burdening public budgets. He said it is a fiscally responsible way to 24 advance climate commitments while supporting economic growth. He said the town is ready to 25 collaborate on this program. 26 27 A motion was made by Chair Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to close the 28 public hearing. 29 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 33 approve the resolution to adopt the C-PACE program in Orange County. 34 35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36 7 1 6. Regular Agenda 2 a. Review of Design Options for the Crisis Diversion Facility 3 The Board will review design options and associated project budgets for the Crisis Diversion 4 Facility, select a preferred option, and direct the Manager to finalize the design with the architect 5 and construction manager in order to prepare a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for Board 6 consideration in late 2025. 7 8 BACKGROUND: The development of a Crisis Diversion Facility has evolved and progressed 9 over the last six (6) years: 10 11 2019—The Board established The Orange County Behavioral Health Task Force (BHTF), and its 12 Crisis Diversion Facility Subcommittee. The Crisis Diversion Facility Subcommittee brought 13 together subject matter experts in behavioral health clinical services, emergency services, law 14 enforcement, and criminal justice with Orange County government. 15 16 2021 —The Subcommittee received approval from the Board of County Commissioners("BOCC") 17 in April 2021 to develop a recommendation for the Crisis Diversion Facility, along with $250,000 18 for pre-planning services. The County completed a request for qualifications (RFQ) process and 19 selected CPL Architecture to perform preliminary and schematic-level design and analysis 20 services for further development of the Crisis Diversion Facility. 21 22 2023 — The Board approved the FY 2023-33 Capital Investment Plan ("CIP"), which included 23 $2,047,155 for design services and $22,952,845 for construction for the Crisis Diversion Facility 24 in FY 2024-25. 25 26 2024—The Board approved $1,100,000 for land acquisition. CPLArchitects was selected through 27 an RFP process to begin detailed design at a cost of$1,172,000. 28 29 2025 — In April 2025, the firm Gilbane was selected through an RFQ process to be the 30 Construction Manager at Risk for the project. Gilbane began working with CPL to advise on 31 constructability of the design, value engineer the design, and provide cost estimates through each 32 step of the design process. The Board agreed to pay Gilbane $179,928 for pre-construction 33 services. 34 35 At its April 15, 2025 Business meeting, the Board approved the purchase of a five-acre plot of 36 land close to UNC Hospital in Hillsborough for $1,350,000. 37 38 Original Scope of the Facility 39 40 The facility was originally programmed and designed to have two primary functions, with 41 additional space for coordinated discharge services and community resources. 42 43 Behavioral Health Urgent Care ("BHUC") — This is a service for individuals four (4) years or 44 older who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis related to a substance use, mental health 45 disorder, and/or an intellectual/developmental disability diagnosis. The BHUC offers a safe 46 alternative for up to 23 hours for triage, stabilization, and assessment and provides a diversion 47 from the hospital emergency departments and the detention center. The current design calls for 48 twelve (12) bays to serve patients: eight (8) bays for adults and four (4) bays for children. 49 50 Facility-Based Crisis and Non-hospital Medical Detox Services ("FBC")—This service offers 51 longer term therapeutic interventions and stabilization services for individuals experiencing 8 1 mental health crises as well as those struggling with substance use and addiction. The current 2 design calls for sixteen (16) beds, the maximum allowed under current regulations. Through the 3 FBC services, individuals will receive assessment, treatment, 24-hour medical supervision, case 4 management, and group and individual therapy in a residential setting. Individuals will spend time 5 with clinicians and peer support specialists, both individually and in groups, to identify strengths, 6 individual support, and treatment needs, and to make a plan for recovery.An important part of the 7 treatment process is to prepare individuals to return home and arranging for further treatments so 8 that individuals can continue their path towards recovery. 9 10 Coordinated Discharge and Resource Space—The original concept also included a peer living 11 area, a resource room with information about behavioral health resources, a large conference 12 room, and several offices for County staff to support the coordinated discharge planning for 13 patients of the Crisis Diversion Facility as well as resources to establish and maintain connections 14 in the community. 15 16 Current Available Budget: Crisis Diversion Facility Budget Description Budget Spent/Encumbered Available Land $1,360,000.00 $1,353,265.54 $6,734.46 Professional Services $2,322,155.00 $2,035,272.00 $286,883.00 Construction $21,813,484.00 $179,928.00 $21,633,556.00 Equipment $557,711.00 $0.00 $557,711.00 Total: $26,053,350.00 $3,568,465.54 $22,484,884.46 17 18 Project Budget: 19 Gilbane, the Construction Manager at Risk, provided a budget estimate for the project in July 20 2025 of $25,700,000. However, that budget was incomplete as it did not include estimates for 21 furniture, fixtures and equipment (FFE), owner's contingency, or commissioning services. Given 22 the significant increase over the approved budget, the County asked CPL and Gilbane to provide 23 several options for reducing the scope of the facility. 24 25 Please note that the cost figures below do not include the cost of land acquisition or professional 26 services, which have already been encumbered or spent. Original • • • Option • • • • • • • • • • • • D. • WMANi Total 22,405 10,080 10,275 17,575 15,850 16,000 15,000 19,825 Square Ft. Cost $28.2 $20.8 $21.5 $26.6 $25.4 $25.6 $24.9 $27.2 million million million million million million million million FBC Beds 16 8 8 8 16 16 16 16 8 BHUC Bays 12 6 6 Expansion 12 12 6 12 Possible 9 Coordinated Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Discharge Resource Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Space Dual Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrance Front/Back NO Front/Back Front/Back Front Front Front Front/Back Simplified No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Design 1 2 Tax Impact: 3 The County maintains a debt model that tracks the debt service and associated tax impacts 4 related to the 10 year Capital Investment Plan. The different design options were analyzed 5 through the debt model to identify impacts to the tax rate and the resulting total property tax bill 6 for a $400,000 home, as detailed below: !Current loriginal 10ption A �ptlon AA I ption A.2.4tion B loption B.1 loption B.2 4tion C Total Cost of $22,484,884$28,190,991$20,791,005$21,446,885$28,565,095$25,402,124$25,550,015$24,980,984$27,1'80,542 Construction Construction Cost $5,706,107 $(1,693,879)$(1,038,019) $4,080,211 $2,917,240 $3,065,131 $2,496,100 $4,695,658 Change from Budget Debt Service Change from $424,562 $(126,033) $(77,234) $303,587 $217,057 $228,060 $185,722 $349,379 Budget ax Rate Change from 0.09 cents -0.03 cents -0.02 cents 0.07 cents 0.05 cents 0.05 cents 0.04 cents 0.08 cents Budget f l 111MR - uwl-9 s rr- 8 Travis Myren, County Manager, made the following presentation: 9 10 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Design Options for Crisis Diversion Facility 10-21-2025 11 10 1 Slide #2 PURPOSE • Review design options and associated project budgets for the Crisis Diversion Facility • Select a preferred option • Direct the Manager to finalize the design with the architect and construction manager in order to prepare a guaranteed maximum price (GMP)for Board consideration in late 2025 GRANGE COUNTY NORI'l I CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #3 CLOSING GAPS IN THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE CONTINUUM 1, Provides a diversion option for individuals experiencing a BH crisis from the emergency department, the court system, or the detention center to immediate, specialized services 2. Enables stakeholders, especially law enforcement and emergency medical services,to provide a more appropriate and efficient response to a behavioral health crisis 3. Integrates County treatment services and resources through coordinated discharge planning 4. Provides care at a substantially lower overall cost compared to reliance on emergency departments and inpatient hospital-based services 5. Provides individuals and families with access to information„ clinical care, support services, and assistance to navigate the complexities of BH challenges to mitigate the risk of repeat crisis episodes ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 11 1 Slide #4 THE NEED: CURRENT DEMAND Concerns by Year s� a,. •mzsrsoo4K,tunas=auaawviam�uanaau�sat . 2020 2024 2022 2023 2026 2025 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAR01INA 2 3 Travis Myren said that in 2023 8.4% of EMS transports were for youth, which equates to 4 36 transports. 5 6 Slide #5 BUILDING FEATURES • Behavioral Health Urgent Care (BHUC) unit for individuals four years and older for short- term triage, stabilization, assessment and observation • Facility Based Crisis (FBC) unit for adults needing longer term (more than 23 hours) care Peer living room and resource center to support discharge and offer resources to navigate and maintain connection with treatment and supportive services ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 7 12 1 Slide #6 OPERATING MODEL • County to construct and be responsible for major building systems on an ongoing basis • County will contract with a third-parry provider for clinical and medical services through Alliance Health. • Provider contract can limit access to patients who experience a behavioral health crisis in orange County • Provider will seek reimbursement for services through private insurance, Medicaid,etc. • County will be required to subsidize BHUC services that are not reimbursed to the provider through insurance, Medicaid, etc. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CARolI N A 2 3 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked, regarding services that will be subsidized, if there are service 4 lines that won't be covered by insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, or if the rates are too low, or if it 5 is a combination of both. 6 Travis Myren said it is both. He said urgent care services are typically not covered at all. 7 He said Alliance pays a per diem rate of $250 or $500 per encounter. He said that would not 8 cover a 23-hour period of treatment and stabilization. 9 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if private insurers cover it. 10 Travis Myren said private insurers do not. 11 12 Slide #7 DESIGN OPTIONS ORANGE COUNTY coE NORTHCAROLINA "'•'"� wrrrtmm 13 13 1 Slide #8 Original Design Current Project Budget Available - $22,484,884 Building Size — 22405 Sf ung;;. c _ Cost Estimate $28,190.991 FBC Beds: 16 -- BHUC Bays:12 (4 pediatric,8 Adult! — _ _ Duol-Side Entry FBC Requested Room Ca1.r1Y - — a 2 BHUC Requested BdY Gourd _ � FBC C—tyad Conference Spore Peer Living l� Resources tenter - County Offices/Discharge 2 3 4 Slide #9 Design Option A Reduce BHUC from 12 to 6 and FBC from 16 to 8 No coordinated discharge/resource space BNIIC Building Size y •, -- 10.080 51' �� e��� Cost Estimate 9 m; .. $2!,1,7.1,005 EE �- — Future CammunilY Addition - ..m ,., ,.,.e.. $842526 FBC Beds,8 I w BHUC Bays:b Wil_ L�IU 12 PedloM,4 Adult) DualSideEntry FBC Requested Room Count BHUC Requested Bay Courl FBC Courtyard Conference Spoce o1n.r Reduced5Fby55% Peer Living Spill Enhances,Some Vestibule Resource Center Squared up building archifec ure County Offices I Discharge Reduced P.rkt.g from 501.25 No llndetg—nd Stormwoter Retenllon 5 6 7 14 Slide #10 Design Option A.1 Option A with rear entrance No coordinated disc harge/resource space 4LI !;r TV 10.275 5f Cosi Estimate $21,446.865 Future Co—Unky AlIdIgIon 5842.526 M F 13 C Beds:6 SH U C cap:6 'tm' 'M 12 PftdioViC,4 ACS Q Cuol-skk Enhy Fac ROOM ca-,v SHUC Reqmted&w Cowl Fac co-r,rd cor"reHge S9=* oA-! ftd-*d5FbY54% Pa-LNIh9 Sq—ad up bulkWV grpNYa s- RetaurGa cant. cowtyofficmlcmct Qe no una.rprounps9orm,.Woee+aeF9rnen 2 3 Commissioner McKee asked why there would need to be two entrances. 4 Travis Myren said one reason is to separate law enforcement and EMS traffic from walk- 5 in traffic from the community. He said this was a design feature requested by EMS and law 6 enforcement to expedite drop off and turn around times. 7 8 Slide #11 Design Option A.2 Option A.I.with expansion capability and coordinated discharge/resource space ----------- Site ou rv—]�op 19,$$0 %I 1�.575 sf Cost Estl.ate $26.rw6s.095 W V fot—R H U C I F BE Addlilan • FBC fl.ds8 -z7, BHUC Ba":8 D-"Id.E,Iry FBC Raqu*Aed Rq Cmnr IFIUC Rr.Od BW Cant 'ac cWtAld corjerance$P=a Pe=0 D*OQ.O f.oV*.A..lo.6oir*1 FUC 6 IHUr R. canta, —i,cz=sm ca dss7Day I ft wPpe *> PN-!n m lura..F.nw IM9 fl- soOLlt. L.._----'I 9 15 1 Slide #12 Design Option B Dual entry for at front of facility No coordinated disc harge,lresource space Building Size w. ,. r° *• e. e,r 15.650 Cost Estimate r. $25.402.124 �I Future Community Addflbon ••� '" RY .. wr �" e - - we •. #642.526 .. Tr - FBC Beds:16 BHUC Bays!12 .. .. " „. .... `w _ .. .,. . .. . JA P-m,lrir_.8 AWIi] .. ." r rx �. wr .�� •'••• • Dual-Side Entry "• F8C RequOstpd Room C-1, .,. +. BHUC Req-ted Bay C.,nt 'm• FBC Caurlyaral C`,nnfene a F4--- aanr,: Reduced SF by2d76 Vr Peer Living Split Entrance Vo flbutes,Sam.Side Rewwco Como Sq—d up bullding-hll-hire county offices f D]Knargs Reduced Parking from 50 to 40 • 25%Decrease W Lhrderpnund Si.—Wr e, rr RenrMlon 2 3 4 Slide #13 Design Option B.1. Option B with coordinated discharge No resource space B u 11 d hng Si ze _ �" "'° _ — �"'"r^• 15.0047 Sf wrr Cost Estimate $25.550.015 Future Commanity Additlon ` r• -'p-f .r I We y642.526 - -IA�I. A. eT� FBC Beds:16 BHtl[Bays!12 ,• r. 7 14 Pud,.In,8,Adult] •••�_ r 1'd Duak$lde Entry F8C Ruq 2,-d R-.Count BHUC Requesfed Bay Cxrt I `� PBC Cquriyad Canf.—St n 'olf"•: Rec!U a SF by 2S% Peer Lyng Spllf Enhance VesilbW.S.Some Serle Re—C.Cgnf,, Sq—d up bulldlna mchlle kne county CNrKes 11XK1iuge Reduced Parking from 50 to 40 • 25%Decrease 0 Underar-d 31pr -Iq Retenflpn Adoea apace for Community Calices and Discharge 5 6 7 16 1 Slide #14 Design Option B,2. Option B.I.with decreased BHUC bays from 12 to G °^ Su❑ding Size _• e^ —Z.— Cost "Cost Estimate $24.980.984 F u lure 6 emmunity Addition �. -- a. •+" P" "•� n• $542,526 .. FBC Beds:ld '« .. ."�«. ...• BHUC Bays: ,. •... ,. •. 2 Pi•diu^.ie,.9 mutt .v° r" i r � •a. Dual-Side Entry F8C Roque ted Roam C—t BHUC Requested By Cant F8C Caurhyed Confnence Sp— -M,: Redueed SF N30% Peer LNIng 5 all Entrance VesllbW&,Some ROsouroc Centux Squared un bulldlnq architecture r w ww County Otfr_es.1 DiuMrge Rod-ed Pom1mg tram 50 Io 40 «n.� • 2S%Oecrearse al Underg—rnd 51ar ler Retentlon. Ad.• six rar Communily Offices ana Discharge 2 3 4 Slide #15 Design Option C Original Design Eliminated architectural features BHUC Bui lding Size 19,825 sf Cost Estimate $27,180,542 _ FBC Beds.16 Lf BHuc Bays:1214 PedealrgS Adult)Dual-Side Entr FBC Requested Room Count HUC Requested Bay Count •FBC Court grd YCanferen e Spac urne.. Reduced SF by 11% c e Peer L wing Sq Ugred up dUllding—hit.Clore Reseurce Center L° County Offices l Discharge �I 5 6 7 17 1 Slide #16 CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON Original Option Option Option Option Option Option Option G Square Ft. 22,405 10,080 10,275 17,575 15,850 16;00015,000 19,825 Cost $28.2 $20.8 $21.5 $26.6 $25.4 $25.6 $24.9 $27.2 million million million million million million million million FBC Beds 16 8 8 8 16 16 16 16 8 BHUC Bays 12 6 6 E=xpansion 12 12 6 12 Possible Coordinated Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Discharge Resource Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Space Dual Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Entrance Front)Back Front)Back Front/Back Front Only Front Only Front Only Front/Back Simplified No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Design 2 3 4 Slide #17 TAX IMPACT COMPARISON urreOriginal ption ption Option Option Option Option Optio udg .- Total Cost of $22484,884 $28,190,991 $20,791,005 $21,446,865 $26,565,095 $25,402,124 $25,550,015 $24,980,984$27,180,542 Construction Cost of Construction $5,106,107 $(1,693,879) $(1,036.019) $4,080,211 $2,917,240 $3,065,131 $2,496,100 $4,696,656 Change from Budget Average Annual Debt Service $424,562 $(126,033) $(77,234) $303,587 $217,057 $228,060 $185,722 $349,379 Change from Budget Tax Rate 0.09 cents -0.03 cents -0.02 cents 0.07 cents 0.05 cents 0.05 cents 0.04 cents 0.08 cents Change from Budget Tax Impact on 0 $400,000 Home 0 $3.60 1 0:1, S2.80 11 $2.00 S1.60 $3.20 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 Commissioner Greene asked in option A2 if the yellow outlined conference room and 7 resource center indicates that it would be part of an expansion. 18 1 Travis Myren said that is the peer living space and the coordinated discharge and it is 2 included in A2. 3 Commissioner McKee clarified that the tax impact would be an increase over what is 4 already budgeted. 5 Travis Myren said yes. 6 Commissioner Carter said looking at the EMS transports, it comes to about 1.4 transports 7 a day. She asked how the estimate of daily needs were made. 8 Travis Myren said EMS transports are one source of admission, and there are other drop 9 offs such as from law enforcement as well as walk-ins. He said they looked at all the 911 calls 10 and crisis calls to Chapel Hill Police to create a measure of demand. 11 Commissioner Carter said some of the design options half the number of BHUC beds and 12 facility-based care beds. She asked if that would severely impact their ability to serve the known 13 needs. 14 Travis Myren said based on the estimates, there would be occasions where they would 15 turn people away. He said they would also want to have a steady flow of patients especially in 16 the facility-based care because operating costs and revenue rely on keeping beds full most of the 17 time. 18 19 Slide #18 OPERATING COST COMPARISON Revenue 116 Bed FBC 112 BHUC Bays 16 BHUC Says Medicaid,IPRS,3"d Party $3,061,846 $320,416 $217,816 TOTALREVENUE $3,061,846 $320,416 $217,816 •. Labor $1,960,782 $2,003,289 $1,453,610 Contract Labor $435,413 $301,600 $301,600 Non-Labor $359,467 $446,656 $433,736 TOTAL Operating Expense $2,755,662 $2,751,545 $2,188,946 Rent $0 $0 $0 Administrative Costs $306,185 $305,727 $243,216 TOTAL EXPENSES $3,061,847 $3,057,727 $2,432,162 Non-UCR(County Responsibility) $0 $2,736,856 $2,214,346 $522,510 difference ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 20 21 Commissioner Carter said the youth will be served in the behavioral health crisis side, but 22 they won't be served in the facility-based care side. She said that feels like a gap for the 23 community and asked if that is on the radar for how that need will be filled. 24 Travis Myren said to analyze that they would need to go through a sequential intercept 25 mapping project for youth involving juvenile justice, the schools, and everyone who serves youth. 26 He said they would want to define the need first, and Caitlin Fenhagen offered to begin that 27 project. 19 1 Commissioner Fowler asked if they chose a smaller option, will there be space on the site 2 for a pediatric facility-based unit since they have to have a separate facility. 3 Travis Myren said the site is tight. 4 5 Slide #19 CRISIS DIVERSION SUBCOMMITTEE • Subcommittee members (including law enforcement chiefs, EMS and behavioral health experts)engaged in a ranking exercise based on the significance of each of the building features on future operations and policy landscape: 1. C Original design with simplified architectural features 2. Bi Includes coordinated discharge space with 12 BHUC bays 3. B Retains 12 BHUC bays 4. 82 Retains dual entrance but reduces BHUC bays to 6 • Option A was considered by the subcommittee as unacceptable because it only has one entrance at the front of the building and lacks sufficient BHUC space • Option B2 was also ranked low because it, along with Option A, has a reduced number(6) BHUC observation bays • Option C was ranked as most desirable because it contains all the CDF subcommittee's recommended features ORANGE COUNTY `OItTIi CAROLINA 6 7 8 Slide #20 TIMELINE 2019 f Grange County SIM workshop identifies gaps and action items(April 2019). r Crisis-Diversion Facility recommended to and endorsed by BOCC(April 2021). r Preliminary facility design and cost estimation completed(early 2023). r Site location and land purchase(June 30,2025). • Final facility architectural design work(4Q2025). • Construction Documents/Permitting/Bid/GMP Approval(2Q 2026). 2027 Construction complete(2Q 2027). • CDF start up and begin operation(3Q 2027). 9 20 1 Commissioner McKee said he is most concerned about the fact that children can't be kept 2 for more than 23 hours and that they are then transported to other facilities. He is concerned 3 about the impact to families. 4 Travis Myren said that a sequential intercept mapping project could determine the barriers, 5 and if transportation is a barrier the county could consider ways to lower the costs. 6 Commissioner McKee said it's not just transportation, but the hardship on families having 7 to travel an hour to visit children. 8 Commissioner McKee noted the cost of operating the facility will be $2.7 million and the 9 impact on the tax rate. 10 Travis Myren said that is assuming no reimbursement. 11 Commissioner McKee said he would not rely on insurance or Medicaid reimbursement. 12 13 Slide #21 MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION • Select an option from the alternative design options;and • Direct the Manager to finalize the design with the architect and construction manager in order to prepare a guaranteed maximum price(GMP)for Board consideration. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 14 15 16 Slide #22 Questions? ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 17 21 1 Slide #23 Design Option A,1 Expansion = Ca. ni lT Addllleni ,• •• ,„ ISF 84�0 SF FVC Addltbn: 3.4SOSF Ex pFminn nl EAnxrAY tuppnn 3px`aaExiiFinV BNlIf fGV[ wr •• •• ----- II _V60 F - 1111------------ 2 ___'___�-2 3 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 5 Tony Marimpietri said he was the chair of the Crisis Diversion Facility Subcommittee. He 6 said the group worked with various stakeholders to help bring the crisis diversion facility from its 7 earliest concepts to the options the Board is considering. He said this facility is more than just a 8 building. He said the process has been a true collaboration among all the stakeholders. He said 9 he also serves on the NAMI North Carolina Policy Committee. He said that he's heard from many 10 in the community about the need for the project and he thanked the Board for considering the 11 project. 12 Elina Banerjee, a senior at UNC Chapel Hill and Director of Basic Needs for the 13 Undergraduate Student Government and is on the Chapel Hill Police Community Advisory 14 Committee. She noted her work with community organizations aiding unhoused populations and 15 described the community safety concerns around Franklin Street, including verbal harassment 16 and physical threats. She supported the expanded crisis center design due to its essential 17 elements like coordinated discharge, resource space, behavioral health urgent care, and dual 18 entrances. 19 Kira Heppe said she is UNC student and a member of the Department of Basic Needs. 20 She said an investment in the facility is an investment in health, safety, and belonging of the 21 community. She said it will reduce the presence of emergency services seen daily on Franklin 22 Street. She said without a proper discharge space, residents could end up unhoused again. She 23 said providing preventative care will increase well-being and safety for the community. 24 Chair Bedford said that the Sheriff said that this facility is a high priority for him, and that 25 he is losing detention center staff who are not trained to deal with inmates in the midst of a mental 26 health crisis. She said there is support from the judicial system, law enforcement, emergency 27 services, and the university. She said the facility would also serve students, and UNC Health and 28 the emergency departments have been supportive. 29 Commissioner Fowler said she is in strong support of the facility. She said there has been 30 a high increase in mental health issues in the last 10-15 years. She said she would prefer that a 22 1 pediatric facility be included, but she also didn't think that perfection should be the enemy of the 2 good. She said if the county can help with mental health, they are also helping keep their housing, 3 which is another major concern. She said that she is supportive of Options B1 or C. 4 Vice-Chair Hamilton referred to slide #17. She asked about what is currently budgeted 5 for the crisis diversion facility and the current tax impact for the project. 6 Travis Myren said it would be $22 million of $900 million in the ten-year CIP, and $900 7 million is about 9 cents. He said that the tax increase for the facility would probably be small. 8 Vice-Chair Hamilton said that anything that they add has a tax increase impact. She said 9 all the changes would not have a huge tax impact on a $400,000 home. She said some of the 10 savings that the county may see are for emergency services and law enforcement, but it will be 11 harder to see impacts at the county level. She said that emergency departments are not a good 12 environment for someone struggling. She said she supports the project, but she recognizes they 13 might have to not do something else in order to pay for the project. She said patients will still 14 need support outside of the facility in the community, which is largely not there. She said they 15 may end up seeing some of the same people over and over. 16 Commissioner Greene asked about Option A2 and why it was not selected. 17 Travis Myren said A2 did not include the full number of BHUC bays. 18 Commissioner Greene said she understands the need for dual entry. She said that the 19 subcommittee has worked hard around this issue and given that, she supports their 20 recommendation of design option C. 21 Commissioner McKee said he thinks of a conversation that he had with a couple of judges 22 years prior that, when it comes to mental health and substance abuse, "you pay now, or you pay 23 later." He said when talking to law enforcement, many of the people who would be in treatment 24 might otherwise be in jail. He said when someone is incarcerated, they risk losing theirjobs, their 25 families may have to receive public assistance, and families can break up, and those are costs to 26 the community. He said regarding the design of the facility, the advice he's getting is that they are 27 building too small. He said for that reason he supports Option C. 28 Commissioner Carter said she was glad that the county is supporting sequential intercept 29 mapping to look at the needs of youth. She said understanding that more will help inform short- 30 and long-term actions. She asked if land banking could be considered as the county continues 31 to analyze the issue. She asked if the county has spent $3.2 million in the design phase of the 32 facility. 33 Travis Myren said yes, either spent or encumbered. 34 Commissioner Carter asked if after the decision at the meeting, the county would be done 35 with the design phase. 36 Travis Myren said that with a final design, they would move into seeking the GMP. 37 Commissioner Carter said she supported options that provide the full bed count. She 38 asked about the differences between the original design and Option C. 39 Travis Myren said the design would be simplified and squared up. 40 Commissioner Carter said they would not lose functionality, but would lose some 41 architectural features. 42 Travis Myren agreed and said functionality would be preserved with Option C. 43 Commissioner Carter said she supported having a healing space that is visually 44 representative of the services someone would receive. She said Option C would save on the cost 45 of design and construction. She said that it's hard to quantify the architectural changes with the 46 impact to the tax rate, which is approximately 40 cents for a $400,000 property tax bill. She said 47 she supports whatever the majority decides, including the original design. 48 Chair Bedford said agreed on the dual entries for patient needs as well as emergency 49 services turnaround times. She said it is important for a facility to have a care team to meet to 50 discuss patient needs. She said supports Option C for the discharge and community space. She 51 said she supports sequential mapping to determine the needs for youth in the community and that 23 1 a pediatric facility would have a different set of priorities and needs to meet than a facility for 2 adults. She described some of the ways a pediatric facility differs from adult facilities. She said 3 while they can prioritize Orange County residents, it is important to accept out of county residents 4 to keep every bed filled. 5 Commissioner McKee said the residency factor needs to be there, but it needs to be 6 applied with common sense. 7 Chair Bedford said that Commissioner Portie-Ascott shared that it was important to her 8 that the facility be welcoming for families and patients. 9 Chair Bedford said she supported Option C. 10 Vice-Chair Hamilton said UNC and Duke are building new children's hospital in Apex and 11 they will have beds for pediatric behavioral health. 12 Commissioner Greene said there will be a separate wing for behavioral health. 13 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she supported Option C. 14 Commissioner Greene said she supported Option C, but would have been happy with the 15 original design. 16 Chair Bedford reviewed the recommended actions. She asked if it would be possible to 17 find out what an additional $200,000 of architectural features would bring. 18 Travis Myren said they can build in alternatives for a base guaranteed maximum price 19 (GMP). 20 Vice-Chair Hamilton said it's important to consider how people are treated when they are 21 in a building rather than what the building looks like. 22 Chair Bedford noted that data supports a garden and a required courtyard. 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to 25 select Option C for alternative design options, and evaluate additional architectural features with 26 the costs associated, and finalize the design with the architect and construction manager in order 27 to prepare a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for Board consideration 28 29 Commissioner Greene asked if they would accept a friendly amendment to include options 30 for natural light. 31 32 Commissioner McKee said he would accept that and understood the need for natural light. 33 Commissioner Fowler also agreed to accept the friendly amendment. 34 35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36 37 b. Discussion of the Draft School Construction Interlocal Agreement 38 The Board discussed and provided feedback to the Manager on the draft School Construction 39 Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with both School Districts. 40 41 BACKGROUND: During the 2024 bond process, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed 42 its policies and procedures around school capital funding, updating the School Capital Funding 43 Policy and the Major Project Planning Addendum. The Board requested staff review and propose 44 an ILA to strengthen accountability and transparency for upcoming school construction and 45 renovation projects. Staff reviewed similar arrangements in other counties with active school 46 construction, including an ILAfrom Wake County. The draft ILA codifies a joint school construction 47 Core Team comprised of staff from all three entities. This Core Team will have assigned roles, 48 meet quarterly and more often as needed, and report back to the Joint Meeting of the Board of 49 Commissioners and School Boards at least once per year.Additionally, there are provisions in the 50 agreement that school staff report on the alignment with County policies, that the Team maintain 24 1 information for public consumption, and that that each party identifies a liaison for its respective 2 governing board. 3 4 Subsequent to the initial review of the ILA and upon discussions with the Chair, the County 5 Attorney revised the document to reflect additional detail related to the major construction and 6 renovation projects. The major revisions are highlighted below: 7 • Requiring, to the greatest extent practical, projects to align with the principles Woolpert 8 Report. 9 • Establishing a minimum dollar threshold of $250,000 for projects to be overseen by the 10 Core Team. 11 • School Districts to propose projects, refer those proposals to the Core Team for 12 consideration, the Core Team will refer proposals to the County Manager, and the County 13 Manager will then refer projects to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. 14 • Provides construction manager at risk ("CMAR") as the default procurement method. 15 • The School Districts shall select a design professional and submit to the Board of 16 Commissioners for review and approval and upon approval the School Districts shall 17 manage the design of each project. Any amendments to the design contract shall be 18 submitted to the County Commissioners for approval. 19 • The School Districts shall directly manage school construction. Any change orders or 20 amendments that increase the total budget of the project must go to the County for 21 approval. 22 • Requires the completion of a sales tax recapture agreement(s) prior to beginning any 23 project. 24 • Provides for how defaults and remedies are addressed. 25 26 Staff also recommends establishing separate agreements with each School District, that way one 27 District withdrawing from the agreement does not dissolve the relationship between the County 28 and the other District. 29 30 Along with the ILA, the County reviewed options in managing this process, and determined that it 31 would be preferable to have staff provide oversight and communication during the project 32 construction, rather than hiring a project management firm. The Manager recommends adding a 33 1.0 FTE (full time equivalent) School Capital and Financial Analyst to coordinate the meetings of 34 the CORE Team, report back to the Board on school construction, and manage all public 35 communications, including maintenance of a dashboard. This position would also consolidate 36 other school related tasks that currently reside in different departments, like the coordination of 37 the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) 38 and the reporting of capital expenditures for financing and reimbursement. This position would be 39 funded out of the Pay-Go funds set aside for Project Management. $500,000 was budgeted in FY 40 2026, and $1,000,000 is planned annually for future years. The County will retain approximately 41 $45,000 for a position starting December 1, 2025, and will allocate the remaining Pay-Go funds 42 to the School Districts for project and program management expenses. If the Board moves 43 forward with the ILA, the formal creation of this position will be considered at a subsequent 44 meeting. 45 46 25 1 Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, made the following presentation: 2 3 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNT' NORTH CAROLINA. Interl©cal Agreement Draft October 21st, 2025 Board of County Commissioners 4 5 6 Slide #2 PURPOSE OF ILA • Sets agreement for establishment of staff working group between all three entities. • Based on Wake County MOU, which was presented to School Capital Needs Workgroup. -moi ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 7 26 1 Slide #3 PROVISIONS OF ILA • Each organization assigns staff to team, representing Budget, Finance and Operations functions • Team will regularly communicate on the progress of the Districts' capital plans. - Staff to meet at least quarterly, with increased frequency when multiple projects are underway. • Team will assign roles and workplans to guide work of Core Team and review every two years. ©RANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #4 CHANGES FROM 9/25 DRAFT Subsequent to 9125 meeting, Chair provided additional feedback to staff, and have updated the draft ILA to include additional provisions • Codifies quarterly meeting of Core Team. • Scope of Core Team specified to include all projects over $259k. • Projects to be aligned with the principles of the Woolpert Report to the greatest extent practical. • Projects by school districts will be proposed to Core Team, which will be referred to the Manager, and the Manager will refer projects the BoCC ORANGE COUNTY NOWI"H CAROLINA 5 6 7 27 1 Slide #5 CHANGES FROM 9/25 DRAFT (CONT.) • Sets Construction Manager at Risk as default procurement method. • School districts to select design firm and submit plans to BoCC for approval. Amendments to design contract must also be approved by BoCC. • Districts manage school construction. Any amendments or change orders that go over original contract cost will require BoCC approval. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH.CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #6 CHANGES FROM 9/25 DRAFT (CONT.) • Requires completion of Sales Tax recapture agreements prior to beginning projects. • Provides for how defaults and penalties are addressed. • Specifically assigns County to manage public information presence. Information to be provided by districts quarterly and with increased frequency when multiple projects are underway. ORANGE COUNTY N(lWTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 28 1 Slide #7 SCHOOL CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN In addition to any provisions contained in the ILA, Board has already established control over the administration of the annual CIP process. Board set policy to direct staff through School Capital Funding Policy, approved January 2025. • Districts request funding for all Major Projects and High Priority Needs on a project-by-project basis. • County Staff review these plans based on the "framework of the Woolpert Optimization Plan" and present to the Manager. • Manager makes recommendations to the board for year 1 funding and 10-year plan. • Board reviews projects through budget work session and approves through annual budget ordinance. - ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #8 NEXT STEPS • Board to use this meeting to discuss or make recommendations to change draft ILA. • Receive feedback from School Districts. • Return to approve ILA at future board meeting. C��AN(4 CC,l_I f l 1`( 5 6 Chair Bedford said the original ILA did not have enough direction and that the County 7 Attorney had not yet reviewed the agreement. She said that they are reviewing the ILA, and the 8 school boards will also review. She said she thought they could split the ILA into two agreements 9 with each school district for ease in the future. 10 Commissioner Fowler asked if it was necessary to have two agreements. 29 1 John Roberts said it is not a requirement to have two. He said that it was a suggestion, 2 but the termination language could provide that if one party withdraws, the other two parties 3 remain in the agreement and that the withdrawal has no impact on the other parties. 4 Chair Bedford said that's better and would be consistent. 5 Commissioner Carter said she was glad to see the quarterly engagement in the 6 agreement. She said the work will be with the working group, but she would like to see additional 7 language stating that following every quarterly meeting, the designated liaison for each party will 8 present an update at a business meeting of their respective governing board. She said it helps 9 for public accountability. 10 Chair Bedford asked if that would be added as 3.08. 11 Commissioner Carter suggested 3.06. 12 Chair Bedford said she liked the language, but they cannot direct what the school boards 13 put on their agenda. 14 John Roberts said they could use the words "should" or "may" rather than "will." He said 15 if the school boards choose not to then they don't have to. 16 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she was surprised by the scope of the ILA, given that they had 17 discussed not hiring a program manager. She said that the ILA was to establish the core team 18 that would focus on the big bond projects to make sure they are receiving information in case 19 there are unexpected cost increases because of external issues. She said she sees tension in 20 the current process for the capital investment plan and the schools bringing smaller projects to 21 staff and getting them approved. She said that the core team was for the big, broad projects so 22 they can be responsive to the community in how the money is being spent. She said she would 23 like to see the ILA stay with the bond projects. 24 Chair Bedford asked for clarification on Vice-Chair Hamilton's concerns about program 25 management because the Board discussed hiring a county employee to work with the program. 26 Vice-Chair Hamilton said the ILA should focus on the big projects for the bond, not for 27 projects at $250,000. She said the county position which was described as an analyst is 28 coordinating information. She said the schools are each hiring the project managers, but the 29 county is not. She said they should focus on the big projects and not micro-manage. She said 30 that collaboration between the county and school districts has improved over the years and that 31 the ILA codifies it. She said in 3.08, she wanted to specify quarterly communications with the 32 public. 33 Chair Bedford said that would fit in with 3.08, which states that the county will create a 34 website that tracks projects, progress, and spending. 35 Vice-Chair Hamilton said that the website would not be enough. She said they should 36 communicate quarterly with the public. 37 Commissioner Fowler said she was supportive of the comments emailed from the school 38 board chairs earlier in the day. She said she agreed with Vice-Chair Hamilton on going with major 39 projects. She said the CMAR should just be done with major projects. She said they should 40 rework the language about change orders and the minimum amount. 41 Commissioner Carter asked how major projects would be defined. 42 Kirk Vaughn said that there are three buckets for funding capital. He said the biggest 43 bucket is for major projects, such as major school renovation or replacement. He said the next is 44 high priority needs, such as annual replacement of components like roofs or HVAC systems. He 45 said the third component is everything else. He said both the major projects and the high priority 46 needs are budgeted on a project basis and that is already happening through the CIP process. 47 Chair Bedford said since there is not a dollar cut off, they could delete the minimum of 48 $250,000. 49 Commissioner Carter said she did not know what the division is between the buckets. 50 Kirk Vaughn said that is set in the school capital funding policy. He said the funding for 51 major projects is the bond and pay-go. He said any leftover bond funds could be used for high 30 1 priority needs. He said normal funding for high priority needs is the annual amount the county 2 borrows for schools and the lottery money from the state for school capital. He said that the policy 3 states the categories and the funding sources of the categories. 4 Commissioner Carter said the bond is only going to be used to fund major projects. 5 Kirk Vaughn said no. He said that if there is remaining bond money, it could be rolled over 6 to high priority needs. 7 Commissioner Carter said she would like to retain both major projects and high priority 8 needs under this scheme and revisit the discussion after working with the schools. She said she 9 would like to keep the $250,000. 10 Commissioner Fowler said she thought at the school level, $300,000 was the cut off for 11 Board of Education approval and $90,000 for operational. 12 Kirk Vaughn said that was just for contracting. 13 Chair Bedford said she would rewrite it, so it doesn't have any dollar amount. 14 John Roberts said the dollar amount could be deleted and it could be phrased as "#2, 15 Provide for the management and oversight of all construction or renovation projects to be funded 16 by the 2024 Orange County general obligation bond." 17 Commissioner Carter asked about CIP funding. 18 Chair Bedford said it would apply only to the $300 million in bond funds and the amount 19 of pay go the county has pledged, which had been $100 million. 20 Vice-Chair Hamilton said there are other processes they must look after. 21 Chair Bedford said they are switching to project based. 22 Commissioner McKee said there is a saying that too many cooks in the kitchen creates 23 chaos and ruins the stew. He said that this discussion indicates to him that the Board doesn't 24 have a good grip on what this could entail over time. He said the concerns from both school 25 boards are valid. He said that the ILA is overly complicated and creates a lot of backtracking in 26 going back to the core group for approvals. He said he is not sure what they are trying to achieve 27 with the agreement. He said he was planning to vote against the ILA. 28 Chair Bedford said the initial ILA didn't have enough specifics other than creating the 29 project team. She said one purpose is to protect$400 million in county investment. She reviewed 30 previous bond funding for the school districts and capital funding. She said that the funds were 31 not spent in a timely manner and the county was paying interest on those funds. She said she 32 wanted the county to stay informed as to what is happening with projects. She said that there 33 were good points such as not having to go back and forth over every change order. 34 Commissioner McKee said that following that feeling, the county should take it over 35 completely. 36 Chair Bedford disagreed. 37 Commissioner McKee said that the ILA does not improve the process and does not 38 eliminate a lot of the back and forth. He said if they are going for total oversight, then they have 39 total control. He said he would not support that either. He said they are supposed to provide the 40 funding and then they watch as it evolves. 41 Chair Bedford said she did not think that anyone on the Board would support taking over 42 the process. 43 Chair Bedford reviewed the changes that had been discussed. She asked if there was a 44 termination date of 2033 because that's when the bond money was supposed to be spent. 45 Travis Myren said yes. 46 Chair Bedford reviewed the new section of Article 4 in the ILA. She asked what would 47 happen if a project came up outside of the annual CIP process. She said she thought there should 48 be flexibility in the timing and that the BOCC could possibly advance funds if 49 Commissioner McKee said this goes back to what he was saying about the ILA being 50 convoluted and confusing. 31 1 Chair Bedford referred to comments from CHCCS School Board Chair George Griffin. 2 She said that he thought the school boards were being cut out of the process. 3 Commissioner McKee and Chair Bedford discussed the role of the core team and the 4 county manager when determining whether a project aligns with the Woolpert report. 5 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she is growing concerned about the process. She said the 6 purpose of the core team as described in the ILA is different than how it was originally envisioned. 7 She said she did not see the core team as a decision-making body. She said the Wake County 8 MOU was the model and she would like to go back to that draft. She said she saw the core team 9 as a collaborative body, tracking projects and communicating with the parties. She said the other 10 policies in place can tracking funding so they can hold the schools accountable. 11 Kirk Vaughn said the language was meant to hew very closely to the Wake ILA, and it is 12 mostly in Article 3. 13 Commissioner Greene said she did not want to lose sight of the goal is to have a process 14 that gets schools built and rebuilt consistent with the principles of the Woolpert report. She said 15 Article IV is the mechanism by which they make sure that the projects are consistent with the 16 report. She said it does not seem convoluted. 17 Vice-Chair Hamilton said this version of the ILA puts the core team in the middle of the 18 school capital investment plan. She said it's confusing because the county already has a process 19 that makes sure they are following Woolpert. She said it makes it more confusing to put this in 20 the ILA. 21 Commissioner Carter said this is the biggest bond issuance ever in Orange County. She 22 said even when things are not spelled out, going through the ILA helps remove the confusion 23 later. 24 Vice-Chair Hamilton said while she agreed with Commissioner Carter, it's already in the 25 school capital investment process. She said putting it in the ILA creates confusion. She said that 26 there is a disconnect between what they say is the purpose of the core team and what they end 27 up doing. 28 Commissioner Carter asked if the school capital investment plan can provide checkpoints. 29 Kirk Vaughn said school staff staff would provide the county changes through amendments 30 during the year, and the amendment process is in the school capital funding policy. 31 Chair Bedford asked why an ILA is needed. 32 Kirk Vaughn said it was successful model in Wake County, and it would strengthen 33 communication. 34 Commissioner McKee said that this has created dissension between the county and the 35 school districts. He said that they don't think they need this agreement. He said they could get 36 the information needed without it. 37 Vice-Chair Hamilton said the school has already agreed to an earlier draft ILA. 38 Chair Bedford said she did not agree with the ILA. 39 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she and some of the other commissioners agreed to the core 40 team. She said that during the joint meeting there was a good understanding of that initial ILA. 41 She said the core team would help with communication, and it would provide similar benefits to 42 the school capital work group. She said it helped the school districts and the county work together 43 better. She said previous deficiencies result from a lack of clear policies and commitment from 44 the county to follow up and to not wait. 45 Commissioner Fowler said they should be responsive to the comments by the school 46 boards. She said they should find a mutually agreeable solution that is responsive to their 47 feedback and serves the main purpose to provide a framework, but does not get in the way of it 48 happening in a timely manner. 49 Commissioner McKee suggested that they end discussion of the ILA and ask that staff to 50 work on it with the schools. 32 1 Chair Bedford said they've agreed to remove the $250,000. She said that in Article 4, they 2 want everyone to communicate, and they should talk about whether the projects meet the 3 principles of the Woolpert report. She said the Board is concerned about the section that says 4 the team will approve projects and they should strike it. She said the county does not need to 5 see design contracts. She said for change orders, it will have to come back to the budget office 6 anyway. She said the ILA needs to reflect what is in the school capital funding policy. 7 Commissioner McKee said the Board is making changes to suit itself without input from 8 the schools. 9 Chair Bedford and Commissioner McKee discussed the process and timeline for getting 10 feedback on the ILA from the school districts. 11 Commissioner Carter reviewed the changes that the other members of the Board agreed 12 on: Receiving quarterly feedback, removing the $250,000 minimum, using the language 13 suggested by the County Attorney regarding major projects, and adding specific references to the 14 school capital investment process. 15 Commissioner Fowler said that there are also suggested changes to the CMAR language 16 in the ILA. 17 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 19 Kari Hamel referenced issues encountered with Chapel Hill High School's change orders 20 back in November 2019. She said there was significant fallout from those issues and that it would 21 have been beneficial for taxpayers and the public to have access to a dashboard or similar tool 22 that could provide transparency about change orders and other financial matters related to school 23 construction projects. She underscored the need for a process that allows the public to easily 24 access accurate and timely information about how taxpayer money is being spent on these 25 extensive and expensive projects. She expressed her support for the construction of new school 26 facilities but emphasized the importance of having robust oversight to ensure the financial aspects 27 are being managed transparently and responsibly. 28 George Griffin, Chair of the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Board of Education, 29 highlighted and reinforced the strong collaborative relationship that has been cultivated over his 30 four years on the board, including three years serving as chair. He stressed the importance of 31 maintaining this cooperative spirit, underscoring that he did not want any ongoing discussions or 32 potential disagreements to jeopardize the positive and constructive work relationship that has 33 been established among the school boards and county officials. He acknowledged the 34 significance of attending to the details within this partnership, indicating that diligence and 35 thorough attention are essential to continuing progress. He called for all involved parties to 36 persevere in moving forward collectively and constructively in addressing the issues at hand. 37 38 Chair Bedford asked George Griffin if they should schedule a school collaboration meeting 39 soon. 40 George Griffin said yes. 41 Commissioner Fowler said the bond is $300 million. 42 Commissioner McKee said that the total borrowing for the county is $900 million. 43 44 7. Reports 45 a. Update on Revaluation Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews 46 The Board received an update on the status of property tax appeals and neighborhood level 47 reviews following the 2025 revaluation. 48 49 BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners received the first update on property tax appeals 50 and neighborhood reviews at the August 26, 2025 Business meeting. At that meeting, the Board 51 also approved the composition and charge of the Tax Assessment Work Group. 33 1 2 Since that time, the County retained Tanner Valuation Group, LLC to make recommendations on 3 appeals and to expedite the neighborhood reviews with the goal of having those reviews 4 completed by mid-November 2025. The Board of Commissioners made resident appointments 5 to the Tax Assessment Work Group at the October 7, 2025 Business meeting, and the Group's 6 first meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2025. 7 8 This report provides a status update on the property tax appeals and neighborhood reviews that 9 have been completed to date, the value adjustments resulting from those reviews, and the 10 geographic distribution of both the informal and formal appeals. 11 12 Appeal Status 13 The Tax Office received a total of 3,346 informal appeals during the informal appeal window that 14 was open from March 21 to April 30, 2025. Following the informal appeal window, the Tax Office 15 has received to date an additional 1,109 formal appeals for a current total of 4,455 appeals. Of 16 that total, 3,966 are unique properties, with the overlap representing properties that were 17 appealed at both informal and formal levels. Of the formal apeals, 70 were not submitted by the 18 deadline and will not be considered. Since the September update, additional formal appeals were 19 received as property owners have 30 days to appeal decisions. The last mailing of decision 20 notices on informal appeals occurred on September 9, 2025, with remaining notices expected to 21 be mailed on or before October 21, 2025. 22 23 As of October 13, 2025, the Tax Office issued decisions on 3,329 or 99.5% of informal appeals 24 with 17 informal appeals pending. The Board of Equalization and Review has completed 439 or 25 39.6% of the formal appeals with 670 still in process. The remaining appeals are scheduled to 26 be completed on or before December 11, 2025. 27 28 The total change in assessed value from appeals is a decrease of $219,893,471 as of October 29 13, 2025. The median change for residential properties is a decrease of$41,600, and the median 30 change for nonresidential properties is a decrease of$80,600. 31 32 Neighborhood Reviews 33 The Tax Office conducted an equity analysis on the County's 1,026 assessment neighborhoods. 34 The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) specifies that measures of vertical 35 equity are only representative of possible inequities in neighborhoods with five (5) or more sales. 36 Of the neighborhoods with more than five (5) sales, the Tax Office identified 86 neighborhoods 37 that were outside of the equity standards used by the IAAO. Of the neighborhoods with less than 38 five (5) sales, the Tax Office examined those neighborhoods for consistency and reasonableness 39 and identified an additional 76 neighborhoods that require a more thorough review. The Tax Office 40 is also studying the 19 neighborhoods identified by the Orange County Property Tax Justice 41 Coalition for possible value adjustments. A total of 171 neighborhoods were identified by the Tax 42 Office for closer review. 43 44 Tanner Valuation Group is assisting the Tax Office with the neighborhood level reviews. As of 45 October 13, 2025, twelve (12) neighborhood reviews have been completed. Those reviews 46 resulted in value adjustments to 432 properties and a total assessed value decrease of 47 $23,519,300. The Group has started with the 19 neighborhoods identified by the Orange County 48 Property Tax Justice Coalition and is conducting extensive field work on those neighborhoods. 49 Once those neighborhoods are completed, the Group will move to the neighborhoods with the 50 highest number of appeals. As the the number of appeals decreases by neighborhood, the 51 intensity of the field work will decrease, and the completion rate will accelerate. 34 1 If value adjustments are made, property owners will receive a notice of the change and will have 2 fifteen (15) days to appeal that change to the Board of Equalization and Review. If the change in 3 value also changes the amount of property tax due, taxpayers who have already paid their 4 property taxes will be issued a refund if the amount is lower than their original tax bill or a notice 5 of additional tax due if the amount is higher than the original tax bill. 6 7 Appeals and Neighborhood Review Dashboard 8 In an effort to provide timely updates, the Tax Office has automated several reports to track the 9 status of appeals and neighborhood reviews in aggregate and by neighborhood. The dashboard 10 (Attachment 1) summarizes the total number of informal and formal reviews completed either by 11 the Tax Office or the Board of Equalization and review. The dashboard also tracks the properties 12 that had a change in value, the dollar value of the reduction, and the percentage values were 13 reduced for the properties that had a change in value. The dashboard also shows the number of 14 neighborhood reviews that have been completed, the number of properties where the value was 15 changed, and the dollar value of those changes. 16 17 The FY2025-26 Budget assumes a tax base reduction of 3% or $936,162,977resulting from the 18 appeal process. Currently, the total decrease in the tax base is $243,412,771 or 0.78%. If the 19 tax base is reduced by more than 3%, property tax collections may not meet the budgeted amount. 20 21 Appeals and Neighborhood Review Reports 22 The Tax Office also created two additional reports (Attachments 2 and 3) that provide a more 23 granular view of appeals and value changes by neighborhood for both appeals and neighborhood 24 reviews. The appeal report is accompanied by maps showing the geographic distribution of both 25 informal and formal appeals. 26 27 Travis Myren made the following presentation: 28 29 Slide #1 GRANGE COUNTY NOR-rH CAROLINA Update on 2025 Property Tax Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Board of commissioners Business Meeting October 21,2025 30 31 32 33 35 1 Slide #2 Purpose 1. Receive update on appeals of property value and neighborhood reviews fallowing the revaluation ORANGE COUNTY 2 NOR-UH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #3 Dashboard Orange County 2025 Appeals Status Namur.of aemPkled Number of Percentaaaaage Data as of:October 13,2025 Number a IMOnnal appeal6 se tared 'app d` m Imo aw etal experienced& vau for MR completed by the Tax Office ar Conhp W cdhwga it watua clue reAfdtaY properties wet fpmhal apppeals:Wplated by Assisted Mass Ip the appeal tiase due W elgt�n4ent ed a the Hoard of Equakzat,a and the dDpeal .®lue shame Remw tom) NumberofAppeals Velum Total Appeals Completed In Process Untimely Values Updated A w/Value Change Total Appeals Value Reduction Percent Reduced Informal 3,346 3,329 17 3,355 2,134 $ 200,197,979 5.96% Formal 1,109 439 670 70 290 236 $ 19,695,492 0.59% Totals 4,455 3,768 687 70 3,645 2,370 $ 219,893,471 I>erzoentege reduction In Number of canpleled neighborhopd re+tem ictal rm base aWch included a Loral of 1,407 properties of 10i13f4025 Neighborhoods Reviewed 12 Appeals Value Reduction $ 219,893,471 Properties w/Value Change 432 Neighborhood Review Value Reduction $ 23,519,300 t Total Value Reduction ; 243,412,771 0.78% Number mf proper alai a pxi .d a chano M Value end entered 41-40 ale Computer Assisted rlaer Appraael(LAMA) AdeWed Badged assumed a 3%redacWrh In lax base due to appeata Estimated Value Reduction to Tax Base $ 936,162,977 3 5 6 7 8 36 1 Slide #4 Appeals by Neighborhood Report Percentage Per Neighborhood: Appeals Completed and Value Up dated decrees In value far the Number of appeals Dollar amount of the propeNes that Data as of: October 13 2025 whe a value was eduction in value due ozpe lanced a Nuo�er aF appeals where appeal has been completed and value Increased or decreased to appeal value ch�ge entered irrtd the Carl Assisted Mass Appraisal(CAMA) 1 ♦ ♦ 1 Neighborhood Completed&Value Updated Count w/Change Value Reduction Total Percent of Reduction 7104-7MCMASTERS 70 66 4,485,100 2.7% 6011-6DRYLNDS 53 41 4,247,103 12.9% 4702-4 HISTORIC 49 36 2,340,800 7.5% 7492-7LKFORESTI 41 32 4,099,100 9,2% 7172-7FRANKRSMRY 37 27 3,879,700 9.9% 4005-4NASHLAT 32 16 480,100 6.1% 7418-7BRIARCLIFF 34 26 1,249,000 6.7% 7102-7GRHMSUNSET 33 32 1,601,300 4.6% ORANGE COUNTY a NOwrH CAROLINA 2 3 Commissioner McKee asked if the people in the neighborhoods have been informed of 4 the value changes. 5 Travis Myren explained the process for property owners to be notified of a change in 6 value. He said that the 432 properties have been notified. 7 8 Slide #5 O.eroo Low%Y Irlrwnot9 APpxA 1025 Informal Appeals by Neighborhood ': L I� • 95.5%of informal appeals have been completed 17 informal appeals are pending ♦�. ,g • "'t ,g} , yd4�a} _ F 64% or 2,134 of informal appeals resulted in a value change (primarily reductions) All appeals completed by mid-December 2025 " l 10 37 1 Slide #6 a�c�x w.�i ncx„m aoas A Formal Appeals by Neighborhood 39.6%of formal appeals have been completed �! 630 formal appeals are pending A, 81% or 236 of formal appeals resulted in a value change (primarily reductions) - For all appeals completed (informal +formal) $41,600 median decrease for residential properties $80,600 median decrease for nonresidential properties 7 All appeals completed by mid-December 2025 - f 3 Commissioner Carter asked how multi-family residential is valued. 4 Travis Myren said that any property with five or more units is valued as commercial 5 property. 6 Commissioner Greene said it is because it is income generating. 7 Commissioner Carter asked if it was possible to see a map distribution within each 8 neighborhood where there have been appeals showing the dollar values. She said this would be 9 with respect to the feedback they've heard about the size of the changes. 10 Travis Myren said it would probably be easier to get a list of property changes with the 11 dollar value. 12 Commissioner Carter asked if after the appeals property, the price related bias and price 13 related differentials would shift. 14 Travis Myren said they would shift because the values are changing. He asked if she is 15 thinking of a post-appeal equity analysis. 16 Commissioner Carter said yes. 17 Commissioner Fowler said she agreed with that idea. 18 Commissioner McKee asked if any report would include a cause. 19 Chair Bedford said that would come from the tax revaluation work group. 20 Commissioner Carter said the work group would meet on October 31. 21 Commissioner McKee requested that meetings be publicized so that the public can 22 participate. 23 24 38 1 Slide #7 orange coLmty roar ReMW Neighborhood - Reviews Tax Office identified 171 neighborhoods for additional review Pink-outside 86 outside statistical standards statistical standards for vertical equity - Teal-<5 sales; 76 had fewer than five sales selected by Tax Office and appeared to require review for consistency and ^ ,- l '� • Orange-identified by reasonableness the Orange County 19 identified by the Orange Property Tax Justice County Property Tax Justice - Coalition Coalition Ilk -- ORANGE COUNTY 7 NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #8 Appeals by Neighborhood Report wRigre wWa ons reducl�n h vaWe duo aicrQWee n Ek-11 W 49d r WIW i Neighborhood Date ReulewCompleted Value Change Notices Adjusted Bills ofpropertiesw/Value Change Total Value Reducdon 7021 5 7025 7027 i 7042 $ 7044 $ 7048 S 7102 8125/21125 9/2012025 9/2012025 fib 7104 812512025 912012025 912012025 277$ 15,721;900 1601 S s ORANGE RTH CAROLINANY 5 6 7 39 1 Slide #9 Neighborhoods on Both Reports Appeals Report 104-7MCMASTERS 70 fib 4,485,100 1.746 • Value adjusted on 66 properties due to appeal Neighborhood Review,Rep ort__ 7161 - �:l�i4r 9�jlV t7l$ 15� 1404 • Value adjusted on 277 properties due to neighborhood review ORANGE COUNTY 9 *:�)1z i t r CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #10 Neighborhood Reviews 12 reviews completed to date 432 assessed values were changed Total assessed value reduced by 523,519,30307 Starting with neighborhoods identified by the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition Completing extensive field work to verify home and site characteristics Move to neighborhoods with most appeals a As appeals decrease, intensity of field work will decrease - Throughput will increase Properties with value changes will be sent change notices 15 days to appeal value change to Board of Equalization and Review All reviews targeted for completion by mid-November 10 ON O TH CAROLINA 5 6 Travis Myren said they are considering bringing in more staff resources to complete 7 reviews by the target date in November. 8 9 40 1 Slide #11 Questions? ORANGE COUNTY N<11Y1'H[:Altf).FJ NA 2 3 Commissioner Fowler said that she and Commissioners Carter and Portie-Ascott met with 4 the County Manager and included many of the concerns expressed by Commissioner McKee. 5 She said they want to make sure the appeals can be finished by the end of the year. She said 6 that the work group will be looking at how to make it more equitable in a proactive way. 7 Commissioner McKee said that when meeting with the community the revaluation and the 8 tax burden on residents was of the most concern. 9 Commissioner Carter said the tax revaluation work group has community members on it 10 to ensure their input. She said they are bringing other outside experts in, such as the Department 11 of Revenue. She listed some of the other groups represented on the work group. 12 Commissioner McKee said he wants to preserve the trust the community has in them. 13 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she would like to understand how much field work someone 14 does. She said that with vertical equity issues, there may issues in the way that the assessments 15 are being done. She said it may require looking at assumptions, such as the schedule of values. 16 She asked if field work still needs to happen. She said that another county brought their schedule 17 of values to the public for input. She said that she hopes the tax revaluation work group will 18 consider how that fits in to the bigger picture. 19 Commissioner Fowler said they want to also look at horizontal equity, between residential 20 and commercial. She said that commercial has had a relative discount compared to residential. 21 She said they will be looking at legal remedies for that. 22 23 8. Consent Agenda 24 25 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 26 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 27 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 28 29 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to 30 approve the consent agenda. 31 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33 34 a. Minutes for September 16, 2025 Business Meeting and September 25, 2025 Joint 35 Meeting with Schools 36 The Board approved the draft minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. 37 b. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment#3 38 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 39 2025-26. 41 1 c. Memorandum of Understanding Between Orange County and Town of Hillsborough for 2 the Solar Feasibility Study, and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A 3 The Board: 4 1) Approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Orange County and the 5 Town of Hillsborough for a Solar Feasibility Study of properties owned by the Town of 6 Hillsborough; 7 2) Authorized the County Manager to execute the MOU, subject to final review by the 8 County Attorney, and any subsequent amendments on behalf of the Board; 9 3) Approved and authorized the County Manager to execute a Professional Services 10 Contract with Pisgah Energy and a written exemption from North Carolina General 11 Statute 143-64.31, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and any subsequent 12 amendments on behalf of the Board; and 13 4) Approved Budget Amendment #3-A to provide for the receipt of revenue from the Town 14 of Hillsborough and the total cost of the project. 15 d. Approval of an Amendment to the Freedom House FY 2024-25 Contract for Opioid 16 Funding 17 The Board approved an amendment to the FY 2024-25 Services Agreement with Freedom House 18 Recovery Center, Inc. to extend the end date from June 30, 2025 to December 31, 2025 in order 19 for Freedom House to fully utilize all approved Opioid funding. 20 e. Approval of the North Carolina Arts Council Grant Contract for the 2025-26 Grassroots 21 Arts Program 22 The Board approved the 2025-26 Grassroots Arts Program grant contract with the North Carolina 23 Arts Council (NCAC). 24 f. Authorization for County Manager to Sign the State Bureau of Investigation Non- 25 Criminal Justice Access Agreement 26 The Board authorized the County Manager to execute the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) 27 Non-Criminal Justice Access Agreement, enabling compliance with new statutory hiring 28 requirements. 29 g. Approval of Amendments to the Orange County Code of Ordinances Section 28 — 30 Personnel Regarding Law Enforcement Special Separation Allowance 31 The Board adopted a resolution: 32 1) Approving amendments to the Orange County Code of Ordinances Chapter 28 — 33 Personnel, Section 28-38 - Retirement (j) (2) regarding the Special Separation 34 Allowance for law enforcement officers to incorporate changes in accordance with 35 Session Law 2025-8, which amended North Carolina General Statute §143-166.42; and 36 2) Approving other minor language amendments to Section 28-38 - Retirement. 37 h. Boards and Commissions —Appointments 38 The Board approved the Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed 39 during the October 14, 2025 Work Session. 40 41 9. County Manager's Report 42 Travis Myren had no comments. 43 44 10. County Attorney's Report 45 John Roberts no comments. 46 47 11. *Appointments 48 None. 49 50 42 1 12. Information Items 2 3 • October 7, 2025 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 4 • Memorandum — Broadband Project Update 5 6 13. Closed Session 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to enter 8 into closed session at 9:45 p.m. for the purposes listed below: 9 10 "To discuss the county's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the 11 negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," pursuant to 12 NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5), and for the approval of closed session minutes. 13 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15 16 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION 17 18 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to 19 reconvene into regular session at 10:11 p.m. 20 21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22 23 24 Adjournment 25 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 27 adjourn the meeting at 10:11 p.m. 28 29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30 31 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 32 33 34 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board 35 36 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board