Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 01-20-2026; 8-a - Minutes for November 14, 2025, November 18, 2025, November 21, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 9, 2025 Meetings 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Action Agenda Item No. 8-a SUBJECT: Minutes for November 14, 2025, November 18, 2025, November 21, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 9, 2025 Meetings 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: November 14, 2025 Retreat Attachment 2: November 18, 2025 Business Meeting Attachment 3: November 21, 2025 Retreat Attachment 4: December 1, 2025 Business Meeting Attachmnet 5: December 9, 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 RETREAT 5 November 14, 2025 6 8:00 a.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a retreat on Friday, November 14, 2025 at 9 8:00 a.m. at Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton, 12 and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin 17 Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below) 19 20 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m.All commissioners were present. 21 Chair Bedford welcomed everyone to the meeting. She announced that the County 22 Attorney, John Roberts, had a meeting this morning and would join as soon as possible. 23 Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, thanked the Board for their investment in 24 learning more in preparation for the Land Use Plan. He explained the purpose of grouping the 25 topics of septic systems, community septic systems, groundwater, and community wells. He 26 emphasized that water and sewer access through OWASA or municipal utilities presents a 27 different conversation than development in rural county areas. 28 29 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information 30 1. Community Septic and Wastewater Treatment 31 Chair Bedford welcomed Tony Whitaker, Professional Engineer. Tony Whitaker 32 introduced himself as a long-term Orange County resident and professional engineer with 40 33 years of experience in the land development industry, primarily in the Orange County, Chapel 34 Hill, and Durham area. He said he is currently on the Orange County Board of Health but is not 35 speaking on behalf of that board today. He made the following presentation: 36 37 Slide #1 Community Wastewater Systems November 14,2025 Tony Whitaker, PE 38 2 1 Slide #2 Onsite Wastewater Systems 1. General 4. Operational Monitoring • Ownership Options 5. Community Systems • Regulatory Authority • Advantages • Individual vs. Community • Disadvantages Ownership 6. Failures 2. Treatment • Components • Importance of Soil • Solutions • Effluent Standards • Historical example • Treatment Methods 7. Reflections • Advanced Pre-Treatment 8. Policy Considerations 3. System Costs 9. Questions 2 3 4 Slide #3 Definitions Onsite Wastewater System A treatment system located on or near the property that generates the wastewater being treated, and which disperses the effluent to the soil for final treatment. Community Wastewater System A single onsite system that serves more than one residential or commercial property. 5 6 Tony Whitaker explained that an on-site wastewater system treats wastewater close to 7 its source with effluent dispersed to soil, which provides both a place for water to go and 8 thorough treatment. He defined community wastewater systems as single systems serving more 9 than one separately owned property. 10 11 3 1 Slide #4 Wastewater System Ownership Options Private Public • Individual Property Owner • Local Government • Property Owner Association • State Government • Mobile Home Park Owner • Public Utility (e.g., OWASA) • Business or Non-Profit Entity • Sanitary District • Regulated Water Company 2 3 Tony Whitaker noted he has not seen any prohibitions on who can own a wastewater 4 system. He listed various potential owners, including private companies, individuals, nonprofits, 5 regulated water companies, and public entities like sanitary districts. 6 7 Slide #5 Onsite WWS Regulatory Authority in NC Dept of Health and Human Services r Dept of EnvironmentalQuality r • Has authority over systems that use subsurface dispersal � • Systems that use • Reviews system designs � surface dispersal I • systems that I discharge to surface Local Health Enginee -• Option No formal relationship Department(LHr - • with local Health Departments • Issues permits, • Private engineer � . provides notice to local provides inspections designs the system and I and enforcement issues permits HD upon permit I issuance 8 9 Tony Whitaker explained jurisdictional authority, noting that systems are regulated by two 10 state departments. The Department of Environmental Quality regulates surface dispersal 11 systems, while the Department of Health and Human Services oversees subsurface systems, 4 1 which is the focus for Orange County. He highlighted a significant regulatory change with the 2 engineered option permit (EOP), which came about 8-9 years ago. Under this system, private 3 engineers can design systems, avoid the regulatory review process by essentially standing in 4 the shoes of the regulatory agency, administer their own quality control of the drawings that they 5 produced, and issue a permit for construction for that system. He noted that state regulatory 6 staff now review only about 10 percent of big system designs, with about 90 percent going 7 under this private option. He emphasized that this is a significant change. 8 9 Slide #6 Individual System vs. Community System Conventional ClusteTSeptic Septic System System D.nkq We 10 11 Tony Whitaker explained that in an individual system, each house would have its own 12 septic tank and private distribution lines extending into the yard for dispersal. In contrast, a 13 community system serving four homes would have individual septic tanks for each home that 14 connect to a more centralized, compact dispersal field. This system is supported by common 15 pumping and control mechanisms that manage the effluent distribution, allowing the cluster 16 dispersal field to effectively serve all four homes as a single entity. This setup not only requires a 17 smaller total land area but also enhances land use efficiency, particularly when advanced 18 treatment levels are implemented, allowing for more compact neighborhood designs. 19 Chair Bedford asked about the relationship between topography and well water 20 placement relative to septic drain systems. 21 Tony Whitaker explained that while it's generally preferred for wells to be uphill from 22 septic systems, one can't always infer that groundwater is flowing like surface water is flowing. 23 He emphasized that horizontal separation is the key factor for protecting wells from wastewater 24 systems. 25 Chair Bedford asked about whether developers grade plots to use gravity flow. 26 Tony Whitaker said that it is preferred but not always feasible, and many community 27 systems use STEP (septic tank effluent pump) systems to get effluent from individual homes to 28 common dispersal areas. 29 Commissioner Greene said the Fiddlehead project proposal had that sort of system 30 where there was a pump between individual homes and the field. 5 1 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what science/evidence is behind what horizontal separation 2 does, and if there is a certain distance required. 3 Tony Whitaker explained that these regulatory requirements are a simplified proxy for a 4 complicated process. He described how wastewater trickles downward from dispersal lines, 5 gets treated, and then mingles with groundwater flow patterns. For wells, the casing is driven 6 down below the bedrock level so shallow groundwater cannot enter, and horizontal distance 7 helps ensure the plume of water from the drain field doesn't reach the well directly. 8 Vice-Chair Hamilton said it would be interesting to know when that science was 9 developed and if it actually tracks, especially if there is a big system with lots of homes or 10 different wells. 11 Tony Whitaker said many large systems have monitoring wells that are drilled to test 12 along the perimeter in the expected direction of groundwater flow on the downslope side of the 13 wastewater system. He explained that this is where samples are taken to determine if 14 groundwater is within normal standards. As the system is operated, it can be compared to early 15 control samples. He said a lot of communities don't use monitoring wells, but if there is a 16 concern about groundwater impacts, they can be required. 17 Cy Stober said the next presenter can speak to community well monitoring, which is also 18 a requirement of community wells. 19 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what happens to solids during treatment. 20 Tony Whitaker said the septic tank provides primary treatment, which includes straining 21 out the solids. He said things that float will do so and remain captured, things that sink, sink to 22 the bottom, and all the septic tank outlets have a filter that strains things bigger than 1/16- 23 floating stuff does not leave, settled things don't leave, and what remains begins a biological 24 breakdown in the tank and is converted to liquid and other gases. He said tanks still need 25 pumping every 4-5 years. 26 27 John Roberts arrived at 8:35 am. 28 29 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if this is a natural process. 30 Tony Whitaker said yes, biological activity is important to the breakdown of material. 31 Commissioner Fowler asked about the expense of a community system vs. more 32 individual systems. 33 Tony Whitaker said he has a slide coming up on that. 34 Cy Stober said that if there are safety measures the Board would like to include, they 35 can put these regulations in place in the UDO, like monitoring systems. 36 Commissioner McKee said if that is discussed, the Board also needs to discuss the 37 costs involved. 38 39 6 1 Slide #7 How Do Community Systems Differ From Individual Systems? 1. Larger and more complex 5. Subject to higher design 2. Common elements owned by standards (due to size and HOA and located on HOA land complexity; not due to 3. Common expenses are common ownership) typically shared by all users 6. Operated professionally with 4. Some homes contribute more more robust monitoring, wastewater than others inspections and reporting 2 3 Tony Whitaker highlighted #5, and said that even though these community systems are 4 subject to higher design standards in the state regulations, it's not because it's under common 5 ownership, but is because the system is just larger. 6 7 Slide #8 s What about the Soil? 1. Soil used for dispersal must be: a. Able to absorb and treat effluent b. Appropriately located u• c. Sufficient in area 2. Soil meeting this criteria is in very limited supply in Orange County 3. Enhanced treatment or dispersal f `` types are required for more limiting , soil conditions s. va V 4. Some soils are not usable at all 9 7 1 Tony Whitaker said soil is the most important part of the on-site wastewater system. He 2 said suitable soil for these types of systems is in short supply in Orange County. He said parcels 3 may have a little bit of suitable soil for these systems, but in general, this reality limits 4 development in rural counties in this piedmont area of the state. He said this is a precious 5 resource that is limited. 6 Commissioner Fowler asked if the dispersal field could be put between trees. 7 Tony Whitaker said it's possible, but the dispersal field will last longer without trees. 8 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the soil analysis and suitability would be clear when 9 a project comes before the Board. 10 Tony Whitaker said the county plays a part in determining if the soil is suitable, but there 11 are some nuances, and he will address those later in his presentation. 12 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what else soils that are suitable for wastewater systems are 13 also good for. 14 Tony Whitaker said it could be suitable for farming, building roads, etc. 15 Commissioner McKee said there probably isn't a direct link to farming, because he has 16 some soil that is not good for wastewater systems, but it is one of the best farming fields he has. 17 Tony Whitaker said that may have something to do with the depth or a limiting condition 18 like rock that would make it not usable for wastewater systems but has upper layers that are 19 good for farming. 20 Commissioner McKee said another factor is the airspace between the soil particles. 21 22 Slide #9 Usual Wastewater Constituents of Concern • Biological Oxygen Demand (BO❑-5, CBOT) • Total suspended Solids (TSS) • Various types and measures of Nitrogen compounds (Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, TKN, TN) • Fecal Coliform (primarily as an indicator of other sickness-causing pathogens in the water) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 8 1 Slide #10 Standards for Effluent Quality Septic Tank Effluent I<------------ Advanced Pre-Treatment ---------->1 ANSI J ' BOD-5: 350 mg/I CBOD: 15 CBOD: ill TSS: 100 mg/I TSS: 15 TSS: 10 TKN: 100 mg/I NH3: 10 NH3: 10 7 to 15 x better than DSE 2 3 Tony Whitaker said success in wastewater treatment is measured by how well 4 concentrations of certain undesirable characteristics or constituents can be removed, which are 5 represented on this slide. He said the left represents the least treated effluent standard, and 6 they are increasingly well treated moving to the right. The concentrations listed are the 7 maximum allowable concentrations that are generally allowed to flow out of a septic tank and 8 then be directly dispersed to good, suitable soil for further treatment. However, he said most 9 water coming out of a septic system is better. 10 Chair Bedford asked what BOD means. 11 Tony Whitaker said, Biological Oxygen Demand, is a measure of the load of certain 12 kinds of bacteria and biological components that consume oxygen as they break down, so that 13 when the load is sent downstream to oxygenated water, the change to the oxygenation levels in 14 that water can be observed. 15 Commissioner Bedford asked him to elaborate on TSS and TKN. 16 Tony Whitaker said TSS refers to Total Suspended Solids, and TKN is a combination of 17 different types of nitrogen. He noted that these standards are for the water that's applied to the 18 soil. He said if the soil is very limited, it could do some treatment, but not great treatment; 19 advanced pretreatment may be needed, which takes that water to a higher level of treatment 20 before it is dispersed. He said the water is 7 to 15 times better with advanced pretreatment than 21 the DSE standard, but it comes at a high cost. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 9 1 Slide #11 Comparison of Treatment Methods Basic Septic Tank Soil Primary Dispersal into Final Onsite Treatment Soil Treatment System DSE DSE Advanced Septic Tank Soil Onsite Primary Advanced Pre- Dispersal into Final Treatment Treatment 1 Soil L Treatment System DSE TS-1 or TS-11 T5-1 or TS-II Package Septic Tank Treatment Primary Advanced Pre- Discharge to Treatment Treatment Ditch/Stream System DSE TS-1 or T5-I1 2 3 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if a regional package treatment system works the 4 same way as the package treatment system shown on the slide. 5 Tony Whitaker said that the term may refer to a large system that serves more than one 6 neighborhood or even a region of a county. 7 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if there is a difference between the advanced pretreatment 8 system for the advanced on-site system and for the package treatment system. 9 Tony Whitaker said it would depend on the size. He said there would not necessarily 10 have to be a difference because the manufacturers that make the advanced pretreatment units 11 make them in different scales for individual homes vs. neighborhoods. 12 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if one of the differences is that the package treatment system 13 does not include the extra opportunity to have the soils clean the water. 14 Tony Whitaker said that is correct, but virtually all discharge systems are required to go 15 to these TS1 or TS2 levels, and often use radiation or ultraviolet treatment for disinfection. 16 Commissioner Carter asked if advanced pre-treatment systems address PFAS and 17 heavy metals. 18 Tony Whitaker explained that these systems aren't designed for heavy metals, though 19 some might be bound in treatment. 20 Commissioner McKee asked if the water is theoretically drinkable after advanced pre- 21 treatment. 22 Tony Whitaker said it is not quite up to drinking water standards, which would be off the 23 chart of the last slide, but it is getting close. 24 25 The Board recessed for a break at 9:05 AM. 26 27 28 29 30 10 1 Slide #12 Why Use Advanced Pre-Treatment? Overcome a Limiting Site Condition or Increase System Capacity 2 3 Chair Bedford asked if OWASA's sewer treatment plant is like a massive package 4 treatment system with the addition of chlorination treatment. 5 Tony Whitaker said municipal systems like OWASA, use other processes to simulate the 6 biological activity, like activated sludge. He emphasized that these processes are still about 7 using natural biological processes to affect biochemical changes. 8 Chair Bedford asked if OWASA also discharges wastewater into the stream once 9 treated. 10 Tony Whitaker said yes. 11 Commissioner Carter asked what the difference was between monitoring in a system 12 like OWASA's vs. a package treatment system. 13 Tony Whitaker said OWASA is required to report to the state and are highly regulated in 14 terms of the quality of discharge. He said they also likely do test every day for some particles. 15 He explained why someone would use advanced pretreatment despite the expense. He said 16 advanced pretreatment is a way to overcome limiting site or soil conditions and increase system 17 capacity. He explained that given the same amount of soil and the same type of soil, it's 18 possible to have a bigger system with advanced pretreatment, which means more homes on the 19 same soil for a developer. 20 21 11 1 Slide #13 Estimated Installation and Maintenance Costs Installation,Not Monitoring and Maintenance and System Description Including Design Testing,Annually Repairs,Annually Conventional system $9,000-$12,000 - $100-$200 I � 3 7 0 With pump $16,000-$20,000 $300-$400 v, m D ° Innovative system $25,000-$50,000 S0_$11000 $300-$400 _ a With Advanced Pre- $45,000-$75,004 $750-$1,500 $300-$400 Treatment ° Without Advanced 2 v Pre-Treatment $20,000'$40,000 $200-$300 $300-$400 a a E With Advanced Pre-J-7 Treatment $40,000-$60,004 $300-$500 $400-$600 2 3 Tony Whitaker said these costs are derived from his conversations with professionals in 4 the industry. He presented installation costs ranging from $9,000-$75,000 for individual 4- 5 bedroom homes and $20,000-$60,000 per lot for community systems. He emphasized the wide 6 ranges reflect custom designs, site conditions, material choices, and contractor pricing 7 variations. He noted potential economies of scale with community systems, though site-specific 8 factors can counterbalance savings. Tony Whitaker noted that individual homes with advanced 9 treatment face disproportionate testing costs compared to community systems, where costs are 10 distributed among multiple owners. 11 12 Slide #14 NC DH HS Onsite Wastewater System Types Inspection Inspection 1 + rangCounty Type Composting Toilet Owner None None N T � x Single family with m Owner None None v CL Type If conventional dispersal E Some types of non- cr V Type III conventional dispersal Owner 5 years if a pump 5 years if a pump 0)b rLPP dispersal,shared Certified Operator or Annually or Semi- E Type IV 5 or 3 years V I elements,etc. Public Mgmt.Entity annually I DSE n 3000 gpd,AP c Certified Operator or I Type V Annually-Weekly Annually I 3000 gpd,etc. Public Mgmt.Entity Certified Operator or I L Type WI —AP 3000 gpd — — Monthly-Daily —Semi-annually Public Mgmt.Ent6ty 13 Any Community System will be classified as Type IV,V or VI. 12 1 Tony Whitaker said any community system will be one of three types: Type IV, V, or VI, 2 which all require professional management and regular inspections by both management 3 entities and local health departments. 4 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if lot size affects per-lot costs for community systems 5 Tony Whitaker said it depends on the size of the lot and the distance away from the 6 common features. He said larger or longer infrastructure may be required to get the water 7 transferred to the common features, which could drive prices up. That is one of the factors that 8 would be considered when thinking about whether it is more economical to have a community 9 system or an individual lot system. 10 11 Slide #15 Community System Advantages L CL C 7 Advantages C3 u° X X 1. More effective use of limited soil resources X X 2. Better neighborhood design with clustered lots X X 3. Supports a higher lot yield, within limits X 4. HOA control and responsibility X 5. Requires professional operational management X 6. Can provide much better effluent quality (if AP is used) X 7. Common maintenance not subject to family budget choices X 8. Opportunity for BOCC to influence system characteristics 12 13 Tony Whitaker presented his subjective views on community system advantages, 14 including efficient land and resource use, better neighborhood design potential, clustered lots, 15 professional management requirements, and opportunities for the county to influence system 16 design and impose conditions. 17 Commissioner Fowler asked if the Board members should be concerned if the dispersal 18 field looks like it takes up a large part of the lot in a project that comes before them. 19 Tony Whitaker said if there isn't an individual well on the lot, there is more flexibility to 20 have a dispersal system if there is good soil. He said if there isn't good soil, it may not work well. 21 Cy Stober said the lots that came up at the most recent public hearing, which 22 Commissioner Fowler was referencing, had limitations on any additions or accessory structures 23 being constructed on those lots because they're either the drain field or the repair area. He said 24 those homeowners would be limited to improving their private property because the land is 25 consumed by the drain field or the repair area. 26 Tony Whitaker said procedurally, community systems provide an opportunity for the 27 Board to influence system design and impose conditions that would not be possible for 28 individual systems. 29 30 13 1 Slide #16 Community System Disadvantages CL } Disadvantages �+ o a u X 1. Higher costs may work against attainable housing goals X 2. System problems and costs affect all property owners X X 3. Some maintenance costs are still incurred by household X X 4. HOA control and responsibility X 5. Can be a higher installation cast,on a per-lot basis X 6. Developer bears costs of design and most of installation 2 3 For disadvantages, Tony Whitaker listed potentially higher costs affecting affordable 4 housing goals, the "if it fails, everybody is impacted" concern, questions about HOA capability to 5 manage systems, and the significant upfront cost burden on developers who must construct 6 entire systems initially rather than leaving septic installation to individual builders. 7 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked about construction timing. 8 Tony Whitaker explained that under the EOP process, once the wastewater system is 9 permitted for construction, building permits can be sought, with the presumption that system and 10 home construction occur simultaneously. 11 12 Slide #17 Failure of System Components Replacement Durability for Materials System Long-Term Readily Relative Cost Component Service Available? to Replace Tanks HIGH YES $$$ Filters MEDIUM YES $ Pumps MEDIUM YES $ Controls& MEDIUM YES $$ Alarms Advanced Pre- HIGH YES $$$ Treatment Units Dispersal Field MED-HIGH YES $$$ (Repair Field) 13 14 Tony Whitaker said generally, the things that cost the most have the highest durability. 15 He said high durability means that the part should not have to be replaced again during the life 16 of the system. 17 14 1 Slide #18 What Happens When Something Fails? 1. is the failure known by the property owner? 2. Is the problem discovered early or late? 3. Is it a matter of normal maintenance 1 repair? 4. Or something more serious? 5. Is correction optional?...or mandatory? 6. Is the owner motivated to fix it? 7. Are funds available to fix it? Answers to these questions may be more satisfying for a Community system than for an Individual system 2 3 Commissioner McKee asked to return to the previous slide. He asked what happens if, 4 after a drain field fails, a repair area also fails. 5 Tony Whitaker said sometimes a dispersal field can benefit from resting, so it is possible 6 that the original drain field could be used again, but not if the system fails in a way that isn't 7 repairable. 8 Commissioner McKee asked if that option is more or less likely on a smaller lot. 9 Tony Whitaker said if there is advanced pre-treatment, there wouldn't be an issue. 10 Otherwise, the smaller the dispersal area, the higher the chance that there won't be a 11 recoverable repair. He said community systems are also valuable because individual owners 12 may not know that their system is failing until there is a dire situation, whereas community 13 systems require more intense inspections. 14 15 Slide #19 Historical Perspective: Piney Mountain Neighborhood Permit Approval 1992 Transfer of Regulatory Maio r Defects Licensed in 1987 by: Authority to: Delegation to: ID'd in 1993 by: Operator NC DEHNR-DEM NC DEHNR-QHS OC Health Dept OC Health Dept Dissolved 1993 58 single family lots in Rural Buffer _ F Soil ' Not fully built out when problems found Evalua- Dispersal tion Design Er Identified by OCHD . Dispersal Constr- field and repair field not suitable uction I— Resolved via OWASA&Durham cooperation Has left a lasting negative impression peration .• 16 F Multiple Problem Areas 15 1 Tony Whitaker presented a detailed analysis of the Piney Mountain neighborhood failure, 2 describing it as 58 lots in the rural buffer permitted in 1987. After about five years, the inspection 3 authority transferred to the Orange County Health Department, which had never been involved 4 in the system's design. Upon inspection, the county discovered the system was in a terrible 5 state, finding that dispersal piping hadn't been fully installed, the repair area was unsuitable, the 6 primary area was 80 percent unsuitable soil, and there was effluent on the ground surface. The 7 county stopped issuing building permits, leading to turmoil and lawsuits. Ultimately, OWASA and 8 the City of Durham provided a public sewer connection, allowing the on-site system to be 9 abandoned. He identified five problem areas in the Piney Mountain case but emphasized two 10 "fatal flaws": soil evaluation and dispersal design that made that system unable to function. He 11 quoted the county engineer at the time who said the system "could never perform adequately 12 regardless of funds spent." Despite this, he concluded that this system and all its negative 13 experiences are not an indictment of community wastewater systems but rather an indictment of 14 bad actors who were allowed by the regulatory agency to act badly. As a counterexample, he 15 described Hardscrabble Plantation in Durham County, built in the early 1990s using the same 16 technology, but which has been in continuous successful operation since the early 1990s. He 17 also mentioned touring a commercial system in Chatham County operating successfully for 15 18 years with twice-weekly professional oversight. 19 Commissioner Carter asked what regulations need to be in place to prevent this. 20 Tony Whitaker responded that Orange County's major subdivision procedures in the 21 UDO already require developers to stake out soil areas for dispersal, have county staff evaluate 22 them, and provide an assessment before preliminary plat applications. This would theoretically 23 solve the Piney Mountain fatal flaw problem. However, he warned that the state has been slowly 24 eroding local health departments' abilities to have anything to say about these system designs, 25 causing consternation among health department staff statewide. 26 Commissioner McKee asked about inspection requirements for the Durham County 27 example. 28 Tony Whitaker said it was a Type 6 system requiring twice-weekly inspections due to its 29 size and complexity. The company doing inspections also does soil science work, engineering 30 design, and system operation, working for both the HOA and individual commercial property 31 owners. 32 33 Slide #20 Reflections 1. The regulatory environment for onsite wastewater systems doesn't differentiate between Individual and Community ownership status. 2. Community wastewater systems are inherently unique and customized. 3. Any Community system requires professional operational management. 4. The EOP process shifts significant regulatory functions to the private sector. 5. Current Orange County UDO procedures for Major Subdivision should prevent a repeat of the"fatal flaw"in the Piney Mountain community system. 6. Community systems present opportunities for the BOCC to shape wastewater system characteristics in ways not typically available for Individual systems. 34 16 1 Slide #21 Simplified Policy Options for Community Wastewater Systems • ` ' Tolerate 2 3 4 Slide #22 Policy Considerations for Community Systems Assess the level of confidence in: • Available technology Legal and Are community • Current and future NC administrative systems desirable for regulatory framework reviews needed Orange County? • Practitioners in the industry Assess Orange County's ability to assure good If desirable,should they be: practises related to design and operation: • Incentivized? • UDO Text,SUP conditions • Permitted in limited areas,or • Conditional Zoning conditions more broadly? Development Agreement per GS 160D . Permitted only with specific • HOA docs—maintenance fund,surety conditions or standards? • Administrative procedures 5 6 7 Slide #23 Questions? 8 17 1 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked about the impact of climate change on these systems. She 2 asked, as there are more flood events, how do these community and individual systems work 3 when there is more water in the ground? 4 Tony Whitaker said the state allows counties to have local rules for the time being. He 5 said Orange County has historically been looked to as a leader in the state on on-site 6 wastewater regulation. The current rules give the county the ability to have extra requirements 7 that can prevent water intrusion. However, dispersal fields don't work as well when they are 8 saturated from rainfall, of course, and some community systems are required to have additional 9 storage capacity in the tanks and not disperse water when it's extraordinarily wet, but disperse it 10 later. He said another mitigation effort would be to keep these wastewater systems out of 11 floodplains and near-term floodplains. He acknowledged that there isn't a great static answer to 12 what a floodplain is because it is always changing. He said municipal treatment plants are 13 facing the same questions, so it is not unique to community septic systems. 14 Vice-Chair Hamilton acknowledged that this is an issue with different types of systems 15 but pointed out that there is a difference between systems in who mitigates and pays for issues. 16 Commissioner Fowler thanked Tony Whitaker for his presentation. 17 18 The Board recessed for a break at 10:11 AM. 19 20 The Board reconvened at 10:23 a.m. 21 22 2. Groundwater Resources 23 C.J. Cornette, Professional Geologist, made the following presentation: 24 25 Slide #1 Community Wells: AKM Siting, Construction, APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.PC an a� Te st i n g C.J. Cornette, PG 26 27 18 1 Slide #2 Outline • Professional Background Public Supply Well Yield and Water • What is a Well? Quality Testing • The Hydrologic Cycle • Downhole Video Survey • Well Overview • 24-Hour Drawdown • Public Supply Well Overview - Water Quality Testing • Final Construction and Permitting • Public Supply Well Siting • Completion of(Trilling and Testing • Hydrogeologic Evaluation • Design and Construction • Setbacks • Well Drilling Costs • Public Supply Well Drilling ' Long-Term Well Health • Well Construction 2 ARM "► 3 4 Slide #3 Personal and Professional Background • Hometown: Hampstead, NC • Education: N • B.S. Geology-UNC CH • M.S. Geology-ECU • A Family of Geologists: • Mother and Father both Geologists... • And Licensed Well Drillers c=;osn1 .glut-iii ansIitute • Experience: • Geotechnical Geology • Environmental and Hydrogeologic Consulting ARM APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.PC 5 6 C.J. Corvette described his varied geological experience across the state and 7 internationally, noting he returned to work with his family business six years ago. 8 9 19 1 Slide #4 Applied Resource Management • Offices in Hampstead, Cary, Oriental, NC • 10 Level A Licensed Well Drillers • 7 drilling rigs • Multiple drilling and excavation crews Potable,irrigation,geothermal,and exploratory well capabilities A P, MA • Licensed scientists APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,PC • Geologists,soil scientists,environmental scientists • Design,modeling,and remediation work • Contract and subcontract with other drillers, scientists, and engineers across the state and beyond 2 3 In addition to the work detailed in slide #4, C.J. Cornette said his company also does a 4 lot of consulting work. 5 6 Slide #5 The Hydrologic Cycle • Humans need water "� `�"°°r' '°'• Prtcipnatron Eroporntion • The easiest connections in the hydrologic cycle are rivers. Orrrlond+unutt t • Wells allow humans to I Ground •o7tr ,° shortcut the hydrologic cycle with science and engineering. - - - Heath,1983.Basic Ground-water Hydrology A 8 Beginning with the hydrologic cycle, C.J. Corvette explained how wells create a shortcut 9 to the hydrologic cycle, allowing development away from surface water sources. 10 20 1 Slide #6 Well Overview Water-table Artesian • Well (n): A pit or hole well well sunk into the earth to Land surface o •Potentivmetric::.- reach water ufTOCe — — ` Z? N UNCONFINED SANG Qfr nIgeY� AQUIFER • Water-table vs Confined waler.l. . + :Nell screen � . rweLLs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- z CONFINING - - - - - - - - - - - - - o - - - - - - _- CLAY ^ BED _ _ _ _ - - - - • Sustainability and CONFINED Open susceptibility to LIMESTONE= heit c AQUIFER contaminants varies Heath,1983.Basic Ground-Water Hydrology 2 AAM 3 C.J. Cornette defined wells simply as a hole in the ground that water is pulled out of, 4 distinguishing between shallow water table wells in unconfined aquifers and deeper confined 5 aquifer wells. He emphasized that community wells target confined aquifers because they are 6 more protected from any contamination that happens at the surface. Shallow wells are 7 susceptible to contamination from various sources, including, for example, nitrate from fertilizer 8 from a property across the street. 9 10 Slide #7 Well Overview cont. • Well uses: • Extraction • Information • Resources like water,oil,minerals • Contaminants • Injection • Water • Heat • Treatments for contaminants • Monitoring • Drinking Water 11 AIM 12 C.J. Cornette said wells aren't just for water. He said boreholes can be drilled to examine 13 sediments and identify the type of rock under the surface, which can be used to advise a variety 21 1 of things, including wastewater applications for soil types, contaminants, etc. Conversely, he 2 said wells can be dug to inject something like heat, water, or treatments for contaminants. He 3 explained that monitoring wells provide the potential to monitor impacts over time, like the 4 leaching of contaminants into wells that are near landfills. that are. He said his main is focus on 5 drinking water and the extraction of drinking water responsibly and effectively. 6 7 Slide #8 Public Supply Wells Wells supplying water to greater than 15 residences • Installed to higher standards than private waterwells ••, r,r, • Water Quality A., Yield testing for sustainability p .• w • Managed by individuals or companies that maintain Drinking Water Operator Certifications through DEQ • 52%of NC residents obtain their waterfrom wells(NC Groundwater Association) $ AKM 9 C.J. Cornette said public supply wells, or community wells, colloquially, serve more than 10 15 residences, bringing them under greater state protections with higher installation standards 11 and more comprehensive water quality testing than private wells. He highlighted that 52% of 12 North Carolina residents obtain water from wells, with 7,683 community wells currently in the 13 state's database. 14 15 Slide #9 A1�M� Public Supply Well Siting • Topographic and lithologic trends 22 1 C.J. Corvette detailed the hydrogeologic evaluation process, examining topographic and 2 lithologic trends. He said Orange County's 2001 groundwater report is unique, and noted most 3 counties lack such comprehensive data. Using the map on the slide, he demonstrated 4 identifying topographic features like valleys that might indicate areas of geological interest. 5 6 Slide #10 ARM1 Public Supply Well Siting 2h@ . • Topographic anda w 0S lithologic trends { • Site geology r- .�"Jd!' Zhe Z Zgt Y '4 1 SrdAokw F e No�fi�l i 1lr Kakcr.�;,•r. 'G.nA.,nnde _ Zgd 8 C.J. Cornette explained that site geology includes various rock types: metavolcanics, 9 andesite or, andesitic and basaltic tufts, metavolcanics, and granodiorites, or diabase dikes. The 10 geological diversity provides opportunities for targeting specific formations for water yield. 11 12 Slide #11 A K M'� Public Supply Well Siting ,tl Zhe. a • Topographic and lit lag c i trends - ho �-- • Site geology ;_ f • • Regional well trends 3e _Jd I Zhe Tpyp�m ,. .• ivaSpm / �rA zq< • Pollutant setbacks • ~ �� •SO qpm S qPM 13 23 1 C.J. Cornette explained that each blue dot on the map represents a public supply well 2 that have been 24-hour drawdown tested and are publicly reported as in operation right now by 3 NCDEQ Public Water Supply. These public supply wells provide an understanding of how wells 4 in different rock types perform. He explained that by looking at well trends paired with geologic 5 trends gives an idea of how conducive a site is for a well before drilling begins. He said a well 6 the measures approximately a gallon per minute per residence is sufficient to support a 7 community. Despite the practice of prioritizing areas of high likelihood before drilling wells, he 8 explained that it's impossible to know for sure until drilling begins. The other factors allow for a 9 first glance to decide if it's even worth drilling. C.J. Cornette said with public water supply wells, 10 there are guidelines about how far a well can be drilled from certain setbacks. For example, 11 every community supply well must have a 100 ft radius controlled by the owners of the well, and 12 he said his company recommends a 110 ft radius. 13 14 Slide #12 Public Supply Well Siting Distance R_ _ Potential Source of Polludon • Setback requirements 100 • From anysanitary sewage disposal system,sewer,or sewer pipe unless sewer is constructed of water main materials and Itumm,In which the sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet from the well- 9 elt+ From buildings,mobile homes,permanent structures,animal houses or lots, cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied. • 1 00' radius controlled by the • From acherecalorp g secondary + From a chemical or petroleum Fuel underground storage tank with cnntalnment operators of the well + Froman other potential source of nitution not listed in this table. 200 + From a subsurface sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system designed for 3,000 or more gal tons of wastewater a day,unless your well water source Is a confined a infer. 300 • Froman camels or burial round. 500 From aseptage disposal stu. • Requires a PG or PE to • From a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without secondary containment, on area. submit a sealed letter to NC • From a sanitary boundary ofa ground noninahrclous Fromasanitary landfill or non-permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal site. DEQ certifying due diligence 1,000 . From a hazardous waste d sposal site ar in any locatlan which conMcts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Mana anent Nulesdted as 15ANCAC AfiL regarding setbacks 15 ARM a 16 17 24 1 Slide #13 Private Well vs Public Well Land Requirements • Private Wells require 50'from • Public Wells require 100' radius's septic` 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 "This is an approximate.Some of the larger setbacks for Public Welts can also impact Private wells(hazardous contamination), A Z .Eo, 1. - 3 C.J. Cornette illustrated the land use efficiency of community wells by comparing one 4 public well's 100-foot circle to 30 private wells' 50-foot circles at half scale. He noted one public 5 well can serve up to 49 connections, eliminating the need for 48 individual well setback circles. 6 7 8 Slide #14 AKM� FpPufO PffovOCF rn•xGFxExi.Oc Public Supply Well Construction • Drilling Rigs b a J 25 1 In this region, where crystalline rock is the norm, C.J. Corvette explained that air rotary 2 drilling is used. He said it is like an upside-down ballpoint pen with a hammer that pounds while 3 rotating, using air to lift rock cuttings out. This is different from mud rotary used in coastal areas. 4 5 Chart#1: f 10 was V Nq � A 6 7 C.J. Corvette used the illustration in chart #1 to show that casings function as straws, 8 getting past soils to access beneath the crystalline rock, with grout surrounding it to prevent 9 contamination. Well videos verify construction quality, with every community well videoed to 10 ensure standards are met. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 1 Slide #15 ARMU, Public Supply Well Construction • Casing to seal off surf icial aquifer f_ 1 3 Slide #16 AF,M VDtf O Pf f O W CF MaHOfwfxY.K Public Supply Well Construction • Open-hole rock bore or gravel- walled well 0 8 1: 5 C.J. Cornette said screens (like the picture on the left of slide #16) are put in place to 6 prevent sand and other natural sediments from falling into the well and water supply. The middle 7 picture shows a fracture in crystalline rock. He said these are hard, solid fractures that operate 8 as pipes flowing sideways through the ground that allows water to be pulled through into the 9 pump and up and out of the system. 27 1 Slide #17 ARM , Public Supply Well Testing • Drawdown testing for yield \�s • 24-hourtestingto determine sustainable yield vt rad COMM 43.2717 . � 1 i - , -632717 ';- 832717 J r � 103.2717 2 3 C.J. Corvette said drawdown testing involves 24-hour continuous pumping to certify 4 yield, contrasting with private wells' one-hour "airlift yield" estimates. He said he just completed 5 this type of test, and water levels and flow rates are monitored throughout. He explained that 6 steady state is achieved when the water level fall is 0.1 feet per hour or less. 7 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if the time of year impacts the drawdown. 8 C.J. Corvette said it can, but he explained that crystalline rock aquifers draw from distant 9 recharge regions, making them less susceptible to seasonal variations than shallow wells. He 10 noted that human demand, particularly lawn irrigation, typically has a more immediate impact 11 than weather changes. 12 Wesley Poole, Orange County Water Resources Coordinator, said Orange County 13 monitors 13 wells every two months with hourly data collection uploaded to USGS. 14 C.J. Corvette was glad to hear about this data collection and said it helps assess aquifer 15 resilience. 16 Cy Stober said Orange County also monitors surface waters. He said there are USGS 17 gauge stations on the Eno River, and as part of the nutrient monitoring program with the Upper 18 Neuse River Basin Association, there are numerous points of collection. He said this data helps 19 paint a picture of groundwater and surface waters. 20 C.J. Corvette said there are a lot of assumptions. He said he has drilled wells that have 21 great water, but had contaminants close by that resulted in the well-being unusable. He 22 explained that one of the biggest assumptions is the sameness of the rock (homogeneity) 23 between nearby formations. He said there is variation that occurs naturally. He said North 24 Carolina has some of the most complex geologic features of any of the states he's studied, and 25 each county is unique, because there is such variation and difference. He said geologists must 26 try to classify differences as the same. 27 Chair Bedford asked about the length of time for community well tests, recalling that he 28 said a well is supposed to be run for 12 hours. 28 1 C.J. Corvette said the standard is for a well to have a standard daily use of 12 hours. He 2 said, generally, there is a lot of water use in the morning and evening, but less throughout the 3 day. However, wells are tested for 24 hours to strain or stress them. 4 Commissioner Carter asked the hours of constant use could be decreased if there were 5 a containment system where water could be stored. 6 C.J. Corvette said yes, storage tanks can help manage drawdown. He said there are 7 storage requirements for public water supply to ensure demand can be met if it exceeds the 8 output of the wells. 9 10 Slide #18 Public Supply Well Testing • Water quality samples for N contaminants 503 • Collected during drawdown testing • Advises on filtration requirements • Significantly larger sample spread than private wells 12 C.J. Corvette emphasized that iron and manganese are common in Piedmont wells. 13 Community wells tests look for significantly more constituents than private wells, including PFAS 14 compounds, radiologicals, and various organic and inorganic chemicals. 15 Commissioner Carter asked about testing stringency for private wells in Orange County. 16 Commissioner Fowler said she thinks Orange County only requires coliform testing. 17 Tony Whitaker said that is correct. 18 C.J. Corvette noted the cost difference, mentioning PFAS testing requires expensive 19 mass spectrometry which is unavailable to most homeowners. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 1 Slide #19 Public Supply Well Testing rNrly �m . ` � :u 8=w F�pre. S ^9A 4 Igo ron oa .vA W.o® • Water quality samples for wWo ."" °'° �y.°.� o.asFs .yti moln contaminants "°' Aa0(yMfpObliN 10 mryL • Contaminants can be ZM° ^� MCI mP. L°br Plfs IS unb e5 wb natural or man-made ,a�M.Ia�,. ^w MI B5.SS wb 1.5 unb. - AWnay xwA..slmbn.a 103 n�yL W m- ,°nic°ewrm 1 P.r I00 irl Ps.wrq PF.roo,m • Inorganic chemicals pool roe_ os mpA o"K myt • `Synthetic organics • Vdlatile.S FPA sb P w�l Cr..i 4pu IS VCVL ND �CvL • Semivolatiles `"..ME m a� °"& n,a.maF seem.mmen.a x- xo rLlt sePaam uB a.eum..v. art rm xn_ • Radiologicals 6AAFIcnc ax N0,6id:MVAIEAGNPdRY STAt♦aP„a3.H�p,Ira.aMaw+°a�...v.xc-.�aawwa.raxmm • P FAS H FxN m..i,,.aMua R��u.,Fw,cPA.r.�F,e...+.ro.oa°I.�•o.+��.Aerr�e,..u. Olt 2 AF, 3 C.J. Corvette noted that contamination can be so high that it is untreatable without 4 extensive cost, so the well cannot be used. He added that there were 3 new PFAS added to the 5 watchlist for North Carolina recently. 6 7 Slide #20 Final Well drilling and Testing Report • Summarizes geology and well construction • Certifies construction meets 15A NCAC 02C standards • Certifies yield testing results • Provides water quality samples for State review and filtration design r l}G E ��♦iL F C St s 25gp G+ �NOGk`'S$a=x q RN.. g 9 10 30 1 Slide #21 It Takes a Team • After completion of drilling and testing, a distribution system engineer will need to be consulted with to design distribution,which leads to.... • Utility operator review • o • V. • NC DEQ final permitting after distribution design • Contractors for construction • What does this cost?What's next? 2 AKMVL 3 4 Slide #22 Well Drilling Costs • Expenses vary significantly per well • Drill costs influenced by: • Maintenance Costs: • Depth • Pump replacement • Surface Casing • Wellcleaning • Diameter Requirements • Water quality monitoring • Site Access 5 AF,M4► 6 7 Slide #23 ARM'1 Long-Term Well Health • Well lifespans generally range 30-50 years, but may be extended with proper maintenance. • Well cleaning and rehabilitation • Or additional well construction 'i. 31 1 C.J. Cornette said long-term maintenance includes well rehabilitation for mineral buildup 2 and biofilm formation. He said he performs 5-10 rehabilitations annually, using methods like 3 chemical treatment, high-pressure jetting, brushing, and development. He emphasized each 4 well's uniqueness in determining appropriate treatment methods. He said the higher 5 construction standards of community wells can provide confidence that the system is meant to 6 last. Regarding well longevity and failure, C.J. Cornette reported drilling about three 7 replacement wells annually for communities, with original wells often lasting 30+ years. He 8 stressed the importance of monitoring for issues like system leaks that can overtax wells and 9 the value of redundant well sites, though acknowledging space constraints in developments. 10 11 Slide #24 Long-Term Well Health • Regional groundwater trends may impact well lifespans beyond the control of operators. • Water mining • Contamination • Anthropogenic forcings 12 Ap 13 C.J. Corvette said groundwater trends are used to evaluate well health. If a whole region 14 or development is seeing low water, they might look at if the well is being run for more time than 15 it's supposed to be, or if there's more demand in the system, or if there's a leak in the system. 16 He said contamination can influence any active system at any time. He added that one of the 17 biggest takeaways in his career has been that humans, or anthropogenic forcings, seem to be 18 the most significant, measurable, and obvious way that wells and regional groundwater trends 19 are influenced. 20 21 32 1 Slide #25 Commissioner Questions . How do the types of rocks matter for water supply to wells? • Typseof rock matters to a great degree, but that is part of the whole for each site. Rack types vary from site to site and some rock types may be better in one region due to local deformations as opposed to other regions where they remain minimally altered. ■ Can any portion of our county be predictable or not for water supply aquifer? • Yes and no. Every well is different.We can use the information at our disposal to reduce the risk or randomness in dritling, but there will always be risk. ■ Can wells be tested ahead of approval for zoning change or building? • Yes, and they should be.This work can be completed prior to any development on a property. No development work should be undertaken without ensuring that well water(or another water source) can sustain the development. 2 3 Chair Bedford said there are community members who have opposed developments 4 because of the type of rock and the thought that it would lead to other wells in the area being 5 depleted. 6 C.J. Cornette said a community well is different than 40 wells that don't have a timer on 7 them or requirements for maximum use or review from the state. He reiterated that there are 8 more protections for sustainable drawdowns than with a private well. 9 Chair Bedford asked what the diabase rock specifically has to do with that. 10 C.J. Cornette said a diabase dike comes in and cuts through the middle of a type of 11 rock. He said this creates a channel that water could flow through, but is also a means for water 12 to be pulled out. In certain geologies, the dikes are more important to target than the other types 13 of rock because the other types of rock don't have as conducive water flow. However, any well 14 runs the risk of drawing down another well if it's close enough. He explained that the utilities and 15 professionals involved in a project will advise if a well is likely to interfere with something else. 16 Cy Stober asked for clarification on the relationship between the distance between wells 17 and the likelihood of influence. 18 C.J. Cornette said, generally speaking, the closer two wells are to each other, they more 19 influence they will have on one another. 20 Commissioner Carter asked if neighboring wells are factored into the testing for a new 21 well. 22 C.J. Cornette said there are no state requirements to test beyond a 100 ft. radius. 23 Vice-Chair Hamilton about the impact over time when a well is located close to the 24 headwaters of a stream. 25 C.J. Cornette referenced the depiction in chart#1: 26 33 W � In t 1 LM 2 C.J. Cornette explained that with proper casing depth (typically 50+ feet), wells shouldn't 3 directly affect surface streams. Springs fed by groundwater could potentially be affected by 4 upgradient wells, but deep crystalline rock wells are very likely not going to have a strong impact 5 on the stream nearby. 6 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if there are wells that are fed from streams underground. 7 C.J. Corvette said yes. He said if there's a site where the groundwater is feeding the 8 stream or is a spring and the water is tapped into uphill, it might remove the water from the 9 system. However, if the water is downhill and the water is already out on the surface, it may not. 10 He clarified that community wells are less likely to have an impact on a nearby stream than, for 11 example, a spring that someone puts in on their private residence. 12 Using the whiteboard, C.J. Cornette illustrated the concept of the cone depression, 13 showing how pumping creates a cone-shaped area of reduced water pressure around the well. 14 In confined aquifers, this represents pressure reduction rather than actual dewatering of the 15 formation. 16 Commissioner Fowler asked the presenter to confirm if deep wells are less likely to 17 affect the water table and groundwater. 18 C.J. Cornette said that is true if they are constructed well. 19 Commissioner McKee said his takeaway is that with all the variables, it is nearly 20 impossible to say whether one well will impact another well. 21 C.J. Cornette said if a second well is within a 500 ft. radius, they could test one while 22 doing a drawdown test in the other, and that is the internal guidance in his company. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 1 Slide #26 Commissioner Questions cont. • Impacting other we[Ls? • All wells run the risk of impacting other wells, community or private. Community wells are typically focused on due to the higher demand they require with more residences connected. However,the increased efficiency of operators and distribution systems with the higher scruple of regulatory agencies means they are also generally maintained and monitored to a higher degree than private wells. • 24-hour drawdown tests performed on community wells are a great opportunity to monitor nearby wells for fracture interconnectivity. 2 3 Slide #27 Commissioner Questions Cont. • Costs to drill? • This can vary widelyy,but the major expenses in drilling are the surface casing,well diameter,and dept} requirements. • wells with 100'or more surface casing become very expensive due to specialty equipment holding the borehole stable during casing installation and the expense of Larger piping materials for the casing. • Deeper wells are more expensive as greater depths frequently correlate with longer drill times. Footage prices increase with depth which coincides with those longer drill times. • Access to sites across difficult terrain and strict regulations on sedimentation during drilling can also increase prices. • Costs to maintain? • General maintenance is outside the scope of our work, but most operators will replace some of the mechanical equipment like Rumps and motors in time.Should not have to replace very frequently if properly maintained. • Mineral buiLd-up may also require well maintenance,but this can be reduced if the well is monitored and regulated appropriately. 4 5 6 7 8 9 35 1 Slide #28 Commissioner Questions cont. • Reliability? Failure Rates? • The strict requirements of NC DEQ help provide confidence that at the end of drawdown testing with water quality results,you have a final idea of long-term sustainability. However, any aquifer is subject to change with continued human or natural forces acting on it. • Aquifer change versus well change will vary per well. • In face of climate change? This is going to be a site-specific discussion, but most wells in the Piedmont are goingto be influenced by immediate anthropogenic forcings to a greater degree than global scale climate change. 2 3 C.J. Cornette said, generally, humans will impact wells more than climate change. 4 Commissioner Fowler asked about PFAS distribution. 5 C.J. Corvette indicated it's typically localized near sources, citing biosolids application as 6 a local example. He confirmed that iron and manganese filtration is standard and relatively 7 simple, while heavy metals treatment varies by specific constituent. 8 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about human impacts beyond lawn watering. 9 C.J. Corvette identified general consumption and, particularly, irrigation as major 10 impacts. He described situations where residents ignore watering restrictions. 11 12 Slide #29 Thank You! C.J. Cornette, PG Applied Resource Management, FC ARM 1135 Kildaire Farm Rd #200 APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,PC Cary, NC 27511 910.270.2919 (Office) cjc@armnc.com 13 14 15 36 1 Adjournment 2 3 The Board adjourned the meeting at 11:59 a.m. without a formal motion. 4 5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 7 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 8 9 10 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 11 12 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board. 13 Attachment 2 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 November 18, 2025 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, November 9 18, 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, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen 17 (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below). 18 19 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. 20 21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 22 A motion was made by Chair Bedford, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to remove item 23 6-a and add a closed session under item 13 to "consult with an attorney employed or retained by 24 the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the 25 public body," pursuant to NCGS 143-318(a)(3). 26 27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 28 29 Chair Bedford read the public charge. She reviewed the instructions for making public 30 comment. 31 32 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 33 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 34 Ashley Parker, President of the Orange County Farm Bureau, expressed concerns about 35 the noise ordinance amendments passed by the Board on September 16, 2025. She explained 36 that her family operates a century farm with various agricultural activities, including row crops, 37 beef, produce, and flowers. She stated that the new amendments to the county's noise ordinance 38 violate the state's Right to Farm Act. She argued that agritourism activities on farms should remain 39 protected, citing examples of activities now prohibited in rural Orange County per the ordinance, 40 including amplified noise of any kind, carrying a microphone during field tours, and hosting 41 weddings with music. She shared that she had spent five years saving to build a barn to share 42 her farm with the public. She emphasized that the new generation of farmers doesn't want to be 43 micromanaged and needs freedom to help their farms thrive. 44 45 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 46 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 47 48 2 1 3. Announcements, Petitions, and Comments by Board Members 2 Chair Bedford read the following joint message signed by the Chair and the Towns' 3 mayors: 4 "We reaffirm that in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and across Orange County, our 5 communities are made better by the diversity of people within them. We understand that federal 6 immigration authorities are active in the Triangle, causing fear and creating uncertainty in our 7 communities. Their operations in other cities have used racial profiling to detain legal and law- 8 abiding community members, without cause or due process. We strongly denounce actions that 9 sow fear among community members, undermine our local community safety efforts, and infringe 10 on the human rights of our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. Regardless of where you live, 11 work or play, here is some important information to know: 12 . It's important to know your rights and have a plan. 13 • Our local law enforcement agencies do not participate in Immigration and Customs (ICE) 14 or U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) operations. 15 • If you need the police, EMS, fire, crisis response or other emergency service, call 911. 16 • We know that many of you want to speak out, and we ask that you do so peacefully. 17 • We ask that community members rely on trusted organizations that provide accurate 18 information and assistance 19 We are monitoring the situation and remain in close contact with our partners. We will continue to 20 share additional resources." 21 Chair Bedford also announced the Voluntary Agricultural District breakfast tomorrow morning to 22 honor farmers preserving their farmland. 23 Commissioner Carter said she is grateful that the elected officials in Orange County have 24 come together in solidarity with the immigrant community. She reported on the Tax Assessment 25 Work Group's second meeting, where they received an overview of North Carolina law regarding 26 reappraisals from a UNC School of Government instructor. She noted that on December 2"d, the 27 Work Group would hear from Wake County about their efforts to improve their revaluation process. 28 Carter also mentioned attending the Veterans Day celebration at the Veterans Memorial outside 29 of the Southern Human Services Center, where Colonel Fred Black expressed appreciation for 30 the board's support of the memorial. 31 Commissioner Portie-Ascott supported the statement read by Chair Bedford, emphasizing 32 that Orange County is made stronger by diversity. She said the presence of ICE in the Triangle is 33 instilling fear in communities across the state. She said she stands with every frightened 34 community member and wants them to know the Board is here to support them. She also reported 35 attending the Veterans Day event at the Passmore Center where Walter Velo, a longtime 36 community advocate and retired Navy veteran, spoke. Additionally, she attended an event at the 37 Chapel Hill Historic Society where she read a proclamation honoring Cleo Allison of Efland, while 38 Commissioner Sally Greene read one for Jean Andrews Earnhardt. 39 Commissioner Greene echoed concerns for community members worried about their 40 safety from federal agents operating outside the due process of the law. She enjoyed the Veterans 41 Day breakfast at the Passmore Center and the Community Treasures event Commissioner Portie- 42 Ascott mentioned. She highlighted the Climate Council meeting on November 13th, where a draft 43 Heat Action Plan was reviewed. She noted that Mel Gillis reported Orange County is being looked 44 to as the gold standard for Climate Action Plans across the state. She said they received an 45 update on the Community Climate Action plan grant process, and various people remarked on 46 how those seemingly very small grants had been working over the years to catalyze larger 47 initiatives. She described the Neighborhood Energy Reduction program that led to securing $1.5 3 1 million in energy burden and energy reduction program grant with Durham and Granville counties. 2 She also highlighted the Town of Chapel Hill Tree Planning project, initially kick-started by the 3 Community Climate Action Grant. The success of this initiative paved the way for applying for and 4 receiving a $25,000 grant from the Duke Energy Foundation. With this in mind, she petitioned for 5 Sustainability staff and the Commission for the Environment to consider expanding grant offerings 6 to include climate change adaptation programs. 7 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she weeps for our county, for our country, and for our residents, 8 immigrant and non-immigrant who are being traumatized by the actions of our federal 9 government. Recognizing November as Native American Heritage Month, she remembered the 10 Trail of Tears and noted that many soldiers who defended this country were immigrants and Native 11 Americans. She emphasized that America's success was based on the labor and talents of 12 diverse people who came both voluntarily and involuntarily, and that this success is now at risk. 13 Commissioner McKee said he attended both Veteran's Day events. He shared that his 14 draft number in 1970 was 296, with the draft reaching 292 before being halted after Christmas. 15 He said his grandfather served in World War I in France and came closer to dying from the 16 Spanish flu than from combat action. Commissioner McKee reported being contacted by several 17 people about housing issues in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and planned to visit these 18 sites. Having voted for the noise ordinance, he indicated he might petition at the next meeting to 19 reconsider it after being contacted by many farmers. 20 Commissioner Fowler shared that she attended Veterans Day events, the Board retreat 21 on wells and septic systems, as well as Tax Assessment Work Group meetings. At the Triangle 22 West TPO meeting this morning, they received a presentation from Molly DeMarco about social 23 marketing and education to enhance public transit use. The TPO granted pre-authorization to 24 release the 2025 MTP plan, adopted FY 26-35 TIP amendment one, and approved three projects 25 for express design. They also reviewed a draft fund balance policy for January approval. She said 26 she feels sad that Triangle residents feel scared and vulnerable, and is grateful for the sharing of 27 resources that residents can turn to. She welcomed attendees in multiple languages, including 28 Tutelo, Cherokee, and Lumbee, in honor of Native American Heritage Month. 29 Commissioner McKee added that he had spoken with Sheriff Blackwood and was 30 confident the Sheriff would take his responsibilities seriously to ensure the safety and security of 31 everyone in Orange County. 32 33 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 34 a. Native American Heritage Month Proclamation 35 The Board approved a proclamation recognizing November 2025 as Native American Heritage 36 Month. 37 38 BACKGROUND: Native American Heritage Month, observed each November, honors the 39 history, culture, and contributions of Native American and Indigenous peoples, acknowledging 40 their significant influence on the formation and development of the United States. This observance 41 recognizes the perseverance and resilience of Native peoples who have maintained their identity 42 and traditions despite centuries of hardship, including forced removal, assimilation, and systemic 43 injustices. 44 45 This month-long recognition highlights the diversity of Native nations, languages, customs, and 46 histories across the United States, which includes the eight state-recognized tribes of North 47 Carolina. The Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, whose ancestral homeland includes what 48 is now Orange County, continue to be an integral part of the County's cultural and historical fabric. 4 1 Native Americans have contributed greatly to the advancement of the United States, from 2 environmental stewardship and land care to their roles in government, education, the arts, and 3 military service — including the famed Native American Code Talkers who served with distinction 4 in World Wars I and II. 5 6 Native American Heritage Month serves as an opportunity for all communities to learn about and 7 celebrate Indigenous cultures, traditions, and enduring contributions. It calls upon residents to 8 engage in programs, ceremonies, and educational activities that honor Native American heritage, 9 while fostering a shared commitment to freedom, peace, and justice for all. 10 11 Paul Slack, Chief Civil Rights Officer, introduced the item. The Commissioners read the 12 following proclamation in turn: 13 14 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 15 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH PROCLAMATION 16 17 WHEREAS, for millennia, various nations of Indigenous Peoples with their own tribal 18 governments, social organizations and cultural traditions had inhabited the lands, now the United 19 States of America; and 20 21 WHEREAS, North Carolina is home to eight State-recognized tribes including the Coharie, 22 Eastern Band of Cherokee, Haliwa-Saponi, Lumbee, Meherrin, Occaneechi Band of the Saponi 23 Nation, Sappony and Waccamaw-Siouan; and 24 25 WHEREAS, the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, having their own social, economic, and 26 political systems, made their home in this region now known as Orange County; and 27 28 WHEREAS, in the 18th century, the United States of America was founded on a purported concept 29 that all people are created equal, yet Native Americans and Indigenous people have struggled 30 and persevered to maintain their identity and their civilization despite centuries of inhumane and 31 unjust Federal policies focused on genocide, removal, and compulsory assimilation; and 32 33 WHEREAS, Native Americans have served and continue to serve in the Armed Forces—including 34 the Native American Code Talkers in World War I and World War II —defending the United States 35 and continue to serve at a higher rate than any other ethnic group in the Nation; and 36 37 WHEREAS, the United States government has now apologized for the federal government's role 38 in running boarding schools for Native American children, intending to force Native American 39 children to assimilate into Euro-American culture, while also breaking family and community 40 bonds and undermining tribal sovereignty within Indigenous societies, with former President Biden 41 calling the boarding schools a "sin on our soul"; and 42 43 WHEREAS, on August 3, 1990, then-President George H. W. Bush declared November as 44 National American Indian Heritage Month with a landmark bill honoring the Tribal People of 45 America, which began in 1976, when Jerry C. Elliott-High Eagle, a Cherokee/Osage Indian, 46 authored Native American Awareness Week legislation; and 47 48 WHEREAS, National Native American Heritage Month is a platform for Native Americans to share 49 their culture, traditions, arts, and concepts of life, as well as a time for others to celebrate the 50 numerous contributions of Native Americans and honor their influence on the advancement of the 51 United States; 5 1 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim 2 November 2025 as NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, and urge all residents to observe 3 this month by participating in activities and ceremonies, to celebrate November 28, 2025 as Native 4 American Heritage Day and to honor the cultures and contributions of Native Americans by 5 committing to freedom, peace, and justice for all. 6 7 This 18th day of November, 2025. 8 9 10 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 11 Orange County Board of 12 Commissioners 13 14 15 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 16 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation 17 18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19 20 5. Public Hearings 21 a. Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment—1039-UT NC 86 N, Hillsborough, Hillsborough 22 Township 23 The Board continued consideration and deliberation of public comments, received staff 24 recommendations, and considered action on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/-78.11 acres 25 (PIN: 9865-87-8090) located at 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough, within the Hillsborough 26 Township of Orange County. 27 28 BACKGROUND: A Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was 29 received from Forestar Group, Inc., on behalf of Amy Powell, et al., proposing to rezone 30 approximately 78.11 acres of property at 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough, to allow for 31 development of a 49-lot Conservation Cluster subdivision for single-family dwellings. The Staff 32 Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis with regard to the 33 application's consistency with County adopted plans. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the 34 conditional district rezoning process, and the site plan and any agreed-upon conditions are 35 binding to the development permitted for the zoning district. All application materials can be found 36 on the Orange County Permit Portal. 37 38 Basic Review Process: A conditional district rezoning application requires submission of a site 39 plan and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.9.1(C) of the Orange County Unified 40 Development Ordinance (UDO). Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Orange County UDO require the 41 following review: 42 • FIRST ACTION —Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). 43 STAFF COMMENT. The NIM was held on May 29, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. at Eno River 44 Academy, 1100 NC 57, Hillsborough, NC 27278. 45 • SECOND ACTION —The Planning Board reviews the application ata regular meeting 46 and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. 47 STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular 48 meetings on September 3 and October 1, 2025. At the board's October 1, 2025 49 meeting, the board voted 9-0 to recommend approval with conditions. 6 1 THIRD ACTION—The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations 2 at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. 3 STAFF COMMENT: The public hearing was held at the November 6, 2025 4 business meeting and the Board moved to continue its consideration of the 5 application during the November 18, 2025 Business meeting. 6 7 Proposed Site Plan and Conditions 8 Per Section 2.9.1(F)(3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of 9 this process if they address: 10 a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 11 b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, 12 the timing of development, etc.), and/or 13 c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate, or the petitioner may 14 propose. 15 16 A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional rezoning application and has been submitted 17 with the full application materials from the Forestar Group, Inc. (Attachment 1). Forestar Group, 18 Inc., have initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment in order allow for development of a 49-lot 19 subdivision for single-family dwellings. Additional background information related to this request 20 is contained in the Staff Report (Attachment 2). 21 22 The applicant has submitted conditions for consideration by the BOCC, as included in the 23 Ordinance in Attachment 9. One of the submitted conditions commits the applicant to request 24 water service from the Town of Hillsborough, should the rezoning request be approved by the 25 BOCC. Prior to the November 6 BOCC business meeting, Town of Hillsborough Administration 26 reviewed this condition and provided a memo of support for that condition, which is available for 27 review in Attachment 5 and ultimately led to the November 10 Town Board review of the petition 28 for water service. Following the BOCC public hearing and its continuance, the Town Board voted 29 at its November 10 meeting to not allow water service to be extended to this site. 30 31 Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Public Hearing 32 were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These 33 notices were mailed on October 22, 2025, 15 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the 34 subject parcel with a sign on October 22, 2025, 15 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 35 for the notification materials. 36 37 Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the Zoning Atlas Amendment at 38 its September 3, 2025, regular meeting. At this meeting the Board voted 4-4 on a motion to 39 recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed Zoning 40 Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9), as presented. Due to the split vote, the motion was not 41 approved, and the Planning Board continued its consideration of the application to its October 1, 42 2025 meeting at which the Board voted 9-0 to recommend approval with conditions. An excerpt 43 of the Planning Board's September 3, 2025 approved meeting minutes and an excerpt of the 44 October 1, 2025 draft meeting minutes are included at Attachment 6. The Planning Board's 45 signed Statement of Consistency is also provided at Attachment 6. 46 47 Planning Director's Recommendation 48 The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 49 1) Deliberate further, as needed; and 7 1 2) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas 2 Amendment Ordinance (Attachment 9). 3 OR 4 Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments, including a statement as to why the 5 application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the 6 Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). 7 8 Taylor Pershau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager, introduced the item. She 9 announced that the Town of Hillsborough recently denied the applicant's request to connect to 10 Town water, which means that proposed condition number 13 has been completed, so should be 11 removed if there is discussion about revising conditions. She continued the following presentation 12 that was started at the November 6, 2025 meeting: 13 14 Slide #40 Public Notification ■ Notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel on October 22, 2025. ■ Signs posted the subject parcel on October 22, 2025. ■ Legal Ad published on October 22, 2025 and October 291, 2025. ■ Application information has also been posted on the Planning Department's "Active Development"webpage. 15 16 17 8 1 Slide #41 Staff Analysis 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of the UDO. Staff review determined that the application is complete,and all submitted materials are in compliance with the following applicable sections of the UDO: ■ Section 2.8,Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments ■ Section 2.9,Conditional Districts ■ Section 5.21.1, Major Subdivision Conditional Districts 2. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The requested zoning district,R-CD(Residential Conditional District),is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,Appendix F,Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. 4. The applicant has provided an environmental assessment as part of this submittal.Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Z 3 4 Slide #42 Zoning and Land Use Review ppendix F-Land Use and Zoning Matrix �J ZO\TtiG DISTRICTS � � 4 Chnl[el HILL Transitlun 14rinit.YNrnlnls[r:atlnn b1'\lunl<Il�alltlet uinlcY IIIc lu'n['Itinnt ni[he.I Wl ]Tanninp ARr['enwnl- ('nerbnrn Tranxlrinn Cn mate\lunl.'I[allty&rr a .IlcaWe Znnln 4tan.tan3x IP-Yea T,—id" 211-Year T—itlnn t Commercial Traositloo • - Acririhy:ode + � C'nr ncr[ia]-Industrial + ♦ Tranylriun Aelf+it. m—lc pecelnpnren/ ♦ + Transitlon Activlr \ode Rural&offer ♦ Rural Re,W.tlal Agticv]tural Rasidentlal ♦ ♦ Raul CommuWty Activity Rural\"eighbw'houd + n-V de * * Rural Imlmtrial Ae Rvity snide rnWtr]nteresl At,•a Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan,Appendix F ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 9 1 Slide #43 7%r d eni n c U", o-rr r V l e,I M 41 a,llw.F.mly 41. Rnnlly_slrple-Emily y emlly Care Faulq Giwp GmFetllly 8 3 S S S 8 5 5 8 A D GmupHmw S S 5 3 5 9 S 9 S S S 9 O d wIINty aM Wrcttul Caro 4 D tl Dtl tl tl tl 6 tl d ea. Ruem.y Hew. Ter.praW 1Ha WHemenlw 6 tl tl tl tl tl A tl 6 S d S tl tl A G D Unified Development Ordinance—Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #44 Planning Director Recommendation The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Consider the matter for action; 2. Acknowledge that legally-sufficient public notice was given for the application and this meeting,in accordance with State law and the Orange County LIDO; 3. Review the staff report(Attachment 2),featuring analyses of UDO compliance,impact of the use to the surrounding area, safety and efficiency of land use, and consistency of the application with the Orange County's adopted plans; 4. Allow for the applicant's presentation of materials; 5. Conduct the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning Board recommendation; 6. Close the public hearing;and 7. Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency(Attachment 7)and Zoning Atlas Amendment(Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment,including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest,as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency(Attachment 8). ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 5 10 1 Beth Trahos began a summary of the proposal. She recognized the members of the team who 2 have worked on this proposal: 3 • Laura Haywood and Donna Crowder with Forestar Group 4 • Don Sever and Danielle Cabral with Bowman Civil Engineers 5 • Josh Reinke, traffic engineer, with Bolton & Menk 6 • David Barcal, Civil Engineer, with McConnell and Associates 7 8 Beth Trahos said Ward Marotti, Environment Consultant, with Spangler Environmental, was 9 unable to attend tonight, but his colleague Cal Rider is here to answer any questions. She said 10 the applicant has taken this process very seriously and has involved experts to ensure all of the 11 standards and requirements of the ordinance are met. She recognized Wayne Honeycutt, Realtor, 12 who was present on behalf of the property owner. She reiterated that this property is owned by 13 heirs who don't live in the area and have been working diligently to find an appropriate use for the 14 land. She said the availability of housing is not what it needs to be to accommodate everyone 15 who wants to live in Orange County. She said, with that in mind, the applicant proposed a 16 conservation cluster subdivision with a gentle density in an effort to address the housing need. 17 She said this proposal is very similar to the Rigsby rezoning in White Cross that was recently 18 approved by the Board. This design allows for a denser configuration of lots, which allows for the 19 greater preservation and common ownership of open space and environmentally sensitive areas. 20 She said this proposal includes 49 homes on 79.76 acres in total with a minimum lot size of 20,000 21 square feet of that property. This nets out to be one home per 1.6 acres of property. Of that 79.76 22 acres, 42.25 acres is open space, which is 53.9% of the site. The project proposes individual 23 septic on each lot and a community well. Beth Trahos pointed out that there are a few wells in this 24 area because there is public water available to many surrounding properties. 25 Commissioner McKee asked how that is relevant since the Town of Hillsborough denied 26 the applicant's request to connect to Town water. 27 Beth Trahos explained that while it is true the Town denied the applicant's request to 28 connect to Town water, there are few adjacent wells to the property here because many neighbors 29 are on Town of Hillsborough water. She said therefore, there will be fewer potential properties that 30 would be impacted by the community well. She said it is the applicant's view is that this proposal 31 complies with the comprehensive plan that is in place today. She said this is a rural industrial 32 activity node and includes the agricultural residential district. She said the residential conditional 33 district is recommended in both of those land use categories. She said it is also designated by 34 Hillsborough as a mixed residential neighborhood. She concluded that the homes are harmonious 35 with the surrounding area and are reasonable and in the public interest at this location. She said 36 the team has worked hard really since January to put together a thoughtful and thorough proposal 37 for consideration, and is hopeful that the Board will join the Orange County Planning Board, which 38 unanimously recommended approval, in supporting this project. 39 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said the Board has heard a lot of concerns about traffic on 40 Highway 86. She said there was information on a driveway permit in the packet, and asked how 41 that would help mitigate the traffic concerns. 42 Josh Reinke, traffic engineer with Bolton & Menk answered that the driveway will place 43 any requirements that will be incorporated into the design. He explained that NCDOT determined 44 that turn lanes aren't required but the fire chief has expressed concerns. He said the applicant is 45 willing to recommend turn lanes, but that can't be part of the document until it's part of the NCDOT 46 driveway permit. 47 Donna Crowder with Forestar Group reiterated that the driveway permit is how NCDOT 48 approves improvements along the whole road frontage, not just the driveway. She said the team 49 has been in discussions with NCDOT and said they would like to put in a center turn lane. In 50 response, Donna Crowder explained that NCDOT asked for sight distances so that they could 11 1 make recommendations. She said the applicant sent out a surveyor who did some site distance 2 studies. So far, NCDOT is on board with allowing a center turn lane, and Josh Reinke sent an 3 email to request a lower speed limit. She explained that despite their willingness to implement 4 these measures, the applicant cannot guarantee they will be done until NCDOT issues the 5 driveway permit. 6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the applicant had also put in a request for a flashing 7 light. 8 Donna Crowder said they have suggested it, but NCDOT may not allow it. 9 Chair Bedford asked Taylor Perschau to put up the site plan on the screen. 10 11 A Mir- A. `3SQl ir III — .,,.. 4�� �� f,�r �i ��` ,a t^�� ��y�� ��•fir ° 't` ��o �' .�g ®- �,� �� � R — — — — hhu�hh �- ;1 . � ii mo 12 Commissioner Carter asked if there is any information about how high Strouds Creek rose 13 during Tropical Storm Chantal on this property. 14 Donna Crowder said unfortunately that information is not available, but added that the 15 buffers help prevent flooding and the homes are intended to be built on a hill, so there is a lot of 16 grade. 17 Commissioner Carter asked Cy Stober to define flood zones X and AE, because those 18 would not necessarily reflect what was seen with Tropical Storm Chantal. 19 Cy Stober said they would not, and asked Chris Sandt, County Engineer, to answer the 20 rest of the question. 21 Christopher Sandt, County Engineer, said he doesn't have the floodplain data available, 22 but zone AE is generally a one-hundred-year floodplain. He explained that there's a 1% chance 23 of an event happening in any given year. He said nobody really knows what Chantal was, but it 24 was well beyond a hundred-year event. He said he is not confident in answering what zone X 25 means without the map, but he can get that answer to the Board. He assured the Board that 26 floodplains and creeks both have buffers. 27 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked for a review of the buffers that apply to this plan. 12 1 Don Sever with Bowman Civil Engineers said there are 1.9 acres of wetlands and there 2 15.3 total acres of riparian buffers that surround the wetlands and the streams that bisect the 3 property. Together that equals 40% of the common open space. He said there is also a 4 development buffer around the perimeter of the property, which varies from a 20-foot width to a 5 50-foot width and altogether totals 5.1 acres. He said there is a property line buffer, which runs 6 adjacent to the development buffer and is also 5 acres. 7 Taylor Perschau offered that there are minimum required stream buffers, floodplain buffers 8 and water body buffers if it's hydrologically connected. 9 The applicant passed out the following diagram to the Board to aid in the explanation. mom. ma PROPERTY SECONDARY TREE PROTECTION 4REA-' 10 11 Referring to the above handout from the applicant, Taylor Perschau said there's a 12 floodplain buffer and a stream buffer on the northern portion of the property. There is also a 13 required stream buffer that runs through the middle of the property. Additionally, there is a phase 14 line where the applicant is proposing a phase one to be developed, as well as a phase two. She 15 said the diagonal hash represents either a stream buffer or a floodplain buffer and the required 16 buffers for stream and floodplain are a minimum of 65 and a maximum of 80, as detailed in the 17 ordinance. So that would be required regardless. Orange County buffers, both that 65 and 80 18 exceed the state's 50-foot regulated buffer. She explained that the development buffer that Don 13 1 spoke of is something that the applicant is electing into and is not a minimum requirement of the 2 RCD District. 3 Don Sever explained what each color means on the diagram. The black areas are the 4 riparian buffers, red indicates the property line buffer, and the green areas are secondary tree 5 protection areas. 6 Commissioner Carter observed that, compared to the recently approved Rigsby property, 7 this site plan showed more lots in proximity to buffers. 8 Don Sever said, in his mind, there is green space in almost all cases before the riparian 9 buffer. 10 Commissioner Carter noted the soil evaluation showing 10 sites requiring subsurface drip 11 systems. 12 Cal Rider, environmental consultant, explained that while some lots encompass 13 subsurface drip soil, many could still accommodate conventional systems. 14 Commissioner Fowler said she saw that four lots were tested for their ability to have septic 15 drain fields and could see that they had both the primary and the repair fields in those diagrams. 16 She asked if it turns out that the primary and repair fields cannot fit on a lot, if that lot would not 17 be developed or if another type of septic system would be built. 18 Cal Rider said they may be forced to have a drip repair or would have to do a lot-line shift, 19 or, if it's not feasible, just wouldn't use that lot. 20 Commissioner Fowler asked if the applicant had considered a community septic system. 21 She asked if there would be room on the site. 22 Donna Crowder said the applicant did consider a community septic system but didn't feel 23 the county would be comfortable with a community septic or that the Board would consider it. 24 Commissioner Fowler asked for alternatives if this plan is not approved by the Board. She 25 mentioned that originally, there was a 42-acre conventional proposal with one acre per lot. 26 Taylor Perschau said if the applicant proposed 42 conventional lots, they would be 27 required to request rezoning. 28 Commissioner Fowler clarified that if this plan is not approved, the applicant could do 20 29 lots without coming back to the Board for approval, or they could come back with the 42-acre lot 30 plan. She noted that the 42-acre lot plan did not include any trails like the plan before the Board. 31 Taylor Perschau said Vice-Chair Fowler's understanding is correct. 32 Commissioner Fowler asked if septic fields would have to be approved by Orange County 33 Environmental Health. 34 Cal Rider said yes. 35 Donna Crowder emphasized they'd invested nearly two years and substantial funds in the 36 project, believing they were providing what the county wanted through compact subdivision 37 design. They indicated time constraints under their contract wouldn't allow for resubmission. 38 Commissioner McKee asked if the project was then designed around what they thought 39 would be approved rather than what was best for the community and what would be the best use 40 of the land. 41 Donna Crowder said her understanding is that it was one and the same. She said the goal 42 was to give the Board what they want to see, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 43 Commissioner McKee asked what the limited use of the trails meant. 44 Beth Trahos said it means the trails would be accessible to all members of the community. 45 She said the property owner currently allows Eno River Academy to use the land free of charge, 46 and the school would like that to continue. She said the conditions for the property include 47 cooperation between the Homeowner's Association and Eno River Academy for use of the trails 48 for cross-country and access to the stream for teaching purposes. She clarified that they wouldn't 49 want any liability burden to be on the Homeowner's Association, so that would have to be 50 negotiated between those groups. 14 1 Laura Haywood, project manager with Forestar Group, said the Planning Board 2 recommended different wording for that condition, and the applicant obliged, which led to the 3 current wording. She said their intention is for the trails to be used by the community. She said 4 Eno River Academy was uncertain because the language had changed, but that was due to the 5 recommendation by the Planning Board. 6 Commissioner McKee asked if a driveway application had been applied for and asked if it 7 included a turn lane. 8 Laura Haywood said it is not typical at this stage to see a driveway permit application. 9 However, she said they intend to improve the roadway to make it safer and complete the same 10 for turn lanes as the Rigsbee property, but they are at the mercy of NCDOT. 11 Donna Crowser said NCDOT has agreed verbally, and they expect the permit to be 12 submitted on Dec. 15tH 13 Commissioner McKee said he finds it very hard to understand being this deep into a 14 project without having a good, clear understanding from the resident engineer for this district of 15 what will be allowed. 16 Josh Reinke said it would be atypical for a rezoning request to have a driveway permit in 17 place because the rezoning hasn't been approved. 18 Vice-Chair Hamilton thanked the applicants for their due diligence but expressed concerns 19 about approving the development while the 2050 land use plan was being developed. She found 20 the proposal inconsistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan, specifically Land Use Goal One, 21 requiring coordinated location of higher intensity development with existing public transportation 22 and infrastructure. Without water and sewer infrastructure from Hillsborough, she deemed the 23 density too high. She also expressed concerns about climate change risks with development 24 close to Strouds Creek and the impact of extensive septic fields on this vital water resource. 25 Commissioner Carter acknowledged the board's support for housing solutions but 26 distinguished between the R-1 zoning of Rigsby versus the Agricultural Residential zoning of this 27 property. The AR district's purpose is to preserve land suitable for agricultural uses and protect it 28 from incompatible land uses. She also shared concerns about septic systems and some lots' 29 proximity to riparian buffers. 30 Commissioner Greene appreciated that the layout was better than a conventional 31 subdivision, but felt it looked crammed into the space with fragmented green areas. She noted 32 Hillsborough's intention to constrict its urban services boundary away from this property, making 33 this intensity inappropriate. She said the Town's unanimous decision against extending water was 34 an important factor for her, as the county historically aligns with municipalities at its edges. 35 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she has met with representatives from Eno River 36 Academy, considered the recommendation from the Planning Board, and weighed the fact that 37 the owners have been trying to sell the property for a number of years. However, she couldn't 38 overlook traffic safety concerns on Highway 86, including a tragic crash killing three people the 39 previous year. She felt NCDOT's practice of waiting for incidents before making changes put 40 families at risk. 41 Commissioner Fowler said she prefers this plan to the 42 because it preserves more 42 acreage overall. She agreed that there are some issues, encroaching on buffers, questions about 43 soil, but other than that, she thought this is a preferable plan to the 42 lot option. She mentioned 44 that it includes a trail that Eno River Academy could potentially use, while the other plan does not 45 include that. She said she trusts that a turn lane will be added if NCDOT allows it. She said she 46 thinks this is closer to the conservation clusters that the Board would like to see. 47 Commissioner McKee main concern was the urban-style, dense development of 49 48 houses on 20,000 square foot lots without urban services. He stated this would be acceptable 49 with sewer and water, but saw issues with the current proposal. The dense development didn't 15 1 align with the rural character of the area or planning principle five about preserving the county's 2 rural landscape. 3 Chair Bedford concurred about excessive water on the site, emphasizing the need to 4 evaluate each site individually. She distinguished this from proposals preserving contiguous 5 farmland, noting the fragmented open space here didn't achieve clustering's real goals. While she 6 was not concerned about the proposed community well or potential water depletion, she found no 7 greater public interest served by the rezoning, given issues with septic, traffic, and rural character. 8 9 Slide #45 Planning Board Recommendation Planning Board reviewed the rezoning application at its September 3 and October 1,2025 meetings As available in the meeting minutes(Attachment 6),the Planning Board voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency{Attachment 7] and the proposed ordinance for the Zoning Atlas Amendment(Attachment 9}. •4i ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA. 10 11 12 Slide #46 Recommendation The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Conductthe public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments; 2. Ciose the public hearing;and 3. Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency(Attachment 7)and Zoning Atlas Amendment(Attachment 9). OR Vote to deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment,including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest,as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). 149�— ORANGECOUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 13 16 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to deny 2 the Zoning Atlas Amendments, as the application is not reasonable because it is not in the public 3 interest, for reasons articulated by Commissioners, and as detailed in the Statement of 4 Inconsistency (Attachment 8)." 5 6 Vice-Chair Hamilton suggested an amendment to the motion, asking for the Statement of 7 Inconsistency to include Land Use Goal One. 8 9 Commissioner Greene accepted the amendment. 10 11 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Carter, Commissioner Portie-Ascott, Commissioner 12 Greene, Chair Bedford, Vice-Chair Hamilton, Commissioner McKee); Nays, 1 13 (Commissioner Fowler) 14 15 MOTION PASSES 16 17 b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments — Impervious Surfaces, Watershed 18 Protection Overlay Districts, and Stream Buffers 19 The Board conducted a public hearing and considered action on Planning Director-initiated text 20 amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) pertaining to Impervious Surfaces, 21 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, and Stream Buffers. 22 23 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Planning & Inspections Department has initiated text 24 amendments to LIDO Sections 2.20, 4.2, 6.13, and Article 10. The proposed amendments are 25 multi-faceted in purpose and are intended to be comprehensive in addressing overly complex 26 text/tables, and to improve interpretation and application of the UDO for both staff and applicants. 27 Specifically, the amendments address: 28 29 1) Refinements and reading clarity improvements related to impervious surface area limits 30 and existing development definition timelines for the County's thirteen (13) Watershed 31 Protection Overlay Districts, including deletion of the obsolete "Sliding Scale Table" 32 (Tables 4.2.5.2 & 4.2.5.3); and 33 34 2) Refinement of minimum reservoir buffer widths for the Upper Eno Critical Watershed 35 Protection Overlay District to better accommodate known non-conforming lots located 36 around the shoreline of Lake Orange and reduce setback variance requests related to this 37 specific location. 38 39 3) Refinement of the "Water Feature" definition within Article 10 to clarify and conform with 40 County/State/Federal regulatory authority. 41 42 The proposed amendments can be found in Attachment 2 within a "track changes"format. 43 44 Joint Planning Area (JPA) Review: In accordance with the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 45 Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement, the proposed UDO text amendments package was 46 sent to Town staffs on July 30, 2025. Town of Carrboro staff sent the comments contained in 47 Attachment 3 on August 18, 2025, and found no inconsistency with the Joint Planning Area Land 48 Use Plan. To date, no comments have been received from the Town of Chapel Hill. 49 50 Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its October 1, 2025, 51 regular meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed 17 1 text amendments. An excerpt of draft minutes from the October 1, 2025, meeting and the signed 2 Statement of Approval and Consistency are included in Attachment 4. Prior to making its 3 recommendation, the Planning Board reviewed the materials in an "Ordinance Review 4 Committee" (ORC) meeting on July 9, 2025. Agenda materials for these meetings are available 5 at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. 6 7 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the 8 Statement of Approval and Consistency as contained in Attachment 1 and approval of the 9 proposed UDO Text Amendments as contained in Attachment 2. 10 11 Chris Sandt, County Engineer, made the following presentation: 12 13 Slide #1 GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA BOCC Meeting November 18, 2025 Christopher J. Sandt, P.E. County Engineer 14 15 16 Slide #2 ©RANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA UDO Text Amendments related to Impervious Surface Limits for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (WPODs), Reservoir Setbacks for the Upper Eno Critical WPOD, and "Water Feature" Definition Update 17 18 Chris Sandt said he will be presenting some proposed staff-initiated text amendments to 19 the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He explained that the UDO is a working document 20 and is constantly evolving. He said the document changes as a result of changing state regulatory 21 requirements. He said the Planning Department is a delegated authority for the enforcement of 22 the riparian buffers throughout Orange County, as well as for erosion control and stormwater 23 management, which is all tied to these watershed protection overlay districts. 24 18 1 Slide #3 Why Are We Here? • October 10, 2023 — Regulatory Updates — North Carolina House Bill 600(HB 600 C SL 2023-137). — HB 600 provides clarification regarding what is considered existing built upon area(i.e.,pre-existing development)- - Any built upon area in existence prior to the effective date of the local water supply watershed program(i.e.,WPOO s)is considered pre-existing development and cannot be counted from a regulatory perspective(i.e.,stormwater management needs)- - The pre-existing date is generally defined as January 1. 1994,but some WPODs have different dates. — UDO text amendment approved by BOCC on June 4.2024,that integrated key requirements of HB 600. — We are now providing additional clarifications. ORANGECOUNTY 3(W I I I CAROLINA 2 3 Chris Sandt said most of the proposed amendments are just clarifications for constituents. 4 He said these cutoff dates were in the UDO, but very difficult to find, even for staff. So the purpose 5 of the proposed amendments is to make the UDO more understandable and ensure conformance 6 with current state law. 7 8 Slide #4 Why Are We Here? • Reservoir Setbacks for Lake Orange — Upper Eno Critical WPOD — Non-conforming lots around Lake Orange,can't meet 150-ft setback — Multiple variance requests; substantial staff timeleffort — Reduce reservoir setback(Lake Orange only)to 75-ft • Reviewed with Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) on July 9, 2025; and Planning Board meeting September 3, 2025. — Impervious bonus for affordable housing no longer included in this proposed text amendment; may be reapproached in near future — Have added an Article 10 definition refinement for"Water Feature" ORANGE COUNTY NORTH i;AROLIN t 9 10 Commissioner McKee asked what hoops people are having to jump through for the 11 variance requests. 12 Christopher Sandt said it is a straightforward process, but it is not a quick process. He 13 said four have been processed in the last couple of years. 14 Cy Stober said a Board of Adjustment variance requires an application, a several-hundred- 15 dollar application fee, and it takes at least three months for staff review, scheduling of the 16 evidentiary hearing, proper notice of the hearing, and then to hold the hearing. He explained that 19 1 part of the evidentiary hearing is evidence provided by the applicant and an analysis by Chris 2 Sandt or Victoria Hudson, Director of Environmental Health, that no public safety or welfare 3 concerns are presented by this encroachment into this particular and peculiar buffer that really 4 only resides on this individual water body in the entire county at this point. He estimated it would 5 add thousands of dollars of additional costs to a renovation project or a new home, in some cases. 6 He pointed out that new homes are being constructed and are seeking variances in this setback, 7 and it adds a minimum of three months to the timeline so that a Board of Adjustment hearing can 8 be held. 9 Patrick Mallett explained that the burden extends beyond major renovations. 10 Commissioner McKee asked for an example of a minor change that would require this 11 level of involvement. 12 Cy Stober said even minor improvements like wrapping a porch, paving a driveway, or 13 adding a patio require the full variance process. 14 Commissioner McKee said it is possible that this process could cost as much as the 15 change a property owner is trying to make. 16 Cy Stober said that it is true in theory. 17 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked about setback requirements. 18 Patrick Mallett said explained that existing homes built with 75-foot setbacks in the 1970s- 19 80s are non-conforming under the current 150-foot requirements. For new construction on vacant 20 lots, current rules effectively make many unbuildable due to the combined setback requirements. 21 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if these homes are becoming less safe by making setbacks 22 closer. 23 Christopher Sandt assured that the major CIP repairs to the Lake's dam had been 24 completed, with the entire embankment reinforced. Without these improvements, the dam might 25 not have survived Helene. He explained that during that storm, water approached but didn't 26 significantly flood homes closest to the lake. 27 Vice-Chair Hamilton thanked him for the explanation. 28 Commissioner Greene initially wondered why vacant lots couldn't maintain 150-foot 29 setbacks while existing homes had different standards, but understood the lots were too small 30 and maintaining consistent buffers around the reservoir was necessary. 31 Patrick Mallett added that the smaller lots are the only ones that are left, which do not 32 accommodate large homes. 33 Commissioner McKee noted the lake was built in the mid-1960s with lots platted before 34 the current regulations. He said this is a longstanding issue rather than a recent development. 35 36 20 1 Slide #5 Why Are We Here? June 4, 2024 Text Amendment HB 600("Regulatory Reform Act') AFFApOxnpl: OROOOxNOM N0FO0n UFNRRALASSEAIRLY OF WR-FARULYA t.IL`9»vTl l �1?•4 Rrb'P,Ns,s00v srsslas mz, !.Ea.dldndlxw,.lm,lr...vexa e0rnndfa�xbw d[nxbq SE351UY IAN'lcel-Ili - N✓npfw011W tbp P°:wd�Y wN.w�i.N,e n•0.l�:vsw.W w.tlnwM•wte/,1+M4„Mw�+4�w��b Ah ACT'OIPWUVO3F FURTIIFH WFGUI ATONY NFIlRTOT114CRREN50FTWRRI n,m wtl,�tl.b,rawln`i°IxP�v.4 dwww YnrwbmYMVNc` GVt6lA'A dblOt101RC tn,w.w reran esu lmlr�.Cb��]R1�Mx�bb ba dOwP F�Y.�You TFe GavaJ Anem04Y of.\mM1 CaulOu rn:u Ir A20L1 Stp 191N tIf/J1.xf0A bn°Nwx MabnJ s ndM er r raw.:bor x ryOaP uex,d x need Cada PART I.AGRlCULTURR,EIYERGY,P.NIRRONMEt•T.AMO NATURAL RkSOURCES l�rzcWex lAaRV,0�.T1,Yx01dnblgaxx s4rx:0om as re rebvq PROVISIORR �q� ��x.�eb.aw�'cp0euc�R°n�Irx d Orq tr/ Px ONdlaNxm en t uyr t.nmvo WATER 4lRPLY WATLRA[EO PROTP.CTION CNAPPGE! ISM sn n°Yuwm 3�?ilfu ...°...wrvx...w v.w.ad 5E(.:IUN r,.f II rlls leap.•e°u10He. vxeewwa nAax,4nndna�er,a.,y����� Y 18Ttt1l.Wac wPPh aaniletl Vm,m3se. Pa r w.nr...r..l.°.d..d t 4.dlm°°,I"la•v C�s.�o P�+A I®i A N+cJ IMn,°..nllmVlrxuo0^N a»wn wt41v w-aIMn4 pegx vM1J1 JHm at C.�Yde1°M pmaeF�b re elm:x 0sm�P�d[.awaa.° .rPil�e.,.�..lm..mm,la.m„•�p,�°a..xaA>.,ei..»°tnwvd.x.�..J.a.",.,JJi ma,��d.b.�r. �d��..a�m'.�t:es'�a.��.d�®.a.a RraRr nnx,ld.m,w..:ri,,,pp3,: fil P.p:•q.•w•x <b,.d MO•mil...rzRO•..W..s iM hw x°Iv 9t14Y00py°rxFbPab:Y lba:n NPOaa bx�rnrmd +xVPI')'x MNyPx Onx,wRrbannnx*bdl,Wdnwudb xkwb0 malbb lD FM WM1..ty Ibatt,ami•,xNrh.J"ttn eMoi,.wl�dkf lanuut I.b13�. �xvea�h.��.N Nd n x lbm.°9+°d x rzfA�.•�4.�M PI TM NnN'.�v lav ntt tke:v ywiuipu0 n•J.mOv°,enObR unmrtlmF—="--- uNn wL,nlNm IiL'1 ul ilii.xvuu:. a Mwwy MwT Cayn p°rw+ in Tor,n,H�,.»..�:rr.pxM„•e:.,..•..,,.,::.,� w ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Z 3 Chris Sandt explained again that the June 4, 2024, text amendment took care of most of 4 the requirements from HB 600, and the proposed amendments today are aimed at making the 5 UDO a more understandable document for constituents and staff. 6 7 Slide #6 Watersheds - - — - d,o-, R—,,-- ---- I , .c ,�,nba, E I Watershed Icnnczll Louxr Eno GI Protection Overlay --M. IH —' Districts (WPODs) 1 Ib.Hi... Ulwo vNl° } A #NEW � Ic ��eE) s .• � ORANGE COUNTY 8 9 Chris Sandt described the map, which depicts the 18 watersheds in Orange County. He 10 indicated that everything in the northeast corner of the county drains to Falls Lake. He pointed 21 1 out the thick blue line in the middle of the map as the break line between the Jordan Lake Basin 2 and the Falls Lake Basin. He said there is a small section in the northern part of the county that 3 drains up to the Roanoke Basin in Virginia. The grey areas of the map are the municipal 4 boundaries. The light blue areas on the map are the protected watersheds, and the darker blue 5 areas are the critical watersheds. He explained that the darker blue watersheds are adjacent to 6 the water supply reservoirs. Chris Sandt explained that there are maximum impervious surface 7 area restrictions as well as density restrictions that vary by watershed and are based on the 8 criticality of the watershed. He pointed out the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir (WFER), which is 9 owned and operated by the town of Hillsborough. The WFER is about three times the volumetric 10 size of Lake Orange. It was built between 1990 to 2010 with some recent upgrades in the last five 11 years. Lake Orange does not have an intake, nor does the WFER, unlike University Lake and 12 Cane Creek Reservoir. He explained that Lake Orange is the only reservoir that is subject to the 13 reservoir setbacks that can't be met because the lots are too small, as they were platted and built 14 before the rules existed. 15 16 Slide #7 Impervious Surface Limits for WPQDs Table I—Impervious Surface Limits WaterashedProtettlon Impervious tamiu(Reside•ntial) Impervious Umits(Non-Residential) FAWN k-lop--Date (lvealy Dl3trltt Uri iveesity LakeCdtlolAm OXIII-W 6%twUDDlahle4,2_5A Wmptoao 6% Ap111,199D U-mray Um ProteM(IINIY- 6%(se OM Wk415.1 tm eaeptiml 12%(w1lX)41k 4.1.6 tar mgAkirM ApdIZ 1990 PW} Coo CreekCrltkalArm(CAK-CN 6%(snODD Table 41.5.1krescepm) 6% Dade 19,19" Cane Geek Pmteded(CAN 6PIU) 6%(we Mable 413A lw rueptm i 12%(*t UD041k41.6 Tar evtW"tl oaotm 19,1999 Upper Eno CrnkalAn(II-ENO-CA} 64(seeiMlaNle415.11W ftnoral 6% tawny 1,1994' 12%(oul irk of lrawtorr Areas) Upper Ga ProtedCed(D-EMD-Ml3D%(wdkinlmnimn Arras) 12%Isre UMW it CMior ercgAlmnl Jimay 1,1994' 76%(wdhin"hlgh dvrairy"er EDD Areas) 24%(wilhcwlaad Amer) 14%IWOi tur6 an69ullrrl lower Erro PmWed(L•ENO•PW) 36%Iwnhout curb and ptkd 36%Iwhhoot evrh aad gatie'l Jamamy 1,19% 70%(W10*1110 de 4rook") 704(wit high dmuty'or EDD Ama%l Wile Rive,holected(LITTLE-PWI 6%(see=TaW4,25.1INiso plops) 12%IseeUDOTaNt4.2.6for eueptirroo km"1.Twit 12%ladndee1 iramnkm Ar ) Ila (mkPmhd4d(O9K-PW) 3D%Iwnhialrarrsmon Area) 12%IsnODD W*41.6Jim eueptbrrsl 70%Iwrthin'hlo derrsdry"w EDD Areas) lamamy 1.1994 WIN I"EMkProtedad lNAU-PW) 12% 11%(see UM Wa04.2.6Tordnept1on0 hnmry 1,1994 Flat Rini Protected IRAT-MI 12% 12%Isee ODD Wile 4.2.6 farenepudnsl Jammy 1.1994 Haw ftlow Protedrd NIAW-PWI 24% 14% lawiry 1.19% kr"lake Prareded UORDAN-PW) 24% 24% laniary 1.1994 'thrrr orcada9rroaaletteplAsrtsto rAe.EristAsg1kavAgmem mxrsyec;IeeoporcrA luored Aflrmrayfal rWn+roaLauPnrnnir(WFERI. ORANGE COUNTY NOIXM CAROLINA 17 18 Chris Sandt said this table was created by staff in December 2024. It clearly defines the 19 existing development date for each watershed. 20 21 22 1 Slide #8 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Articles & Sections Affected —Article 2 • 2.20 (Stream Buffers — Use Authorization Cert.) —Article 4 • 4.2 (Watershed Protection) —Article 6 • 6.13 (Stream Buffers) —Article 10 ("Water Feature") • 23 pages affected in totalIft , ORANGE COUNTY NORTH.CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #9 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Elimination of "Sliding Scale" — Section 4.2 • Origin of table is unknown, not statute-based, created in mid-1990s in response to WPOD enforcement "« • Originally intended to deal with non- " conforming lots from density and ,°.• If]bl ib} 1bMi impervious area perspectives • With new legislation, keeping the sliding scale would give a"double bump"to impervious allowances • Table was difficult to understand/use • Replaced with 12% impervious cap for all non-conforming dots Provides clarity/consistencyfor non- ORANGE COUNTY N(lWTH CAROLINA 5 conforming lots 6 7 23 1 Slide #10 Sliding Scale Example D• Section Location: Chapel Hill Township 648 Pine Acres Road 9768-59-7036 r��ryL he Watershed:University Lake Protected Lot Recorded: 1987 Year Developed: 2024 Lot Size: 26,136 sq.ft./0.6 acres Scope of Project:Double-wide Manut 3,432 sq.ft.of impervious with existing . Impervious Allowed: 38.3%10,024 sq.ft(with Sliding Scale and new Law) 14.8% 13,868 sq.ft. (with Sliding Scale) 12%+16,156 sq.ft(w/existing imp.credit) 15%+16,837 sq.ft.(wl text amend+SCM) Notes: • Lot less than 1 acre and replacement of ORANGE COUNTY manufactured home NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Patrick Mallett continued the presentation: 5 6 Slide #11 Sliding Scale ExampleD• Section Location: Chapel hill Township I 349 Warren Court 9768-67-1418 Watershed:University Lake Protected P Lot Recorded: 1973 Year Developed: 1973(house),2023(addition) Lot Size: 43,560 sq.ft.11.0 acres Scope of Project:541 sq.ft.screen porch,5,530 sq. ft,of impervious including existing — Impervious Allowed: 39%17,021 sq.ft(with Sliding Scale and new Law) 14.0% 16,098 sq.ft. (with Sliding Scale) 12%+110,923 sq.ft(wl existing imp.credit) 15%+1 11,234 sq.ft.(wf text amend+SCM) .a Notes: • 1 acre lot with existing home,driveway,and ORANGE COUNTY shed,adding a screen porch NORTH CAROLINA 7 8 9 24 1 Slide #12 Sliding Scale Example D• Section Location: dpimy.Mmw.nMpxrxa,dJi..,,le Bingham Township , �� j � _:: aFxaNnexursrnrz 4710 Nicks Road 9822-91-6452 Watershed:Cane Creek Protected Lot Recorded: 1984 Year Developed: 1984(house), ( - 2024(garage) — Lot Size: 55,103 sq.ft.1 1.265 acres Scope of Project:2,234 sq.ft.additional, — MU —�" 7,125 sq.ft.of total impervious "== •`` Impervious Allowed: 35%19,290 sq.ft(with Sliding Scale and new Law) 14.0% (7,494 sq.ft. (with Sliding Scale) 12%+111,796 sq.ft(wl existing imp.credit) 15%+113,272 sq.ft.(w/text amend+SCM) Notes: ORANGE COUNTY Existing home and driveway+garage and driveway ext. NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #13 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Lake Orange Reservoir Setbacks —.Section 6.13 • Upper Eno Critical WPOD effective and enforced since January 1, 1994 (well after the lake was created in 1968). • The majority of lots around Lake Orange are non-conforming because of this retroactive setback. • There are many Lake Orange lots smaller than 1 acre (inherently difficult to build on); platted prior to 1994. • The 150-foot reservoir setback is 100 feet wider than state minimum; it is not possible for these lots to meet the 150-foot reservoir setback without a variance approval. • Recent research has indicated no significant water quality benefits beyond state-standard 50-foot buffer. We will enforce 75-foot. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 25 1 Christopher Sandt continued the presentation: 2 3 Slide #14 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Lake Orange Reservoir Setbacks — Section 6.13 Addressed Structures xoxl}Within jou'0615'Elevation lsne r F.u.. - ■ Almost 70 existing homes already 1 _° encroach within \ i- the 150-foot ;. reservoir setback — + ■ 15 existing homes are already within - 75-feet of the shoreline ... DRANGEE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 4 5 Christopher Sandt explained that even with these changes, the 15 homes within 75 feet 6 of the shoreline would likely still need to submit a variance if any improvements are planned. 7 8 Slide #15 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Lake Orange Reservoir Setbacks — Section 6.13 • 75-foot reservoir setback allows for: ■ Existing homes to become conforming; • Homeowners to perform improvements/repairs to existing homes without the need for variance requests; and • Ensuring long-term protection water quality of Lake Orange with a 25-foot wider reservoir setback than state minimum. Uig"SNC= COUN i Y 9 10 26 1 Slide #16 Proposed UDO Text Amendments Article 10 refinement of "Water Feature" definition • Current definition is misleading and oversteps Grange County's delegated regulatory authority—which is specific to riparian buffers and floodplain • Elimination of listed examples that fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of state or federal government(e.g.,artesian wells, wetlands, etc.) ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #17 Recommendations for Tonight The Manager recommends the BOCC: 1. Consider the Planning director's and Planning Board's recommendations, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment, 3. Deliberate on the proposal, and 4. Decide and vote on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 1) and the proposed UDa Text Amendments (Attachment 2). ORANGE COUNTY NOWTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 27 1 Slide #18 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Questions? 2 3 4 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to open 5 the public hearing. 6 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 10 Laura Streitfeld asked the board not to approve the amendments, arguing they should wait 11 until after completing the 2050 land use plan. She expressed concern that reducing setbacks and 12 changing impervious calculations could pose public risks and decrease water quality protections 13 around Lake Orange, which experienced flooding during Tropical Storm Helene. She stated the 14 amendments were inconsistent with several 2030 comprehensive plan principles and the 2025 15 strategic plan's environmental protection goals. 16 17 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to 18 close the public hearing. 19 20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 21 22 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Chair Bedford, to approve the 23 Statement of Approval and Consistency(Attachment 1) and the proposed LIDO Text Amendments 24 (Attachment 2). 25 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 28 6. Regular Agenda 29 a. Chapel Hill Transit FY26 Q2 Annual Work Program Amendments for Transit 30 This item was removed from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. 31 32 b. Discussion of Closed Session Timing/Location on Board Meeting Agendas 33 The Board continued discussion on the timing/location of Closed Sessions on Board meeting 34 agendas. 35 28 1 BACKGROUND: Members of the Board of Commissioners expressed an interest in where 2 Closed Sessions are scheduled on Board meeting agendas. The Board previously discussed this 3 topic at the September 9, 2025 work session. 4 5 Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board, presented options for holding closed sessions earlier in 6 the evening rather than at the end of meetings. She said the board experimented with a 6:00 pm 7 special meeting for a closed session on October 6th before their regular meeting. She explained 8 that the current Rules of Procedure list closed sessions as item 13 during business meetings. 9 Looking at 2026, 9 of 21 business meetings would have conflicts at 6:00 pm due to other board 10 obligations. For work sessions, 2 of 13 would have conflicts. She proposed giving the board a list 11 of potential early closed session dates at the beginning of the year, with a 48-hour notice required 12 for special meetings. She explained the limitations with special meetings. The 48-hour notice 13 requirement for special meetings means topics arising within that window couldn't be added, 14 limiting flexibility compared to the current item 13 placeholder. 15 Vice-Chair Hamilton said the Board could continue Item 13, and for the dates that it is 16 possible to have early closed sessions, could do so with a special meeting notice. 17 Laura Jensen agreed and added a caveat that there are special circumstances that 18 would require a closed session at the end of a meeting, i.e., the security session. She explained 19 that the December 9th security session must occur in the board room after the meeting, when 20 all other staff have left. 21 Commissioner Carter said she thought it would require an amendment to the rules of 22 procedure to have closed sessions before work sessions. 23 Laura Jensen said this would not require a change to the Rules of Procedure, and that, 24 as long as there is notice, a closed session could be added before the meeting, or the Board 25 could add a closed session to a work session agenda. 26 Commissioner Carter said she thought the because the Rules of Procedure only mention 27 closed sessions during business meetings, that they could not take place during work sessions. 28 John Roberts said items can be added to any agenda for regular meetings on the 29 Board's calendar. However, he explained that a special meeting called for a closed session 30 could only include the topics for which it was called. 31 Chair Bedford said it may be more transparent to change the language of the Rules of 32 Procedure to align with what the Board is deciding. 33 Commissioner Portie-Ascott agreed. 34 John Roberts said language could be added if the Board would like. 35 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she doesn't like that item 13 would be a placeholder 36 and would prefer the Board stick with having closed sessions earlier in the evening. She asked 37 about options before 6:00 pm or meeting for closed sessions virtually. 38 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she can't meet earlier because of her job. She said the Board 39 can agree to have closed session at 6:00 pm when possible, but item 13 is needed in case the 40 closed session takes too much time before the meeting or in case something comes up that 41 requires a closed session within the 48-hour window. 42 Commissioner Fowler said she is fine with the flexibility of having closed sessions at 43 6:00 pm but would appreciate a reminder. 44 Commissioner McKee agreed he would need reminders. He said some counties meet 45 earlier in the day, but he does not support that because it limits who can serve on the Board. 46 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the Board could meet virtually. 47 John Roberts said the North Carolina General Statutes acknowledge that electronic 48 meetings can occur, but that is unsettled law at this time outside of a state-declared emergency. 49 If the Board decided to do that ever, he would recommend it be done for a work session where 29 1 no final decisions are made. He said decisions are often made in closed sessions, so he would 2 not recommend virtual meetings for most of those. 3 Commissioner Carter asked if the Board could discuss this again after testing earlier 4 meeting times for closed sessions. She said she likes the idea of having meetings at other times 5 of the day. 6 Commissioner Greene said meeting earlier than 6:00 pm is not possible for her. 7 Chair Bedford said the vast majority of people would also get excluded from attending 8 meetings if they were held during the day. 9 After additional discussion about the Rules of Procedure and whether changes were 10 needed, the Board reached consensus to: 11 . Keep closed sessions as item 13 for flexibility 12 • Have Laura Jensen provide a calendar of dates when 6:00 pm closed sessions would 13 work 14 • Hold closed sessions at 6:00 pm when no commissioners have conflicting obligations 15 • Not formally change the Rules of Procedure, but establish this as a preference 16 • Ensure adequate reminders when 6:00 pm sessions are scheduled 17 18 7. Reports 19 None. 20 21 8. Consent Agenda 22 23 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 24 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 25 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 26 27 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to 28 approve the consent agenda. 29 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 a. Minutes for October 21, 2025 Business Meeting 33 The Board approved the draft minutes for the October 21, 2025 Business Meeting. 34 b. Boards and Commissions —Appointments 35 The Board approved the Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed 36 during the November 11, 2025 Work Session. 37 c. Abolition Day Proclamation 38 The Board approved a proclamation recognizing December 6, 2025 as Abolition Day in Orange 39 County. 40 d. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budqet Amendment#4 41 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 42 2025-26. 43 e. North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program - Orange County Sheriff's Office 44 Police Traffic Services and Approval of Budget Amendment#4-A 45 The Board: 46 1) adopted a Resolution recognizing federal funding for police traffic services to the Sheriff's 47 Office; 48 2) authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution; and 49 3) authorized Budget Amendment #4-A. 30 1 f. White Cross Fire Truck Financing and Authorization for the Chair to Execute Required 2 Documents 3 The Board: 4 1) approved a County verification letter confirming that the White Cross Volunteer Fire 5 Department (WCVFD) is a qualified volunteer fire department assigned to protect the 6 White Cross Fire Service District and that an ad valorem fire tax is levied within the district; 7 and 8 2) authorized the Board Chair to execute the verification letter and any related, non- 9 substantive documents required by the lender to complete the financing for a new fire 10 truck for WCVFD. 11 g. Award of Bid for Installation/Replacement of Booths at Solid Waste & Recycling 12 Centers and Approval of Budget Amendment#4-B 13 The Board awarded a bid to Central Builders, Inc. of Mebane for the installation/replacement of 14 eight (8) booths at three (3)of the Waste and Recycling Centers to protect staff from extreme cold 15 and hot weather as the existing structures are inadequate for this purpose, and approved Budget 16 Amendment#4-B. 17 h. Purchase of Equipment for Solid Waste Management 18 The Board awarded and authorized the Orange County Solid Waste Department to purchase four 19 (4) pieces of equipment. 20 L Purchase of Vehicles for Multiple Departments 21 The Board approved and authorized Orange County Fleet Services Department to purchase ten 22 (10) vehicles. 23 j. Amendment to Professional Services Contract with Clarion Associates to Develop a 24 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 25 The Board approved a contract amendment between Orange County and Clarion Associates, 26 LLC, adding additional note-taking services to the contract for the development of a 27 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 28 k. Approval of a Contract Amendment with TVler Technologies for the ExecuTime 29 Timekeeping System 30 The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign a contract amendment with Tyler 31 Technologies, Inc. to migrate the County's Enterprise Timekeeping system to Tyler Technologies 32 ExecuTime. 33 I. Approval of Enterprise Agreement for Microsoft Office 365 Subscription Licenses 34 The Board: 35 1) approved and authorized the Manager to sign a contract for the purchase of Microsoft 36 Office 365 subscription licenses from Software House International Corp.; and 37 2) approved and authorized the Manager to sign the associated Microsoft Volume Licensing 38 Enrollment Agreement. 39 m. Approval of Master Plan Amendment— Blackwood Farm Park 40 The Board approved an amendment to the adopted Master Plan for Blackwood Farm Park to 41 reflect planned updates as part of Phase 2-13 of the park. 42 n. Approval of a Contract with O'Brien Atkins for Design and Engineerinq Services for the 43 Renovation of the Link Center and the Sheriff's Office Evidence Storage Facility 44 The Board: 45 1) reviewed and approved the proposal and contract with O'Brien Atkins for design and 46 engineering services for the renovation of the Link Center and a Sheriff's Office Evidence 47 Storage Facility; and 48 2) authorized the County Manager to execute the Agreement, subject to final review by the 49 County Attorney, and any subsequent amendments for contingent and unforeseen 50 requirements up to the approved budget amount on behalf of the Board. 51 31 1 o. Orange County FY26 Q2 Annual Work Program Amendments for Transit 2 The Board approved the Orange County FY26 Quarter 2 (Q2) amendments to the Annual Work 3 Program (AWP) for transit. 4 5 9. County Manager's Report 6 Travis Myren reminded the Board of the retreat on Friday at 1:00 pm at the Whitted Human 7 Services Building. 8 9 10. County Attorney's Report 10 John Roberts had no report for the Board. 11 12 11. *Appointments 13 None. 14 15 12. Information Items 16 • Memorandum — Financial Report - First Quarter FY 2025-26 and FY 2024-25 Unaudited 17 Results 18 • Memorandum —Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports 19 20 13. Closed Session 21 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to enter 22 into closed session to "consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order 23 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body," pursuant to 24 NCGS 143-318(a)(3). 25 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 28 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION 29 A motion was made by Chair Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to reconvene 30 into regular session at 10:09 p.m. 31 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33 34 Adjournment 35 36 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to 37 adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. 38 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 41 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 42 43 44 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 45 46 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board Attachment 3 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 RETREAT 5 November 21, 2025 6 1:00 P.M. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a retreat on Friday, November 21, 2025 at 9 1:00 p.m. at Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton, 12 and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: James Bryan, Staff Attorney 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin 17 Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below) 19 20 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. All commissioners were present, 21 except for Commissioners McKee and Fowler. 22 23 Chair Bedford welcomed everyone to the meeting. 24 25 Commissioner Fowler arrived at 1:01 p.m. 26 27 Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director said the session was the final educational 28 meeting on the 2050 land use plan, following inquiries by the commissioners after presenting a 29 draft earlier this year. He said the main focus during the retreat will be conservation subdivisions, 30 integrating all prior educational topics. He said the key questions are 31 1. Where and when are these appropriate in the county? 32 2. Where would they be most useful? 33 3. How can they be best constructed based upon the information that you've received so 34 far? 35 He said the challenges involve issues like net density and yield lot plans, aligning with zoning, 36 strategic, and draft land use plan values. He said conservation subdivisions were proposed widely 37 in the future land use map but not universally. He said the land use plan serves as guidance, 38 unlike the county's development ordinance. Amendments to the LIDO could enable these across 39 the county or in identified priority areas. He introduced Randall Arendt, noted for his role in 40 conservation subdivision discourse and authoring "Rural by Design." 41 42 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information 43 1. Conservation Subdivisions 44 Randall Arendt made the following presentation: 45 46 Conservation Subdivision Design. An excellent way to pre.�erve rural resaarees in the Rural Area and in the Rural Buffer Copyright 2025 by Randall Arendt y. Secand Etlitip RURAL �Y I]ESIGN PLANNING FQR TQWN Al*T6 CQUNTRY ter RANI3ALL AREP+iIJT 3 1 Slide #3 Conservation Design for Subdivisions Randall G. Arendt Natwral Lawdr Trwt,Americaw New wing Arreciatirw,Awd Amrricaw Society of Lawdtcape Architects Z 3 4 Slide #4 111110WIN6 61111INHI I'mmigConservation into lAcal Plans and Ofdinances � 7 ' . . . Arendt5 6 7 4 1 Slide #5 CEMEM CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION HANDBOOK han Drop.ewmy. i :..nr•.raa,re,li wT.,zr f A GUIDE FOR NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITIES IN THE USE OF CONSERVATION DESIGN FOR LAND USE PLANNING TMNorth CarolNia IN,'6UIE UNIVEPSI NCSWa Unirertity awl UAan and Community I Frxrsrxl.a Forntry and[miro—ntal _ FOPesvy Program L.1fnr\Vn�i ��0A,r ,hprogam f _ RIAR P[ 2 3 4 Slide #6 r r - r V r Fiol&,Stream Cotridor,and Mature Woodlands protected 4 from Development 6 7 With GSD, there is lrttle correlation between lot size and lot price. The smaller lats can either be pricey ar nat. below are small lots with starter houses -- Slide #7 and the next slide shows them with expensive homes. Slide Expensive homes like these are on very small lots in the Westwood Commons GSD north of Detroit. I ¢ fir;: �0., `'44..�`,e•4�-��--, �_ ._ __ Slide • • An opposing abutter was very concerned about proposed small-lot houses next-door devaluing his larger-lot home. Ik But after he saw them built, he decided to join the small-lot neighborhood with a new driveway from his back yard to the new cul-de-sac with the pricey homes -- thereby improving his own property values. C '11Mll!Ctl 1 M NY• x 'dn.'r6i• i a Slide #10 The attractive upland open space in a CSD compensates for the smaller lot sizes, as they do in a golf course development. r - A ��r This is why CSIs are sometimes described as "golf course developments without the golf course" — with neighborhood greens instead of putting greens Slide #11 and greenways instead of fairways. Slide fact, CSD can provide a variety of housing types and price-points. At Battle Road Farm in Lincoln, MA 120 homes (44% of which are affordable) are located on 24 acres at 5 du/ac, and with 59% open space. Slide Subdivision Design Typically Protects 50-�5% of the land, Slide #14 Much more than either Clustering or "Flexible Development" r 5, t, The shortcomings of Flexible Developments were my primary motivation in creating the superior CSD approach 30 years ag©. -- P Slide protect at least 5a% of the unconstrained land, PLUS all of the wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes. In contrast, Flexible DMevelopi��ents are allowed to include ALL of these unbuildable land types plus "wet pond" stormwater basins in meeting their mini�num open space requirements. Slide • . These are "Meld Plans", a critically important step showing how many; lots could realistically be located on the parcel, given its constraints — and not based on total acreage. � qAM i ;� �iq 1 Slide #17 Ta better protect mare of the developable land (such as farmland} in the rural areas, and in the Rural Buffer,. the bounty might consider upgrading Flexible Developments with the better CSD standards, �R Replacing the Flexible Development provisions with those for Conservation Subdivision Design. Slide drawback to Flexible Development is that— in allowing developers tv count unbuildable land as part of their required minimum open space — they can satisfy much of that requirement with wetlands, steep slopes and flvadplains — thereby allowing them to locate houselots on farmland and ether resources needing protection. IMPC), the Dural Buffer zoning is still too rigid — even with. "Flexible Development" -- and does not allow the greater flexibility of CST3, which would enable new developments at the desired overall two-acre density to conserve much more land, with smaller lots. CSDs can help achieve a number of important goals, incl�iding Envirorunental Resource Protection Slide #20 Climate Resilience Farmland Conservation I�©using Attainability More and Better Wastewater Options 12 1 Slide #21 Wastewater treatment can be provided in a variety of different Conservation ! 1 Design: On-lot 1 ! . 1 Off-lot / / rsepticdrainfields Off-lot shared drainfields 2 3 Randall Arendt said he preferred shared drain fields for 3-5 homes. He said that way if 4 something goes wrong, it will not affect the entire community, as it did for Piney Mountain. 5 6 Slide #22 ti � Bever sgiis rj,b4arginal soils 4 �r Thirteen two-and-one-half acre lois Thirteen one-acre lets Six on marginal soil All on better soil 7 9 13 •- The CSD approach is well-suited to Individual off-Lot Septics serving smaller lots that enable Sli substantial open space to be preserved. ; d- If ofd lot septic drain�elds need to be located on the better farmland soil, the house lots could be located on other nearby soils thereby minimizing farmland lass. 6 Randall Arendt said that septic tanks are pumped triannually in a conservation subdivision. 7 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if farms could still use land where drain fields are located. Randall Arendt said no, but drainfield only • about 2,000 squaresaid 9 drainfield should be fenced off to prevent tractors and livestock entering. 10 Shared Dff--Lot Septics and Wells can serve CSDs. 14 Slide #25 nwaclow )d t; wydy "uhf} y� ,� sr + j *► . far lots 0 200 400 :,. SlideFEET • . 14 cies �'av�d with +�'S`l� Towns and Townships Westborough, MA 44S acres Westford, MA GSQ acres Hamburg Twp, MI 75Q acres Hopkinton, MA $75acres Counties Cherokee County, GA 1,374 acres Waukesha County, WI 1,67Q ages Hanover County, VA 5,55Q acnes Calvert County, MD 7,755 acres San Luis Obispo County, CA 9,OQQ acres Nationwide Estimate: 104�,UaQ to 1$q,�}�Q acres CSFs have bccn created in many states in different regions of the country, including the Northeast, the MidAtlantic, the South, the I�'Iidwest, the Rockies,. the West Coast,. and across Canada. Such as Maine, Massachusetts, CT, PA, MD, 15 Slide #27 Washington State. Slide #28 Q �lership cif S I� +open Space �Iomeowner Associations Land Trusts Counties or Municipalities Perrnal�ent Protection of the Open Space �'hrough Conservation Easements held by Land Trr�sts Counties or Municipalities State or Federal Agencies Manae�nent of the Protected +�pel� Space Performed by the Open Space Owner According to a Management Plan Approved by the County or Municipality I�ctailing what needs to be done, how frequently, and by whom �Conservatian Lands in �SI�s have been used 17 Slide #31 in many different ways Slide #32 �l' I FTl'�11YI YG f'IFr�f R S! . A I. A. -771 1p Wj v a � a "" • fila �s+ h' i�� /}R '- ri J�I.� r, ter° � .1 .`r + ' y-a� '��. �� �+ -- .- - � • 19 Slide #35 I _ Sli yam•- • r �� •ter ��� r - ,�'F�, J :a 1 1 l� . Yt _ n A IVIG { r t ��� - � r�• 7 f f' ' J'1 s°,t T�vn r"����,x4 {J•r�� �� !r, 21 1 Slide #39 CSA 1997 Produce t- - 351-1035 2 3 4 Slide #40 r h J 6 7 22 1 Slide #41 1CN rr+ ,��Pon r s a olwt _ � ,� �,fir+��r�,,�•4 rt:�^�.: 3 4 Slide #42 to 3 5 t� i �{fir ♦ � K f d 6 � 1� �, � p'.,i 5 6 7 23 Slide � �- X. ��� • i=lam. 4' '+._� � f I Slide •I I r� t v Y 24 1 Slide #45 �r; k "tom ✓ �-.-_:�.� 'gym �` `�'t•� ! - t• 3 4 Slide #46 J x- 5 6 7 25 Slide '4 Sli •At.� -� CY — IY� arfiR Y.�. ` J •_ .. ; r a W6 • t t 26 Slide •4• Sli •- ' i tiG 4 Slide #52 28 s I Slide I CSDs can also prated viewsheds clang rural roads and Scenic Byways 29 1 Slide #55 A. wv ir. 2 3 4 5 Slide #56 - r •'l�,} ?� Vin. �A-w +c •� � � ���' '�• � fir �~ r c� 7 8 1 Ll t^ It Ile rR'• •. f r l � ;1'ilil � ► � ,.;1���1fll� e11'� , ,,�yA��....• .,..,....•,.... � •1�1 ,y1 ' M 31 Slide #59 Slide •61 Randall Arendt said that the area in slide #60 was likely the septic drainfield. 1 S 1te v151tS; An Essential First Step with Applicants +hand abutters} To Discover and Evaluate 32 Slide #61 Special Site Features Slide • . Site visits are essential because reviewing a paper plan without walking the property is like hiring a person on the basis o� a resume only, and with no in-person interview. These site visits are informal outdoor Work Sessions conducted by PB members (and sometimes by BOCC members too), advertised in the usual manner, at which no decisions are made. A J- 01! r y ! � i 34 Slide • . y. T 7 r 3 fir' M T L Slide • •• It's extremely difficult for officials to really understand � property simply by ]oohing at atwo-dimensional abstraction, life a paper map. Everyone benefits when they see the land three-dimensionally, in person. 35 1 Slide #67 - fy z � - 3 4 Slide #68 b r 1 u 5 \ �. 6 7 36 Slide • .• I prefer to create Sl�etch Plans Slide #70 collaboratively, immediately following a site visit when impressions and ideas are fresh in everyone's minds, r I 37 1 Slide #71 2 3 4 Slide #72 AM 16 1 y V \I �t 5 6 7 w 38 Slide #73 Slide I recommend that cedes require that Sketch Plans be created by Landscape Architects or by physical planners, and net by engineers, whale training is mostly in streets and starmwater. I�et designers do the designing, and engineers do the engineering. Y've had excellent experiences involving abutters upfront during informal site visits — where they can ask questions and. sometimes provide useful 39 Slide #75 information. Slide . This kind of public input can be very helpful at the critical Sketch Plan stage — before the expensive "Preliminary Plan" is engineered. 1 Slide #77 The fallowing resource examples Slide #78 can be seen on site walks and can be protected during the Sketch Plan design process. 41 Slide #79 QST � Iy�; � �?'��-�• Sli � � - :. � `�i ,yam `•�,' � � - R •- • .1 i ' s � A a i v 42 Slide • : z. Slide • : J� �.^eell T �"•�� ' 1 r 43 Slide • : r' iSlide 44 Slide • : /�y� •.r 4 •`Y.� ~� "�- � � � r'Y - -fes �_'�+ Sli •' • :• aw � 1t V , 45 Slide • : .c�: .moi Y1: ..S.'l. '.;•�. AL Sli i. •- #88 : .wry � 4 L jv� �£�•.� ' All I 46 Slide • •1 i Slide . •0 I yo h , � I { k I 47 Slide • : p - - `8e M� �t 1 - 1 '.. 'tib .f♦ Sli 4 •- • • Four-�te� D�Sigr� Pr��ess : 1 Identify Potential Canser�ation Areas � Laeate H©use Sites 3 connect Hames with Streets 4 Draw in the Lot -Lines 48 1 Slide #93 XA i 4y•. 2 3 4 Slide #94 z v ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r +hfloodplain so A � - •tiydric soils jet •-�' •sgallow soils %; ■ s •moderate to steep �` + ■ ■ slopes(>15%) ■ ` stun ■ F At, SPr`ngy r Roh�arsvill¢ fload G gas a0e u �{' IFeai 5 6 7 49 Slide steep slopes(>25%) 4 floodplain hydric soils i f � , ff iSlide . •6 VE $••.1'.r� f '1 ..wt.. I 'Ms. �' �.��lt Yi ��� � f �"'� _ .p• .jam �ry M . �ji1, 'Q k� �v,R S •� 4=.,+ _� ids/5�..,?, � ,�. 1', �' iC}.'d�,; •� ',�, �, ..,-_ ice', �.0 z � f Y 50 1 Slide #97 meadow, m � pines m N o stone wall field va moderate slopes (55-25%) redbuds wildlife corridor stone wall meadow i i a orchard Rnn spring and Ffewing Springs springhouse cabin historic site meadow Fiahrersvi140 Road 300 600 Fed Z 3 4 Slide #98 �I f 1� :t l � ii AW d8I 5 6 7 51 1 Slide #99 ` -potential development areas i' 9 0 cL conservatior f'lawin S� ri11gs Run 4 Slide #100 d S N ♦ o wa house sites - / • r conservation are; ■ xun plowing spr;u8 ' cabin 5 -A 6 7 52 1 Slide #101 roads house sites m d �c ' '• trails w ■Ok 40 l 1 ■ conservation area � � ■ ■jam . � ■ ■ ` Rnn spring F1nwln�. -ngs - - S P r cabin RohrersviVle Road o aoo sas z LJ 1__4 Feet 2 3 4 Slide #102 r meadow future road extension t Eli m N atone trails v wall v ♦ Ij meadow r recall 60 to stone wall n► ■' r • i ■ orchard { ` rRun spring and FlowinD Prim i sprnghouse ,11LL1 `\— cabin meadows historic site villa Road � _, Rohrers i Z i,� j�l i FePi 5 6 7 53 1 Slide #103 d :T '. a 0 t.■ Tx— 's All ■ �_ is ti o '/ ` ■ ; ~ r •floodplain hyydfic soils •gh - ' ellOW soilg '^f: ■ •moderate to steep moi', ■ ■ slopes(>15%) Run i . ■ ■f Aohrersvl4e goad 0 JOtI�e�Oa lel L.y IFeN 2 3 4 Slide #104 meadow future road extension m d w m N J r � so , stone 9 wall V traits o ♦ �f meadow r redbuds-- 10 stone wall - ' r L r I orchard- + ♦ 12 u n lowing ing� spring and - �p r springnause cabin meadows historic site Rohrers vile Road s 0 �40��600 z LI LJ IF@el 5 6 7 54 1 Slide #105 44, '4 r 2 3 4 Slide #106 1,. i i 5 6 7 •- 1 - ,y� ,u7�• +► ,,Wit',=�.; �;� ry;� �qii;'• 10 '•: Ll a4♦ w�#sw j'i'��'1S!? w'. I`-? �♦r mar l�� 4L ^ i► 4 � •- li y.��4� t.y.�• 11. -J S � *+1 ►4C .* ► r� r*s, �s .'rs +*r�fji rip" , "" ,• • ITSUd 1 �<�.�• t k• ,'RM"�j=a?r�a'.;- .�# �t1' ♦a �f,:d f���. � f ���F���� � ��!� r1C w" �►f��i �`3�'qT� .t APw� I ) M�' M' � �?rr IN . • �..�}>' a� aPIT . r 14 56 1 Slide #109 :NK ,--e �. A, i 7WFF - co Oogle 5 1� • "r a _ ..e� C3.. r : 2 3 4 Slide #110 w, S,• ��k,.4 df�{n.� �r. .fit .�•� , S} •Mf � .,gip �,,�myr :•, , 5 6 7 57 1 Slide #111 A quick example drawn amunicipalplanner New England • show a applicant of CSD pr z 3 4 Slide #112 POW lip • , _ K1 ;r r� The Merrill Farm i Y 6 7 58 1 Slide #113 A� Conventional Subdivision ~ 6MOM..' 9 WA ;l 3 4 Slide #114 Z Lohse 4- _N+rir- _ r Secondary conservation ,✓ , 6 7 59 1 Slide #115 Water Access Paint k ✓, v ,p 1 i i i Conservation Subdivision 1 c `,l Water Access Point 1 t'e t ! 1 } I + Y B �� 1 t t 7 6 8 ; 4 3 2 i k 10 - Homestead + 1 .r •X I` RvYtlsidc Buffers 2 3 4 Slide #116 RIF_ J 1 �1 •t 8 \ 1 :7t 01 s a � 6 7 60 1 Slide #117 Compare Sketch (prepared SubmittedBEFORE "Preliminary" Plan is 2 3 4 Slide #118 z v 'Ip ■ ■ ■ • • r +floodplain A - •hyydric soils ow soils %; ■ s •moderate to steep �` + ■ ■ slopes(>15%) ■ ` ftun ■ Ff°win8 SPr`ngy r Roh�arsvill¢ fload G 9Da�B�Ue LJ IJ' IFeai 5 6 7 61 1 Slide #119 r meadow future road extension- m w m - 0 + Y • r trans 0 • 'meadow r redbuds— • • - stone wait r �' r I J 1 orchard !t rr e plowin8 s spring and Sprrng springhouse cabin meadows historic site Rohrersvhle Road o� �--g aoo sosoo = 1�I ♦—I �Fgel 2 3 4 Slide #120 10 4W i 40 400 1 t / 5 6 7 62 1 Slide #121 .V 1 11 \ ti \� yl p Val X, fir, 7,--.i1 A ....:. -, 2 Trai! B •• ••.. 3 4 Slide #122 illustratingRural CSD Examples better for Water Supply and • ' Disposal 5 6 7 �onservatian Subdivisions With Individual Wells and Septics Fi�1ds �.ti �a1d H�.rb�r Hanover County, VA Individual an-lot W ells and Individual an-Iot Septic Systems At a Five-acre C3vera1l Density ��S ane-acre lots on 12Q acres} 64 1 Slide #125 o°. r • Q • 2 3 4 Slide #126 Or x 5 x - r 6 7 ihP! , v r � • c sy j yu. 65 Slide #127 Slide • �j 1 r 1 _ J � s . ,r Cc�nser�atian Subdivisians Shared e11s and Shared Septics Indian �Jall� Individual an-lit V►vrells and Shared Central Scptie Drainfield S� acres with. ten lots (ZO,OOQ t© 30,0+��J SFS About 9©% open space 4 I, f 1 � ,i �Y.� ,•may} � A6 Y i I��lt. 1'( .t y �� � 1, � •ty�`ti•� s !. f : r LLP AN r � .%wP it ay ;y +a}.ar,,�-•.1��, a-'. ,tie iL , + - I�, y•�';r �t�� ,,. a ��. AIMPOW, -AW . � 4 `j z. S .17N.. IN N i� a��f��N �td� �M� ♦�4�';'�'1�"� � '.�s) r �'�y_ �J�" �y-, +��.nterb�ury �s u�;kingham, Twp., FA. 1 � small Starter Homes with '/�-acre Tats on 17 acres And about 75 a/a open space Shared well and 69 Slide #135 +Carnmunit� Septic �rain�eld Slide #136 I. tWd �. 4. t cj �,►� is meadow 200 w li FEET � a Lardsvile Road 1 � v t, ,� �r�^i�f F�dm 5 x.15, ••yy •�F�_hfl� rL k:� L:, y,zoix�"! .f ,yc•' _ _ L "idP�'� 'zsr« T 71 Slide #139 c iSlide #140 +P J 4 } o M EA i a ice- '...•. �.. �►,�`��+� , a� � •. +��r�servation subdivisions with. 73 Slide #143 C] -Lot Individual Septic Slide #144 trathm�re F�.rm N1�.diS4n, �Zl 24 homes on �� acres (1 .2-acre density} Condominiums on "lots" a� 1�,a00 to 12,OQ0 SF [)�f-lvt individual Septic Fields in the common open space (sawed by public water) 74 Slide #145 L J. t, T� idi. J��ds_ s �► Slide#146 Ali � v � '_ ��•� ` ,rr yy9C r�j��, ' , ��Ste":tom Al�,b s r~ + �''�k'-�d r"'�.rt c Ni`• �;;ia f H tr �hf a{: y`.. hcu•.+ <j: !r� ,fig Y 5+. rr���y' c c_ � 75 Slide I Sli•- AL mr f i� i 76 Slide #149 Sli L r � •- , � $r r 77 1 Slide #151 ' f rr u r(L - I I r �r! U- -I r I I I I ru, r rr 7r`; t r r r- _ �r u n rr frr lrr rrr f I _JL_ rr rir rrr if r i ii ir�l I I r—�r�l I I r_�-- r !r 1! !r r it II II I I 11 II II I I II 1IF I I I U rr rr r I it II II I I �I II II I I I! II �I V r rr I I II 11 11 I I II II II I I II II II I I a�1 r ! II 11 QI � I �� II II I I II 11 11 I II LI I I II II 11 I I _ I I Z � — 3 4 Slide #152 Conservation Subdivisions with Community Septic (in the protected open space) 5 6 7 Par�i��eberry Place Ipswich, lv'IA 24 lats 8,.500 SF an 37 acres (a density of nearly twa acres peg• dwelling} 78 Slide #153 Shared septic drainfield, and public water Slide s> Ea M al to, ;t Y vas 79 Slide #155 r 11 Wij _ •iG Slide #156 I. I Randall Arendt said that the view in slide #156 is of the shared drainfield for the development. :1 �`a ':L� may♦ 4t �y? � 4 }kf•—� },sem A t - � �, �r pt YV t \ X•=� Ste#►' �+ '. JW�t - }b'�l^F.,�: �; •• Slide N�u�tiple Shared Septic Systems and Shared Webs Un utility easements in the open space Slide #160 Kingfield Chadds Fnrd Twp.,Delaware County,PA 1 Shared W e11s and Shared Septic Drainfie�ds 3$ dwellings on 76 acres including 6 attached Townhouse units} 74% open space (5�6 acres 82 1 Slide #161 I I I l s W ,I meadow single +I family lots 5 3 w meadow �• I o s tow uses y m w condominiums original r farmhouse °pond s _ I s=septic field 0 200 400 800ft W=well house Z 3 4 Slide #162 ✓4 k4S aS y. Y y � s + 1 5 6 7 83 Slide #163 � t Slide #164 t: '�'.�,icy" � ,4'•t�� �„ !.�}� t`.'�`i ;t 84 1 Slide #165 .s 2 3 4 Slide #166 I � rir 6 7 �u�t�pXe hared �eptic �ysterr�s �'n utility easements in the open space 85 Slide #167 I'ul�lie V�'ater supply Slide .: Lc�n� Hi11 Farm �uilfard, �T 55 condominiurr� "lots" of S,Q�i� each, plus 3 5 attached units in a large barn-like wilding 9� dwellings vn 5(1 acres Density: l .� acres per dwelling A.bc�ut �5% apen space 86 1 Slide #169 + wOO& o No 10M rr ?a � y � ♦ j + 4r 5 f S Meadow �► S Wwdand .a''` •I ;T,cow - Scale in lee! r S= Community septic systems(and reserve areas) 0 co za��o Z 3 4 Slide #170 + •mss � �; �. , �i�,.. `��„Rq' � mit Jgfs- l �� -yam ��• :.� t) � — 9 /r. rt , 6 7 Mr 1't i _ ''!I r 51 i.1 kyf'{1�� 1 ♦ � . OF, syn �� • `�;r �y,! .., r , t.c� 4 •`fy,�� ���'.�K�ia 1 r iyX<,U•w r }�1 d,�� a� ri'�,#r � i ¢ w, tmt� ttE1'fi, o .w. eery Sl "I fl X —got 'x Cfit. '#. a �;� a� fI - "�i-.. i:• x P I 7 i � \ '{I �`.v� , �• rJ� 1 rye+..a t �+ , Conservation Subdivisions with �ammunity Nell �.n d 89 Slide #175 Carnmunity� Septic SlideRandall Arendt said he does not usually advise having community wells and community septic systems, and that he prefers to spread out utilities. #176 The Ponds at �Vaodward Kennett Township Chester County, PA 5? homes on 1�0 acres (two-acre density} (�4 `Townho�xse units plus 33 half-acre lots} About ?(�% open space •0 Slide #177 orchard ..J PO S meadow Kennett Pike(Rte.52) Slide #178 Randall Arendt noted that the view in #178 shows the view from the road into the ♦may y� ♦ tiY sy Fsiy ;►♦ Y.►�y:}inti►�. icy y►� �� , �,�, fir.•- ,�?�'�?., .�� ;,;. r �G t development. 91 Slide #179 w � Sli•- • h�• 1 •4 � �t 92 1 Slide #181 • IAF �t- , t ,L `t. .•�..-.�, w� - f� 1. fit'A a 3 4 Slide #182 a _ a vat f 6 7 93 Slide I Slide I `y r .• �'� 94 Slide :,f' r�.�`.+ V r Sr ' �l,'^i � t'tv' f).,aj• y_-�.fk�l .. •J i � '� k a7 7 � Slide #186 '�Q111I11UI11t}� ���J�1C �,rld P`��lallc Nater eath�rstc�r�� C S L3 West Vincent Twp., Chester County PA Z73 dwellings an 3�0 ages Preserved GS% of developable land (1'95 acres of farmland and wands} Mixed uses, lncluding CQ�CI� 1lbrary branch 95 Slide s r ACCta, �� '✓ Q TI G VW TRM 4 Slide LANDS 96 Slide #189 a\�^k 0\�S�.�9vop 44 ,�.�•� �, GfL ysg � Btu - ,•� ��-' P�� el�e4rarions•Press-: r W'"awa �i„ f-r^•a°� •ii � Sunidsi"+d'`OArr• '� ���^ Revival'Pizza Puti �.. {�•" � � •'S s � � ;.:� v \,e r' ' �,� Fle�oettatHan`kin i `� ,�. - `', r�,�•r :.;E,3`� -Branch t.itirary ��" � •� 'd�� ;� - Mag�Memorres yl ` _ �P.ieschool and,Child..1�` p� a� e 3. oAa.,yd �C +''^ ; Elementary Seh"ool ��.Q,�'�' •-.,; ; ' '"'• y � B9ue Aviancs Slide #190 t •:Y • Randall Arendt • the view in slide •1 is where the treated wastewatersprayed the development. 97 Slide #191 Ire OR Mai t •_ #192 !t - Randall Arendt said the multifamily homes in slide #192 back up to an alley, which meant that a road did not need to be built in front. 98 Slide #193 Pon. Slide #194 �1 ;+hE ,P�"1� '� �'�' .y .. ,•fib ,�k G - Fti q � .U ` ��, �^.. f - F -y 71 rl 1" j ��y'i� � 'i��5 �{ ��s b r(��`�S•Ma} }r`�" ,� r.l� #'q+, v .�� 1°Fi..� P 100 1 Slide #197 3 4 Slide#198 won 6 7 1 Slide #199 Slide 00 The Fields of St. Croix Lake Elora, MN Community Well, plus Constructed Wetland sewage treatment system 11� homes on 247 acres �2.�-acre density} About 6d°lo open space 102 1 Slide #201 -TUWra11Lv 'C.5 A .. a 1 -- 3 4 Slide #202 m, 7 1 Slide #203 I�::) 1997 Produce • • 4 Slide #204 5 L:7 • Slide #205 1 �t IN,1V Al �' _ —it_ •,f, .ver►�:lti:c+, � - 14 Slide #206 r j• 1 Slide #207 i • Slide #208 - q Y �Y PSA}G � Nt ♦ L'Ji�4 ��.1'1�.r�y7}1�J�;r,a,�,,;� ���}}r1�5.1 i �l'='. 1,: r� Z", Yi �5 k.. J Jf • "fir t, r9". �'�... R 1°,�t- �tg .�+y ; ,� �v�r- Ch1,�_p. C �.'• ' 1 6 1 Slide #209 arrived4 Commissioner McKee 00 • •' #210 L �� 4 j ! i � ` �( Y •fi ✓�' r V •�r3 f'�1 t�'it.� �iii.�' N.h��f • Slide f ttil i �I� ytT� •` �►' _� fix; � - NL1. ,4- 3 10 �. 1. }.f Slide Slide #213 IF �J T Am di Iri Areas with Public '"Vater �.nd Public Sewer CSD becomes USD �("+Qpen Space Development") Usually with 25-40% preserved land Lower Makefield Twp. Bucks County, PA 31 a harr�es an 31© buildable acres with 1(1$ acres of unbuildable land conserved Density of one dwelling per buildable acre Total 2f]8 acres land preserved(14d ac. farmland, S8 ac. woodland) I]esgned by a Landscape Architect 1: Slide #216 I �,.�• . �M �_. DondJLA- Designed by Michael Stadulis, RLA,0 for Realen Homes Slide #217 Colavita Cfinstmas ,�, �� 4.-�� h� Tree Farm�• �ee•�a9 ,�, +may•," 0 ♦ �� � a_ � �� iilA � �o6•�r A 109 Slide old Boraugl� of Elverson, PA 318 homes an 137 acres Density of 2.3 dwellings per acre Variety of housing types Slide #219 (single-family to 5 dulbuilding} LTse mix with chaps, offices, and a commercial equestrian facility Rau h1 33°I°o o ens ace ►` , AKP P�401 1 Slide Slide neig or ... corner store e 23 .. village F • _� townhouses ture •. 4 .. 1 cornrnurvtt�ktableoffice and �. employment centers main street twins .00 estate houses,/ �'��/�' „� Vit' �`yy"', K�t'1 s Slide #222 No f Slide Slide#224 112 Slide #225 WEI O Slide • Battle Road �ar�n Randall Arendt said that if Chapel Hill was to grow into the rural buffer, the example of Battle Road Farm might be one to consider. Lincc��n, MA 120 dwellings on 24 acres (5 dulac gross} 40°fo Affordable (48 units} 60°fo are a} Senior and b) 14�Iarket Rate 59 °fo Permanent Open Space Layout is designed like a golf course development, But without the golf coursef 113 1 Slide #227 _ a f- ir':' ,r x - - 3 4 Slide #228 MINUTE NATIONAL PARK r \ o WETLANDS. TONVNMEADO\C' ID 'M 4. Kt � r 6 Commissioner McKee asked, regarding the Battle Road Farm development, what the 7 definition of affordable is for these homes. 8 Randall Arendt said it was likely pegged to an average median income. 9 Commissioner McKee there are a lot of discussions in Orange County over what is and 10 isn't affordable. 11 Randall Arendt said that people need to be sensitive to what it means to peg a percentage 12 of what is affordable in relation to an average median income, unless there are state or federal 13 rules involved. 14 Commissioner Portie-Ascott, in reference to slide #218, asked if the Summerfield 15 development was on public water. 16 Randall Arendt said yes. 114 1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said if it is only possible to get affordable homes if there is 2 public water and sewer, or can affordable homes use a community well. She asked these 3 questions in relation to Randall Arendt's comment about Chapel Hill expanding into the rural 4 buffer. 5 Randall Arendt said yes, and community well and septic is cheaper than extending utility 6 lines. He said you would not want to run lines into the rural buffer as it encourages more growth 7 and people living farther from work and shops. 8 9 Slide #229 .■ s ii 779 1 _ a -r► � 10 =. 11 12 Slide #230 e.., t- „♦ A 13 115 1 Slide #231 Meadow House � r f� 3BR 2BR '.• . 2BR r • ti kj k ZBR S 2 3 4 Slide #232 �7 idrJnp�a o "X ��3 r �i�e{ �rY S �,, '�,I•yfytixy LTJ\�v��i '�� file; 6 7 i 116 Slide #233 Slide r,e f �T�.; f[f�+S"�'� Y �.! /� ti �t r •'•� .tet. L� R - .tea 117 Slide #235 Bungalow Courts aka Packet Neighborhoods or Cottage Clusters} with "Detached T�wnhouses" Sli Higher Density Infill with Central Open Space dither on shared septics and wells, car with public waterlsewer .- Cottages on Greene, East Greenwich, Rl An excellent way to ensure that affordable units blend with market-rate units is to require that they often share the same two-, three-, ar four-family building. a Slide #237 Slide 119 Slide low Ib Ak 17 _ A f 1 y nx Slide #240 Poplar +�ar�en North boulder, Cd 1 a�'°r`o Affordable Cottages 14 dwellings on 1 .4 acres (1� dufa�c) 1 Slide #241 hs i• iJ IM 31/ Pill � j , �•• R: r. Slide #242 ri Randall Arendt said the view in slide#242 is from the street, and that everyone has access 7 at the back to a lane. 121 Slide ti. Slide #244 F s •- It is important to require a minimum width of 34 feet for central greens, and to plant them with many shade trees. i f - - I A� T 11�� L /\, -L�) -1 A4 m Mill r ,�1. : t L • ' INS 51101 "> \r• �� AW) +� J `� I #, <•VIA+_` s �or icq� ',"or *iy �a � 'a�. •fit or a- to t�1pr �,`Irr; `ate�f • 123 1 Slide #247 r JE'-��'='r ''�rH �F�— —�r 1�1N�V I F��S � )y�� Y •}y�� �.�1 �. l CuVve-i and /F 1 , Sream 7&4 1 P t41......... r to j/.". eY!fp til „ a•aj;•.. � � 1� �� �•• s'ww c¢vcve El � 1 uCw wM R'9M ns� c \ ati V1 8642 1 / .;`., I _ �Y-,,•�i s I PC 333 1 �I�nff o®.n 3 �s',i�3 - �y'�rrFFII "•� I' h � w 2 3 Randall Arendt said the drawing in slide #247 was an example of a pocket neighborhood 4 design. 5 6 Slide #248 Because i i in the 2030 Comp Ruralthe 2050 Plan needs to include it, for the ■ - . and the Rural Buffer. meantime,In the guidance document to supportapproach would be very helpful, besides updating the UDO. 7 8 9 124 1 Slide #249 To sum f 1 protects more ! than Flexible ! i Can 1 " designed farmland loss, variousCan utilize . . options, Is compatible "Attainable! Housing", and Is very applicableto the Rural 2 3 4 Slide #250 Thank you. Randall Arendt rgarendt@coiiicast.net www.greenerprospects.com Copyright Ra1 . Arendt 5 6 Commissioner Carter asked about the four steps described by Randall Arendt for design, 7 which is identifying the conservation areas, locating the house sites, connecting homes with 8 streets and trails, and drawing lot lines. She asked at what point would those four steps be 9 incorporated into a land use plan and where would those steps be in the places he'd worked with. 10 She asked if they are embedded in the guidance, the land use plan, the UDO, or both? 11 Randall Arendt said they could be alluded to in the comprehensive plan. He said he'd sent 12 a North Carolina model for conservation design to the staff as a starting point. 125 1 Commissioner Carter said her second question was regarding buildable upland and 2 setting objectives. She asked if it was correct that the county has a 30% goal in the UDO. 3 Cy Stober said the requirement begins at 33% and then one would get lot bonuses as you 4 increase the amount of open space. 5 Commissioner Carter said gave an example of a 50% buildable upland requirement, and 6 asked if it would it be guidance or in the UDO. 7 Randall Arendt said it could be put in a guidance document, but the only thing that really 8 counts is the ordinance language. 9 Commissioner Carter asked how local governments implemented requirements to 10 conserve farmland. She asked if it is specified in the UDO? 11 Randall Arendt noted the differences in planning regulations across the United States. He 12 said that in the Bucks County, Pennsylvania development, the township had the rules. 13 Commissioner Carter asked how other open spaces were managed. 14 Randall Arendt said that the other examples were managed by a home association. He 15 gave examples that highlighted the need to properly preserve open space through easements. 16 Cy Stober said the ordinance requires for all flexible developments a conventional layout. 17 He said that staff is putting together 94 amendments at the request of the Board to better enable 18 flexible developments. He said currently, the conventional layout is only used administratively by 19 staff and is not used beyond the pre-application or application meeting. He said it's an additional 20 cost burden to an applicant who is trying to pursue flexible developments. He said Randall Arendt 21 is discussing is how flexible development could be considered in a more public way with 22 surrounding neighbors and with boards. 23 Commissioner Fowler noted that Randall Arendt's point was that communities should 24 preserve 50% of the buildable land, not the amount of land that includes the riparian buffer. She 25 said that should be considered when they are updating the UDP and comprehensive plan. She 26 asked if Randall Arendt was suggesting putting conservation subdivisions in the rural buffer in 27 places where it would work with the county's water resource limits. She asked where the best 28 place is to put conservation subdivisions. 29 Randall Arendt it's up to the local officials. He cited an example of a county that wanted 30 them close to water and sewer lines. He suggested a gradual approach, by only putting 31 conservation subdivisions in one part of the county for five years. He advised getting rid of flexible 32 development because it counts unbuildable land towards density. 33 Randall Arendt asked how riparian buffers were defined in North Carolina. 34 Cy Stober said it includes upland beyond flood plains and wet lands. He said state 35 minimum riparian buffer is 50 feet from the edge of the bank. He said Orange County has either 36 a 65-or 80-foot riparian buffer, and additional reservoir setbacks as well as a floodplain buffer. He 37 said it is either a 65-or 80-foot buffer from the edge of the 100-year flood plain. He said whatever 38 is the most conservative is what is applied to the water feature. 39 Randall Arendt clarified that it includes land beyond the flood plain. He said primary 40 conservation areas should not count toward density. He said you can always apply the buffers in 41 addition, but a good conservation plan will not push development close to those sensitive areas. 42 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for clarification on a comment Randall Arendt made 43 about requiring developers to do a 10% soil sample. 44 Randall Arendt said it would be in areas with septic systems and no sewer. He said it's 45 time consuming and expensive to test every lot. He said the developer could work with staff to 46 analyze the countywide soil maps, walk the lots, look for hydrophilic vegetation, and determine 47 which lots seem the most questionable. He gave an example of a development with 35 lots. He 48 said if 3 lots are questionable and then tested, if all 3 perk, then 35 is the number of lots. He said 49 if 1 fails, then 34 lots is the number. He said then wait a month and test 3 more lots. He said 50 when the developer goes for approval of a conservation subdivision, he needs to show where his 51 septics are proposed. He said the county wouldn't give up the requirement to prove septic 126 1 suitability for every lot. He said it will help determine the yield plan number by doing a 10% 2 sample. 3 Commissioner Carter asked Cy Stober if that is how it works in the county now. 4 Cy Stober said only the yield plan part, but the county requires a total comprehensive soil 5 suitability analysis of the entire site and well and septic locations. He said that is for applying for 6 administrative approval by staff, or if it goes to hearing. 7 Chair Bedford asked for clarification. 8 Cy Stober said there are no initial screenings of soil suitability as part of the yield or 9 concept plan. He said there are no preliminary evaluations of the soils; it's all or none. 10 Chair Bedford said that some applicants have brought soil analyses. 11 Cy Stober said if they come to hearing, they require a soils analysis. He said Randall 12 Arendt is proposing a soils analysis earlier in the process, during a site visit with the boards. He 13 said developers should know what they are buying or putting an option on. He said he's worked 14 with builders that never bothered to know what they've purchased and regretted it. 15 Commissioner McKee said gave an example of subdivisions he's been involved in and 16 said that it doesn't make sense for developers to not do their due diligence. 17 Randall Arendt said he's worked with some inexperienced developers that don't do that. 18 He said smart developers will. He said the best person to ask is the landowner who has been on 19 it four seasons a year for decades and knows the property better than anyone else. 20 Commissioner Carter said that Orange County has a reputation for being very difficult to 21 work with. She asked if putting things up front in the process would reduce frustration. 22 Randall Arendt said a developer needs to know more information than what the yield plan 23 provides. He said a yield plan will have no information on whether lots will perc. 24 Commissioner McKee said that in his lived experience the process in Orange County is 25 long and onerous and probably in the long run provides for a better outcome. He said that the 26 cost would be a minute factor in the total cost of preparation for a subdivision. He said even in a 27 minor subdivision, a developer will spend $30,000450,000 before you ever buy the land. He said 28 it is an extra step and expense, but there are other things that are just as onerous in the process. 29 Randall Arendt gave an example of how soils are analyzed in Maine. He said a 10% 30 sample is not onerous and it gives a much deeper insight. He said that the soil types in Orange 31 County can be difficult to work with. 32 Chair Bedford asked James Bryan, Staff Attorney, what rights does the county have to ask 33 of HOAs. She asked if the county could demand that HOAs include language about pumping 34 septic systems and general ownership requirements. She said she would like that information in 35 the future. 36 Commissioner Fowler asked how the communities with affordable conservation 37 subdivisions made it happen. She asked if it is something that can be put in the UDO or if the 38 developers were incentivized. 39 Randall Arendt said the development of Battle Road Farm in Massachusetts was planned 40 by the community to be an affordable development from the beginning as a response to a 41 requirement from the state. He described how Battle Road Farm was planned. 42 Commissioner Fowler asked if the developer bought the land. 43 Randall Arendt said yes. 44 Commissioner Greene said they can't require developers to have housing for residents at 45 a certain percentage of average median income. She said that the county would need to own 46 land. She said if they don't own the land, they can possibly talk the developer into working with 47 Habitat for Humanity, for example. She said they can provide subsidies to housing non-profits. 48 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she appreciated having the differences between flexible and 49 conservation subdivisions clarified. She said when thinking of the land use plan to the Board 50 should consider the goals of a conservation subdivision and the other goals of the county. She 51 said there are areas of farmland the county may want to preserve, but they may consider 127 1 differently if they are thinking of housing attainability or environmental resource protection. She 2 said the the Board needs to think about which parts of the county fulfill different goals, so they 3 aren't putting conservation subdivisions anywhere. 4 Randall Arendt said that the Board might consider a sunset provision to evaluate how well 5 the changes are working. 6 Vice-Chair Hamilton said it would be important to her with conservation to have public 7 access through an easement, then an HOA would not have to worry about liability. 8 Randall Arendt gave an example of a development he did in Pennsylvania where the trails 9 were made publicly accessible in exchange for an optional density bonus. 10 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Randall Arendt felt that conservation subdivisions 11 could be put all over the county, including rural areas. 12 Randall Arendt said they could be if that is what the county wants. He said that what he 13 would not do is allow for any more flexible development in other parts of the county due to it being 14 an old solution. 15 Commissioner Carter asked if a vision for targeted areas for conservation subdivisions in 16 the rural buffer would be consistent with what Randall Arendt had presented to the Board. 17 Randall Arendt said yes. He said due to regard for the rural character of the buffer, scenic 18 viewshed protection from public roads might be high on the priority list. 19 Chair Bedford invited members of the Planning Board to ask questions. 20 Statler Gilfillen thanked Randall Arendt for his presentation. He noted that there are 21 similarities from his presentation to villages in Europe. 22 Delores Bailey asked how Orange County soils are in relation to community wells and 23 community septic. 24 Randall Arendt said he could not speak in depth to that. 25 Delores Bailey asked if the designs of the developments Randall Arendt shared are simple 26 to do. 27 Randall Arendt said yes. He described a septic system that was multiplied to become a 28 shared system. He said in most cases they were shared systems, not a community system 29 serving 20 or more homes. He said having multiple systems is less risky for residents than a 30 large community system that may fail. 31 Meg Millard asked how enforcement of conservation subdivisions is maintained. 32 Randall Arendt said the cardinal rule is to not make it too complicated. He described 33 requiring intermittently mowed areas or having volunteer work crews maintain trails in the spring, 34 but not to make elaborate requirements. He said private roads require a lot of money to maintain 35 and he advised avoiding them. 36 Chair Bedford thanked Randall Arendt for his presentation. 37 38 The Board took a 10-minute break at 3:10 p.m. 39 40 2. Facilitated Discussion for Identification of Next Steps 41 Kelly Guadalupe, Strategic Planning Manager, facilitated a discussion by the Board for 42 next steps. 43 Kelly Guadalupe said that two areas of Board interest have not been addressed. She said 44 those two were input from developers and Chapel Hill's housing capacity and planning. She said 45 developers and municipalities were seen as stakeholders in the comprehensive plan development 46 process and would be part of round three of engagement. 47 Commissioner Greene said she would like to hear about the Town of Chapel Hill's plans 48 for growth within its boundaries. 49 Cy Stober said that Town of Chapel Hill representatives declined an invitation to present. 50 Kelly Guadalupe said she thought that the town would be involved in stakeholder 51 conversations. 128 1 Cy Stober said yes, but as far as presenting, the town declined. 2 Chair Bedford said staff could review the report. She said the Board would like to know 3 what the report says, and if the town thinks they can meet that growth. She said the Board would 4 like to know how many units are in the pipeline for the various municipalities. She said they would 5 like to know the number of units in the pipeline for Mebane, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and 6 Hillsborough and the affordability of the units. 7 Cy Stober said he could get the number of approved and unbuilt units from the 8 municipalities. He said there are different resources that identify how much housing is needed, 9 and all those numbers differ a little. He said that he cannot represent the town's study because 10 it was never adopted by the town. He said he can get the number of units and if any have been 11 designated for affordability. 12 Commissioner Fowler asked why the town did not adopt the study. 13 Cy Stober said it was very controversial and the complete communities study was 14 ultimately not adopted by the town. 15 Kelly Guadalupe asked if that topic could be shared by email to the Board. 16 Chair Bedford said the Board would like to hear it together and ask questions. 17 Chair Bedford said the Board wanted to hear from the chambers of commerce and housing 18 non-profits. 19 Kelly Guadalupe said that the developers could be included in round three of engagement 20 as community stakeholders. 21 The Board agreed with that approach. 22 Cy Stober said that knowing the Board's interests after the retreats, they will be able to 23 have a much more productive conversation with developers. 24 Kelly Guadalupe said part of engagement window three includes roundtable stakeholder 25 conversations with developers. 26 Cy Stober said they will reach out to the chambers of commerce and Home Builders 27 Association. 28 Chair Bedford said to include the housing non-profits. 29 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked for staff to speak with the Chair and Vice-Chair on how the 30 roundtables are formatted so that they can get their questions answered, but also be time efficient. 31 Chair Bedford asked if commissioners are invited. 32 Cy Stober said yes. He agreed with Vice-Chair Hamilton that structuring the conversation 33 will be very important. 34 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked that the discussion would allow stakeholders to speak 35 about how the county's practices slow things down and make things less affordable. 36 Kelly Guadalupe asked if that is typically part of the discussion in a comprehensive plan 37 update. 38 Cy Stober said yes, and that there are several actions in the draft plan that direct the 39 county to amend the ordinance to meet certain goals or needs, and the ordinance contains the 40 steps the county goes through when it comes to development review. 41 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she would like an update on the recommended actions 42 for the county to have affordable housing. 43 Cy Stober said those recommendations came out in 2021, and were a response to a 44 petition from 2019. He said he can coordinate that information with the County Attorney's Office. 45 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she would like an update before they speak with 46 developers. She said she has a copy of the recommendations, and wants to know how the county 47 has changed its processes and what is left outstanding. 48 Commissioner Carter asked for clarification on the roundtable discussions. She asked if 49 the structure would consist of the Board's questions to them, and their questions of the Board. 129 1 Cy Stober said that this is a public comment draft for feedback. He said that they should 2 probably survey the Board requesting conversation topics and construct the agenda based on 3 that feedback. 4 Commissioner Carter said they haven't approved the land use plan, and she is sensitive 5 to speaking with developers and setting expectations that what is on paper is the final thing. 6 Kelly Guadalupe said the county isn't that point yet. 7 Cy Stober said this is the comment draft and described the rest of the review and 8 finalization process. 9 Commissioner Greene asked if there is a possibility for a roundtable with the 10 environmental and agricultural communities. 11 Kelly Guadalupe asked if it would be necessary before moving forward with engagement 12 window three. 13 Commissioner Greene said yes, and said that the environmental community would have 14 different interests than the development community, or even the agricultural community. She 15 asked if there could be three roundtables. 16 Chair Bedford said she did not want three extra roundtables. She asked if that could be 17 part of the regular engagement process. 18 Commissioner McKee said it would have to be three separate roundtables for developers, 19 agricultural, and environmental groups for efficiency. 20 Commissioner Greene said she has concerns about tipping the scales towards 21 developers. 22 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she attended the voluntary agricultural breakfast, and their board 23 had a good presentation of what their priorities are. She suggested that they could get feedback 24 from the agricultural and environmental advisory boards. 25 Kelly Guadalupe said the consultant could guide the county on how to get that feedback 26 through engagement window three. She asked if the Board would like to hear from Clarion on 27 what engagement window three looks like. 28 Cy Stober said that the Clarion contract will have to be amended, and that all the different 29 meetings will cost money. He that staff could do something simple regarding the draft land use 30 plan at the upcoming agricultural summit. He said the agricultural community was included in 31 engagement window one and they could do something similar. He said that would require 32 reposting the comment draft. 33 Commissioner Carter asked if there is anything in the discussion that will affect the 34 comment draft. 35 Kelly Guadalupe said yes, there will be. 36 Kelly Guadalupe the third topic that was not covered was an economic analysis. She said 37 staff understood that the Board declined an offer for an information session. 38 Chair Bedford referred to page 8, number 7 of the agenda packet. She said that the Board 39 declined a market analysis proposed by Commissioner Greene. She said she thought the Board 40 was still looking for information from economists on the topics listed in the agenda packet: "Does 41 more housing lead to affordable housing in our county?" and "How to think about this issue of 42 supply/demand, elasticity and limits on resources." 43 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she was still looking for that information 44 Vice-Chair Hamilton said she was interested if there was any existing information that 45 answer these questions before hiring an expert. 46 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said if they have questions, they can't get an answer from 47 just reviewing the studies. 48 Kelly Guadalupe asked if current Planning staff has the expertise to answer questions like 49 that. 50 Travis Myren said no. 51 Chair Bedford suggested the School of Government. 130 1 Cy Stober suggested someone from NC State. He said that at the Home Builders 2 Association event in April or May they may have some data available for evaluation, but it would 3 be for Chatham, Orange, and Durham counties. 4 Commissioner Greene said the analysis would need to include all of Orange County. She 5 said the municipal housing information would be a start. 6 Cy Stober asked for clarity on what the Board was looking for. He said staff presented a 7 market analysis on activity nodes at a work session, as well as a housing market analysis 8 throughout the county. He wanted to know if the Board was looking for different information than 9 what was previously presented. 10 Chair Bedford said they did not want to know about that. She said the Board was 11 interested in the theory of if you just build more housing, you will get affordable housing, and how 12 it works. She said they wanted to know the price points and how you think about it in a university 13 town. She said they wanted to think about the issue of supply and demand, and limits on 14 resources. She said they wanted the real economist point of view on housing. 15 Cy Stober said the market analysis he presented included all but the affordability piece. 16 Chair Bedford said they presentation included how many units there are and the price 17 points and that's not what they are looking for. She said they wanted some forecasting. 18 Vice-Chair Hamilton said an economist would explain supply and demand models and the 19 theory of how more housing possibly leads to affordable housing in the county or anywhere else. 20 She said she thought the question was more about that rather than a market analysis, which 21 looked at Orange County trends. 22 Cy Stober confirmed that the interest is in an economic analysis of housing demand, 23 present and future, and within that, how would affordability be addressed. 24 Vice-Chair Hamilton said it must include supply and demand and understanding the 25 equilibrium conditions of that. 26 Commissioner McKee said he is struggling with how to apply the theoretical projections to 27 conditions on the ground. 28 Vice-Chair Hamilton said it depends on what kind of economist you get. She said the 29 Board would want someone who can translate the theory into what is seen in Orange County. 30 Commissioner McKee asked how the county was going to set parameters for affordable 31 housing and workforce housing, and how will the county adapt to unforeseen consequences. He 32 said he has concerns about committing taxpayer funds for subsidizing housing. 33 Kelly Guadalupe asked for clarification on Commissioner McKee's comment. 34 Commissioner McKee said he wanted to make sure he got information he could use. 35 Kelly Guadalupe confirmed that Commissioner McKee was interested in practical 36 information that is understandable and applicable. 37 Commissioner Fowler said she and Commissioner Carter attended the Triangle West MTP 38 2055 plan and they included data on growth in jobs in Orange and Durham counties as well as 39 population growth. She said it is important that housing is near transit and to put housing in 40 municipalities rather than what the Board is focusing on out in the county with a LIDO. She said 41 they should still support it via Habitat for Humanity and EMPOWERment. She said in terms of 42 trying to build more in the county, she wasn't sure that was the goal. She said the problem with 43 just saying the more supply we make means it's going to be cheaper is that the county is not in a 44 closed system. She said there is constant need all around the Triangle. 45 Kelly Guadalupe said that a speaker could discuss the entire system and not the county 46 in a vacuum. 47 Vice-Chair Hamilton said an economist will explain how that will fit. She said an analysis 48 will give you the outlines, but not an answer once you try to implement it. 49 Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Fowler that housing needs to be near 50 transit. She reviewed the concept of location efficiency for housing that is near transit and is in a 51 15-minute walkable zone where people can have access to things they need. 131 1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Commissioners Greene and Fowler were saying the 2 county would deny rezoning because the Board would not allow housing to be developed in the 3 county. 4 Commissioner Greene said no, the Board is talking about conservation subdivisions and 5 other ways to create housing. She said that the municipalities are creating plans to grow densely, 6 and to provide affordable housing within those boundaries. She said a house located in rural 7 Orange County, far from a transit line creates a less affordable living situation than an identical 8 house in Chapel Hill on a transit line near services. She said they have to remember they are in 9 a county with municipalities that are well equipped to absorb a lot of this growth. 10 Commissioner Carter said they don't have enough data to say that the municipal plans will 11 meet the housing needs in the county, and that the county should keep their options open. She 12 said the county should look at strategic, targeted areas that are proximal to the things the Board 13 talks about with smart growth and look at what we can do with conservation subdivisions. She 14 said they should think about how they position those in targeted, strategic ways enabling the 15 county to learn how they work or don't work. She said out in the county where the goals are for 16 farmland preservation, they should think about a different type of conservation subdivision 17 approach. She said this conversation might create changes to the comment draft land use plan. 18 Commissioner McKee said farmland preservation and development is diametrically 19 opposed. He said you can't have both. He said farming in Orange County is going to be small 20 scale in the future and won't be widespread. He said he wanted to understand what is affordable. 21 He said that he also wants to know how they will achieve it, how the county will pay for it, and 22 what the county will not do as a result. He said he wants the Board to focus and define what they 23 are trying to accomplish. 24 Commissioner Greene said each year she attends the farm tour, and she sees more small- 25 scale farms. 26 Commissioner McKee explained how farming will be very different than what he grew up 27 with. 28 Commissioner Greene said that it will be difficult to get affordable housing in Orange 29 County given the price of land. 30 Commissioner McKee said he wants the Board to remain focused on the endpoint. 31 Vice-Chair Hamilton said the Board will have to hash some of this out, but in the retreat 32 today they needed to focus on the topics at hand. 33 Kelly Guadalupe reviewed what the Board agreed that they still wanted information on: 1) 34 Affordable housing market analysis; 2) Municipal housing units as part of a Board discussion 35 Kelly Guadalupe reviewed the steps for engagement window three, which will last 8-10 36 weeks. She said that Clarion will take the feedback from engagement window 3, and incorporate 37 into another draft of the plan. She said it will go back to the Board and that will be the time to go 38 through the plan page by page. She said after the Board reviews it, the plan would go to the 39 Planning Board and back to the Board of County Commissioners for formal action to adopt the 40 plan. 41 Kelly Guadalupe asked what parts of the draft plan should be removed or revised before 42 it goes out for the next round of engagement. She showed two charts, pictured below: 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 132 1 Chart#1: Foc,+ &,, yi PI&LIMI(j 1 z 7o,n-}- Plo-o J A 4o be, than eA ar\A k�t�r\jg� or) w1i +- fbVje rS o?-)exAo�e, ��ewve,.5 �-o facYo�e- 4-reo,4-tyO z 3 4 133 1 Chart#2: s) RuafI OLo'<,efvC�-zo �-� v. - '�d�s d IIss 60U(I�O(S � q J All 2 3 Kelly Guadalupe said, for example, that the Board did not seem to be comfortable with the 4 broad language of"re-evaluation of rural buffer" in item two of chart#1, and that the phrasing will 5 be changed. She said another example is item four, "water and sewer service areas," which will 6 have the references to package treatment plants removed because those are off the table. She 7 asked the Board what topics should be removed from the draft plan because they are not up for 8 discussion. 9 Vice-Chair Hamilton said that she could not answer the question without re-reading the 10 draft plan. 11 Chair Bedford said she would like to go through each change to understand them. She 12 said when they first received the plan, she did not have the background or knowledge to 13 understand them. She said that the Board should have a near-unanimous decision to remove 14 topics from the draft plan. 15 Kelly Guadalupe asked if questions or feedback about the changes could be emailed to 16 the Planning Department. 17 Chair Bedford said she needed staff to walk through the changes with her to make sure 18 she understood them. 19 Commissioner Greene said it would be more efficient to do this as a group. 20 Kelly Guadalupe asked if there any topics that come to mind that should not be on the 21 table for discussion. 134 1 2 Commissioner Fowler said she didn't have a problem with the language regarding the 3 rural buffer. 4 Cy Stober said Chair Bedford said at work session that the language was too broad, and 5 they are fine tuning the language 6 Commissioner Carter said she thought that the concern was about postponing a 7 conversation until after the plan was approved and that the Board should have an opportunity to 8 weigh in on that before the drafted revisions are made. She said the current plan says it will be 9 re-evaluated down the road over the ten-year cycle, but that the Board doesn't want to wait to 10 have those conversations. 11 Commissioner McKee said if they are not going to have an honest conversation about the 12 rural buffer, then they might as well go home. 13 Kelly Guadalupe asked if the Board could clarify if changes to the rural buffer can be 14 included in engagement window three. 15 Commissioner Greene said for her it is not up for discussion. She said for a long time the 16 county's position has been that they will not make any changes to the rural buffer unless it is part 17 of a collaborative conversation with the other parties. She said that wanted to see a finalized land 18 use plan and then the county can have the conversation with the other parties. 19 Kelly Guadalupe said it appears there are different opinions on this topic, and it will affect 20 moving forward with engagement window three. 21 Commissioner Fowler said she thinks it is important to get public opinion on the rural 22 buffer, because the county has an idea of conservation subdivisions, but they are currently 23 excluded from the rural buffer. She said if you want people driving less, and people are going to 24 move out there, it seems like the county should allow them in the rural buffer. She said it likely 25 won't be many and it makes more sense to put them closer to town than, say, to Person County. 26 Kelly Guadalupe asked the Board if they want conversation on the rural buffer to be part 27 of engagement window three. 28 Commissioner Greene said she could support having in the draft the notion of 29 conservation subdivisions in the rural buffer. She said she would not want the rural buffer to be 30 eliminated in the draft. 31 Cy Stober asked the Board to re-read the draft plan because he felt that staff did a good 32 job of incorporating their feedback as well as the public's. He asked that the Board send questions 33 or comments to the Planning Department so they can be prepared to respond. 34 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Planning staff considered the memo from the County 35 Attorney's Office on housing when drafting the land use plan. 36 Cy Stober said yes. He said they the main piece that was not incorporated was the 37 economic analysis. He said they've had conversations with the development community, home 38 building community, affordable housing community, and they incorporated that along with all the 39 environmental materials as well as public feedback. He said this is not his plan, this is the county's 40 plan. He said they tried to strike a balance and want to serve the county's interest. He said they 41 would provide an update to the Board on what has been implemented. 42 Chair Bedford asked for the memo from the attorney's office to be forwarded to the Board. 43 Cy Stober said he would send it. 44 Commissioner Carter said she would like re-review the draft plan. She said reviewing it 45 together would be helpful because each person will pick something different up. 46 Kelly Guadalupe asked the Board when the Board would want to have another 47 conversation after reviewing the plan and making notes about topics that could be removed. 48 Commissioner McKee said that the holidays will affect their ability to meet. 49 Kelly Guadalupe encouraged the Board to review the plan for topics that could be 50 removed. 135 1 Commissioner Greene said she would like to spend the time intensively reviewing the plan 2 now rather than at the end of the process. 3 Commissioner McKee and Chair Bedford agreed with Commissioner Greene. 4 Chair Bedford said she would like to understand the approximately 64 changes suggested 5 by staff through review and discussion. 6 Vice-Chair Hamilton said the retreat committee would consider adding the land use plan 7 to the January retreat agenda. 8 Commissioner Fowler asked for staff to resend the draft plan to the Board. 9 Chair Bedford said she would like for a draft to be ready for public feedback by March 10 2026. 11 12 Before adjournment, Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board reviewed the list of board and 13 commission appointments that the Board will consider at their December 1 business meeting. 14 Chair Bedford said the Board should consider if there are any boards that should not have 15 commissioner representation anymore. She said she would like to have a work session topic on 16 the boards the commissioners serve on. 17 Commissioner Carter said that JCPC was being reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. 18 19 Adjournment 20 21 The Board adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m. 22 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 25 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 26 27 28 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board 29 30 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board. Attachment 4 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 December 1, 2025 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Monday, December 9 1, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jean Hamilton, Vice-Chair Amy Fowler, and 12 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Marilyn Carter, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin 17 Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below) 19 20 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. 21 22 Board Organization 23 a. Election of Board of Commissioners' Chair and Vice-Chair 24 25 Vote for Chair of the Board of Commissioners: 26 7 votes cast for Jean Hamilton (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Carter, 27 Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner McKee, 28 and Commissioner Portie-Ascott) 29 30 Jean Hamilton was elected Chair of the Board of Commissioners. 31 32 Vote for Vice-Chair of the Board of Commissioners: 33 7 votes cast for Amy Fowler (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Carter, 34 Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner McKee, 35 and Commissioner Portie-Ascott) 36 37 Amy Fowler was elected the Vice-Chair of the Board of Commissioners. 38 39 Commissioner Portie-Ascott thanked Commissioner Bedford for her support and 40 guidance. 41 Vice-Chair Fowler seconded Commissioner Portie-Ascott's comments. 42 Chair Hamilton encouraged everyone to re-read the rules of procedure and the code of 43 ethics. She said the role of the chair is to facilitate the meetings, and to have productive and 44 efficient meetings. She said the role is also to act as a spokesperson and to be responsible for 45 signing many documents. She said she is looking forward to the role. 46 47 b. Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for 48 Calendar Year December 1, 2025-2026 49 Commissioner Carter was nominated by Commissioner Bedford to serve as the voting 50 delegate for NACo. The Commissioners agreed by consensus. 2 1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott volunteered to serve as the voting delegate for NCACC. The 2 Commissioners agreed by consensus. 3 4 Commissioner Portie-Ascott was nominated by Commissioner Bedford to serve as the 5 alternate voting delegate for NACo. The Commissioners agreed by consensus. 6 Commissioner McKee volunteered to serve as the alternate voting delegate for NCACC. 7 The Commissioners agreed by consensus. 8 9 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 10 Chair Hamilton read the public charge. 11 12 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 13 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 14 Adam Beeman said he is running for the at-large seat on Board of County Commissioners. 15 He said the county needed to expand access to wastewater treatment. He said that historically, 16 the county has pushed people towards private wells and septic systems. He said he is hearing 17 more about community septic in areas without central sewer. He said that is going in the wrong 18 direction. He said wastewater isn't just pipes and pumps, but is a public health long-term cost. 19 He said central systems, such as OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane are investing in additional 20 capacity. He said communities around the county are making room for more users. He said 21 businesses look for sewer availability and clear boundaries before investing. He said when 22 businesses see boundaries tightening, like in Hillsborough, they look elsewhere and take their 23 property taxes and jobs, which does nothing to help the Orange County homeowner with an ever- 24 growing tax bill. He said when we haven't planned our wastewater system well, we are choosing 25 to fund everything off the backs of homeowners. He said leaning on private and community septic 26 and wells looks flexible and cheap on paper. He said community systems are complex to operate, 27 easy to undermaintain, and when they fail, they fail with big backups, contamination, emergency 28 contracts, and pressure on the Board to run central sewer. He gave an example of the Piney 29 Mountain situation in 1987. He asked the Board to make central wastewater the backbone of the 30 county's growth strategy. He asked the Board to align land use, service boundaries, and capital 31 spending so growth supports affordability, public health, and a stronger commercial tax base. 32 33 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 34 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 35 36 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 37 Commissioner Greene said there are upcoming events this weekend to recognize 38 Abolition Day. She said there is an event on December 5 at UNC's Kenan Theater with Mike 39 Wiley. She said the event is free, but registration is required on the Chapel Hill Public Library 40 website. She said on December 6, there is an event at the Century Center in Carrboro featuring 41 Justice Anita Earls and Martha S. Jones, a historian from Johns Hopkins University. She said 42 there will also be two panel discussions with eight local legal historians. She said also on 43 December 6 at 6:00 p.m. at Flyleaf Books Professor Jones will talk about her memoir The Trouble 44 with Color and Commissioner Greene will participate in the conversation. She said on December 45 10, a documentary called "Thirteenth," which is about the prison industrial complex and how it 46 furthers the same strategies of incarceration against black people that has been used since before 47 the 13'" amendment. She said it is at the Seymour Center at 5:00 p.m. 48 Commissioner Portie-Ascott petitioned for the Board of Health memorandum included in 49 the Information Items to be presented to the Board at their first business meeting in January. She 50 said she enjoyed the Cedar Grove community Thanksgiving luncheon. She said there is fear in 51 the community, and she hears it from people who are concerned about high taxes, immigrant 3 1 neighbors, and Medicaid rate cuts, and all of this on top of the lack of affordable housing for people 2 making less than $74,000 a year. She said that the Board should stay focused on the work that 3 only the Board can do. She requested that the Board consider whether their presence on 4 unmandated boards is wise. She proposed taking a temporary hiatus from the ABC Board, Fire 5 Chiefs Association, JCPC, Orange Care Coalition, Piedmont Food Processing Center, Solid 6 Waste Advisory, Chapel Hill Chamber, and the Visitors Bureau. She said the Board should remain 7 focused on the most pressing policy challenges. 8 Commissioner Carter extended congratulations to Chair Hamilton and thanked 9 Commissioner Bedford for her service. She asked that with the challenges facing the community, 10 she asked that the Board consider how community members with the experience and skillsets 11 can support boards and commissions where a commissioner is not required. 12 Chair Hamilton said she looked forward to working with Vice-Chair Fowler. She said on 13 November 18, the Board approved an Abolition Day proclamation. She encouraged everyone to 14 reflect on Abolition Day and the values and progress that has defined the United States since 15 then. She said she attended the agricultural breakfast. She said she appreciated the half day 16 retreat on conservation subdivisions. She thanked the staff who supported residents using cold 17 weather cots in the past week. 18 Vice-Chair Fowler said she attended a Board of Health meeting where they reviewed client 19 satisfaction in the different departments. She said that overall, satisfaction was high. She said 20 there is one vacancy on the Board of Health. She said they approved a proclamation in October 21 regarding access to affordable housing and its impacts on health. She said the proclamation 22 encouraged policy changes to increase access to affordable housing. She said she attended a 23 safety summit at Chapel Hill Public Library on November 20 and hear a presentation on the need 24 for safe and accessible transportation. She said the group described as "silent suffering" was 25 particularly highlighted. She said the silent suffering are community members that the Board 26 might not hear from and that the presented encouraged remembering those individuals in their 27 service and decision making. She said the next day the tax work group will receive a virtual 28 presentation from Wake County on how they've address vertical equity and tax revaluations. She 29 said they will meet on Friday in-person to review RFP responses. She said the meeting on Friday 30 would be in-person. She thanked the Board for their support and said that all the commissioners 31 provide different and valuable perspectives. 32 Commissioner Bedford thanked everyone for their kind words. She said she filed for re- 33 election. 34 Commissioner McKee said he also filed for re-election. He said he attended the 35 Thanksgiving luncheon at Cedar Grove. He petitioned for a work session discussion on the 36 possibilities and probabilities for expanding the Homestead Exemption. He described the 37 difficulties people face as they age and their income drops, and he mentioned some ideas that 38 would help alleviate their tax burden. He said getting it through the state legislature would be 39 difficult, but he wanted to discuss if there is a path forward. 40 41 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 42 a. OCPEH Homeless Data and Annual Report 43 The Board received an overview of the work of the Orange County Partnership to End 44 Homelessness (OCPEH), including updated system level data about homelessness in Orange 45 County submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 46 earlier this year, as well as obstacles and successes. 47 48 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH) was created 49 in 2008 to coordinate funding and activities to end homelessness in Orange County. OCPEH is 50 jointly funded by Orange County(39.5%)and the Towns of Carrboro (14.3%), Chapel Hill (39.7%), 51 and Hillsborough (6.5%). 4 1 Overview 2 FY 2024-25 saw a series of transitions as OCPEH experienced new leadership, personnel, and 3 sites of operation with the Cold Weather Shelter. Community partners have experienced 4 reductions in funding and donations, resulting in diminished_program capacity at a time when 5 community need remains high. This period has also highlighted the importance of local and 6 regional collaboration to address the rise of homelessness. 7 8 The Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH) uses a variety of funding 9 sources to support community-level planning, coordination and evaluation efforts. Funders 10 include the federal and local government, foundations, and private partners. 11 12 Challenges 13 Due to the current federal administration, there is a serious risk that the HUD Continuum of Care 14 (CoC) grant will be partially cut. The recently released Continuum of Care Notice of Funding 15 Opportunity (NOFO) has mandated cuts to "permanent" housing of 70%, as well as only 16 guaranteeing 30% of annual renewal funding. Permanent housing includes both the Interfaith 17 Council's Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) program as well as OCPEH's Rapid Rehousing 18 (RRH) program, and both agencies are eagerly awaiting clarification on the NOFO in order to 19 determine how to shift application requests in order to maximize possible funding. The programs 20 and positions currently funded by CoC Grants are: 21 o PSH (IFC, 79% of funding) 22 o RRH (OCPEH, 64% of funding) 23 o Coordinated Entry/Housing Helpline (OCPEH, 80% of funding) 24 o OCPEH Coordinator position (20% of funding) 25 26 Successes 27 As a small Continuum of Care, OCPEH expanded its impact by partnering with other local 28 homeless systems on federal funding opportunities. County government has increased its 29 commitment to address system needs and prioritized funding for two (2) main drivers of inequity 30 in the current system by investing in Permanent Supportive Housing expansion and funding for 31 Bridge Housing. 32 33 OCPEH has also broadened partnerships with the community on various efforts: 34 • with the faith community through last winter's Cold Weather Shelter (housed at University 35 Baptist Church in Chapel Hill); 36 • with many community partners and Alliance Health; 37 • with a pop-up event in coordination with UNC Health for a newly-awarded Street Medicine 38 grant; and 39 • with the Town of Chapel Hill for use of its former police station for this year's Cold Weather 40 Shelter. 41 42 The Road Ahead 43 Much of the future of homelessness programs in Orange County will be determined in the coming 44 months after the results of the CoC grant. Federal grants make up over one-third of homelessness 45 funding in the County, so any loss would be significant. 46 47 OCPEH continues to work with regional partners to identify and recruit providers to Orange 48 County to address system gaps. One such effort is underway with the potential use of 2700 49 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill for next winter's Cold Weather Shelter, and for potential future 50 use as an Integrated Day Center along the lines of Raleigh's "Oak City Cares." 5 1 2 OCPEH has been increasing engagement with people with direct knowledge of the local 3 homeless system in system design, planning, and assessment, and will continue this focus in the 4 year to come. This includes the recently initiated Technical Assistance through the local HUD 5 office, as well as a collaborative Youth Homeless Systems Initiative grant coordinated by the 6 Central Pines Regional Council. 7 8 Danielle Decaprio, OCPEH Manager, made the following presentation: 9 10 Slide #1 GRANGE COUNTY HOMELESSNESS DATA Danielle DeCapriq LCSVV OCPEH Homeless Program Ma nage 12.1.2025 0rAng iC6ttn[V Partnership to Fnd Homelessnes 12 13 Slide #2 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (SPM) • SPM are an overview of the entire Continuum of Care • Uses data from Homeless Management Information System(HMIS) Includes the HUD funded agencies • Partnership to End Homelessness • Housing Helpline-Coordinated Entry(CE) • SOHRAD—Street Outreach(SO) • Rapid Rehousing-RRH(not includingTBRA) • Inter-Faith Council for Social Service • HomeStart—Emergency Shelter(ES) • Cold weather Cots(men,women)—Emergency Shelter(ES) • Community House—Transitional.Housing(TH) • Permanent Supportive Housing(PSH) Partnership to 14 homm � Fnd I lomelesness 15 Commissioner Bedford asked if some people could be served by multiple programs. She 16 asked if, in the next slide, numbers are unduplicated. 17 Danielle Decaprio said yes to both questions. 6 1 Slide#3 IrE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY24-25 People Served People served-519 individuals •Shelter-211 ■Transitional housing-129 ,Rapid Rehousing-109 =Shelter •Street Outreach-36 Transitional Housing Rapid RA—ing ■permanent Supportive Housing-34 •Street Outreach •Permanent Supportive Housing ,lulL),C C 0LI11L}f Partnership to End Hoonelessnes 2 3 4 Slide#4 IF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY24-25 Positive Outcomes Successful Placement from Street Outreach and Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing: 4hq172 individuals �6'P AAI •From Street Outreach=23 rio ■From ES,TH,&RRH= 120 •Permanent Supportive Housing= 29 From Street Outreach •From ES,TH,RRH From PSH *Note:519 individuals served,346 exited, 172 exited positively{Sa J r} IEnnrtnci isle to 5 d Homelessnesw 6 Commissioner Carter asked if the number of people served increased. 7 Danielle Decaprio said they served 519 individuals in 2025 and in 2024 they served 525. 8 9 7 1 Slide#5 Ir SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY24-25 Length Qf Tim_e( -qD-RemQns Reraain�IQme_Ie!%_s Change in the average and median length of time persons are homeless in E5, and TH projects -Current FY Universe=279 persons ■Current FY Average LOT Experiencing Homelessness=143 days Average:Total days divided by the total persons homeless during the reporting period ■Current FY Median LOT Experiencing Homelessness=114 days E Partnership to 2AOL A1A`$ End Hoonelessnes 3 4 Slide#6 NFF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY24-25 Returns t�HPmeLessnessfrom_Re manent ou_s ng Total Number of Persons who Number Number Number Exited to a Returning to Percentage of Returning to Percentage of Returning to Percentage of Number of Percentage of Permanent Homelessness Returns in Less Homelessness Returns from 6 Homelessness Returns from 13 Returns in 2 Returns in 2 Housing in Less than 6 than 6 Months from 6 to 12 to 12 Months from 13 to 24 to 24 Momhs Years Years Destination 12 Months Months Months Years Prior) Exitfrom'SO n 1 2.6345 1 0 0.00% 1 2.6395 1 2 5.26% Exit from ES 40 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.50% 1 2.5095 Exit from TH 21 2 9.52% 0 0.00% 2 9.52% 4 19.0595 Exit from PH 96 3 3.33% 0 000% 0 0.00% 3 5.33% TOTAL 135 Total Returns Tv 0 444% 0 00045 4 2.9695 10 Homelessness � v]j Dram 4c V km 1111 I� Partnership to End Homelessness 5 6 Commissioner McKee asked if there are people moving into the county that offset the 7 reductions made in the number of unhoused people. 8 Danielle Decaprio said yes, and she would expand on that in the next slide. 9 Commissioner McKee asked if a return to homelessness is over a one-or two-year period. 10 He asked what that looks like further out than two years. 8 1 Danielle Decaprio said that is how HUD breaks down the figures. She said she would get 2 the data and review. 3 Commissioner McKee said there seems to be a cycle that is difficult to break. 4 Danielle Decaprio said she thinks it has to do with vacancies and affordable housing as 5 well as the reduction of funding from the federal government. She said they were just informed 6 that they can only count on 30% of their current funding level, whereas in the past they could rely 7 on receiving 90%. 8 9 Slide #7 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FY24-25 Nmerf P_�r�anw.ho.t3car �H4mel�s.s far tF-e._Frst Tele Homeless Persons Change in the number of persons entering LS,TH,and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS Universe:Persons during the reporting period=281 Count of those who were designated homeless within past 24 months=71 Count of those who did not have entries in the previous 24 months.(i.e.number of persons experiencing homelessness for Within Past 24 months Not Within Past 24 Months the first time)=210 Orange County Partnership to 10 �> End Homelessnes 11 Danielle Decaprio said HUD defines first time homeless as an individual who had not 12 appeared in the system for the previous two years. 13 14 9 1 Slide #8 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM LEVEL DATA • In Spring of 2025,the Partnership began tracking monthly program level data. Since then,this data is shared with the Partnership's Leadership Team monthly and reported out quarterly. • This tracking continues to evolve based on feedback from the Leadership Team. • *Note-This report will share FY24-25 data and Is'Qtr FY25-26,Since this tracking started mid-year,we do not have full year data for all programs. Partnership to End Homelessnes 2 3 4 Slide #9 COORDINATED ENTRY FY24-25 Method Coordinated Entries Conducted=437 • Phone=203 46% • In-person=234 54% Number of Initial Contacts=Over 5,200 Phone In-person , Partnership to End Homelessness 5 6 7 10 1 Slide #10 COORDINATED ENTRY 1ST QTR FY25-26 Method Coordinated Entries Conducted= 736 • Phone=73 46% • In-person=63 a+% Number of Initial Contacts=Close to 7,300 Phone In-person E Partnership to End Homelessnes 2 3 4 Slide #11 STREET OUTREACH, HARM REDUCTION AND DEFLECTION (SOHRAD) FY24-25 Services Provided Comprehensive Clinical Assessments Completed S • On average,SOH RAD worked with 23 enrolled households per month Assistance with Completing Housing Applications 14 and of those,on average, 15 Deflections from arrests-Example:businesses contacting Tea m, 80 households were engaged/working on instead of potic Diversion Placement/Housing-Connections to treatment,bridge T housing plan. housing Survivai Supplies-#of person provided to 168 On average, I{1%monthly exited to Harm Reduction-#of contacts:narcan,PORT team 11 positive destination. of outreach to Jail 18 On average,271/o monthly had Transportation assistance 32 income_ Co-response 35 Ural i+_ t-A Parthership to End Homelessness 5 6 7 11 1 Slide #12 477 SOHRAD 1ST QTR FY25-26 71 Services Provided Comprehensive Clinical Assessments Completed 1 On average.SOHRAD worked with 25 enrolled households per month Assistance with Completing Housing Application o and of chase,on average.I Deftectionsfromarrests-Example:businesses contacting Team, 12 households were engaged/working on instead of police Diversion Placement/Housing-Connections to treatment,bridge 1 housing plan. housing Survival Supplies-If of person provided to 21 On average,I%monthly exited to Harm Reduction-p of ccntacts:narcan,PORT team 6 positive destination.(Note—Only I positive exit this year thusfar.) 4 of Outreach toJail io Trans portatic n assistanc 1 On average,23%monthly had Co-respons 13 1 income. y Partnership to 2lift End Hornelissnes 3 4 Slide#13 HOUSING ACCESS FY24-25 Total umber of Leasee Signed 169 HCV 164 RRH 6 landlords Engaged through Outreach 46 Number of New Landlords Enrolled 25 landlord Incentive Payments(LIP)Processed 18 Risk Miti ation Processed 16 nits Added to Master Housing List 110 Community Meetings Facilitated 9 Landlord Engagement Roundtabl 4 Community and Provider Training4S Client Focused Tra ini ngj2 ellowHi li hts=Incomplete Data TiCounty Partnership to End Homelessnes 5 6 Vice-Chair Fowler asked what RRH sands for in slide #13. 7 Danielle Decaprio said rapid rehousing. 8 9 12 1 Slide #14 HOUSING ACCESS 1 ST QTR FY25-26 Total Number of Leases Signed 43 HCV 31 RRH 12 andlords Engaged through Outreach 11 umber of New Landlords Enrolled 4 LP's Processed 4 iskMitigation Processed 4 nits Added to Master Housing List 34 Community Monti n s Facilitated 4 Landlord Engagement Roundtable 1 Community and ProviderTrainin 3 MientFocused Trainin s o Orange COUntV Partnersbip tis 2 � End Homelessnes 3 Commissioner Bedford asked if the leases in the first quarter included people affected by 4 Tropical Storm Chantal. 5 Danielle Decaprio said these are new leases signed, not renewals. 6 Commissioner Bedford said that some people who were displaced did not go back to their 7 old homes. 8 Danielle Decaprio said the number would include those. 9 10 Slide#15 RAPID REHOUSING 3RD QTR FY24-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Total i Number of New Enrollments 7 7 4 18 Number of New Move Ins 0 3 2 5 Total Households 17 25 22 Number of Families 5 8 7 Number of Adult Only Households 12 17 15 Income at Start(adults) No 9 13 14 Yes 12 1s 13 Unknown 0 1 0 Percentage with Income 57% 52% 48% Number of Positive Exits(persons) 4 3 Total Persons Exiting 9 7 Percentage of Positive Exits 1 4491 43% Number of Active Cases 31 41 ann e County Cartnersbip to End Homelessnes 11 13 1 Slide#16 RAPID REHOUSING 1ST QTR FY25-26 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Total Number of New Enrollments 21 1 0 22 Number of New Move Ins 1 8 5 14 Total Households 40 41 41 Number of Families 8 8 8 Number of Adult©nty Households 32 33 33 Income at Start(adults) No 19 19 19 Yes 22 23 23 Unknown 1 0 0 Percenta a with Income 52% 55% 55% Number of Positive Exits[persons] 3 - Total Persons Exiting 3 0 0 Percentage of Positive Exits 100% Number of Active Cases 43 41 41 10 COL1111}f y Partnership to A& . End Hoonelessnes 2 3 4 Slide#17 551/55x1 OUTREACH, ACCESS AND RECOVERY (SOAR) FY24-25 New Referrals To SCAR 25 Number of Cases that OC is Auth Rep(duplicated) 24 Newly assigned cases to county staff as Authorized Rep 14 Number of Cases OC Provided Informal Support 9 Number of Cases Submitted for the First Time 12 Number of Successful Outcomes 4 Orank,� ( ou, Partnership to End Homelessness 5 6 Danielle Decaprio said they adjusted the outcomes for SOAR between last year and the 7 current year after learning lessons and gaining a better understanding of appropriate referrals that 8 will be eligible to obtain SSI and SSDL 9 10 14 1 Slide #18 SCAR 1ST CTR FY25-26 New Referrals To SOAR 22 Eligible Referrals 10 Newly assigned cases to county staff as Authorized Representative 8 Social Security Income(SSI)/Social Security Disability Income(SSRI) 5 Application Packets Submitted Successful Outcomes 5 rainings Provided/Outreach Events 5 *NOTE-Changed Outcomes Slightly from Previous Fiscal Year r Partnership to End Homelessness 3 Chair Hamilton asked what an authorized representative is. 4 Danielle Decaprio said it's a designation given to staff by the SSA office to authorize them 5 to work on behalf of a client and submit medical records, help them with the application, and take 6 them to their appointments and necessary. 7 8 Slide #19 QUESTIONS? Danielle T. DeCaprlo, LCSW Homeless Program Manager Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness ddecaprioCg)orangecountync.gov 919.895.2427 {grange Count), Partnership to 9 � , End Homelessnes 15 1 Commissioner Greene said HUD plans to institute a 30% cap on the amount that can be 2 requested for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing. She read from a statement by 3 the National Alliance on Homelessness that this will force continuance of care to reallocate 4 funding from existing permanent housing projects in order to create new projects with preference 5 for new transitional housing and new supportive systems only. She said she did not understand 6 the following awards process changes to Tier 1 and 2 as read from the National Alliance 7 Homelessness website: 8 "Significant adjustments to funding tiers. Tier one will likely be significantly reduced so that a large 9 majority of funding will be subject to continuum of care score. For reference in 2024, tier one was 10 equal to 90% of a continuum of cares funding while tier two was equal to only 10% reflective of 11 the longstanding priority given by HUD and Congress to renewal funding. 12 She asked for clarification. 13 Danielle Decaprio said all projects are ranked and reviewed. She said Tier 1 funding is 14 thought of as harmless funding and has typically been 90-95%. She said Tier 2 goes into a 15 national competition, where the odds of getting that funding is a lot lower. She said Tier 2 used 16 to be 5-10%. She said now Tier 1 will be 30% and Tier 2 will be 70%. She said the county's Tier 17 1 funding would be $360,000 and their cost for permanent housing projects is $900,000. 18 Commissioner Greene said there was a section on penalties for organizations or programs 19 not aligned with administration priorities, and one is harm reduction practices. She asked how 20 that will impact the county. 21 Blake Rosser, Housing Director, said Tier 2 scoring is done under the term "merit review," 22 which is 140 points. He said the penalties are contained in the rubric. He said there are 16 points 23 for demonstrating a certain amount of transitional housing or sober living facilities that already 24 exist and to demonstrate partnerships with those facilities, which the county doesn't have. He 25 said that the county would then miss out on those points. He said staff have gone through the 26 rubric carefully, calculating that the county is standing to not be eligible for 40-60 points. He said 27 to bear in mind that they are competing with other continuum of care programs nationally, many 28 of whom might not be eligible for points. He said it's difficult to know where they stand in 29 comparison to other continuum of care programs. 30 Commissioner Greene asked if the county will be penalized for having harm reduction 31 strategies. 32 Blake Rosser said the penalty will just be that the county does not get the points in the 33 merit review. 34 Commissioner Portie-Ascott thanked Danielle Decaprio for her presentation. She asked 35 how many people are chronically homeless. 36 Danielle Decaprio said the term chronically homeless is for someone who is homeless a 37 certain length of time and has a disability. She said that potentially could be 60-80 individuals on 38 any given night. 39 Commissioner Carter thanked Danielle Decaprio for her presentation. She asked if the 40 65% reduction in funding is because of the Tier 1 reduction. 41 Danielle Decaprio said it is a separate source of funding, the emergency solutions grant. 42 She said in previous years there was a condition that no continuum of care would receive less 43 than $100,000. She said that the state ESG office saw no reason to continue that stipulation and 44 reduced the amount to what is considered Orange County's "fair share," which is $45,000. 45 Commissioner Carter asked why the total population served decreased from 2024 to 2025. 46 Danielle Decaprio said it could be related to a couple of things, but she said the rapid 47 rehousing team did a great job. She said they turned over 100% of their caseload and housed 48 about 40 new households. 49 Chair Hamilton thanked Danielle Decaprio for the presentation. She said it is helpful for 50 the Board to understand the funding that the program might not get. She said she would like to 16 1 know more about the population experiencing homelessness. She said it would help her have a 2 better sense of what's underlying the trends. 3 Danielle Decaprio said they are having conversations locally how the CoCs can share 4 information appropriately and privately. 5 Blake Rosser said they will try to add more of a narrative piece in the future. He said they 6 plan to make a twice a year report to the Board and would report more demographics. 7 8 5. Public Hearings 9 None. 10 11 6. Regular Agenda 12 a. BOCC Boards and Commissions Assignments 13 The Board selected the boards and commissions Board members will serve on during 2026. 14 15 BACKGROUND: County Commissioners serve on various County and County-related boards 16 and commissions. On an annual basis, BOCC members indicate their desire to continue serving 17 on specific boards or commissions or their desire to make changes. The following attachments 18 are provided to aid in the selection process: 19 20 Attachment 1: Email -Annual BOCC Boards and Commissions Assignments - Required vs. Non- 21 Required Boards 22 Attachment 2: Policy Governing the Selection Process of BOCC Boards/Commissions 23 Assignments 24 Attachment 3: Selection Process Guide 25 Attachment 4: Current Boards and Commissions List 26 27 Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board, introduced the item. She reviewed the Boards that 28 commissioners are not required to serve on: 29 Board Name Commissioner Required to Serve? Active Boards 1 Commissioner Commissioner not required, but serves by practice as a non-voting ABC Board member Alliance Health Board of 1 Commissioner Directors Required per Alliance bylaws 1 Commissioner Board of Health Required per Board of Health bylaws 1 Commissioner Commissioner not specifically required by statute, but has Board of Social Services historically served as the second county appointee 2 Commissioners: Burlington/Graham MPO 1 member, 1 alternate Transportation Advisory Required per Memorandum of Understanding establishing BGMPO Committee TAC 17 2 Commissioners: Central Pines Regional Council 1 member, 1 alternate Board of Delegates Required per Central Pines Charter Resolution Central Pines Rural Planning Organization (CPRPO) Rural 2 Commissioners: Transportation Advisory 1 member, 1 alternate Committee Required per Central Pines Charter Resolution 1 Commissioner Climate Council Required per Climate Council bylaws Co-Gen Rail Transformation Project Policy Steering 1 Commissioner Committee Required per Memorandum of Agreement establishing Committee 1 Commissioner Cooperative Extension Commissioner not required, but serves by practice as ex officio Leadership Council member 1 Commissioner Durham Tech Board of Trustees Required per Board of Trustees bylaws 1 Commissioner Fire Chief's Association of Commissioner not required, but serves by practice as non-voting Orange County member 1 Commissioner GoTriangle Board of Trustees Required per GoTriangle Charter 2 Commissioners GoTriangle Special Tax Board Required per GoTriangle 1 Commissioner Commissioner not required, but by practice is often the same Healthy Carolinians Commissioner who serves on the Board of Health 2 Commissioners: Intergovernmental Parks Work 1 member, 1 alternate Group Required per Resolution establishing the IPWG 1 Commissioner Required per JCPC bylaws County attorney advises a designee could serve instead; Deputy JCPC (Orange County Juvenile County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen has volunteered if the Board Crime Prevention Council) would like to pursue appointing a designee Jordan Lake One Water 1 Commissioner Coalition Board of Directors Required per JLOW 2 Commissioners Justice Advisory Council Required by action establishing the JAC Legislative Issues Work Group 2 Commissioners (LIWG) Required per BOCC practice 18 Orange Care Coalition (Family Success Alliance Advisory 1 Commissioner Council) Commissioner not required, but serves by practice Orange County Behavioral 1 Commissioner Health Task Force Commissioner not required, but serves by practice Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing 1 Commissioner Collaborative Required per resolution establishing Collaborative Orange County Partnership for Young Children Board of 1 Commissioner Directors Required per Partnership Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness Leadership 1 Commissioner Team Required per Leadership Team Governance Charter 1 Commissioner Piedmont Food Processing Commissioner not required, but serves by practice as one of the Center county designees 1 Commissioner Research Triangle Regional Commissioner required because Orange County is a member of Partnership Executive Board RTRP Solid Waste Advisory Group 2 Commissioners (SWAG) Required per action establishing SWAG The Chamber For a Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of 1 Commissioner Directors Required per Chamber; non-voting member Triangle West Transportation 2 Commissioners: Planning Organization (TPO) 1 member, 1 alternate Board Required per TPO bylaws 2 Commissioners: Upper Neuse River Basin 1 member, 1 alternate Association Board of Directors Required per UNRBA 1 Commissioner Visitor's Bureau Advisory Board Required per Advisory Board by-laws Inactive Boards North/South Bus Rapid Transit 1 Commissioner (N/S BRT) Policy Committee Commissioner not required, but serves by practice Strategic Communications Work 2 Commissioners Group Required per BOCC action establishing Work Group GoTriangle Transit Advisory 1 Commissioner Committee Required per GoTriangle 1 19 1 Regarding the ABC Board, Commissioner Bedford said it is important to have a liaison on 2 the ABC Board. She recalled a time when the ABC Board was considering not paying a living 3 wage, but having a commissioner on the board ensured that it happened. 4 Vice-Chair Fowler agreed that it is important. 5 Commissioner McKee said commissioner presence helps improve the amount that they 6 give to the justice budget. He said they also give out community awards that are helpful to be 7 aware of as the county also provides funding to some of those people. 8 9 There was no motion to discontinue service on the ABC Board. 10 11 Regarding the Board of Social Services, Commissioner McKee said it provides information 12 to the commissioners as to what is going on with social services and the county. He said it is an 13 important board. 14 Vice-Chair Fowler said there may be hot topics coming before the Board of Social Services 15 where it would be helpful for a commissioner to be aware of. 16 Commissioner Greene said it goes both ways. She said the community is interested in 17 having a commissioner be there to support accountability, and the Board of Social Services 18 appreciates having a commissioner there to bring feedback to the Board of Commissioners. 19 Commissioner Carter asked if a commissioner could attend without being assigned. 20 Commissioner McKee said attending without being a board member might raise 21 questions. 22 Commissioner Bedford said attending as a member of the public would only mean making 23 comments during the public comment period, but the commissioner wouldn't be participating. She 24 said because social services the number one budget for the county it is important to have a 25 commissioner. She said due to the size (only five members), it becomes even more important that 26 a commissioner attend. 27 Commissioner Greene said she would likely not attend a public meeting voluntarily as it 28 would not be regularly on her agenda and part of her job. 29 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if an alternate is possible if a commissioner cannot 30 attend a Board of Social Services meeting. 31 Commissioner Bedford said that is not allowed. 32 33 There was no motion to discontinue service on the Board of Social Services. 34 35 Regarding the Cooperative Extension Leadership Council, Vice-Chair Fowler said that 36 while she'd served on it and enjoyed her time, it is not critical to have a commissioner. 37 Commissioner McKee agreed. 38 Commissioner Greene said she has not attended, but she is interested in the council. 39 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she currently serves on the council and finds very 40 interesting. She said that is one the Board should keep. 41 Commissioner Bedford said it only meets quarterly. She said she thought having a 42 commissioner serve was at the request of the council. She asked Tara May if that was correct. 43 Tara May said she was not aware. 44 Commissioner Bedford said she believed the council asked for it. She said the Food 45 Council was dissolved and food insecurity and food systems are now with Cooperative Extension, 46 and these things are under attack. 47 48 There was no motion to discontinue service on the Cooperative Extension Leadership 49 Council. 50 20 1 Regarding the Fire Chiefs' Association, Commissioner McKee said when he first began 2 serving, there was a lot of dissension between the county and the fire departments. He said the 3 fire departments are a critical safety component in the community. He said not having a 4 representative could send a message that the Board isn't interested. He said he supported 5 continuing having a commissioner serve on the association. He said it is a partnership issue. 6 Chair Hamilton said that this may be a situation where the county has a conversation with 7 the association as to whether representation should continue. 8 Commissioner McKee agreed. 9 10 There was no motion to discontinue service on the Fire Chiefs Association. 11 12 Regarding Healthy Carolinians, Commissioner Bedford said it might not be essential, but 13 the group reports to the Board of Health. She said they develop new community health 14 improvement plans. She said it is an intense process every four years, but they meet less 15 between plan years. 16 Vice-Chair Fowler said she served on Healthy Carolinians and while she found it 17 interesting due to her medical career and experience, she didn't think it was necessary. 18 Commissioner Bedford asked if they could only vote to put someone on the board every 19 four years. 20 Chair Hamilton suggested that whoever is on the Board of Health could serve on Healthy 21 Carolinians during plan years. 22 23 Chair Hamilton made a motion to not appoint a commissioner to Healthy Carolinians. 24 Commissioner Bedford seconded the motion. 25 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 28 Regarding Orange Care Coalition, Vice-Chair Fowler said a commissioner was not 29 necessary on that board. 30 Commissioner Greene said that when it first started, there were two commissioners, then 31 one, and if they reduce it to zero, that's a good sign. She said that means the program launched 32 successfully. 33 34 Vice-Chair Fowler moved to discontinue having a county commissioner serve on the 35 Orange Care Coalition. Commissioner Portie-Ascott seconded the motion. 36 37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38 39 Regarding Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC), Tara May said that the County 40 Attorney advised that a designee could serve instead of a commissioner. She said Deputy County 41 Manager Caitlin Fenhagen is willing to serve. 42 Commissioner Carter said there should be county representation on JCPC. She said 43 having Caitlin Fenhagen would hold the county in good stead and continue the work of the council. 44 Commissioner Portie-Ascott supported having Caitlin Fenhagen serve on JCPC. 45 Commissioner Bedford agreed, but she said that there may be another qualified staff 46 member who would also be appropriate to serve on the council. She suggested the County 47 Manager designate a staff member to attend. 48 49 Commissioner Bedford made a motion to not appoint a commissioner to the JCPC and to 50 allow the County Manager to designate a staff member to attend. Commissioner Carter seconded 51 the motion. 21 1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2 3 Regarding the Behavioral Health Task Force, Chair Hamilton said as someone who served 4 on the task force, it gives her the information about what's going on in Orange County, which is 5 really helpful for Alliance Board meetings. She said it's a really important task force to be a part 6 of. 7 8 There was no motion to discontinue service on the Behavioral Health Task Force. 9 10 Regarding Piedmont Food Processing Center (PFPC) board, Commissioner Carter said 11 the organization recently worked on their mission and goal setting, and the county also has an 12 MOU with the center. She said structurally, the center is moving in a good direction. She said 13 the bylaws do not require a commissioner, and other counties do not have their commissioners 14 participating. She suggested appointing a community member with ties to the agricultural 15 community. 16 Commissioner Greene said because it is working with food systems it is important to keep 17 a commissioner on the center's board. 18 Commissioner McKee said both comments were good, but he agreed with Commissioner 19 Greene a little more strongly. He recalled a time when relationships with the PFPC were not good, 20 but the improvements are encouraging. He said that this is a board they should be part of. 21 Commissioner Bedford asked if the center's bylaws state that Orange County can appoint 22 someone to the board. 23 Commissioner Carter said they don't state that a commissioner must be appointed. 24 Commissioner Bedford said that their bylaws should be updated. 25 John Roberts said that the Board of Commissioners do not appoint anyone to the PFPC 26 board, but makes a recommendation for that board to appoint. He said the bylaws provides that 27 they shall have one director from each of the four original interlocal county partners. He said that 28 the center's board has to appoint an individual, but the commissioners are making a 29 recommendation. 30 Commissioner Bedford said no other counties are represented and the bylaws need to be 31 improved. 32 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if PFPC changed their bylaws. 33 John Roberts said the bylaws are different than what they were in 2012, so at some point 34 they were updated. He said based on the version he has, it still requires one individual from each 35 of the four county partners. 36 Vice-Chair Fowler said that the bylaws need work, and a commissioner should stay until 37 that is corrected. 38 Commissioner Greene said given that PFPC works with the food system, which includes 39 farmers and Cooperative Extension, it seems important that someone from the Board of 40 Commissioners be appointed by them to the center's board. 41 42 Commissioner Carter made a motion to recommend an appointee selected by the Board 43 that is not necessarily a commissioner who is standing in good stead in the organization. 44 Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. 45 46 Vice-Chair Fowler said they just heard that they can't appoint a designee. 47 Commissioner McKee said that the Board doesn't appoint, but a recommendation is sent 48 to the center's board for their appointment. 49 22 1 Commissioner Carter made an amendment to her motion that a commissioner continue 2 to serve on the center's board until an individual is recommended. Commissioner McKee agreed 3 with the amendment. 4 5 Commissioner Bedford said it is important to fix the bylaws first. 6 Commissioner Greene said that the PFPC board has the power to find farmers to be on 7 the center's board. 8 9 Commissioner Carter clarified that the motion was for a recommendation be made for a 10 community member to serve on the PFPC board and a commissioner to serve until the 11 appointment process is complete. 12 13 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Portie-Ascott, Commissioner Carter, Commissioner 14 McKee); Nays,4(Commissioner Greene, Chair Hamilton,Vice-Chair Fowler, Commissioner 15 Bedford) 16 17 MOTION FAILS 18 19 Regarding the NSBRT, Tara May said that the board is currently inactive. 20 21 Commissioner Greene made a motion to not nominate anyone for the NSBRT board. 22 Vice-Chair Fowler seconded the motion. 23 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 Regarding the GoTriangle Transit Advisory Committee, Tara May said she didn't have any 27 documentation requiring a commissioner to serve. 28 Commissioner Greene said she's been on the GoTriangle board for three years and has 29 never heard of this committee. 30 Chair Hamilton suggested not taking action on the advisory committee due to lack of 31 information. 32 33 The Board made the following boards and commissions selections: 34 35 Commissioner Bedford 36 • Board of Social Services 37 • Central Pines Rural Planning Organization (CPRPO) Transportation Advisory Committee 38 (TAC) (alternate) 39 • Durham Tech Board of Trustees 40 • Fire Chiefs'Association of Orange County 41 • Justice Advisory Council 42 • Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness Leadership Team 43 • Solid Waste Advisory Group 44 45 Commissioner Carter 46 • Jordan Lake One Water Coalition Board of Directors 47 • Legislative Issues Work Group 48 • The Chamber for a Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Directors 49 • Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Board (alternate) 50 0 Upper Neuse River Basin Association Board of Directors (member) 23 1 Vice-Chair Fowler 2 • Burlington/Graham MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (alternate) 3 • Climate Council 4 • Co-Gen Rail Transformation Project Policy Steering Committee 5 • Go Triangle Special Tax Board 6 • Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (member) 7 • Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Board (member) 8 9 Commissioner Greene 10 • Central Pines Regional Council Board of Delegates (member) 11 • Go Triangle Board of Trustees 12 • Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing Collaborative 13 • Piedmont Food Processing Center Board of Directors 14 • Visitor's Bureau Advisory Board 15 16 Chair Hamilton 17 • Alliance Health Board of Directors 18 • Central Pines Regional Council Board of Delegates (alternate) 19 • Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (alternate) 20 • Justice Advisory Council 21 • Orange County Behavioral Health Task Force 22 • Solid Waste Advisory Group 23 24 Commissioner McKee 25 • Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 26 • Board of Health 27 • Burlington/Graham MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (member) 28 • Cooperative Extension Leadership Council 29 • Go Triangle Special Tax Board 30 • Upper Neuse River Basin Association Board of Directors (alternate) 31 32 Commissioner Portie-Ascott 33 • Central Pines Rural Planning Organization (CPRPO) Transportation Advisory Committee 34 (TAC) (member) 35 • Legislative Issues Work Group 36 • Orange County Partnership for Young Children Board of Directors 37 • Research Triangle Regional Partnership Executive Board 38 39 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to 40 approve the commissioner appointments as selected and discussed by the Board. 41 42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 43 44 7. Reports 45 None. 46 47 24 1 8. Consent Agenda 2 3 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 4 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 5 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 6 7 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to 8 approve the consent agenda. 9 10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 11 12 a. Minutes 13 None. 14 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 15 The Board adopted of a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for nine (9) 16 taxpayers with a total of nine (9) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. 17 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds 18 The Board adopted of a resolution to release property tax values for thirty (30) taxpayers with a 19 total of thirty-eight (38) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. 20 d. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion 21 The Board approved twelve (12) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem 22 taxation for sixteen (16) bills for the 2025 tax year. 23 e. Property Tax Release/Refund Request— Laura Jost Malahias 24 The Board approved a resolution denying a request for release/refund of taxes submitted by Laura 25 Jost Malahias. 26 f. Renewal of Fairview Park Memorandum of Interlocal Agreement 27 The Board renewed a Memorandum of Interlocal Agreement(MOA)with the Town of Hillsborough 28 for a five-year term for certain activities and operations at Fairview Park. 29 g. Resolution of Approval —Alamance County Ownership of Donated Land Within Orange 30 County 31 The Board adopted a resolution approving Alamance County taking ownership of a parcel of land 32 in Orange County for inclusion in a future Alamance regional park. 33 h. Approval of ABB, Inc. Performance Agreement Amendment 34 The Board approved a proposed amendment to the performance agreement between ABB, Inc. 35 and Orange County providing a one-month extension to the termination date to allow for 36 verification of the final year performance metrics. 37 i. Approval of School Enrollment Forecasting Contract with UNC 38 The Board approved an intergovernmental agreement with UNC for the Carolina Population 39 Center's Carolina Demography to conduct an enrollment forecast for both school districts. 40 41 9. County Manager's Report 42 Travis Myren had no report. 43 44 10. County Attorney's Report 45 John Roberts had no report. 46 47 11. *Appointments 48 None. 49 50 25 1 12. Information Items 2 • November 18, 2025 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 3 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis 4 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections 5 • Tax Collector's Report— Foreclosure Chart 6 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100 7 • Memorandum - Board of Health Resolution Promoting the Development of Adequate 8 Affordable Housing 9 • Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports 10 11 13. Closed Session 12 None. 13 14 Adjournment 15 16 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to adjourn 17 the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 18 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 20 21 Jean Hamilton, Chair 22 23 24 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board 25 26 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board Attachment 5 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 December 9, 2025 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, December 9 9, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jean Hamilton, Vice-Chair Amy Fowler, and 12 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Marilyn Carter, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen 17 (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below). 18 19 Chair Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.All commissioners were present. 20 21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 22 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to add 23 the approval of a Resolution Supporting JCPC Legislative Requests for Increased Funding as 24 item 8-h, and to add item 11-a to discuss appointments to the Orange County Juvenile Crime 25 Prevention Council. 26 27 Commissioner Bedford pointed out that there is also a need to add a closed session to 28 consult with the county attorney. 29 30 Commissioner McKee amended his motion to include all three additions. 31 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33 34 Chair Hamilton read the public charge. She reviewed the instructions for making public 35 comment. 36 37 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 38 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 39 Bill Madden said he used to referee adult soccer in Chapel Hill and recalled that Mark 40 Marcopolos played in the league. He said former Commissioner Marcopolos cared about his 41 teammates and everyone on the field. He said he helped canvas for Mark Marcopolos when he 42 ran for the Board of County Commissioners, and he will be missed. He also thanked 43 Commissioner Greene for her time on the Chapel Hill Town Council, recalling her past role in 44 questioning developers about affordable housing, and appreciated her public service and public 45 transit use. He added his wishes that she'd stay for another year on the Board. 46 47 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 48 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 49 50 2 1 3. Announcements, Petitions, and Comments by Board Members 2 Commissioner Portie-Ascott began by sharing an urgent email received from Kevin 3 Leonard, Executive Director of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 4 (NCACC), about a new NC House Special Committee to examine property taxes. She read from 5 the email, which expressed both optimism about having the opportunity to share perspectives but 6 also realism about national trends. Leonard noted that states like Florida and California were 7 seeking to "limit cap or even eliminate property taxes," and these trends "may influence policy 8 conversations here in North Carolina."The first committee meeting was scheduled for December 9 17th in Raleigh. Leonard's call to action urged commissioners to begin conversations with their 10 NC House and Senate members about how changes to the property tax system could affect 11 service delivery and budgets. Commissioner Portie-Ascott also reported on the district directors' 12 meeting, announcing that the first District 9 meeting would be held jointly with Districts 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 on March 6th from 10 AM to 2 PM in either Randolph or Guilford County. She thanked the 14 county manager for agreeing to assist with advertising. She concluded by describing a Northern 15 Orange First Saturday Speakers Forum she and Commissioner Carter had participated in, hosted 16 by Representative Renee Price, focused on the housing crisis. They discussed the Longtime 17 Homeowners Assistance program, rental assistance, and eviction diversion work. Community 18 questions included: What are measurable affordable housing goals, and how is progress 19 reported? How are developers held accountable for affordable housing commitments? How can 20 equitable access be ensured for low-wealth households, immigrant families, and local workers? 21 Will rental assistance and eviction prevention resources be expanded? The community also 22 raised concerns about septic system failures that can "financially devastate a household with 23 almost no support for middle-income families facing a $60,000 replacement cost." 24 Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Portie-Ascott's comments about the state 25 property tax committee directly align with his petition from last week. He said he will be at the 26 meeting on the 17th to listen and hopefully have a hand in finding an adjustment. He also shared 27 that he attended the memorial service for former Commissioner Mark Marcopolos along with close 28 to 200 others. 29 Vice-Chair Fowler shared that the Tax Assessment Work Group had met twice since the 30 last Board meeting - on December 2nd for educational sessions and December 5th to review the 31 RFP for a consultant. The consultant would review tax policies and procedures and make 32 recommendations on ways to improve equity in the revaluation process and improve community 33 education and communication regarding tax reevaluations and the appeals process. The RFP will 34 go out later in the month with a 30-day response time, and the review process is expected to take 35 approximately three months. The next work group meeting is scheduled virtually on January 12th 36 at 2:00 PM to learn from County staff attorney Martha Bordogna about the Board of Equalization 37 and Review. Hudson Vaughan will also share his community presentation to bring all work group 38 members up to speed on community concerns. Commissioner Fowler announced that she and 39 Commissioner Carter will join Hudson Vaughan and Shereese Alston on WCHL this week to 40 discuss tax revaluation and equity concerns, with the show airing later. She wished everyone 41 happy holidays and acknowledged Commissioner Bedford for her leadership as Chair over the 42 past 3 years and her ongoing mentorship and presented her with a gift from the Board. 43 Commissioner Bedford thanked Orange County staff for their work and dedication to 44 serving the public. She highlighted some challenges staff faced over the year including Tropical 45 Storm Chantal and the federal SNAP benefit issues. Commissioner Bedford reminded the public 46 that taxes are due around January 3rd or 5th, when interest collection would begin. She 47 encouraged residents to call the tax office to set up a payment plan as soon as they can. She 3 1 wished everyone happy holidays and said she is looking forward to working with the Board in 2 2026. 3 Commissioner Carter echoed thanks to Commissioner Bedford and expanded on 4 Commissioner Fowler's Tax Assessment Work Group update. She emphasized that the group had 5 held four meetings in the last six weeks, with great work underway to get an RFP out for a 6 consultant who would provide recommendations in the first quarter of the new year. Commissioner 7 Carter highlighted a presentation from Wake County's tax assessor, who had been recognized by 8 advocates and other assessors around the state for some innovative approaches. Wake County's 9 changes included technology updates, bringing staff in-house, transitioning commercial 10 appraisals in-house, moving to a two-year reappraisal cycle, and approaching everything with a 11 customer service mindset. They were integrating operations with CRM software and their call 12 center platform and notably were taking advantage of the local relationship with SAS, also based 13 out of Wake County, to implement machine learning in their processes. She said she is excited to 14 address the very valid concerns expressed by residents this year and shared that, in visiting a 15 Chapel Hill neighborhood with a resident, those experiencing "valuation and tax sticker shock" 16 appreciated that the Board was taking action. She noted that the WCHL interview would be on 17 Thursday between 3:00 and 6:00 PM, and wished everyone happy, healthy, and safe holidays. 18 Commissioner Greene wished happy holidays to everyone present and to the county's 19 hardworking staff. She reported that the previous weekend's Abolition Day events went well, with 20 one more event scheduled for tomorrow evening at 5:00 PM at the Seymour Center- a screening 21 of Ava DuVernay's documentary The 13th about the prison industrial system and how it exploits 22 a loophole in the 13th Amendment. The screening will be followed by a panel discussion including 23 County Deputy Manager Cait Fenhagen. 24 Chair Hamilton reported on the Alliance Health Board meeting she attended and said a 25 letter was being sent to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services about 26 concerns regarding Alliance Health's ability to continue meeting behavioral health needs due to 27 being "financially squeezed." She promised to share the letter with the Board. Chair Hamilton 28 highlighted an information item on the agenda about the Human Services Work Group, 29 commending Deputy Manager Cait Fenhagen for her work. She emphasized it is vital that in this 30 environment, where there is less funding and rising human services needs, to figure out how we 31 can do it better and ensure more coordination between departments. She mentioned she would 32 email information about cold-weather cots, which had been activated due to the recent cold 33 temperatures, thanking all staff working to protect residents. She also thanked the community for 34 their donations to the toy drive. She thanked everyone and wished them happy and safe holidays, 35 noting this was the Board's last business meeting of the year. 36 37 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 38 None. 39 40 5. Public Hearings 41 a. Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Economic Development Recruitment Incentive 42 and Performance Agreement Between Orange County and CITEL America, Inc. (Project 43 Rooster 44 The Board received the proposal to consider entering a Performance Agreement for the purpose 45 of incentivizing CITEL's investment in Orange County; conducted the Public Hearing and receive 46 public comments, and approved the performance-based incentive agreement between Orange 47 County and CITEL America, Inc., subject to final review by the County Attorney, authorized the 48 Chair to sign the Performance Agreement on behalf of the County, and authorized the County 4 1 Manager to sign any contract amendments up to the maximum performance incentive amount of 2 $100,433. 3 4 BACKGROUND: Local and state governments in North Carolina have the goal to promote 5 economic development by encouraging the location of new businesses and the expansion of 6 existing businesses. This activity serves to diversify the local tax base, increase employment 7 opportunities, and introduce desired job skills and related benefits to a community, and for the 8 benefit of its residents. The Local Government Act, North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 158- 9 7.1, outlines the requirements of public hearings, and NCGS 158-7.1(a) specifically addresses 10 the requirement that economic development appropriations "must be determined by the governing 11 body of the city or county to increase the population, taxable property, agriculture industries, 12 employment, industrial output, or business prospects of the city or county". This public hearing 13 has been scheduled in compliance. 14 15 Company Background: 16 CITEL America, Inc. is a privately owned French manufacturer of electrical Surge Protection 17 Devices (SPDs)that protect electronic and electric equipment from transient overvoltages caused 18 by lightning strikes, switching events, and electromagnetic interferences. The company was 19 formed in Paris, France in 1937 and expanded to the United States in 1985. 20 21 CITEL has eight (8) international offices and research and development sites, as well as a large 22 network of international distributors and partners providing support directly in the communities 23 they are serving. Germany Eochnm �► s* France Faris 6 Raims _ 0—h USAFChina Miami E Hnnstnn Shanghai] Colombia UAE °uhai India Bogota New Delhi Thailand Eangknk 24 25 26 CITEL is the only SPD manufacturer that produces its own Gas Discharge Tubes (GDTs). In 27 addition to GDTs, the company develops many of its critical surge components internally including 28 thermally protected varistors and high-energy varistor assemblies, giving the company extensive 29 knowledge of every minute detail of the parts that form an SPD. These components have a long 5 1 history of reliable performance and thanks to many patents, CITEL products are accepted as the 2 industry standard by many leading international companies. --------------- 1 1 1937 r CITEL founded -„ ,;..,..,.. 1944 Manufacture of the ----- .�' first surge arrester = 1985 +Il CITEL USA r., -------------- --------------- v- - 19$8 d'------ --1988 1st AC modular CITEL Germany surge protector 0.....1-1.1992 Reims factory ..�.__. , te -------------- � 1996 CITEL Shanghai ---------------- 1997 0 -AC surge protector new range«DS»series -VG technology for AC surge protector 2012 0 —s— 2012 Implementation of CITEL India a test laboratory in Reims 2017 0 2017 New test laboratory 240 kA CITEL Thailand .R: in CITEL Shanghai ' - 2019 AC/DC new range 0-- =--2021 CITEL Middle East 2023 0 PV new range with CTC Technology 2024 CITEL Colombia 3 6 1 Project Description: 2 The Board is requested to consider an inducement incentive for the international industrial 3 prospect CITEL, a French-owned manufacturer and research & development firm for electrical 4 surge protection devices. This project involves the relocation of the company's United States 5 operation from Florida to Orange County. 6 7 • CITEL desires to relocate the current United States office and manufacturing footprint out 8 of Florida. This is driven by an increase in extreme weather events in Florida, and the 9 associated increase in costs. Proximity to the RDU Airport is also preferred, driven by 10 direct flights to Paris. 11 • An Orange County site would house both office and manufacturing operations and serve 12 as the new United States headquarters for the company. 13 • Project encompasses $15,250,000 million in total capital investment (forecast to occur in 14 2026 - 2030). 15 • 79 total jobs, with 38 new jobs to be created between 2025 — 2029 at an average annual 16 wage of $83,611 or approximately $40.20 per hour. It should be noted that 41 positions 17 currently based at the Florida location would be offered a transfer position to North 18 Carolina. The total number of employees to migrate and accept this offer is yet to be 19 determined. 20 • Competing sites are in Florida, South Carolina, Washington, and Texas. CITEL has 21 considered locations across the southeast that provide strong logistics, access to 22 workforce, high quality of life for employees, direct access to Paris and reasonable real 23 estate costs. Driving factors include overall operating costs and quality of life. 24 • Orange County's site is the former 80,596 square foot "Mid-Atlantic STIHL, Inc." building 25 located at 315 Executive Ct., Hillsborough, NC in the Meadowlands Business Park. 26 f 001 27 i 28 ��� q�a.-4 }• t� � r - . a e _ I Fdid-Wut1i�S#hi uk NAX ir ca 1 2 3 Basis to Calculate the Value of Orange County Performance-Based Incentives 4 1) INVESTMENT — The Orange County incentive is based only on the $6,000,000 personal 5 property investment, and on the estimated $500,000 to $1,000,000 in net new real property 6 investment for upfit improvements to be made to the existing building. 7 8 Real Property: 9 Up to$9.25 million for an existing building, which includes CITEL making up to$1,000,000 in new 10 building upfit improvements. The value of the existing building is not included in the County's 11 incentive calculation. 12 13 Personal Property: 14 $6,000,000 in new taxable machinery and equipment investment. 15 Investmen Real $9,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,250,000 Property Personal $2,000,000 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $6,000,000 Property0 0 0 0 $11,250,00 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $1,000,00 $15,250,00 • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 17 2) EMPLOYMENT — CITEL will add net new employment consistent with the job growth chart 18 below. If annual job targets are not achieved, the annual incentive payment will be reduced by 19 $500 per full time equivalent employee not hired. By year 2029, the company will create 79 new 20 positions with an average salary of$83,611 per year. 21 2025 2026 2027 20281 ' Total New Full- • • 8 1 The proposed inducement payment will be in the form of a performance-based grant payable in 2 up to five (5) installments over a five-year period at an amount equal to 75% of CITEL' s projected 3 net increase in real and personal property tax valuation over the five-year investment period as 4 outlined in the chart above for 2026—2030. It ensures that annual tax revenues from the project's 5 additional investment, net of annual incentive payments, remain positive in all years of the 6 incentive agreement. 7 Orange County Revenue Projections (5 Year) - New ISiLfS� 1 � 1 • ���. �r a Property 1 $17,553 $22,660 $27,255 $31,392 $35,050 $133,910 Tax Incentive §-$13,165 -$16,995 -$20,442 -$23,544 -$26,288 -$100,433 Payment Annual Net $4,388 $5,665 $6,814 $7,848 $8,763 $33,478 Revenue8 • • $263,313 Incentive Payment -$100,433 Total Net Revenue $162,880 9 10 Additional Partner Participation 11 (1) The State of North Carolina has offered CITEL the following incentive programs to 12 encourage the company to locate the manufacturing facility in Orange County, instead of 13 choosing competing locations in other states, and, subject to approval of local County 14 government incentives. 15 of • • ($591,300) State Tax Exemption on Machinery & Equipment Purchases $270,000 One North Carolina Fund $50,000 N.C. Community College System's Customized Training $118,500 Value Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) $52,800 Federal Bonding Program $90,000 Job Ready Grants $10,000 16 17 (2) Capital Area Workforce Development (CAWD) has offered: 18 - Employment Recruitment and Screening Services 19 - Partnership with local agencies and institutions of higher learning 20 - On-The-Job Training reimbursement 21 - Incumbent Worker Training grant ($10,000) 22 9 1 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, introduced Henri Guichard (President of 2 CITEL Group), Patrick Coyle (Vice President of CITEL America from Florida), Daniel Cardoza 3 (Regional Sales Manager), Tatiana Diep (Production Manager), and Abby Currants from the 4 Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, who reports to the governor's office and 5 had brought CITEL to look at Orange County. 6 Steve Brantley made the following presentation: 7 8 Slide #1 ©RANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Proposed Financial Recruitment Incentive for the Industry CITEL America, Inc. Public Hearing by orange County Board of Commissioners Southern Human Services Center-Chapel Hill,NC December 9, 2025 1 9 10 11 Slide #2 About CITEL • Founded in 1937,CITEL is a private,family-owned French manufacturer of industrial surge protection products with a wide global footprint. • CITEL is headquartered in Paris, France.The USA operation was established 1985,and the current U_S_footprint is in Miramar FL_ • CITEL's products offer protection for many installation types including AC and DC power supply,telecommunication, radio,data centers,wind turbines and more. • CITEL is the leading manufacturer that exclusively produces both Surge Protective'Devices(SPDs)and Surge Protective Components(SPCs). • CITEL has 8 international offices and R&D sites throughout the world. ORANGE COUNTY NOIZ-1-1I CA110I.INA 12 10 1 Slide #3 CITEL Global Operations any all. &MAM Franca ►�a � tri USA �, China Mimi BHnurtnn Colombia UAE acputr °" ladle / Nw hw Thailand ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #4 Location of Proposed Site 315 Executive Ct., Hillsborough, Orange County (former location of"Mid-Atlantic STIHL Inc") y a.M ; � M ORANGE COUNTY a NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 11 1 Slide #5 Existing Building Former location of "Mid-Atlantic STIHL Inc" ORANGE COUNTY NORYH CAROIANA 5 2 3 4 Slide #6 Project Description French-owned manufacturer and research&development company for electrical surge protection devices 79 total jobs,with 38 new jobs created between 2825—2029 Average annual wage of$83,611 or approximately$40-20 per hour $15,250,000 million in total capital investment(forecast to occur in 2026- 2030) Competing sites are in Florida, South Carolina,Washington,Texas and various communities in Durham and Wake County. • North Carolina Governor Josh Stein met in Paris with the CITEL owners in June 2025 during the State's European business recruiting mission. ORANGE COUNTY NOWTH CAROLINA 5 6 Steve Brantley noted that the average pay is well above the Orange County living wage. 7 8 12 1 Slide #7 Forecast of CITEL's New Job Creation Hiring schedule for 79 full-time jobs,with health care, retirement and related employee benefits $83,511 annual salary,or, $40.20 per hour I Iyj; rilly* 3 43 11 11i 11 79 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH.CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #8 Outline of State & Local Incentives State of North Sales Tax Exemption on Machinery&Equipment Purchases $270,000 One North Carolina Fund(discretionary performance grant) $50,000 N.C.Community College System's"Customized Training" $118,500 Jab Ready Grants $10,000 Mork Opportunity Tax Credit $52,800 Federal Bonding Program $90,000 Orange Performance Based Incentive(as proposed) $100,433 Total $691,733 ORANGE COUNTY N(lWTH CAROLINA 8 5 6 7 13 1 Slide #9 Forecast of CITEL's Capital Investment Schedule 2026 2027r2029 2030 Total $9,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,250,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 ® $11,250,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $15,250,000 The Orange County incentive is based only on the $6,000,000.00 personal property investment, and on the estimated $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 In net new real property investment for upfit improvements to be made to the existing building. Real Property: Up to$9.25 million for an existing building,which includes CITEL making up to$1,000,000 in new building upfit improvements. The value of the existing building is not included in the County's incentive calculation. Personal PropORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 16,000,000.00 in new taxable machinery and equipment investment. 3 4 Slide #10 Orange County's Performance-Based Incentive • Performance-based grant is calculated at 75%of actual net-new business and real property tax investment valuation,for 5 years. (Same incentive formula as previously approved by the BOCC for ABB, Medline Industries, and Morinaga). • The purchase of the farmer Mid-Atlantic STIHL Inc. building that is already taxed by Orange County, is not included in the calculation. Only the net-new investment in personal property(machinery&equipment), and$500,000 to $1,000,000 in additional real property(for improvements to the existing building to be purchased)is proposed to receive an incentive. • Estimated 5-year incentive total is$100,433 • During the first 10 years of operation, CITEUs investment is estimated to create up to$263,313 in total gross property tax valuation, and$162,$00 in net valuation for the County. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 10 5 6 7 14 1 Slide #11 Orange County's Performance-Based Incentive Orange County Revenue Projections(first 5 years) New Property $17,553 $22,660 $27,255 $31,392 $35,050 $133,916 Tax Revenue 413,165 -$16,995 -$20,442 -$23,544 -$26,288 -$100,433 SEEM $4,388 $5,665 $6,814 $7,848 $8,763 $33,477 Orange I Now • • $263,313 Incentive Payments $100,433 Total Net Revenues $162,880 ORANGE COUNTY NORTI I CAROLINA 2 3 Steve Brantley emphasized that the incentive would be revenue positive for Orange 4 County in all years. 5 6 Slide #12 Benefits of CITEL Locating in Orange County • Creates 79 total full-time jobs,with benefits,to include 38 new full-tune iobs to be created locally(in addition to the 41 jobs that will be offered relocation from Florida)to be created between 2025—2029,at an average annual wage of$83,611 or approximately $40.20 per hour. • Adds up to$6 million in new personal propertt investment(machinery and equipment)and$500,000 to$1,000,000 In new real property investment(building upfit improvements),to include the potential for solar panels. • Occupies a commercial/industrial building that is currently vacant in Hillsborough's Meadowlands business district. • Proposed incentive is revenue positive for the first 5 years,netting 25%per year of the forecasted net new property tax valuation. • Increased diversification of the County's economy through adding another light industrial manufacturer,and with international ties. • Orange County would become the firm's chief center of operations in the USA. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 7 8 9 15 1 Slide #13 Proposal for Orange County's Financial Incentives for CITEL America, Inc. Questions & Discussion ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to open 4 the public hearing. 5 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS 9 None. 10 11 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to close 12 the public hearing. 13 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15 16 Commissioner Bedford asked about the sales tax implications for the sale of surge 17 protectors. 18 Patrick Coyle explained that sales tax would depend on the end user- if sold to an in-state 19 end user there would be sales tax, but sales to resellers wouldn't collect sales tax until the final 20 sale. 21 Commissioner Carter spoke in favor of this proposed incentive agreement and what the 22 company brings to Orange County. She said this is aligned with the County's strategic goals. 23 Commissioner McKee said he is delighted to have this in front of the Board tonight. He 24 said he's familiar with the building and was aware it had been vacant for a year. He complimented 25 real estate agent Emilee Collins on finding this opportunity. He said the proposal is net positive 26 from the get-go. 27 28 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to approve 29 the performance-based incentive agreement between Orange County and CITEL America, Inc., 30 subject to final review by the County Attorney, authorize the Chair to sign the Performance 16 1 Agreement on behalf of the County, and authorize the County Manager to sign any contract 2 amendments up to the maximum performance incentive amount of$100,433. 3 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 6 Chair Hamilton said the Board is pleased to support this incentive and thanked CITEL for 7 their interest in Orange County. 8 9 6. Regular Agenda 10 a. Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Program — Potential Addition of Funds 11 The Board received an update on application numbers and percent tax relief for the calendar year 12 2025 Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) program, which assists low-income Orange County 13 homeowners with a discount or rebate on their property tax bill; and considered a potential 14 increase in funding for the current year LHA program. 15 BACKGROUND: The LHA Program was initiated in 2022 to assist longtime Orange County 16 residents with assistance for potentially burdensome property tax bills. Since then, the program 17 has expanded with annual contributions from both Chapel Hill and, newly this year, Carrboro. 18 19 In 2025, the Orange County property tax revaluation raised property values significantly for many 20 Orange County residents, and the anticipated increase in LHA applications and approvals has 21 manifested, with nearly 60% more applications submitted than 2024, and approximately 70% 22 more approvals. In the table below, the "eligible" row is still an estimate, as staff have yet to 23 complete final processing of all applications: 24 LHA Applications Submitted 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage Eligible Applications 502 83% 850* 90% Ineligible Applications 102 17% 92 10% TOTAL 604 942 25 26 Staff has calculated award amounts using the following guidelines (parameters below are from 27 2024 and using 2024 amounts, these steps would remain the same for 2025 although the 28 values would change): 29 • All applicants were arranged in priority order 30 o FIRST: Tax Burden, largest to smallest 31 o SECOND: Length in Home, longest to shortest 32 o THIRD: Age, oldest to youngest 33 • Full awards were allocated to as many participants as possible using $75,000 of the 34 $250,000 available funding. 17 1 • Staff determined a multiplying factor for the remaining $175,000 in available funding and 2 used this to reduce all other awards by the same percentage. 3 • All eligible homeowners received a minimum award amount of $200 or up to the full 4 amount of the County portion of their tax bill if it was less than $200. 5 • Award amounts were the County portion of the tax bill less 2%of the applicant's household 6 income. 7 8 Staff currently estimates that there will be 850 approved LHA applications, with a total County 9 property tax burden of $1,894,000. The exact property tax burden is difficult to calculate, as the 10 Tax Office continues to process data for a significant number of residents. 11 12 Last year, with $250,000 allocated, LHA covered 25% of the County property tax burden for 13 qualified applicants. Given the current County budget allocation is $377,805, staff estimates the 14 allocation will cover about 19.9% of County property tax burden for the estimated recipients. The 15 County has two potential options in order to close the gap between 2024 and 2025 cost shares: 16 17 • Option 1: Using the remaining funds in the Social Justice account(approximately$76,000) 18 would increase the cost share to 24%. 19 • Option 2: In order to achieve the same cost share proportion as last year (25%), the 20 County would need to allocate an estimated $95,726. Staff plans to share a more definite 21 amount at the meeting. The difference between the Social Justice account and this figure 22 would require a transfer from the County Capital Reserve Fund. The County Capital 23 Reserve was seeded in FY 2023 with $2,500,000 in surplus sales tax and has been used 24 over four fiscal years to address unanticipated capital and non-recurring needs. A transfer 25 of that difference ($19,726) would result in a remaining balance in the County Capital 26 Reserve Fund of$21,470. 27 28 It should be noted that while staff is estimating both the total number of qualified applicants and 29 the exact County property tax burden at the time of this agenda abstract publication, the final 30 figures will be available and shared by the meeting date. 31 32 It is also relevant to note that using the remainder of the Social Justice fund in January would 33 leave the County without an unallocated reserve to meet emergencies through the end of the 34 2025-26 fiscal year. 35 36 Blake Rosser, Housing Director, introduced the item. He reported a large increase in 37 applications due to the revaluation -from just over 600 total applications last year to 940 this year. 38 Approvals increased from around 500 last year to approximately 800 this year (expecting about 39 850), representing about a 60% increase. He said the Board had already authorized increased 40 funding, but he wanted to compare the percentage of relief provided. Last year, $250,000 covered 41 about 25% of the county property tax burden for recipients. This year's $377,000 allocation would 42 cover about 20% of the burden for the estimated number of recipients. To approximate last year's 43 25% level would require using the remaining $76,000 from the Social Justice Fund account, 44 bringing coverage to about 24%, with an additional $20,000 needed from elsewhere to fully reach 45 25%. Blake Rosser noted that using the remainder of the Social Justice Fund would leave no 46 unallocated reserve for emergencies for the remainder of the fiscal year. 47 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what the risk is if there are no reserves in the Social 48 Justice Fund. 18 1 Travis Myren explained that the undesignated fund balance is always available for 2 emergencies, and following the January audit presentation, additional funds above the 16% fund 3 balance may be available. 4 Commissioner McKee said $50,000 could be taken from the Social Justice Fund, and the 5 remainder could be picked up by the fund balance. He said he would like to leave something in 6 the Social Justice Fund. 7 Vice-Chair Fowler said if there is a true emergency in the future, staff can still take money 8 from the fund balance. She asked about the county capital reserve. 9 Travis Myren said the reserve was created a couple years ago, and can be used for 10 operating or capital purposes. 11 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if the other option is the undesignated fund balance. 12 Travis Myren said yes. 13 Commissioner Bedford argued for using the full $76,000 from social justice for easier 14 accounting. She noted the capital reserve had $41,196 currently but expected additional monies 15 after the audit, possibly almost a million dollars. She wanted to make a motion to reach 25% using 16 whatever combination the manager deemed best, acknowledging it could be slightly higher since 17 final approval numbers weren't known. She suggested funds might initially come from the fund 18 balance with a budget amendment after the audit. 19 Commissioner Carter supported increasing the program while questioning whether 25% 20 was the right objective. She asked if they'd always had that goal and what was magical about 21 25%. 22 Travis Myren said that is just what was done last year. 23 Commissioner Carter suggested this broader question about what the goal should be 24 might be appropriate for budget discussions. She also asked about distribution across 25 municipalities, particularly since Chapel Hill and Carrboro had contributed funds. 26 Blake Rosser said he is planning to come back in February with that sort of information. 27 He said Chapel Hill pitched in more than anticipated this year (almost $87,000) and Carrboro 28 joined in for the first time. 29 Chair Hamilton asked if the Towns' monies are going straight to their residents. 30 Blake Rosser said it is applied to the Town portion of the bill for their residents. 31 Commissioner Greene said she supports reaching 25% by any combination of funds staff 32 chooses. 33 Vice-Chair Fowler responded to Commissioner Carter's question about goals, explaining 34 the program started 4-5 years ago with the 2021 revaluation also catching people off guard. The 35 original idea was to offset that increase rather than pay the whole bill. 36 Chair Hamilton added that it started with just a dollar amount that the Housing Department 37 had to spread across all needs and evolved over time. She agreed with Commissioner Carter's 38 point about discussing this in the full budget context. 39 40 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to 41 reach the 25% allocation like last year and to defer to staff to bring a formal proposal as to how 42 that allocation will occur. 43 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 45 46 b. One-Year Pilot Implementation of Fare-Free Fixed Route Transportation Service 47 The Board approved fee changes to implement a one-year pilot program, making Orange County 48 Public Transportation (OCPT) fixed routes fare-free. 19 1 BACKGROUND: Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) operates fixed-route transit 2 services that connect thousands of residents to key destinations in the community each year. 3 Currently, riders who do not qualify for a reduced or fare-free program pay a nominal fare to use 4 the service. The Transportation Services Department proposes a one-year pilot project 5 implementing a fare-free fixed-route model effective January 2, 2026 to assess the benefits to 6 public transit efficiency and accessibility countywide. 7 8 National and regional transit data show that fare-free systems result in increased ridership, 9 attracting new passengers while enabling existing riders to travel more frequently. Agencies that 10 have implemented fare-free fixed routes have reported ridership growth of up to 30%, particularly 11 among low-income residents who are the most sensitive to cost barriers. By removing fares as a 12 one-year pilot program, OCPT can assess the financial obstacles to mobility and potential benefits 13 related to access to employment, education, medical care, and essential services across Orange 14 County. 15 16 In addition to potentially expanding public access, a one-year pilot of fare-free fixed routes offers 17 significant operational benefits. 18 • Eliminating fare transactions streamlines the boarding process, improving stop efficiency 19 and reducing delays that impact schedule reliability. 20 • Removes the need for staff to verify eligibility for reduced or fare-free programs on fixed 21 routes, allowing transit personnel to focus solely on safety and service delivery. 22 • OCPT would eliminate the costs for one year associated with purchasing, maintaining, 23 and servicing fare collection equipment, reducing long-term operational and capital 24 expenses. 25 26 The one-year pilot fare-free fixed-route system positions OCPT to assess service to the 27 community, invest in service quality, and assess barriers to transportation. This initiative 28 represents a possible strategic opportunity to increase ridership, enhance operational efficiency, 29 and strengthen transit equity for all Orange County residents. 30 31 Staff will assess the impacts over the one-year period, and present findings to the Board in 32 November 2026 related to potential continuation or discontinuance of the fare-free fixed-route 33 system. 34 35 Sarah Williamson, Transportation Services Interim Director, made the following 36 presentation: 37 38 Slide #1 20 F re Fre Fixed Route Service i rte. 4' r 2 3 Slide #2 Fare Free Fixed Route Service Orange and Blue Loops: currently free �w Hill-to-Hill and Orange Alamance: Currently$1 for elderly or disabled Currently$2 for all other riders o�- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 1 Slide #3 Save Time, Save Money • Simplified Boarding No Need to Qualify Riders - { Eliminates Fee Collection Equipment _ 2 - - Q / I C 3 4 Slide #4 Net Positive Impact AnnUalExpenses Current Fare Free Operating Contract $11,160 $0 F i Contract ended 6/2025 Service Fees $25,800 $0 " y e- Equipment $6,000 $0 Upgrade every 3-5 years Fares _$10,000 $0 Total $32,960 $0 5 6 Sarah Williamson explained that the pilot program would implement fare-free service 7 effective January 2, 2026, benefiting users by making public transportation more accessible for 8 medical appointments, employment, education, and other essential services. Based on programs 9 studied around the country, they would save time and money through simplified boarding 10 processes, eliminating the need to qualify riders for reduced fares, and removing fee collection 22 1 equipment. She said the simplified boarding would make routes run more quickly, benefiting 2 passengers and drivers. She said the program would actually save about $32,000 annually. 3 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she is supportive of the fare-free option. She asked what 4 times the fixed routes run, thinking about families who engage with the Juvenile Crime Prevention 5 Council, who identified transportation as a barrier to accessing services. 6 Sarah Williamson said the county runs fixed routes from 8:00 am-5:00 pm. She said on- 7 demand routes cost between $3 and $5, and would be more relevant for those clients. 8 Vice-Chair Fowler asked whether they'd still have cost savings during a pilot if the 9 equipment remained 10 Sarah Williamson explained the timing was particularly good because the operating 11 contract ended in July and they'd been going month-to-month, plus the fee collection equipment 12 was "at the end of life." If they were to continue collecting fees, they'd need new equipment 13 regardless. The $30,000 cost shown was annualized over the equipment lifecycle. 14 Commissioner McKee asked which company fees are collected through. 15 Sarah Williamson said UMO. 16 Commissioner McKee said he would just assume put fare-free fixed routes it in place going 17 forward instead of a one-year pilot program. 18 Commissioner Carter asked if savings from this can be applied to Mobility on Demand 19 rides, which could help with what Commissioner Portie-Ascott was mentioning. 20 Sarah Williamson said they could look at it, but noted those services cost $70-90 per 21 response while only charging $3-5. 22 Commissioner Greene supported the proposal, recalling from her time on the Chapel Hill 23 Town Council that the fare box was only a very small percentage of what it costs to operate a 24 system. She wondered why more systems hadn't gone fare-free and said she would be prepared 25 to vote to make it permanent. 26 Chair Hamilton said it is important to have a pilot because we don't know what the impact 27 will be on demand and how that will change the calculation of cost. She said she wants to be able 28 to manage the expectations of residents. 29 30 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to 31 approve the fee changes and the implementation of a one-year pilot program for fare-free fixed- 32 route transportation service effective January 2, 2026. 33 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 7. Reports 37 a. Update on Revaluation Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews 38 The Board approved fee changes to implement a one-year pilot program, making Orange County 39 Public Transportation (OCPT) fixed routes fare-free. 40 BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners received the second update on property tax 41 appeals and neighborhood reviews at the October 21, 2025 Business meeting. This report 42 provides a status update on the property tax appeals and neighborhood reviews that have been 43 completed through November 26, 2025, the value adjustments resulting from those reviews, and 44 the geographic distribution of both the informal and formal appeals. 45 46 Appeal Status 47 The Tax Office received a total of 3,346 informal appeals during the informal appeal window that 48 was open from March 21 to April 30, 2025. Following the informal appeal window, the Tax Office 49 received an additional 1,109 formal appeals for a total of 4,455 appeals. Of that total, 3,966 are 23 1 unique properties, with the overlap representing properties that were appealed at both informal 2 and formal levels. Of the formal apeals, 77 were not submitted by the deadline and will not be 3 considered. 4 5 As of November 26, 2025, the Tax Office issued decisions on 100% of the informal appeals. The 6 Board of Equalization and Review has completed 655 or 64% of the formal appeals with 367 in 7 process. The remaining appeals are scheduled to be completed on or before January 22, 2025. 8 The additional days added in January are to account for rescheduled appeals, continued appeals, 9 and appeals from neighborhood reviews. 10 11 The total change in assessed value from appeals is a decrease of$232,489,448 as of November 12 26, 2025. The median change for residential properties is a decrease of$38,000, and the median 13 change for nonresidential properties is a decrease of$66,400. 14 15 Neighborhood Reviews 16 The Tax Office conducted an equity analysis on the County's 1,026 assessment neighborhoods. 17 The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) specifies that measures of vertical 18 equity are only representative of possible inequities in neighborhoods that have a statistically 19 significant amount of sales. Based on that, the Tax Office reviewed the neighborhoods with five 20 (5) sales or more and identified 86 neighborhoods that were outside of the equity standards used 21 by the IAAO. Of the neighborhoods with less than five (5) sales, the Tax Office examined those 22 neighborhoods for consistency and reasonableness and identified an additional 76 23 neighborhoods that required a more thorough review. The Tax Office also studied the 19 24 neighborhoods identified by the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition for possible value 25 adjustments. A total of 171 neighborhoods were identified by the Tax Office for closer review. If 26 value adjustments are made as a result of the neighborhood reviews, property owners will receive 27 notice of the change and will have fifteen (15) days to appeal that change to the Board of 28 Equalization and Review. 29 30 Tanner Valuation Group is assisting the Tax Office with the neighborhood level reviews. As of 31 November 26, 2025, 152 neighborhood reviews or 89% have been completed. Those reviews 32 resulted in value adjustments to 1,460 properties and a total assessed value decrease of 33 $60,972,300. The remaining 19 neighborhoods will be completed by December 19, 2025. 34 35 While conducting the neighborhood reviews, the Tanner Group observed some common issues 36 warranting a decrease to the original assessed value. The most common reason that assessed 37 values were reduced during the neighborhood review process was that the original assessed 38 value was not discounted due to deferred maintenance. During the appraisal process, Orange 39 County appraisers conducted roadside evaluations of approximately 10,000 of the approximately 40 58,000 properties in Orange County. The roadside review can result in a reduction in value due 41 to deferred maintainance if it can be obseved on the exterior of the property, but appraisers do 42 not inspect the interior of homes unless they are invited. As a result, properties that were not 43 viewed by appraisers in a roadside evaluation and properties where maintenance was deferred 44 on the interior would not have been accounted for in the original value assessment. A question 45 about best practices for identifying, verifying, and accounting for deferred maintenance will be 46 added to the Tax Assessment Work Group Request for Proposal for consulting services. 47 48 Tanner Valuation Group also noted that some neighborhoods in Orange County, particularly near 49 the University, include a variety of housing types. Mass appraisal generally assumes that 50 properties in a neighborhood are like one another. However, some neighborhoods in Orange 51 County have very diverse houising types where older, owner-occupied properties are situated 24 1 next to properties that have undergone extensive renovation or are income producing student 2 rentals. The conservation neighborhoods in Chapel Hill such as Northside also have restrictions 3 on how large a property can be if an older home were removed and a new home constructed. 4 These restrictions limit the potential value, and, therefore, also limit the assessed value. 5 6 On the statistical measures of vertical equity, the Tanner Group noted that the statistical analysis 7 conducted by the Tax Office included the sales data dating back to 2021. If those sales are 8 appraised using market conditions in 2024, the assessed value would likely be much higher than 9 the sale price in 2021 given market pressure that raised prices since then. Tanner would 10 recommend limiting the analysis to more recent sales data. 11 12 The sales that occured in 2021-2022 also included several vacant land sales. By the time those 13 properties were appraised, homes had been constructed on the vacant property, dramatically 14 increasing the assessed value compared to the vacant land sale price. As a result, the sales ratio 15 on those properties (assessed value divided by its sale price) would artificially elevate the price 16 related differential (PRD) measure of vertical equity. Those sales would typically be considered 17 outliers and removed from the sales data, but the Tax Office retained those sales in the measures 18 of vertical equity to represent a conservative approach. 19 20 Appeals and Neighborhood Review Dashboard and Reports 21 In an effort to provide timely updates, the Tax Office has automated several reports to track the 22 status of appeals and neighborhood reviews. The dashboard (Attachment 1) summarizes the total 23 number of informal and formal reviews completed either by the Tax Office or the Board of 24 Equalization and review. The dashboard also tracks the properties that had a change in value, 25 the dollar value of the reduction, and the percentage values were reduced for the properties that 26 had a change in value. The dashboard also shows the number of neighborhood reviews that 27 have been completed, the number of properties where the value was changed, and the dollar 28 value of those changes. 29 30 The FY 2025-26 Budget assumes a tax base reduction of 3% or$936,162,977 resulting from the 31 appeal process. Currently, the total decrease in the tax base is $293,461,748 or 0.94°/x. If the 32 tax base is reduced by more than 3%, property tax collections may not meet the budgeted amount. 33 34 The Tax Office also created three additional reports (Attachments 2, 3, and 4)that provide a more 35 granular view of appeals and value changes by neighborhood for both appeals and neighborhood 36 reviews. Attachment 4 details individual property value reductions resulting from appeals. 37 Attachments 5 and 6 are maps showing the geographic location of the informal and formal 38 appeals. 39 40 Tax Bill Adjustments 41 A change in value due to neighborhod review or an appeal will change the amount of property tax 42 due. Taxpayers who have already paid their property taxes will be issued a refund if the amount 43 is lower than their original tax bill. A notice of additional tax due is sent if the amount of the bill is 44 higher than the original tax bill. 45 46 The deadline to pay property tax bills to avoid interest penalties is January 5, 2026. Since some 47 decisions on formal appeals will occur after this date, the Tax Office will be required to pay interest 48 on refunds issued after the deadline. The amount of interest paid follows the amount of interest 49 charged for delinquent payments: 2% for January, and 0.75% for every month thereafter per NC 50 General Statute 105-360(e). 51 25 1 Travis Myren, County Manager, made the following presentation: 2 3 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NOR`FH CAROLINA Update on 2025 Property Tax Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Board of Commissioners Business Meeting December 9, 2025 4 5 6 Slide #2 Purpose 1. Receive update on appeals of property value and neighborhood reviews following the revaluation 2. Detailed reports available in meeting materials • Appeals and Neighborhood Review Dashboard • Neighborhood Review Status • Appeals Per Neighborhood Res-Com • Individual Property Value Reduction By Neighborhood • Map of Informal Appeals Outcomes • Map of Formal Appeals Outcomes ORANGE COUNTY 2 NORTH CAROLINA 7 8 9 26 1 Slide #3 Dashboard Orange County 2025 Appeals Status Data as of: November 26,2025 Number of Appeals Value Total Appeals Completed In Process Untimely Values Updated p w/Value Change Total Appeal Value Reduction Pct Informal 3.,348 3,34g - 3,372 2,145 $ 200,765,498 537% Formal 1,022 655 367 77 524 424 $ 31,723,950 0.85% Totals 4,370 4,003 367 77 3,896 2,569 $ 232,489,448 Neighborhoods Reviewed 152 Appeals Value Reduction 5 232,489,448 Properties w/Value Change 1460 Neighborhood Review Value Reduction $ 60,972,300 Total Value Reduction $ 293,451,748 0.94% Estimated Value Reduction to Tax Base(3%) $ 936,162,977 3.00% ORANGE COUNTY 3 NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 As of November 26th, the appeals dashboard showed both informal and formal appeals 4 status. Tax Administration had completed 152 of 171 neighborhood reviews, with only seven 5 remaining as of the meeting date. The total property tax base reduction so far was approximately 6 $293 million, just less than 1% of the total tax base. 7 8 Slide #4 C,arye Courcy Pnrormal Ap—IN 2025 Informal Appeals by T - Ar.6 Neighborhood 100% of informal appeals have been completed 64% or 2,145 of informal appeals resulted in a value change (primarily reductions) $200.7 million reduction to tax base v7 vl� 10 27 1 Slide #5 Formal Appeals by � `` ° ' �'S Neighborhood �r, a sX 65% of formal appeals have been completed a 367 formal a ppeals are pending' i • . . � �"` _ '� 65% or 424 of formal appeals resulted in a value change {primarily reductions} 9 $31.7 million reduction to tax base A All formal appeals completed by mid-January 2026 Taxpayers with valve reductions receive refund with interest after January 5. 2026 r L r 3 4 Slide #6 PropertyVa I u AVW Reductions Individual Property Value Reductions Sorted By Neighborhood 11T` �.6ar 25.2025 .nd Foam.I Ilpp..1, n/9a09355I tm� k� IW" salon • New report since last Business Meeting Update on October 215' l.]niaL,F]5 10112 Niton 9/90a991rq 3M R Do 0 90y019;pia 4001 3:]Ye[n 9/91'91/186 ]OW R u?EW 15!110 • Property value reductions by neighborhood and9i�1� 9/9TNa191 100! Po iWlOP individual parcel 9R9iva+a]1 0JI �JJ .� 9a9791Y4T2 1772 p 1909QP );907 4m9.1891YY R /9/aW 9®6/9p9Y1� 1003 R a/35m, • Includes value changes resulting from both 9R1i01.t.1 IW] . ,lSbb b informal and formal appeals 9N71n6F96 ]OPY R N7W n 9H-0490SISft tM9 0. a1a'IM R. fa900 • Delineates residential from commercial 0/DiM2022 1001 R :mann n 090lapH9,4 109, ,3d)Q9 1"+rOV properties 9WW1,1,, _ R ,uu79 0/1911 i2141a into R H3DOn ! 9 0,011 i,a]1 1001 251v00 0/9aID409a 109, R ,MYa7 0 91091244]; R fIiSW 79011]9015 ]1w, R e511c0 %9)3!5299 1001 R 441170 J9100 9&lt0a]i R 1];100 8N9aSm IM R aa1500 0 OROH9.16H5 )005 SIJ500 Hi`n7 0!04029199 1079 _ R 3NS00 IIAbO 9191dal90a 1W5 k t`AM?J V 9691/YAlS ,W3 R ]Ie900 1YJ10 6 6 7 28 1 Slide #7 Neighborhood 1413C 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 == ORANGE COUNTY 7 NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 4 Slide #8 Neighborhood Review Status Orange County 2025 Neighborhood Review Status Data at of., November 26,2025 Neighborheads Reviewed 152 Habitat Property Count :sr Properties wlvalue Change 1460 Habitat Property Value Reduction S as,rst,rao Total Value Reductlon $50,972.300 89%of Neighborhood reviews completed Assessed value reductions for 1,460 properties • Properties with value changes are sent change notices and have 15 days to appeal to the Board of Equalization and Review • $60.9 million reduction to tax base • Adjustments to 257 additional Habitat for Humanity properties that have resale restrictions limiting an open market,arms length transaction GRANGE COUNTY S NORTH CAROLINA 5 6 7 29 1 Slide #9 Common Issues Identified • Tanner Valuation Group identified common issues in the Neighborhood Reviews that warranted a reduction in assessed value; 1. Not adequately discounting assessed value for deferred maintenance • Roadside evaluations on exterior of properties done on approximately 17%of taxable parcels No assessment of interior deferred maintenance 2. Applying general mass appraisal methodologies in neighborhoods with diverse housing types • Question added to the Tax Assessment Work Group RFP for consulting services on best practices in identifying, verifying, and accounting for deferred maintenance ORANGE COUNTY 9 NORTH CAROLINA 2 3 Travis Myren explained that there could be an older owner-occupied structure next to a 4 student rental, next to a very modernized home, making mass appraisal methodology difficult to 5 apply fairly, unlike more uniform neighborhoods. 6 7 Slide #10 Questions? GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 8 9 Commissioner McKee said for him, the diverse housing types in the same neighborhood 10 is the main issue. He said even if it requires on-site reviews of those properties, he wants that 11 issue to be addressed. 12 Vice-Chair Fowler confirmed this had been brought to the Tax Assessment Work Group 13 and was included in RFP questions about efficient ways to identify deferred maintenance through 14 drive-bys, flyovers, or potentially Al based on building age. 15 16 30 1 8. Consent Agenda 2 3 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 4 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 5 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 6 7 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to approve 8 the consent agenda. 9 10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 11 12 a. Minutes for November 6, 2025 Business Meeting and November 11, 2025 Work Session 13 The Board approved the draft minutes for the November 6, 2025 Business Meeting and November 14 11, 2025 Work Session. 15 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds 16 The Board adopted a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for three (3) 17 taxpayers with a total of eight (8) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. 18 c. Property Tax Release/Refund 19 The Board adopted a resolution to release a property tax value for one (1) taxpayer with a total of 20 one (1) bill that will result in a reduction of revenue. 21 d. Purchase of Vehicles for Transportation Services Department 22 The Board approved and authorized Orange County Fleet Services to purchase three (3) Ford 23 Transit 350 Lightning E-Motors Conversion vans and one (1) Ford E-450 Lighting E-Motors 24 Conversion van to provide accessible transportation options to individuals with disabilities who 25 are unable to use the fixed-route bus service. 26 e. Health Department Fee Changes 27 The Board approved changes to the Personal Health Services fee schedule as recommended by 28 the Board of Health and amend the FY 2025-26 County Fee Schedule. 29 f. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #5 30 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 31 2025-26. 32 g. Transit Schedulinq and Dispatch Software Agreement Approval and Approval of Budget 33 Amendment#5-A 34 The Board approved the Services Agreement for Transit Scheduling and Dispatch Software and 35 approved Budget Amendment#5-A. 36 h. Resolution Supporting JCPC Legislative Requests for Increased Funding 37 This item was added at the beginning of the meeting. The Board approved a Resolution 38 Supporting NC Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Legislative Requests for 39 Increased Recurring Funding for Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPC), Community 40 Programs, Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers, Short-Term Residential Contract Sites, 41 Transitional Living Programs, Medical/Mental Health Crisis Unit Capacity Increase, and NC 42 Secure All Firearms Effectively Campaign. 43 44 9. County Manager's Report 45 Travis Myren had no report for the Board. 46 47 10. County Attorney's Report 48 John Roberts had no report for the Board. 49 50 31 1 11. *Appointments 2 a. Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) —Appointments Discussion 3 This item was added at the beginning of the meeting. The Board discussed and approved 4 appointments to the Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC). 5 6 BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Public Safety partners with the Juvenile Crime 7 Prevention Council (JCPC) to galvanize community leaders, locally and statewide, to reduce and 8 prevent juvenile crime. JCPC members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners 9 (BOCC). Members represent nineteen (19)different fields/organizations, and the BOCC may also 10 appoint up to seven (7) at-large members. 11 12 Since the BOCC decided at its December 1, 2025 Business meeting not to appoint a county 13 commissioner to the JCPC and instead pursue appointing a staff designee, new information has 14 emerged regarding who may be eligible to serve in certain JCPC positions. 15 16 The Manager recommends that the BOCC consider the following appointment, and also consider 17 appointing a county commissioner to the JCPC: 18 NAME POSITION TYPE OF TERM DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION TERM DATE Caitlin County Commissioner Partial Term 6/30/2026 Fenhagen Appointee BOCC Member County Commissioner Partial Term 6/30/2026 19 20 Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board, introduced the item. 21 22 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler to appoint 23 Deputy County Manager, Caitlin Fenhagen, to the JCPC. 24 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26 27 Commissioner Bedford volunteered to serve as the commissioner appointee if no one else 28 wanted to, noting she'd served before. She referenced the racial disproportionality in juvenile 29 justice in Orange County, recalling a report former Commissioner Richardson brought to the Board 30 from two and a half years ago showing numbers are higher than she anticipated. 31 Commissioner Fowler and McKee briefly discussed that the BOCC member seat was 32 different from what Commissioner Carter had previously held. They clarified that after deciding 33 Commissioner Carter wouldn't give up the seat, they initially weren't going to fill it, wanting a 34 designee which wasn't allowed under the bylaws. 35 Commissioner Carter added context about the evolving interpretation of bylaws - they 36 believed they could designate someone, but the County Attorney clarified it didn't require a 37 commissioner, leading to their decision to bring in Caitlin Fenhagen, though they'd now evolved 38 to wanting a commissioner in the role. 39 40 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 41 appoint Commissioner Bedford as the County Commissioner on the JCPC. 42 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 44 45 32 1 12. Information Items 2 • December 1, 2025 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 3 • Tax Assessor's Report— Release Refunds Under$100 4 • Memorandum — Update on Human Services Work Group 5 • Memorandum — Update on Orange County Trails Plan 6 • Memorandum — Update on Orange County Bike and Pedestrian Plan 7 8 13. Closed Session 9 At 8:20 p.m., a motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner 10 Bedford, to enter in to closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 143- 11 318.11(a)(3), "to consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to 12 preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body," and § 143- 13 318.11(a)(9), "to discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to 14 existing or potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or 15 law enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond 16 to such activity." 17 18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19 20 Reconvene into regular session 21 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 22 reconvene into regular session at 9:54 p.m. 23 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 Vice-Chair Fowler said there was a discussion in closed session that led to the following 27 motion: 28 29 Vice-Chair Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McKee, that the Staff 30 Working Group pause all work plan amendments until annual agreements are in place and the 31 financial policies and procedures are revised, enhancing transparency, and suitable and 32 acceptable to finance staff and governing boards of the member local governing organizations 33 and that the County Manager convey the Board of Commissioners' direction to the Staff Working 34 Group. 35 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 Adjournment 39 40 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to adjourn 41 the meeting at 9:55 p.m. 42 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 44 45 Jean Hamilton, Chair 46 47 48 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 49 50 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board