HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-05-2026; 8-a - Minutes for February 3, 2026 Business Meeting and February 10, 2026 Work Session 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 5, 2026
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes for February 3, 2026 Business Meeting and February 10, 2026 Work
Session
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: February 3, 2026 Business Meeting
Attachment 2: February 10, 2026 Work Session
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports:
• GUIDING PRINCIPLE — COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS
We provide information and opportunities for engagement in a transparent manner so that
all in our community have knowledge, understanding, and a voice.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
Attachment 1
1
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 BUSINESS MEETING
5 February 3, 2026
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, February
9 3, 2026, 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 (arrived at 8:37
13 pm), and Phyllis Portie-Ascott
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board
17 Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. All commissioners were present.
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to add A
24 Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms at the U.S. Department
25 of Homeland Security as Item 4-c.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Chair Hamilton read the public charge and 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 None.
35
36 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
37 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
38
39 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
40 Chair Hamilton expressed gratitude to county staff for their hard work keeping residents
41 safe during the inclement weather over the past couple of weeks. She said the community was
42 lucky not to get the worst of the storms, but it took a lot of effort to make sure the county was
43 ready if the worst happened. She announced that she will make remarks at the Durham Tech
44 campus expansion celebration on Thursday at 1:30 PM, in the Lyons Health board room, and will
45 also speak at a Habitat Housing summit on the same day.
46 Commissioner Carter echoed thanks for staff and community partners during the winter
47 storms. She said that today, a community member shared a video called Race in America, which
48 provided some very powerful data that speaks to the historic and current injustice and the bias
49 that exists within systems in the United States like incarceration, law enforcement, schools, and
50 so much more. She connected this to the evening's proclamation recognizing Black History Month
2
1 and recognized the opportunity to continue fighting inequity and injustice in all forms. With that
2 sentiment in mind, she read the following proclamation that the Board added to the agenda:
3
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 A RESOLUTION ADVOCATING ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVED OVERSIGHT, AND
6 REFORMS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
7
8 WHEREAS, citizens of the United States and law-abiding immigrants have suffered violence and
9 the violation of their constitutional rights at the hands of agents of the U.S. Department of
10 Homeland Security, and
11
12 WHEREAS, this trend has been occurring in numerous cities and states across America, and
13
14 WHEREAS, community safety depends on the public's trust that law enforcement officers comply
15 with the U.S. Constitution and federal, state, and local laws, and that they act in residents' best
16 interests, and
17
18 WHEREAS, local law enforcement and local government play a key role in ensuring community
19 safety, and
20
21 WHEREAS, the public trust has been eroded by the actions of federal agents, underscoring the
22 urgent need for accountability and reform in the administration of federal immigration
23 enforcement;
24
25 BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, as elected
26 representatives and concerned constituents, urge its elected representatives in the U.S. Senate
27 and House to take immediate legislative action to ensure accountability, improve oversight, and
28 reform the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to protect the rights of all residents and restore
29 public trust
30
31
32 THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
33
34
35 Jean Hamilton, Chair
36 Orange County Board of
37 Commissioners
38
39 Commissioner Greene shared that she attended a GoTriangle board meeting on January
40 28th, and the board endorsed the Wake County Transit Plan's idea to reinvest $125 million of its
41 transit fund money to the regional rail project. She said if it happens, this will mean a train line
42 straight from Raleigh, NC to Richmond, VA.
43 Vice-Chair Fowler recognized February as Black History Month and Human Relations
44 Month, and said it was fitting to add the resolution read by Commissioner Carter. She quoted
45 Maya Angelou: "I've learned that people will forget what you said. They will forget what you did,
46 but people will never forget how you made them feel." Commissioner Fowler emphasized the
47 need to ensure Orange County residents feel respected, included, and welcome to engage in the
48 community. She said that Maya Angelou also spoke about "doing better when you know better",
49 and that is why it's critical to speak out at a time when reform is needed. She said she wants
50 people to remember feeling welcome, included, and valued, and to know that we are speaking
3
1 out for our community, and wholeheartedly supports the resolution. She also added her thanks to
2 county staff who were involved in caring for the community during the weather-related
3 emergencies. Finally, she shared that since the Board's last meeting, she attended the GoTriangle
4 Special Tax Board meeting, where no increases were approved, and also attended the Triangle
5 West TPO meeting.
6 Commissioner Bedford briefly reported on Durham Tech's Facilities and Finance
7 Subcommittee meeting, noting a clean state audit with only two small findings, which have already
8 been corrected. She noted that the five-year strategic plan is expiring, and the subcommittee will
9 have a retreat next month to work on the new one. She also thanked Asset Management Services
10 staff for ensuring safe access to the building during the icy weather.
11 Commissioner Portie-Ascott echoed thanks to staff who kept the community informed and
12 safe during the icy and snowy weather. She connected Black History Month to current events and
13 said this month is an opportunity for reflection, but also responsibility. She said Black History is a
14 story of people who helped build this country while being denied full access to it, and it is a story
15 of resilience, innovation, and organizing in the face of exclusion. She continued, we are also living
16 in a moment where many of our neighbors are carrying fear across the country, and there is
17 aggressive rhetoric, heightened enforcement, and families being separated. She emphasized that
18 even when those actions are happening somewhere else, fear shows up here. Commissioner
19 Portie-Ascott pointed out the erosion of trust due to this fear and said she believes that trust is
20 the foundation of everything local government is supposed to be. She concluded by stating: "I
21 want to say plainly to anyone in our community who feels unseen, unheard or left behind, that you
22 matter. You are valued, and you deserve dignity, safety, and opportunity.
23
24 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
25 a. Black History Month Proclamation
26 The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Black History Month in Orange
27 County.
28
29 BACKGROUND: Black History Month originated from the efforts of Carter G.Woodson and three
30 colleagues, who established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH) in
31 1915. Their mission was to research, preserve, and promote the achievements of Black
32 Americans and people of African descent. Inspired by the fiftieth anniversary of emancipation
33 celebrations in Washington, D.C., the ASNLH introduced the concept of a Negro History Week in
34 1926.
35
36 This celebration was intentionally placed in February to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln
37 and Frederick Douglass, two pivotal figures in the fight for freedom and equality. Over time, the
38 event grew in prominence, culminating in 1976 when President Gerald Ford officially expanded
39 the observance to the entire month of February. President Ford called on Americans to "seize the
40 opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area
41 of endeavor throughout our history." Since then, every U.S. president has recognized Black
42 History Month.
43
44 This year's theme is "A Century of Black History Commemorations", which highlights the 100th
45 annual celebration of Black History week/month in the United States.
46
47 Paul Slack, Chief Civil Rights Officer, introduced the following proclamation, and the Board
48 read it in turn:
49
50
4
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
2 BLACK HISTORY MONTH PROCLAMATION
3
4 WHEREAS, it is essential to sustain a harmonious and inclusive society; Orange County
5 discourages practices and actions deemed detrimental to the peace, welfare, and progress of
6 our community; and
7
8 WHEREAS, Black Americans, descendants of people forcibly taken from Africa and subjected to
9 the brutalities of slavery, White supremacy, and family separation, have survived and overcome
10 over 400 years of systemic oppression, creating a vibrant and dynamic legacy that is central to
11 the cultural, economic, and political fabric of this nation; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the resilience, innovation, and indomitable spirit of Black Americans have pushed
14 this nation closer to the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy that the Founders expressed
15 but did not fully pursue, even as they have fought tirelessly against the enduring specter of racial
16 injustice, oppression, violence, and discrimination; and
17
18 WHEREAS, Black history is not only a celebration of winners and victories won, but also a
19 testament to the years and lives lost in the pursuit of equity, inclusion, social justice, and liberation;
20 and
21
22 WHEREAS, we honor the legacy of leaders, martyrs, visionaries, and revolutionaries who
23 sacrificed safety to defy both legal and illegal acts of oppression, from the children who led in the
24 Children's Crusade of 1963, to the students who formed the decentralized organization of the
25 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), to the Freedom Riders who spent 1961
26 traveling cross country on buses; and
27
28 WHEREAS, this year's theme of "A Century of Black History Commemorations" highlights the
29 100th annual celebration of Black History in the USA, highlighting the longevity and impact of Dr.
30 Carter G. Woodson's efforts to implement the original, week-long recognition of Black History;
31
32 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, do proclaim
33 February 2026 as "BLACK HISTORY MONTH" and encourage residents to honor this
34 distinctive month by becoming more enlightened as to the true history of Black Americans in this
35 Country and in our community.
36
37
38 THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
39
40
41 Jean Hamilton, Chair
42 Orange County Board of
43 Commissioners
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Portie-Ascott, seconded by Commissioner Greene,
46 to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50
5
1 b. Human Relations Month Proclamation
2 The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Human Relations Month in
3 Orange County.
4
5 BACKGROUND: Human Relations Month was established to promote understanding, respect,
6 and cooperation among people of diverse racial, cultural, and social backgrounds. The
7 observance emerged in the mid-20th century, during a period marked by significant social change
8 and growing national attention to civil rights, equity, and democratic participation. Its purpose is
9 to encourage reflection, dialogue, and action that strengthen relationships and foster inclusive
10 communities.
11
12 Paul Slack introduced the following proclamation, and the Board read it in turn:
13
14 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
15 HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH PROCLAMATION
16
17 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners established the Human
18 Relations Commission in June 1987 with the desire to "encourage mutual understanding and fair
19 treatment of all citizens"; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that to achieve justice
22 and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to create an atmosphere
23 where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission, having diligently served Orange
26 County since 1987, still remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity and
27 understanding throughout the county; and
28
29 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's Civil Rights
30 Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual' s race, color, creed,
31 religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, affectional preference, disability, age, marital status, or
32 status with regard to public assistance; and
33
34 WHEREAS, continued work is necessary to advance civil rights for all residents and to reduce
35 harm resulting from discrimination, disability, and systemic or institutional barriers that limit
36 individuals' access to fair and equal treatment; and
37
38 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission and the Board of County
39 Commissioners affirm their responsibility to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and to respond to
40 emerging challenges that threaten these rights; and
41
42 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages residents to take an
43 active role in opposing injustice and to work together to ensure freedom, justice, and equal
44 opportunity for all; and
45
46 WHEREAS, Orange County remains committed to progressing towards being a place with more
47 equitable and inclusive practices that strengthen the well-being of the entire community;
48
49 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
50 February 2026 as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County, and call upon all residents to
6
1 promote civil rights by celebrating multiculturalism, embracing diversity, and supporting equal
2 access and opportunity for all who live and work in Orange County.
3
4 THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
5
6
7 Jean Hamilton, Chair
8 Orange County Board of
9 Commissioners
10
11 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Chair Hamilton, to approve and
12 authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 c. A Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms at the U.S.
17 Department of Homeland Security
18 The Board approved a Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms
19 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
20
21 BACKGROUND: This item was added at the beginning of the meeting.
22 Chair Hamilton introduced the resolution and noted that it was read during Commissioner
23 Carter's comments.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to
26 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 Board members thanked Commissioner Carter for bringing this resolution forward.
31
32 5. Public Hearings
33 None.
34
35 6. Regular Agenda
36 a. Approval of the School Construction Interlocal Agreement
37
38 The Board discussed and considered approving the School Construction Interlocal Agreement
39 (ILA) with both School Districts and created an associated County position to facilitate its
40 implementation.
41
42 BACKGROUND: During the 2024 bond process, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed
43 its policies and procedures around school capital funding, updating the School Capital Funding
44 Policy and the Major Project Planning Addendum. The Board requested staff review and propose
45 an ILA to strengthen accountability and transparency for upcoming school construction and
46 renovation projects. Staff reviewed similar arrangements in other counties with active school
47 construction, including an ILA from Wake County. The attached draft ILA codifies a joint school
48 construction Core Team comprised of staff from all three entities. This Core Team will have
49 assigned roles, meet quarterly and more often as needed, and report back to the Joint Meeting
50 of the Board of Commissioners and School Boards at least once per year. Additionally, there
7
1 are provisions in the agreement that school staff report on the alignment with County policies,
2 that the Team maintain information for public consumption, and that that each party identifies a
3 liaison for its respective governing board.
4
5 Subsequent to the initial review of the ILA and upon discussions at the October 21, 2025 Board
6 of County Commissioners' Business meeting, staff amended the ILA. The major revisions are
7 highlighted below:
8 • Maintaining one ILA between all three boards but allows the ILA to remain in force if
9 one party terminates the agreement.
10 • Establishing that the ILA applies to all projects that utilize 2024 GO Bond Projects.
11 • Article IV is amended to standardize requirements with the School Capital Funding
12 Policy as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
13
14 This draft was provided to members of the Board of County Commissioners and staff of both
15 school districts. The school district staff have requested three additional changes to the ILA, for
16 the Board of Commissioners' consideration. Those changes are:
17 • 4.01 i d & e - Amending the approval to appropriation. This is meant to clarify that by the
18 Board of County Commissioners approving funding for projects in the budget, they are
19 approving the projects.
20 • 4.01 iii - Changing the design payment timing as design is paid at milestones, not all at
21 once.
22 • 4.01 v- Removing the requirement for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), changing
23 it to a recommendation. School staff have identified that there would be projects that use
24 bond funds that are not new construction, such as HVAC and Roof replacements, where
25 CMAR would not be a reasonable procurement method. The attorney for both school
26 districts additionally contends that General Statute 143-128.1(e) does not permit any
27 public entity to delegate the determination of appropriate construction method.
28
29 As design funds have been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, both school
30 districts have proceeded with design of their first school construction project. County staff have
31 met with school staff in December as a precursor to the formal CORE team. School staff have
32 committed to following the structure of the School Capital Funding Policy and have already
33 committed to using CMAR as the construction method for both first elementary school builds.
34 Both districts will be releasing requests for proposals (RFPs) to select a construction manager
35 at risk in the spring.
36
37 Along with the ILA, the County reviewed options in managing this process, and determined that
38 it would be preferable to have staff provide oversight and communication during the project
39 construction, rather than hiring a project management firm. The Manager recommends adding
40 a 1.0 FTE (full time equivalent) School Capital and Financial Analyst to coordinate the meetings
41 of the CORE Team, report back to the Board on school construction, and manage all public
42 communications, including maintenance of a dashboard and all non-online materials. This
43 position would also consolidate other school related tasks that currently reside in different
44 departments, such as the coordination of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
45 Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and the reporting of capital expenditures for
46 financing and reimbursement. This proposed position would be funded from Pay-Go funds set
47 aside for Project Management. Funds totaling $500,000 were budgeted in FY 2026, and
48 $1,000,000 is planned annually for future years. The County would retain approximately$36,000
49 for a position starting on February 3, 2026 for FY 2026, and retain approximately $90,000
50 annually in future years from that pool to fund the position. The remaining funds will be allocated
8
1 to the School Districts for project and program management expenses. These funds were set
2 aside from school project budgets to ensure that the districts would adequately invest in project
3 and program management functions. The Manager recommends that the position be approved
4 by the Board with approval to proceed with the ILA.
5
6 Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, made the following presentation:
7
8 Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Interlocal Agreement Draft
February 3rd, 2026
Board of County Commissioners
9
10
11 Slide #2
PURPOSE OF ILA
ILA is intended to act as part of larger web of
School Construction Policy improvements.
• School Capital Funding Policy—Sets rules on how projects are funded:
Sets allocation between districts, how funds can be reallocated, how to
account for budget overruns,and ensures projects are in alignment with
Woolpert Report principals. Enforceable without school agreement.
• Major Project Planning Addendum—Sets board priorities on new
construction: Equitable between districts,educationally adequate,
sustainable, built flexibly for future use. Not Enforceable without school
agreement.
• Interlocal Agreement—Set standards for communications once funding
is appropriated,additionally requires school districts to communicate
alignment to Major Project Planning Addendum.
• Staff Oversight—Approval of School Construction and Financial Analyst
to ensure adequacy of school materials provided at CORE Team,
maintain all public communication.When unanticipated expenses occur,
will assist districts in reworking system wide funding plans and give BoCC
early notice. ORANGECOUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
12
9
1 Kirk Vaughn emphasized that the ILA is not the only avenue to improve oversight of the
2 schools during their capital construction process. He explained other components as written on
3 the slide.
4
5 Slide #3
PROVISIONS OF ILA
• Each organization assigns staff to team,
representing Budget, Finance and Operations
functions
• Team will regularly communicate on the
progress of the Districts' capital plans.
— Staff plan to meet at least quarterly, with increased
frequency when multiple projects are underway.
• Team will assign roles and workplans to guide
work of CORE team and review every two
years.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
6
7
8 Slide #4
CHANGES FROM 10/21 DRAFT
Subsequent to 10/21 Meeting, staff have
submitted updated version and provided to Board
members and school staff.
• Scope of ILA set to all projects that utilize Bond
funds.
• Aligns Article 4 with School Capital Funding
Policy.
• Remains one ILA between the county and both
districts but remains in force with either district
if the other terminates the agreement.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
9
10
10
1 Slide #5
SCHOOL STAFF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
• Article 4 i sections d & e — Change language
from "approval" to "appropriation" to clarify that
budgetary approval for projects constitutes
board approval.
• Article 4 iii — Change payment timing to as
agreed by School Board, as design contract
are paid at milestones, not all at once.
• Article 4 v — Change requirement for CMAR to
recommendation. Bond projects can include
smaller projects that don't use CMAR, and
School attorney contends not statutorily
allowed to delegate approval to County.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #6
SCHOOL STAFF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
GS 143-128.1 (e)
Construction management at risk services may be used
by the public entity only after the public entity has
concluded that construction management at risk
services is in the best interest of the project, and the
public entity has compared the advantages and
disadvantages of using the construction management
at risk method for a given project in lieu of the
delivery methods identified in G.S. 143-128(al)(1)
through G.S. 143-128(al)(3). The public entity may
not delegate this determination. (2001-496, s. 2;
2013-401, s. 5; 2014-42, s. 2.)
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Kirk Vaughn explained that the statute detailed on this slide is the basis for the school's
7 attorney's concerns about the CMAR.
8
9
11
1 Slide #7
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
• In December, county staff met with school
construction leadership.
• School staff committed to using School Capital
Funding Policy while awaiting ILA negotiations.
• Both districts have committed to using CMAR
for initial elementary school builds and will be
releasing RFPs in the spring.
• School staff discussed standardizing
sustainability policies between districts in new
construction, possibly using County policy as
template.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #8
NEXT STEPS
• Board to discuss the adequacy of the current
draft ILA, alignment to Board priorities
• Board to approve ILA, with or without School
staff suggested amendments.
• Staff to work with School Staff to put signed ILA
before both BoEs.
• Approve School Construction and Financial
Analyst to build county capacity to operate
CORE Team. Will use Pay-Go funds, not
General Fund.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Commissioner Bedford said she is okay with changing the word from "approval" to
7 "appropriation" as suggested by school staff. She asked for clarification on how the Board would
8 be involved in the appropriations.
9 Kirk Vaughn said that major projects will come to the Board twice: once for design, and
10 once for construction.
12
1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how cost overruns or change orders that would impact
2 the amount of funding that has already been appropriated would be handled.
3 Kirk Vaughn explained that the work group would provide early warnings through regular
4 communications, allowing the Board to understand issues before they become critical.
5 Vice-Chair Fowler commented that having a CMAR should prevent change orders.
6 Kirk Vaughn said that while a CMAR helps, things happen during projects, but having an
7 owner's contingency budget as part of the budget for the project helps manage those issues
8 before having to come back to the Board.
9 Commissioner Carter thanked staff from the county and school districts for their work so
10 far. She said suggested a change in Section 3.05 from "the core team should meet at least
11 quarterly" to "the core team shall meet at least quarterly".
12 Chair Hamilton asked how other Commissioners felt about that change.
13 All commissioners agreed with Commissioner Carter's suggested amendment.
14 Chair Hamilton backtracked and asked if all commissioners agreed with changing
15 "approval" to "appropriation" as suggested by school staff and agreed to by Commissioner
16 Bedford.
17 All commissioners agreed.
18 Commissioner Carter also suggested changing "may present an information update" in
19 Section 3.06 to "shall" or"will".
20 Kirk Vaughn said this came up at the last meeting, and the language remained the same
21 because the Board cannot require other elected bodies to instruct their staff to make reports on
22 any kind of schedule.
23 Commissioner Carter understood that point and reiterated that it is a strong hope of the
24 Board that regular reports would be made.
25 Commissioner Bedford asked if wording about the supplemental pay-go funds should be
26 added to Section 1.01, where it reads "to be funded by the 2024 Orange County General
27 Obligation Bond." She said the work group should also be looking at those funds because they
28 may also be funding major projects.
29 Kirk Vaughn said there won't be a project that is going to be funding only using pay-go
30 and not the bond money. He explained that the only thing pay-go will touch that school
31 construction wouldn't, is high-priority needs projects, specifically those that require more funds
32 than would typically be given.
33 The Board agreed to leave that section as-is, based on Kirk Vaughn's explanation.
34 After discussion, the Board agreed with the following school board-recommended
35 changes:
36 Article 4 i sections d & e— Change language from "approval" to "appropriation" to
37 clarify that budgetary approval for projects constitutes board approval.
38 Article 4 iii — Change payment timing to as agreed by School Board, as design
39 contract are paid at milestones, not all at once.
40 Article 4 v—Change requirement for CMAR to recommendation. Bond projects can
41 include smaller projects that don't use CMAR, and School attorney contends not
42 statutorily allowed to delegate approval to County.
43 Commissioner Greene added her encouragement for a CMAR to be utilized by both school
44 districts, even though it can't be required as part of the ILA.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to approve
47 and authorize the Chairto sign the ILAwith the discussed changes, authorize the County Manager
48 to forward the ILAto both school boards for approval, and approve the establishment of the related
49 School Construction and Financial Analyst position.
50
13
1 Commissioner Bedford asked if staff would come back to the Board if there is a need for
2 additional funding for the new position.
3 Kirk Vaughn said any reclassification of the position would happen administratively.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 b. Update to Interlocal Agreements between County and Towns on Tax Collection
8 The Board:
9 1) Received information on the current interlocal agreement (ILA) between Orange
10 County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough for municipal tax collection charges
11 and the potential need for an update to the agreement;
12 2) Considered authorizing the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to begin
13 discussions with Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough on the current ILA and
14 potential actions to meet the County's costs related to billing and collecting taxes for
15 the municipalities; and
16 3) Considered authorizing the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to initiate
17 discussions with the cities of Durham and Mebane based on pending expiration of
18 those respective tax collections agreements
19
20 BACKGROUND: In 1979 the County entered into an agreement with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
21 Hillsborough whereby the Orange County Tax Collector would, on behalf of the Towns, bill and
22 collect their tax levies in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160A-461.
23
24 In 2006 the agreement was updated, and the municipal tax collection rate was set at 0.5% of the
25 annual amount collected for each of the towns. The expiration was set not to exceed 99 years
26 from July 1, 2006. The agreement requires unanimous agreement from all three towns to make
27 amendments and requires a one-year notice for termination.
28
29 In 2009, an addendum was approved by all parties that, in addition to the 0.5%tax collection rate,
30 updated the agreement to add an agreed-upon annual surcharge for new software installed for
31 the purpose of tax ownership, billing, and collection. However, the annual surcharge addendum
32 has not been utilized to supplement revenue for the County.
33
34 Research by Tax Office staff indicates that the current 0.5% municipal tax collection rate is below
35 the state average and does not sufficiently sustain the costs incurred by the County to bill and
36 collect municipal taxes, including software costs.
37
38 The Tax Office proposes the following plan to the realize the revenue originally envisioned by the
39 annual software surcharge:
40 1) Meet with the towns staffs to discuss the current ILA and potential actions to meet the
41 County's costs related to billing and collecting taxes for the towns.
42 2) Discussion would include the possibility of an amendment to the current ILA to for a
43 proposed increase of the fee as of July 1, 2026 and the possibility of replacing the current
44 joint ILA with separate ILAs that follow a shorter expiration schedule.
45
46 The County separately has agreements with the cities of Durham and Mebane that are both
47 scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026. The Tax Office proposes to initiate discussions with both
48 jurisdictions to address the pending expirations and also in order to potentially standardize the
49 fee schedule and expiration schedule between all of the municipal collection ILAs.
50
14
1 The Tax Assessment Work Group has issued a request for proposals (RFP)to retain a consultant
2 to make recommendations on enhancements to the Assessment Division of the Tax Office. These
3 enhancements will be targeted to ensure a more equitable and better communicated revaluation
4 in 2029. The County will be able to utilize additional municipal funding to fund the
5 recommendations made by the consultant and other tax office divisions enhancements.
6
7 Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, made the following presentation:
8
9 Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Interlocal Agreement — County and Towns
Taxation Collection
Board of Commissioners
Business Meeting
February 3,2026
10
11 Nancy Freeman introduced collections managers Valerie Curry and Bernice Gwynn.
12
13 Slide #2
Purpose
The Tax Office will:
1. Provide information on the current interlocal agreement (ILA) between
Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough for municipal tax
collection charges and the potential need for an update to the agreement.
2. Request that the Board consider authorizing the Tax Administrator and
Budget Director to begin discussions with Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough on the current ILA and potential actions to meet the County's
costs related to billing and collecting taxes for the municipalities.
z ORA�RNG E CAROLINA COUNTY
14
15
16
17
15
1 Slide #3
Current Joint ILA for Municipal Tax Collection Charges
• Original Interlocal Agreement made in 1978 in accordance with North Carolina General
Statute 16OA-461 to collect taxes for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough.
• Updated in 2006—single agreement that included all three towns.
• Municipal tax collection rate set at 0.5%of the annual amount collected for each of the towns
with an expiration of agreement set not to exceed 99 years from July 1,2006.
• Agreement requires unanimous approval from all three towns and County to make
amendments and requires a one-year notice for termination.
— Amendment to the current agreement is an option to make changes to take effect for FY 2027.
• In 2009, an addendum was approved to add an annual surcharge for new software installed
for the purpose of tax ownership, billing,and collection.This Annual surcharge addendum
has not been utilized to supplement revenue for the County.
ORANGE COUNTY
s H cs.
2
3 Vice-Chair Fowler asked why the surcharges were never used to supplement revenue for
4 the County.
5 Nancy Freeman said she believes it wasn't implemented due to turnover in leadership in
6 the Tax Office. She said she has wanted to work on this since she was appointed Tax
7 Administrator, but it has been complicated because it involves the towns and requires a one-year
8 notice for changes.
9
10 Slide #4
Annual Software Surcharge
• Since 2010, annual software costs have averaged $160,000
• Range of annual costs is from $48,000 to $224,000
• Agreed-upon method to calculate surcharge used the number of bills
created annually, allocated by location in unincorporated County or in
each municipality to create a percentage of the annual software
charges: 2025 Annual Distribution Percentages
Carrboro 5.2%
Chapel Hill 13%
Hillsborough 3.7%
Durham 0.05%
Mebane 1.6%
Orange County 76.5%
ORANGE COUNTY
4 NO WCH C'AIZC)[INA
11
12 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said this slide shows a wide range of annual costs, between
13 $48,000 and $224,000. She asked for some examples of situations that would result in such a
14 large fluctuation.
15 Nancy Freeman said annual fees for service would constitute something like $48,000,
16 which would increase over time, but would still be relatively similar. She said they may see an
17 annual cost of$224,000 when there is a change in the software, like a one-time upgrade fee.
16
1 Slide #5
Calculated Annual Software Surcharge
• The estimated amounts for each municipality and the County from
2010 to 2025 are shown in the chart below. These amounts were
calculated using the agreed-upon method for calculating
surcharges from 2009. Calculated Software
Carrboro $139,739
• Total received from the Chapel Hill $343,898
Hillsborough $82,098
municipalities over this Durham $1,192
time period would have Mebane $15,611
been $582,539. Orange County $1,976,802
Total $2,559,341
ORANGE COUNTY
5 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3 Commissioner Carter asked what those totals would have been for 2025.
4 Nancy Freeman said she can follow up with those figures.
5
6 Slide #6
• History: Municipal Fee
for Tax Collection
Revenue Municipal Fee for Collectiors
5450.000:00
5400.000.00
County received $410,000 in 5350.000.00
2025 5390.000.0
F 0
,
r�! 3259.00040
5280400.00
5150.900.00
• Increase from 2016 to 2025 5,00.000.00
— $127,373 550.999.99
50.00
- 45% 2916 2917 2018 2019 2920 2021 2022 2423 2924 2025
ORANGE COUNTY
6 NORTH CAROLINA
7
8
17
1 Slide #7
Tax Office Operating
Expenses
Tax Office Expenditures
36.090.906.00
• Increased by 62% since 2016
55,090,906.00
• $1 ,882,056 increase in annual
needs sa.vva.vco av
• Operating Expenses have 39.000.09600
outpaced Municipal Fee 32,090,90000
Revenue
s1,09o,000.00
• Municipal Fee covers 7% of Dept
Expenses $a`°°
2616 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022. 2023 2624 2025
ORANGE�AIROLINA COUNTY
2
3
4 Slide #8
Survey: Fees Charged for Municipal Tax Collection
• Tax Office staff surveyed counties In Comparison, Orange's Cost
for municipal collection rates, and To Municipalities is the lowest
combined results with results of a at 0.5%.
Wake County survey. 1.50, •10
2.00% a
• Twenty-seven counties 0.75% 3
1.00% 3
3.00% 2
• Range from 0.5%to 3.0%. 0.50% 2
1.75% 1
o.a5i 1
• Ten counties charge 1.5% 15 1
Grand Total 27
Median 1.50%
• Average rate 1.45% Average 1.45%
ORANGE COUNTY
8 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Commissioner Bedford asked if the 62% increase for the department's operating
7 expenses on the previous slide represents the whole department, or only the collections division.
8 Nancy Freeman said that the number represents the full department, including all three
9 divisions: land records/GIS, assessment, and collections.
10
18
1 Slide #9
Wake County Fee Increase
• Wake County presented to Tax Assessment Workgroup on December 2nd
• In 2021 went through similar review of its costs to municipalities, which was
significantly below peers.
• Implemented four-year phase in from FY 2022 through FY 2025 from 0.2% to
0.75%.
• Goal was to have Municipal Fees cover 50% of Operating and Revaluation
expenses.
• Funded enhancements to the office in that four-year window.
• Since 2024 revaluation, Wake BOCC committed to a transition from 4-year
cycle to 2-year cycle by 2029.
ORANGE COUNTY
9 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #10
Other Town ILAs, Schedules, and Equity
• Tax Office has separate 5-year agreements with Mebane and Durham that
will expire June 30, 2026.
• Tax Office proposes to begin similar discussions with both jurisdictions with
the goal of matching the agreements established with Chapel Hill, Carrboro
and Hillsborough.
• Alignment of schedules and expiration dates and continuing to match fee
amounts provides equity in serving our municipalities and simplifies future
maintenance.
• All Agreements include provision to provide gross receipts collection at no
charge. Proposal is to continue that practice.
ORANGE COUNTY
10 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked why some other counties are charging a lower fee to
7 certain towns and if it would be beneficial for Orange County.
8 Nancy Freeman said some of it may have to do with the age of the agreements, but she
9 isn't sure because she just got responses from other counties today and wasn't able to follow up
10 yet. She said she noticed that Durham County charges the City of Durham 1%, which is less than
19
1 what they charge other towns, and not much more than the 0.5% Orange County charges them
2 for fewer than 50 total parcels.
3 Commissioner Carter brought attention to the Wake County approach, which included a
4 goal to have municipal fees cover 50% of the department's operating and revaluation expenses.
5 When comparing, Orange County would have to go significantly higher to achieve that
6 percentage.
7 Kirk Vaughn said Wake County can achieve that goal by charging towns 0.75% because
8 they are much more urban, whereas Orange County has a higher percentage of its tax base in
9 the unincorporated areas of the county. He said the Board could look at trying to set a target for
10 how much municipalities should cover based on the percentage of parcels in each jurisdiction.
11 Chair Hamilton encouraged Board members to remember that Wake County is much
12 bigger and has growing towns and industries, and to be careful about comparing.
13 Commissioner Carter asked if the Board, with information from staff, should be having a
14 policy discussion about setting a target. She said the one thing not yet reflected is what will come
15 as recommendations from the Tax Assessment Work Group. She said this is also a piece of what
16 the Board should anticipate before getting too far into the conversation and acting on the
17 agreements.
18 Commissioner Greene said she wonders if the current percentage of expenses covered
19 by municipal fees was just happenstance or a policy discussion in Orange County. She said what
20 the percentage should be is a policy discussion. She said she thinks the Board should also
21 discuss moving revaluations to every two years.
22 Chair Hamilton said that she sees a time issue with the policies that are expiring at the
23 end of June. She said she thinks the Board should have a policy discussion in the future but
24 should also act to address the concerns at hand with the expiring policies.
25
26 Slide #11
Tax Office Plan
The Tax Office proposes the following plan to the realize the
revenue originally envisioned by the annual software surcharge:
1) Meet with the towns staffs to discuss the current ILA and potential actions to
meet the County's costs related to billing and collecting taxes for the towns.
2) Discussion would include the possibility of an amendment to the current ILA
to for a proposed increase of the fee as of July 1, 2026 and the possibility of
replacing the current joint ILA with separate ILAs that follow a shorter
expiration schedule.
1) Report to the Board of Commissioners after discussions with towns.
ORANGE COUNTY
11 NORTI.1 CAROLINA
27
28
29
20
1 Slide #12
Suggested Use of Revenue Increase
❖ The Tax Assessment Work Group has issued a request for proposals (RFP)
to retain a consultant to make recommendations on enhancements to the
Assessment Division of the Tax Office.
❖ The revenue accrued through the new ILAs could be used to fund
recommended improvements to the Tax Office beginning in FY 2026-27.
❖ Additionally, there are enhancements in the other tax office divisions that can
be addressed.
ORANGE COUNTY
12 N(MII[I CA RO[.INs\
2
3 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if state law dictates how much can be collected through these
4 fees. She posed a question to the Board on whether the county should be collecting more than
5 the cost to do the collections for the municipalities.
6 Nancy Freeman said there are no limitations in state law on this issue.
7 Vice-Chair Fowler said that in her opinion the goal should be to recover the cost of doing
8 the collections. She said she liked Kirk Vaughn's suggestion about the percentage charged to
9 each municipality being proportionate to the population or the amount of properties in each place.
10 She asked if staff has had any conversations to date about changes with the towns.
11 Nancy Freeman said county staff have generally mentioned to the towns' staff that the
12 agreements are dated and need to be updated, but no specific conversations have taken place.
13 Commissioner Bedford said she is in favor of having separate agreements with each
14 municipality in the future. She suggested pursuing extensions of the existing agreements to
15 address the deadlines and then for the Board to continue having conversations.
16 Commissioner Carter said she feels this is a policy discussion for the Board to have, not
17 the Tax Assessment Work Group, about a policy that is reasonable, fair, and equitable. She
18 supported moving toward separate ILAs with each municipality as Commissioner Bedford
19 mentioned. She also agreed with Commissioner Bedford about pursuing extensions.
20 Kirk Vaughn asked if triggering the termination clause on the other ILAwith the three towns
21 would make sense if the Board would like to pursue extensions for the Durham and Mebane
22 agreements
23 Chair Hamilton said she thinks it's most appropriate to have discussions with the towns
24 and let them know the Board's intentions to amend the agreements/pursue new agreements and
25 give them an opportunity relay what their thoughts are.
26 Vice-Chair Fowler said it is her hope that those discussions could happen within a year's
27 time so that the new ILAs could be created. She said there is a one-year termination clause that
28 is time-sensitive that the Board should act on and suggested that the conversations Chair
29 Hamilton wants should take place in the meantime.
30 Commissioner Bedford said she believes it could be detrimental to tell the towns an
31 approximate charge now, when that might change after the Board sees real numbers. She said
32 she is willing to forego a year of an increase to be more accurate.
21
1 Kirk Vaughn explained that the joint ILA needs some sort of sunset, and new ILAs with
2 each of those three towns can be negotiated.
3 John Roberts reiterated that the agreement requires a 12-month notice for termination,
4 which would be necessary in order to pursue new agreements.
5 Kirk Vaughn said the termination could be set now in order to pursue the separate ILAs,
6 and discussions about revenue is a separate conversation that can happen over a longer period.
7 Chair Hamilton reiterated her desire for there to be conversations with the towns.
8
9 Commissioner McKee arrived at 8:37 pm.
10
11 A motion was made by Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to:
12 1) authorize the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to begin discussions with Chapel
13 Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough on the current ILA and potential actions to meet the
14 County's costs related to billing and collecting taxes for the municipalities, and the
15 possibility of replacing the current joint ILA with separate ILAs that follow a shorter
16 expiration schedule;
17 2) direct the Tax Office and Budget Director to report back to the Board after discussions
18 with the three towns in April 2026; and
19 3) authorize the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to initiate discussions with the
20 cities of Durham and Mebane, and with the pending expiration of those respective
21 agreements, direct staff to present the Board with proposed amendments extending
22 the agreements or with new ILAs with the two jurisdictions.
23
24 Vice-Chair Fowler asked about the hesitation with proposing an increased fee as part of
25 the motion.
26 Commissioner Bedford said she thinks it's better not to right now because they don't have
27 data to show what the increase should be.
28 Chair Hamilton agreed with Commissioner Bedford.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 7. Reports
33 None.
34
35 8. Consent Agenda
36
37 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
38 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
39 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
40
41 Commissioner Portie-Ascott removed items 8-f and 8-g from the consent agenda.
42
43 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to approve
44 the remaining consent agenda.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she isn't opposed to selling county-owned property, but
49 she is concerned about the valuation and selling process. She said she isn't comfortable with
50 selling property based on an internal appraisal and a single offer.
22
1 Alan Dorman said typically when county property is sold, it's because someone
2 approaches the county with an interest in purchasing. He said Asset Management Services(AMS)
3 then checks with county departments that may have an interest in the property. If there are no
4 objections, they ask the interested party to make an offer, and after negotiations, they submit a
5 cashier's check to the Finance Department. He presented a spreadsheet showing that since 2022,
6 the county had sold only six properties, mostly small parcels to adjacent property owners. The
7 exception was 129 East King Street in Hillsborough, which sold for $400,000 after two parties
8 competed, far exceeding the $160,000 appraisal. He said in his experience, these parcels have
9 not been valuable to anyone besides the adjacent property owners for a variety of reasons.
10
Recent Property Sales
Date of Sale Parcel Size Price Reason
9/6/2022 9779088613 0.12 $500.00 Adjacent property owner wanted
to purchase for instead of getting an
easement
11/1/2022 9885833971 0.27 $4,000.00 Adjacent property owner wanted
secondary access to his property
12/5/2022 129 E. King Street 0.24 $400,111.00 Sale of the old Public Defender's
building was bid up substantially by
two different parties
6/6/2023 900832203 0.45 $1,500.00 Adjacent property owner wanted to
gain access to a landlocked
property.
11/7/2024 9863668236 0.2 $5,000.00 Adjacent property owner wanted to
expand their lot
5/6/2025 9862246076 0.26 $4,500.00 Adjacent property owner wanted to
expand their lot
11 Commissioner Portie-Ascott suggested that it isn't possible to know what is valuable
12 unless it has been put on the market. She said it is easy if you are not in the business of selling
13 real property to look at something tiny and think that's not of any real value, but asked why not
14 have a real process.
15 Alan Dorman said he received quotes for appraisals for the two properties on the agenda
16 this evening at a price of $1,500 each. He suggested the county could move forward with these
17 quotes and add the price to the buyer's fees.
18 Commissioner Carter said this is another important policy discussion and ask Asset
19 Management to document a process for county property and how it is brought forward to market.
20 Commissioner Greene said the upset bid process is one way of getting other buyers to
21 the table.
22 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if this is the only way that counties can sell property.
23 John Roberts said there are statutory limits on how counties can sell property. He
24 explained the statutory limitations on property sales, listing the acceptable methods:
25 advertisement for sealed bids, negotiated offer with upset bid process, public auction, exchange,
26 and private sale to a nonprofit for public purpose.
27 She asked if the county was not allowed to advertise properties that are for sale publicly.
28 John Roberts said the Board could have a list of county properties that are for sale, but
29 the actual sale must be in accordance with state law.
30 Alan Dorman said that he could prepare a list, but pointed out again that many of the
31 parcels are most valuable to the adjacent property owners.
23
1 Vice-Chair Fowler said 28 properties were listed a couple of years ago for non-profits for
2 affordable housing purposes and only 1 was acceptable and all the others were deemed non-
3 usable.
4 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how those properties were marketed before.
5 Vice-Chair Fowler said the information on all properties was given to the housing
6 nonprofits in the county. She said for the two properties on the agenda tonight, one of them is
7 landlocked and has no easement, and the other has an electrical tower running right through the
8 middle of it.
9 Alan Dorman confirmed that one of the properties has a transmission tower on it and
10 showed a picture:
12 Alan Dorman said the potential buyer wants to have a 24/7 self-serve retail farm product
13 sales through a smart locker system on the land. He said he doesn't know if that is possible or
14 not, but he is willing to pay the county $8,250 for the right to buy the land.
15 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if that is for one acre of land.
16 Alan Dorman answered yes.
17 Going back to Vice-Chair Fowler's comments, Commissioner Greene said the last time
18 there was a tranche of affordable housing money, the county looked at all pieces of county-owned
19 land that could possibly be used for affordable housing. Non-profits were invited to look at the
20 properties, and there was only one property that one non-profit was interested in. She said this
21 list of properties did not include the two properties on the agenda tonight because, presumably,
22 they could not be developed for affordable housing.
23 Commissioner Carter asked John Roberts to repeat the options for selling.
24 John Roberts said the options are advertisement for sealed bids, negotiated offer
25 advertisement, upset bid public auction, and exchange. He explained that with an exchange, it
26 doesn't have to involve comparably valued properties; it can be a county property exchanged for
27 dollars and some other property or something like that. He said the only other sale option is a
28 private sale directly to a nonprofit for a public purpose.
29 Commissioner Carter asked which methods were used for these two properties.
30 Alan Dorman said these two properties would be sold through an upset bid process. He
31 said if the Board approves the start of the upset bid process, the final offer will come back before
32 the Board for approval.
24
1 Commissioner Carter asked if the county could decide not to sell the properties, and how
2 the properties could be advertised if the Board did not move forward right now.
3 Alan Dorman said the Board does not have to sell the properties. He said staff could
4 investigate the possibilities for broader advertisement and how much that may cost and could
5 come back to the Board with an analysis.
6 Chair Hamilton summarized the discussion.
7
8 Vice-Chair Fowler moved approval of 8-f and 8-g. Commissioner Greene seconded the
9 motion.
10
11 Commissioner Bedford said she is fine with an upset bid process but noted significant
12 discrepancies between offered prices and tax values. She said she is willing to vote for 8-f, but
13 asked for 8-g to be separated into its own motion.
14 Vice-Chair Fowler said reiterated that the property included as 8-g has no easement and
15 for the upset bid process, it would be helpful to post a sign visible to other adjacent property
16 owners so they could bid if they would like.
17 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if social media could be used to inform people about
18 opportunities to purchase county property.
19 Chair Hamilton said she thinks that should be part of a broader policy discussion.
20 Commissioner Carter asked if the parcel in 8-g is buildable.
21 Alan Dorman said it would be to whoever bought it, but they would have to get an
22 easement from neighbors, which is not a guarantee.
23 Commissioner Carter said she would like the Board to do more work on a policy before
24 she can vote to sell county property.
25 Commissioner McKee said the property with the tower is not suitable for any use. He
26 explained that Duke Energy will never let anything be built in the right of way, and the right of way
27 take up almost the entirety of the property. He said the usefulness of the landlocked property is
28 contingent on a neighbor granting an easement, which he believes is unlikely.
29 Commissioner Greene said using social media doesn't seem like a policy discussion, and
30 they should do it.
31 Chair Hamilton called for a vote on the motion on the floor.
32
33 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Greene, Chair Hamilton, Vice-Chair
34 Fowler, and Commissioner Bedford); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Carter and Commissioner
35 Portie-Ascott)
36
37 MOTION PASSES
38
39 Commissioner Bedford made a motion to use social media to advertise these upset bid
40 properties.
41
42 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Carter, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Greene, Vice-
43 Chair Fowler, Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Portie-Ascott); Nays, 1 (Chair
44 Hamilton)
45
46 MOTION PASSES
47
48
25
1 a. Minutes — None.
2 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
3 The Board adopted a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for two (2)taxpayers
4 with a total of two (2) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
5 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
6 The Board adopted a resolution to release property tax values for three (3) taxpayers with a total
7 of three (3) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
8 d. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
9 The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
10 taxation for five (5) bills for the 2025 tax year.
11 e. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2026
12 The Board approved changes to the meeting schedule for the Board of Commissioners for
13 calendar year 2026.
14 f. Proposed Sale of 1.18 Acre Property, PIN# 9834289281, Mebane, NC*
15 The Board approved the sale of a County-owned 1.18-acre property, PIN #9834289281, near
16 Mebane, NC, and approved a resolution authorizing the sale of the property through a negotiated
17 offer, advertisement, and upset bid process.
18 g. Proposed Sale of 1.24 Acre Property, PIN# 9865614458, Hillsborough, NC*
19 The Board approved the sale of a County-owned 1.24-acre property, PIN #9865614458, in
20 Hillsborough, NC, and approved a resolution authorizing the sale of the property through a
21 negotiated offer, advertisement, and upset bid process.
22 h. Approval of Prequalification Assessment Tool for the Crisis Diversion Facility
23 The Board approved the Prequalification Assessment Tool for the purpose of prequalifying bidders
24 for the construction of the Crisis Diversion Facility.
25 i. National Register of Historic Places Recommendation for Moorefields
26 The Board received and endorsed the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC's) finding that
27 the historic property known as Moorefields meets the criteria for an updated listing on the National
28 Register of Historic Places (Additional Documentation and Technical Correction).
29
30 * denotes item removed from consent agenda for discussion
31
32 9. County Manager's Report
33 Cait Fenhagen, Deputy County Manager, spoke on behalf of County Manager, Travis
34 Myren. She noted that the February 10th work session agenda is included for the Board's review.
35
36 10. County Attorney's Report
37 John Roberts had no report for the Board.
38
39 11. Appointments
40 None.
41
42 12. Information Items
43 • January 20, 2026 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
44 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
45 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
46 • Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports (Only Reports Updated Since
47 January 20, 2026)
48
49 13. Closed Session
50 None.
26
1 Adjournment
2
3 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to adjourn
4 the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Jean Hamilton, Chair
9
10
11 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
12
13 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board
Attachment 2
1
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 February 10, 2026
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, February
9 10, 2026, 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
13 Portie-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 Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present.
21
22 1. Boards and Commissions —Annual Work Plan Summaries
23 The Board received brief presentations from representatives from the first group of County boards
24 and commissions on their annual work plan summaries and provide feedback and/or direction.
25 Presentations from the second group of boards and commissions on their annual work plan
26 summaries are scheduled for the Board's March 10, 2026 work session.
27
28 BACKGROUND: Each year, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) requests that County
29 boards and commissions complete reports on the activities each board conducted over the past
30 year and a plan for future activities consistent with the BOCC's strategic goals. The Chairs or
31 other board representatives make presentations to the BOCC to share information in their written
32 reports. A second group of work plan presentations is scheduled for the March 10, 2026 work
33 session.
34
35 Boards and commissions presenting at this meeting are:
36
37 Board Name Representative(ss) Presenting
38
39 Orange County Parks and Recreation Council Natalie Ziemba
40 Historic Preservation Commission Art Menius
41 Agricultural Preservation Board Michael Hughes
42 Commission for the Environment Ian Morse
43 Animal Services Advisory Board Allan Polak
44 Human Relations Commission Rhian Carreker-Ford
45 Affordable Housing Advisory Board Lynn Nilssen
46 Orange County Housing Authority Board Jana Murdock-Doherty
47 Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Judson Williamson
48
49 Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board, introduced the item.
50 Natalie Ziemba, of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council, said they co-
51 sponsored the Nature of Orange photography contest. She said she represented the council on
2
1 the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. She said members of the council also participate in
2 other community groups. She said they are working with the OUTBoard on overlapping
3 opportunities between the bike/ped plan and the trails master plan. She said the Perry Hills Mini
4 Park opened in June. She said they served as the steering committee for the trails master plan
5 and will have survey and public feedback results compiled in 2026 and will also wrap up work on
6 the trails master plan. She said they will continue to co-sponsor the Nature of Orange
7 photography contest and advise on opportunities for completing Mountains to Sea Trail. She said
8 they are looking forward to future developments at Blackwood Farm Park. She said they are also
9 looking forward to the construction of new county recreation center and that demand outpaces
10 the existing supply of recreational spaces and opportunities. She said they are interested in cross
11 cultural programming at parks with community groups and partnering with other groups to
12 maximize shared output by sharing limited resources. She said demand for pickleball courts and
13 soccer fields remains high. She said they hope that there will be opportunities for partnership and
14 collaboration with the schools so that all sites will benefit from future developments.
15 Commissioner Portie-Ascott thanked Natalie Ziemba for her presentation. She noted the
16 request to collaborate with schools on shared recreational facilities. She asked why the schools'
17 facilities cannot be used anymore and what caused the change.
18 Natalie Ziemba said she thought it ended before the pandemic. She said the logistics are
19 difficult to manage, but they would love to bring back a partnership.
20 Chair Hamilton said this might be a good topic for the school collaboration work group.
21 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if it is an issue with just one school district or both.
22 Natalie Ziemba said the council serves the county parks system, and the county's spaces
23 are limited. She said that Town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have their own recreational facilities.
24 David Stancil, DEAPR Director, said it's mainly a need for collaboration with Orange
25 County Schools. He said there are preliminary conversations about shared recreational space
26 with the new elementary school.
27 Commissioner Carter said the need came up when discussing the land use plan as well,
28 and she thanked Natalie Ziemba for the presentation.
29 Commissioner Greene asked for more information about the Intergovernmental Parks
30 Work Group (IPWG). She asked if the schools are involved.
31 Natalie Ziemba said that county parks stakeholders gave updates at the last IPWG
32 meeting, and the council provided an update on the trails master plan.
33 David Stancil said the schools send representatives to the IPWG.
34 Commissioner Bedford gave some of the history of the use of shared recreational spaces
35 between the county and the schools. She said the schools have concerns about damage to the
36 courts without the financial resources to repair. She said the elementary schools used to have
37 locked playgrounds. She said that with the changes in school personnel, they were going to take
38 a new look at a partnership. She also noted the security challenges with sharing recreation space
39 at the schools.
40 Art Menius, of the Historic Preservation Commission, said the Strayhorn House application
41 was expected to be approved by the state the following Thursday and they expect it to be on the
42 National Register within 45 days. He said they will pursue National Register status for a Modernist
43 house north of Carrboro. He noted the many small, unmarked, and abandoned cemeteries in the
44 county and said they are trying to locate and protect them. He said they are working with the
45 Human Resources Commission to create markers remembering the enslaved people who lived
46 and worked at Blackwood Farm Park. He said Harvey's Chapel AME donated the cemetery to
47 the county and it will be connected to the trails at Seven Mile Creek. He said they will identify
48 what is likely more than 100 grave sites at the location. He said the owners of two black schools
49 are interested in working with the county to protect these sites from demolition. He said they
50 worked with the Lands Legacy Program to preserve the Henry Calvin Andrews house with a
51 historic preservation easement. He said that they are getting more sites into the landmark
3
1 program. He said that the Occoneechee replica village and the oldest surviving grist mill in the
2 county were substantially damaged during Tropical Storm Chantal. He updated the Board on the
3 status of book and the digital marker program.
4 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what amount of money they are looking for in a small
5 grant program.
6 Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator, said they are looking for a small amount
7 of county money to leverage for other grant programs to protect historic properties. He said that
8 it could be an incentive for property owners to make improvements to their properties.
9 Commissioner Bedford thanked the Historic Preservation Commission for their interest in
10 remembering black veterans from the Cedar Grove community.
11 Commissioner McKee thanked the commission for their interest in preserving old barns
12 and black schools in the county.
13 Commissioner Greene noted that the Moorefields application was approved at the
14 previous business meeting.
15 Michael Hughes of the Agricultural Preservation Board said the board's major
16 accomplishment was completing the updated Agricultural Viability and Farmland Stewardship
17 Plan, replacing the 2009 plan after three years of work. He said the board presented an initial
18 draft to commissioners in April and incorporated feedback from the county attorney and planning
19 staff. He said the final plan will be presented in spring 2026 for acceptance. He said the plan
20 addresses key challenges including loss of prime farmland to development and decreasing
21 economic viability of farming driven by high land values. He said the Voluntary Agricultural District
22 program added three farms totaling 110 acres in 2025, bringing the total to 17,689 acres on 158
23 farms. He said they hosted a successful VAD breakfast attended by about 60 landowners and co-
24 hosted a workshop on conservation easements and farm succession planning attended by 35
25 farmers.
26 Commissioner Carter asked about the time frame for hearing more on the tools and
27 policies to help young farmers.
28 Michael Hughes said a year.
29 Vice-Chair Fowler asked how the board interacts with North Carolina preservation
30 programs.
31 Peter Sandbeck said that they work a lot with the state programs. He said that Christian
32 Hirni of DEAPR received a large grant to do agricultural easements. He said the board applied
33 for a grant for a cost of community services study for Orange County. He said it will be a cost
34 analysis for local governments to service different land uses.
35 Ian Morse, of the Commission for the Environment, said they worked on the Community
36 Climate Action Grant review process in the fall. He said they will be working on the State of the
37 Environment report in 2026. He said they received 20 nominations for the RIPPLE Award. He
38 said they participated in the Earth Evening event in 2025. He said they will work on the Nature of
39 Orange photography project, continue to coordinate with the Intergovernmental Parks Work
40 Group, and identify priorities for the Lands Legacy action plan. He said the Climate Action Plan
41 has been a great resource for the commission. He said their goals for 2026 are continuances of
42 their efforts from 2025. He said they would like for the county to reestablish full Community
43 Climate Action grant funding. He said they want to support the Sustainability Office's efforts in
44 heat mitigation. He said it's important work for the county to respond to increasing heat waves.
45 He said they struggle with recruiting and retaining volunteers and want to improve the age
46 diversity of the commission. He thanked the staff that support the commission.
47 Commissioner Carter thanked Ian Morse and the commission for their thorough review of
48 the Community Climate Action Grant applications.
49 Ian Morse credited county staff for their work on the grant program
50 Allan Pollak of the Animal Services Advisory Board said they hosted an ice cream truck
51 event for Animal Services employees. He said they worked on a renewal of the Pat Sanford grant.
4
1 He said they worked with the Public Education Talking Points campaign to ensure the public is
2 knowledgeable about Animal Services. He said they held three dangerous dog hearings. He
3 said they assisted with fundraising efforts for Animal Services. He said in 2025-26, there are no
4 vacancies.
5 Deborah Hill, also of the Animal Services Advisory Board, said they will continue
6 supporting the dangerous dog hearing panel if needed in 2026. She said they want to update the
7 orientation video and frequently asked questions list. She said they want to support veterinarian
8 efforts for unhoused residents with pets. She said they plan to hold two employee appreciation
9 events. She said they will work on the Pat Sanford grant and the Volunteer of the Year award.
10 She said they would like to have a youth delegate on the board and build a dog training program
11 at the facility.
12 Commissioner Bedford asked if it is common for volunteers to take animals home during
13 winter weather events.
14 Deborah Hill said that has occurred in other instances of bad weather so that animals are
15 taken care of if staff cannot get to the facility.
16 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what happens during a dangerous dog hearing.
17 Deborah Hill said the panel determines if the dog meets the definition of a dangerous dog.
18 She said that a determination does not involve euthanasia. She said the owner must meet certain
19 requirements for 18 months.
20 Allan Pollak reiterated that dogs are not euthanized if they meet the dangerous dog
21 definition. He said there are precautions put into place to reduce the likelihood of someone getting
22 hurt by the dog.
23 Chair Hamilton thanked Animal Services for the work they did during the winter weather
24 events to ensure that people in the shelter could stay with their animals.
25 Rhian Carreker-Ford of the Human Relations Commission (HRC)said they've built
26 stronger community ties with Mildred Council Mama Dips Community Dinner and the Pauli Murray
27 Awards. He said they are planning the next community dinner and awards ceremony. He said
28 that through their community conversation series, they are trying to facilitate and bridge the gap
29 between organizations offering services and consumers of those services. He said the Pauli
30 Murray Awards is scheduled for May 2026. He noted the project for adding historical markers to
31 Blackwood Farm Park. He said they are beginning a youth engagement initiative. He said that
32 youth have a desire to participate, but there isn't a way for younger people to engage in the same
33 way as older residents. He said they plan to create a youth engagement program for creating
34 solutions to community problems. He said the HRC has heard community concerns about safety
35 and affordability.
36 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the HRC receives fair housing complaints.
37 Paul Slack, Chief Civil Rights and Civic Life Officer, said they are receiving fair housing
38 complaints. He said they've received 22 over the last four months. He said that some are
39 currently in the investigation phase.
40 Matthew Ferguson of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board said they completed a report
41 on HOME funds since the federal program began. He said they restarted community meetings.
42 He said they met with developers to discuss challenges building affordable housing and how they
43 can work together to increase supply. He said in 2026, they will have more meetings with
44 developers and another community meeting. He said they want to analyze how the county spent
45 bond funds on housing in the last 20 years. He said they want to collaborate with other advisory
46 boards and departments., including zoning. He said tariffs will prevent rehabilitation funds from
47 stretching as far as they'd hoped. He said that if housing is a priority for the county, the Housing
48 Department will need more funding.
49 Commissioner McKee asked for the upcoming dates for the developer and community
50 meetings.
5
1 Matthew Ferguson said the community meeting will take place on March 10, and the
2 developer meeting will be in May.
3 Blake Rosser, Housing Director, said they will work with the Community Relations
4 department to publicize the community meeting.
5 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what barriers the developers mentioned at their
6 meeting.
7 Blake Rosser said he would send a summary of that to the Board.
8 Jana Murdock-Doherty of the Orange County Housing Authority Board said their main
9 area of work is facilitating the housing choice voucher program. She said they supported
10 residents during Tropical Storm Chantal. She said they moved the project-based vouchers to the
11 admin plan so they can work with those. She said they released an RFP for project-based
12 vouchers, which is the waitlist selection for new participation assistance. She said they had their
13 first selection on their waitlist in five years, which meant they had to update preference points on
14 the waitlist. She said they've started providing additional information sheets for participants to
15 help them understand the program and how they can utilize it. She said they developed a plan
16 to transition emergency housing voucher clients to the normal housing choice voucher program
17 after funding was discontinued. She they made updates to termination policies to be fair to both
18 residents and landlords. She said they held a meet and greet between the board and residents.
19 She said staff puts out a twice-yearly newsletter and hosts landlord roundtables. She said they
20 work closely with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and the Orange County Partnership to
21 End Homelessness. She said the collaboration with the partnership is with waitlist referral and the
22 move on initiative, which is how they issue vouchers to clients to utilize various transitional
23 housing options. She said they want to transition graduating foster youth to housing choice
24 vouchers. She said their biggest activity will be project-based vouchers. She said that the lack
25 of affordable housing inventory is the biggest obstacle for getting people into the program and
26 utilizing vouchers. She said the funding outlook for 2026 is also a concern, specifically the HUD
27 appropriations bill. She said that they heard funding will remain steady, but potentially won't
28 increase.
29 Blake Rosser said the HUD bill was passed since the work plan was developed and there
30 was a normal increase. He said they still have concerns about stability.
31 Commissioner Bedford asked what a project-based voucher is.
32 Blake Rosser said project-based vouchers are attached a unit rather than a household.
33 He said it allows for more stable inventory. He described the department's efforts to develop the
34 program.
35 Commissioner Bedford asked if the goal is for a person on a project-based voucher to find
36 more permanent housing with the typical voucher.
37 Blake Rosser said the resident could stay as long as they'd like, or they could get a
38 voucher after a year and move somewhere else. He said they would create a waitlist for project-
39 based voucher recipients.
40 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how many units are part of project-based vouchers.
41 Blake Rosser said about 51 units total.
42 Judson Williamson of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will distribute $1.3 million to
43 the community. He said they are seeing a slow down in sales which will affect community grant
44 distributions. He said they are looking to build an ABC store in the northern part of the county.
45 Commissioner McKee said declining revenue is a two-edged sword in this case.
46 Commissioner Carter asked how a new store in northern Orange County would impact
47 sales.
48 Judson Williamson said they anticipate drawing customers from other counties. He said
49 the location is at a busy intersection.
50 Commissioner McKee agreed with Judson Williamson's assessment.
51
6
1 2. Presentation of Fee Study for Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and
2 Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
3 The Board received a presentation reviewing the fees and cost recovery for the programs in
4 Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
5 Recreation (DEAPR) by MGT Consulting.
6
7 BACKGROUND: In recent years, the strain of inflation has had a significant impact on the
8 County's annual operating budget. For many fee-based activities particularly, the County had two
9 (2) options through the budget. First, the budget could either absorb those cost increases and
10 increase the tax impact of providing these services. Alternatively, the County could pass on fee
11 increases to the users of these programs through fee increases. As a result, the County Manager
12 authorized the Budget Office to conduct a fee study of major fee generating departments. The
13 Budget Office conducted a request for proposals (RFP) and selected MGT Consulting to provide
14 a detailed model of the cost drivers for three (3) County departments.
15
16 The consultant worked closely with staff in Planning & Inspections, DEAPR, and Emergency
17 Services. MGT collected data around the costs of operating programs, the fee level and volume
18 of collections, the organization of the departments and the indirect costs of supporting each
19 department. The costs were then aligned to different fees to determine the total cost of each fee
20 activity and each fee division overall. In the attached MGT report, the total cost to the County of
21 operating fee based programs in these three departments is $21.7 million dollars. The County
22 generates fees in these programs of$7.6 million or 35% of the cost of the programs. This leaves
23 $14.1 million in County subsidy to operate these programs. This unique methodology of analyzing
24 the total cost of the fee is different than the typical County or departmental review of fee
25 operations. Typically, the budget document reviews cost recovery at the division or cost center
26 level. Which totals all costs and revenues in the division. This review does not include any costs
27 outside of the division, including indirect support costs or supervisory costs of department
28 administration. Due to this difference of calculation, the percentages in this report will be different
29 and lower than are normally detailed in the annual budget document. The MGT report also puts
30 the County fee schedule in context of selected peer comparisons.
31
32 While the MGT report provides a financial picture of the fee-based programs, there are qualitative
33 factors that play a role in setting fee schedules. The County should assess aligning fee programs
34 with the priorities of the strategic plan and consider the impact of fee costs on demand and
35 accessibility of fee based programs on the users of those programs. The attached PowerPoint
36 presentation provides a framework of the various qualitative features that go into setting fees and
37 cost recovery targets. Staff requests feedback from the Board on the importance of different
38 factors in setting rates. Following this presentation and Board discussion, the County Manager
39 will use the priorities expressed to recommend fee changes for the FY 2026-27 Budget.
40
41 Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, introduced the item and made the following presentation:
42
43
7
1 Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CARC3LINA
Fee Study Report
DEAPR, Planning & Inspections, Emergency Services
February 10, 2026
Worksession
2
3
4 Slide #2
Fee Study Background
Need to Review Fees
County Management sought to have a comprehensive review of fees due to the impact of
rapid cost of inflation after Covid.
- County Budget had to either accept higher county subsidy-higher tax burden or set higher fees-pushing more
costs to direct users.
County released an RFP for an external review of fees by end of 2024, and selected MGT
consulting to perform total cost accounting of performing fee generating services.
- Staff reviewed three departments, rather than all fee generating services.
County departments provided detailed accounting of all relevant costs and revenues and met
biweekly with consultant to iron out a detailed model.
ORANGE COUNTY
2 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6
7
8
1 Slide #3
Fee Study Background
Full Cost of User Fees Services
• MGT Model is based on determining the full cost of user fees, a distinct way of estimating cost
that has not been used by county departments or by county budget office.
• Collects the following information from departments:
- Schedule of all fees and annual volumes for each fee
- FY 2025 Revenue and Expenditure data
- Personnel costs and organizational chart of the department
- Cost Allocation Plan—value of the support provided by other departments such as HR, IT,and Finance.
Allocates all costs to each fee (or to non-fee activity) by time allocation provided by
departments.
• Compares the total cost to provide the activity to the current revenue generated by the fee,
which generates a cost recovery percentage.
• The total cost recovery percentage of all studied fees is 35%, which means general fund
revenue is subsidizing 65% of the cost to run these programs, or$14.1 M.
ORANGE COUNTY
3 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #4
Fee Study Background
Different Cost Recovery Models
Full Cost of User Fees Budget Cost Recovery Direct Cost Recovery
• Shows all costs associated • Cost recovery figures as • Cost recovery estimate
with fee activity, allocated by communicated in the budget sometimes considered by fee
each fee. process, summarized at the generating departments.
• Includes department division level. • Considers only the supplies,
expenditures, staff salaries • Includes all costs in that seasonal staff,and contract
who directly work on the fee, division, including direct staff, personnel costs to operating a
indirect costs of supervisors division leadership, and class or collect a fee.
and costs in other operational costs. • Does not consider the cost of
departments. • Will not include costs of staff time, administration, or
• Removes costs for staff time department leadership in any indirect costs.
that are not associated with a other divisions, or support
fee. costs of other departments.
Full Cost is not the typical way the county has considered cost recovery for fee programs, and so the cost
recovery percentage will be different, and often much lower than reported otherwise.
To set a policy target for each unit, county will need to translate back into Budget Cost Recove
ORANGE COUNTY
4 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
1 Slide #5
Fee Study Background
Qualitative Factors for Subsidizing Fees
MGT Model has provided the required cost to achieve 100% cost recovery in program areas, but
the County needs to consider other factors to set policy. Presentation will include staff
considerations on the following factors that could recommend subsidizing fees:
Community Benefit—Some types of fee activity are broadly expected to have significant county subsidy,
like classes for youth and seniors.
Demand Impact—A high fee may diminish demand for a county service, resulting in lower utilization and
lower fee recovery for staff time.
User Impact—A high fee may cause an unwanted hardship for the fee user, that could lead to decisions
that are unwanted by the county.
Peer Comparison—The MGT report includes peer comparisons to five other similar county or municipal
governments.
Strategic Alignment—A fee activity that is prioritized through the Board of County Commissioner's
Strategic Plan could be subsidized to encourage usage.
Targeted Subsidy—In addition to subsidizing the fee for all users, the county can further subsidize some
specific users for fees to ensure program is available to those with the highest need.
ORANGE COUNTY
Y
5
2
3
4 Slide #6
Fee Study Background
Qualitative Factors for Increasing Fees and Reducing Subsidy
While there are policy reasons to subsidize county fee programs, there are policy reasons why it
is harmful to overly subsidize county programming:
Cost to Taxpayer—All costs that are subsidized by county are ultimately charged back to county
residents through Property and Sales Tax, regardless of whether they could use the service.
Opportunity Cost of Subsidy—Any funding that is used to subsidize a program could instead be used to
improve that program or fund a different county program that is of higher strategic priority.
Unanticipated Uses—Any fee that is set too low could have unanticipated uses or users. Out-of-County
users could use county services if we are priced below our peers. Users of subsidized programs may not
necessarily be highest need county residents.
Discourage Use—Fees can be set to actively discourage or limit types of use. Most frequently this is
used to discourage multiple submissions or re-inspections.
ORANGE COUNTY
6 NORTH C_:AROLINA
5
6
7
8
t0
1 Slide #7
Fee Study Background
Other Tools for improving Fee activities
• While this report only considers improving revenue to improve cost recovery, county staff are
also reviewing expenditure efficiencies.
• Budget staff will compare Budget Cost Recovery to peer agencies,to determine if county cost
recovery is out of line with peers.
Departments will be working with Strategic Planning Manager to create Department Strategic
Plans to ensure work aligns with county wide strategic plan in implementing fee-based
programs.
• Some efficiencies can occur due to improved staff workflow and use of technology.
• Policy changes with respect to streamlining or simplifying development processes and
approvals would need to be considered by the Board.
• Fees that are not mandated, not Board priorities, and cannot make adequate cost recovery
can be considered for de-prioritization.
Ogg� COUNTY
2
3
4 Slide #8
Fee Study Review
Goals for this presentation
• Present to the Board findings of MGT consultant, including full cost of
providing service and peer comparisons.
• Discuss qualitative factors that can dictate different fee recovery policies.
• Understand Board priorities and feedback to staff recommendations in this
presentation.
• County Manager will use this feedback to set new recovery targets and
recommend fee changes in Manager's Recommended Budget.
ORANGE COUNTY
8 NORTH C_:AROLINA
5
6
7
11
I Slide #9
Fee Study Review — Current Planning
Fee Recovery % Net Cost . County
31% $745,709
Fee Services Provided:
Text and Future Land Use Map Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, to Unified Development
Ordinance. Rezonings, and Subdivisions.
Fees are relatively low volume but require significant staff time and county cost.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Peer Comparison: County is generally within the middle of peers, though this is fee-dependent.
Demand Impact: while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs to developers to
satisfy process requirements dampens demand for rezoning and major subdivisions.
For example: Peer with highest fees, Town of Chapel Hill, has the worst budgeted cost recovery.
Strategic Alignment: Housing for All Obj. 5—Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the
regulatory processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers to construct
housing.
ORANGE COUNTY
9 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #10
Fee Study Review — Current Planning
Staff Recommendations
Fees can be increased incrementally but would not significantly impact recovery rate.
• Some increases could also be a burden to homeowners trying to improve their properties
Staff will review efficiency of managing current processes.
Board could change (increase or decrease) requirements for applications and associated materials. What
applications require Planning Board and/or BOCC reviews?
Fewer public hearings will reduce staff time and development costs and can satisfy strategic plan
objectives. Staff can administratively confirm alignment with UDO or specific approval requirements
once Board approves when and whether rezoning or subdivision should occur.
Can be changes to UDO standards of review
Can be changes to what is needed for a zoning case's public hearing requirements
Approval of new Comprehensive Land Use Plan could alleviate some of the staff time commitment by
decreasing volume of hearing items and ensuring statements of consistency are more in line with
contemporary board priorities, as reflected in the Strategic Plan.
ORANGE COUNTY
10 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Vice-Chair Fowler said that increasing fees could potentially backfire, but she noted that
7 streamlining Planning processes and approvals could make it cost less for the county which would
8 align with the Board's housing priorities.
9 Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, said there are a few different approaches
10 that he's considered. He gave some examples of streamlining review and public hearing
12
1 processes that could reduce the amount of time and workload on staff. He said increasing fees
2 for special use permits could be a discouraging policy signal to people who may be considering
3 zoning or a special use permit for their property.
4 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if the potential efficiencies would reduce the number of FTEs
5 needed in the department.
6 Cy Stober said it may result in the amount of work staff would do on subdivisions. He said
7 staff could manage it at current levels, but he did not think it would result in less staff.
8 Commissioner Carter asked how the Town of Chapel Hill is doing while they update their
9 land use plan and what county staff is learning.
10 Cy Stober said they don't have data since the plan was approved six weeks prior.
11 Commissioner Carter asked what was the last subdivision that came before the Board of
12 Commissioners.
13 Cy Stober said the Stonewall subdivision on Miller Road came through in September
14 2025.
15 Commissioner Carter asked if they came to the Board in a different form than by right.
16 Cy Stober said no.
17 Commissioner Greene said she remembered when those came through and she was
18 confused because they were by-right. She said it also confuses the community. She said she
19 supports that change.
20 Cy Stober said it recently was reviewed by the Ordinance Review Committee.
21 Chair Hamilton said she would like to see more data and hard numbers before the Board
22 decides. She would like to see the current fee structure.
23 Kirk Vaughn said they are hoping to learn more about what the Board is interested in, and
24 they will bring that information back to the Board.
25 Chair Hamilton said it's a lot of information to go over in short amount of time.
26 Commissioner Bedford read from page 48 of the agenda packet. She said the best
27 opportunity per the consultant was to combine and reduce the number of fee listings within the
28 building, miscellaneous and trades permits. She supported that change.
29 Cy Stober said it is underway.
30 Commissioner Bedford suggested setting a fee structure that acknowledges long-time
31 homeowners. She also suggested setting a tiered fee structure.
32 Cy Stober said the erosion control fee schedule is tiered. He said for building inspections
33 he'd like to have one or two pro rata approaches. He said the highest service level, which would
34 be in a larger building with typically a larger developer, would have a progressive fee to it. He said
35 it would not be just proportional, it would be a higher tier.
36 Commissioner Bedford said that's what she favored, but she didn't want to be the highest.
37
38
13
1 Slide #11
Fee Study Review — Erosion Control
Fee Recovery %* Net Cost to County*
138% ($344,805)
Fee Services Provided:
Reviews, approves, inspects, administers and enforces Federal, State and County Erosion and
Sedimentation Control requirements throughout the County(including Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Mebane and
Hillsborough). It also regulates stream buffers and development activity within the 100-year floodplain
throughout Orange County's Planning Jurisdiction.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Peer Comparison: County is above peers.
Fees for large subdivisions and industrial projects cover multiple years of staff work.
- 'In FY 25 staff received fees that will count towards staff time that will occur in FY 26 and FY 27.
Demand Impact: high fees and high costs to developers to provide erosion control dampens demand for
subdivisions and economic development projects.
„ ORoNGECOUNTY
CAROLINA
2
3 Kirk Vaughn noted that while the county looks at the fees individually, the user experiences
4 them as a whole package and does not consider if one is high vs. one that is low.
5
6 Slide #12
Fee Study Review — Inspections
Fee Recovery% Net Cost . County
50% $1,007,974
Fee Services Provided:
The building inspections division receives, processes,and issues building construction permits.This division verifies
compliance with the mandated NC State Building Code by conducting inspections during construction of building, structures,
mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.County provides services for Town of Hillsborough and Unincorporated Orange
County.
Volume in FY 25 was notably low and FY 26 is already outperforming historic norms in terms of permit volume and revenue.
Positions that were held vacant and defunded in FY 25 were included in the MGT model.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Demand Impact:while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs for new development can reduce
demand.
Strategic Alignment: Housing for All Obj.5—Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the regulatory
processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers to construct housing.
Cost to Taxpayer: lower subsidy levels mean that taxpayers across the county are subsidizing inspections for construction
in only parts of the county.
Opportunity Cost of Subsidy:State law requires a certain timeframe of responsiveness, funding that is rogram
could be used to increase staff and meet responsiveness requirements. ORANGE COUNTY
12 NORTH CAROLINA
7
8
9
14
1 Slide #13
Fee Study Review — Inspections
Staff Recommendations
Demand in FY 2025 was low, but management held positions vacant to reduce expenditures. Department
expressed strain to personnel to meet all deadlines.
Going forward, department will need to set a target recovery level based on the expectation of a
historically average year of demand and set staffing levels sufficient to meet state deadlines.
Budget Office conducting peer review of budgeted recovery levels of peer departments, first review
shows department's FY 26 budgeted recovery was within peer standards but need to do deeper review to
ensure apples-to-apples comparison. Some larger peers, Buncombe and Durham City1county have
achieved 100% cost recovery or greater.Town of Chapel Hill has the worst recovery rate.
Planning office staff have identified that the schedule is overly complicated for users to navigate and will
propose a new fee framework for the board to approve at a future board meeting.
Staff recommends increasing fees for large residential, commercial, and non-essential features(i.e.
pools) but continue to subsidize small residential to maintain county strategic priorities.
Request Board input on weighing different factors, Manager will set policy recovery target in Budget
based on board deliberation.
O ,PAGCOUNTY
,3 >
2
3 Vice-Chair Fowler said she thought the county should get closer to full recovery of costs,
4 given the county's budget constraints.
5 Commissioner Carter agreed with Vice-Chair Fowler.
6 The rest of the commissioners indicated their agreement by nodding their heads.
7
8 Slide #14
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Fee Recovery% Net Cost to County
32% $879,676
Fee Services Provided:
Recreation Division provides classes,athletic leagues for children and adults, as well as summer camps,preschool and
afterschool. while there are no restrictions on who can apply to utilize DEAPR services,the location of services are most
convenient to residents in Hillsborough and the unincorporated parts of the county.
Fee Recovery By Category:
Fee Activity Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
Youth Athletics 46% $150,356
Adult Athletics 10% $185,536
Recreation—Classes 15% $113,649
Summer Camps 47% $186,663
Afterschool 33% $102,358
Preschool 39% $72,732
Alcohol Permits 12% $1,062
14 ',OKI I1 c.'AK(-)[ 1Nn�
9
10
15
1 Slide #15
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Fee Recovery % Net Cost . County
32% $879,676
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Peer Comparison:At top of peer range for youth athletics, below peers at adult athletics.
Community Benefit: County provides a low-cost option for recreation and classes to benefit the members of the
community who cannot afford other private recreation options.
Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj.8—Invest in services and programs that improve the health and quality of
life of the community (e.g., recreation and public open spaces,arts, etc.
Unanticipated Uses: Orange County's recreation fee schedule does not make any adjustments for out-of-county use,
and is first-come,first-serve,so services may not be used by those with greatest financial need.
Opportunity Cost of Subsidy:County funds that are subsidizing certain recreation services could be used to expand
services instead. For example, the general fund subsidy that is currently applied to adult programming could be shifted
to expand youth programming.
Targeted Subsidy: County has several subsidy mechanisms for certain programs or users. Detailed on upcoming slide.
ORANGE COUNTY
15 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #16
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Targeted Subsidy Arrangements
All peers in the peer review utilize different targeted subsidy arrangements, as does the county.Targeted
subsidies can ensure that those who can't afford private services can take advantage of the county
services.
However, administering a targeted subsidy adds administrative costs that add to the total cost of
programs. Typical subsidy programs also require income verification, which can feel invasive to users.
County has two primary subsidy programs:
DSS covers up to$250 per child that are receiving benefits from DSS out of its Youth Enhancement
Fund. DSS provides the administrative support to track the usage of the program.
DEAPR uses free or reduced lunch certificates from OCS to provide 25% discount to classes and
programming. Does not apply to afterschool, summer camp or preschool.
Separately, a prior Board removed the fee for both youth and adult drop-in programming at Central
Recreation Center. This includes badminton, basketball and pickleball. Staff are required to supervise
these drop-in periods, so 633 hours of staff time have no reimbursement. Fees could be established for
adults, for youth, or both.
ORANGE COUNTY
16 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Commissioner McKee said it was odd that the subsidy for adult athletics would be higher
7 than for youth.
8 Kirk Vaughn said the consultant made the same comment. He said there are opportunity
9 costs for subsidizing certain programs above others.
16
1 Commissioner Carter asked if staff knows how many out of county users there are at
2 DEAPR. She asked if there a way to identify that information so that a tiered fee structure could
3 be implemented, if desired.
4 Kirk Vaughn said you don't see a many out of county users for the youth programs. He
5 said you might see it more for adult athletics as people can drive other places to join a league.
6 David Stancil said they have different facility rates for county and out of county users. In
7 relation to Commissioner McKee's comment, he said DEAPR does not do any senior recreation.
8 He said adult recreation can have really low numbers of athletes, just 6 or 7 participants, and it's
9 hard to spread recovery costs among such a low number. He said they have over 1,000 youth
10 participants and about 125 total adult participants.
11 Commissioner Bedford supported increasing the alcohol permit fee. She said she wanted
12 to subsidize youth athletics. She asked if there is a state or Medicaid rule that says the Youth
13 Enhancement Fund cannot be used for summer camp.
14 Kirk Vaughn said the Youth Enhancement Fund is county money. He said DEAPR has
15 its own program which uses OCS free and reduced lunch certificates, and that is not applied to
16 afterschool, summer camp, and preschool.
17 Commissioner Bedford asked for clarification.
18 David Stancil said the Youth Enhancement Fund in DSS is county money and helps pay
19 for children's activities. He said they use the reduced lunch certificates as a way to provide a
20 discount for classes and programs. He said they don't have a way to cover themselves for
21 afterschool, summer camp, or preschool.
22 Commissioner Bedford said foster children, and kids on free and reduced lunch should
23 have the greatest subsidy the county can provide. She said she would not want to increase fees
24 there. She said not having fees at Central Recreation encourages people to come out play and
25 not engage in criminal activity.
26 David Stancil said this conversation was held by the Board 15 years ago. He said there
27 was a charge of $3, but the commissioners at the time did not want to discourage anyone from
28 coming in to play basketball.
29 Commissioner Bedford said she supported keeping it if possible. She discussed the tennis
30 court reservation concerns from the public. She said she'd like DEAPR to find a way to work that
31 out.
32 David Stancil said users are paying double what they did a few years ago. He noted the
33 complexities of the conversation about usage of facilities and when they are being used.
34 Commissioner Carter asked for clarification on adult athletics.
35 David Stancil said any recreation for seniors is handled by the Department on Aging. He
36 said the adult athletics programs are tai chi, martial arts, basketball, and volleyball. He said there
37 are 10 times as many youth athletes as there are adults.
38 Commissioner Carter said she supported Commissioner Bedford's comments about
39 providing for youth programming. She said she'd like the county to review adult athletics fees.
40 Commissioner Bedford noted the issue of balancing administrative costs and setting fees.
41 David Stancil agreed and gave an example of establishing out of county vs. in county
42 users. He said reviewing addresses takes up considerable staff time and may not be worth setting
43 a specific out of county fee.
44 Kirk Vaughn said subsidy programs can have administrative costs, but it can also be
45 invasive. He said it often comes down to income verification. He said peer counties provide
46 subsidies in varying ways, such as sliding scale, but that might be difficult to manage for a county
47 of our size. He said if the Board is interested, they could look at expansion of subsidy programs
48 and making sure they are supporting those who need it the most.
49 Chair Hamilton noted the Board's agreement of his comments.
50
51
17
1 Slide #17
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Staff Recommendations
Charge full cost for Alcohol Permits.
Fees and cost recovery for Youth Athletics, Summer Camp and Preschool within reasonable
expectations.Afterschool slightly lower.
Staff can review expanding targeted subsidies to ensure better accessibility for lower income users,
either by expanding existing subsidy programs or exploring peer models.
Cost Recovery for Adult Athletics and Classes is notably insufficient.
Increase league costs to peer levels. Could cause some sports to have insufficient teams for
leagues.
Review staff time efficiency in managing these programs.
Review offerings for sufficient interest, determine if offerings are redundant with Aging and local
municipal recreation organizations.
Board could reconsider having a nominal drop-in fee for Central Rec usage or target free usage of
Central Rec to specific users i.e.youth, low-income.
17 Orog� COUNTY
2
3
4 Slide #18
Fee Study Review — Fire Marshal
Fee Recovery% Net Cost to County*
20% $217,200
Fee Services Provided:
The Fire&Life Safety Division provides plans for new construction and enforces the North Carolina fire code.County
provides services for Town of Hillsborough and Unincorporated Orange County.
`The Town of Hillsborough provides$80,000 in funding for the county to provide services in the town, and to inspect Town
facilities for free.
Volume in FY 25 was notably low and FY 26 is already outperforming in terms of revenue.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Peer Comparison: County is at low end of peer comparisons.
Demand Impact:while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs for new development can
reduce demand.
Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj.7—Provide sustainable, equitable, and high-quality community safety and
emergency services to meet the communitys evolving needs.
Cost to Taxpayer: lower subsidy levels mean that taxpayers across the county are subsidizing fire inspections for
construction in only parts of the county.
ORANGE COUNTY
18 NORTH C_:AROLINA
5
6
7
18
1 Slide #19
Fee Study Review — Fire Marshal
Staff Recommendations
Budget Office conducting peer review of budgeted recovery levels of peer departments. Not all peers
break out Fire Marshall in public budget documents. There was some notable variances of recovery rates
in other counties.Alamance budgeted minimal cost recovery, while Mecklenburg budgeted 100%+ cost
recovery.Wide variance on how other entities viewed cost recovery for this service.
Staff recommends increasing fees for 1St and 2nd reinspection to add more cost to failed inspections.
Request Board input on weighing different factors, Manager will set policy recovery target in Budget
based on Board deliberation.
Staff previously did not charge Orange County Schools, based on difficulty of receiving payment. Budget
staff confirmed that CHCCS was charged by towns. Should this practice be reversed to maintain equity
between the districts? MGT model assumes revenue is received from OCS going forward.
ORANGE COUNTY
19 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3 Commissioner Carter asked if the Orange County Schools lack of payment has been going
4 on for a long time.
5 Kirk Vaughn said it has.
6 Commissioner Bedford asked how much money is involved with the schools' non-
7 payment.
8 Kirk Vaughn said he couldn't recall exactly, but it's between a few thousand and tens of
9 thousands of dollars. He said it's not the biggest program for the county.
10 Chair Hamilton observed that taxpayer money would go to paying the inspection fee at
11 Orange County Schools.
12 Kirk Vaughn said the schools must be inspected multiple times. He said it's not the biggest
13 program and not the biggest concern.
14 Commissioner Carter said that the plan is to build new schools and asked how much Fire
15 Marshal work will be driven by future construction.
16 Kirk Vaughn described the various types of inspections that could occur.
17 Commissioner Bedford said if it's not tens of thousands of dollars then it is less of a priority
18 to her. She said one way to recover the cost is to hold back some of the payment to the schools.
19
20
19
1 Slide #20
Fee Study Review — Emergency Medical Services
Fee Recovery% Net Cost . County
28% $11,498,601
Fee Services Provided:
The Emergency Medical Services Division provides 2417 ambulance transport and life services support. County provides
services for the whole county. EMS cost recovery is limited by Federal and state reimbursement schedules, commercial
insurance contracts, and limited collection rates for self-pay.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
Peer Comparison: County is at low end of peer comparisons. County uses 175%of Medicaid reimbursement rates as a
standard for its ALS/BLS billing, which updates automatically each year.
Community Benefit: County provides an essential service to ensure resident well-being at life-critical events.
User Impact:Despite current cost recovery,current ALS/BLS fees are very significant, especially for uninsured
residents.
Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj.7—Provide sustainable, equitable, and high-quality community safety and
emergency services to meet the community's evolving needs.
Opportunity Cost of Subsidy: Funding that is used to subsidize EMS services could instead invest in increased staffing,
improving response times and health outcomes. _
Targeted Subsidy: County provides hardship assistance through a waiver administered through
W'AtNGE CCQUNTY
20 Federal law prohibits an automatic discount for self pay patients. NORTH CAROLINA
2
3 Kirk Vaughn said the county only spends $40,000 a year on the hardship waiver.
4 Commissioner McKee asked if it is income-based.
5 Kirk Vaughn said it is. He said it is only for full-time residents of the county, meaning not
6 university students.
7 Chair Hamilton asked what the fee recovery rate is in other counties.
8 Kirk Vaughn said they haven't looked at that. He said the ability to do cost recovery
9 depends on your payer mix. He said if they have a higher level of insured patients, they they get
10 a higher cost recovery regardless of the fee. He said in 2026 a lower percentage of their payer
11 mix is self-pay, and Medicaid expansion may have had an impact.
12 Vice-Chair Fowler said Alamance and Durham seem to have higher fees, and she
13 suggested keeping Orange in line with neighboring counties.
14 Chair Hamilton said this is a service where there is inelasticity of demand.
15 Commissioner McKee said the main worry for the patient is how many minutes away the
16 ambulance is.
17
18
20
1 Slide #21
Fee Study Review — Emergency Medical Services
Staff Recommendations
Costs can be increased incrementally to regional peer averages. This will not dramatically improve cost
recovery due to constraints from Medicaid reimbursement and self-insured low payment rates.
County cost to run this service is high, and based on current CIP&Operating model, county subsidy will
increase in future years. While County has limited ability to offset these investments, the County can
communicate the need for these investments during budget process.
CIP includes significant investments in EMS services that will drive increases to debt service.These
include a robust EMS vehicle replacement schedule, new CAD software, and two new EMS
substations that will add staff and vehicles. New ES headquarters and VIPER radio towers are also
significant capital investments in next 5 years.
County currently uses grant funding to cover new EMS programs like PORT and CARES, that will
eventually need to rely on county funding if they are maintained.
One component for future review is external collections. County currently has staff in Tax Office collect
EMS fees.All peer reviewed counties use external collection services. County added an FTE in Tax in
2025 to improve collection recovery. Staff will review alternative models and reach out to peer staff which
use external collections.
ORANGE COUNTY
21 NORTH CAROLINA
2
3
4 Slide #22
Fee Study Review — Review and Questions
Questions about fee study, presentation and findings?
Are there other types of information that the Board would want to see based on
findings in this report?
Staff can move to studying other Fee generating departments based on this
framework: Aging, Animal Services, Environmental Health and Solid Waste.
• Staff will have access to excel-based models for these departments, and so
can periodically update models based on changes in fees, costs or volume.
ORANGE COUNTY
22 NORTH CAROLINA
5
6 Chair Hamilton said that they can evaluate the impact of fee changes on demand. She
7 said changes with an adverse impact could be adjusted. She said this will be a foundation to
8 making sure that the true cost of a service is being covered and that county can help those who
9 can't pay.
10 Commissioner Carter thanked staff for the report.
21
1 Commissioner Bedford observed that demographic changes could impact service needs
2 and demands.
3
4 3. Board of Health —Appointment Discussion
5 The Board discussed an appointment to the Board of Health.
6
7 BACKGROUND: The Board of Health makes policy and is charged with protecting and promoting
8 public health in Orange County.
9
10 The Board of County Commissioners appoints all eleven (11) members, with representatives from
11 specific health-related professions and the public.
12
13 The following individual is recommended for Board consideration:
14
NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION
REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Dr. Natalicio At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2027
Serrano
15
16 If the individual listed above is appointed, no vacancies remain.
17
18 Tara May introduced the item.
19 The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individual.
20
21 4. Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board — Appointments
22 Discussion
23 The Board discussed appointments to the Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory
24 Board.
25
26 BACKGROUND: The Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board is charged with
27 developing and coordinating visitor services in Orange County. It also implements marketing
28 programs that enhance the economic activity and quality of life in the community.
29
30 The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seventeen (17) members, with representatives
31 from specific entities and fields.
32
33 The Carrboro Town Council, Chapel Hill Town Council, and Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
34 each nominate a member to serve.
35
36 The following individuals have been nominated to serve:
37
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Theo Nollert Chapel Hill Town Partial Term 12/31/2027
Council
Fred Joiner Carrboro Town First Full Term 12/31/2028
Council
38
22
1 If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains:
2
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
Chapel Hill 06/30/2026 Vacant since 05/07/2025
Downtown
Partnership Staff
3
4 NOTE: There are no applicants eligible for this vacancy.
5
6 Tara May introduced the item.
7 The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individuals.
8
9 5. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments Discussion
10 The Board discussed appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Board.
11
12 BACKGROUND: The Economic Development Advisory Board works cohesively with the
13 County's Economic Development staff and other economic development partners to position
14 Orange County as a competitive location for business opportunities.
15
16 The Board of County Commissioners appoints all ten (10) members, with representatives from
17 various fields.
18
19 The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
20
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Joy Mercer Entrepreneur Second Full Term 06/30/2029
Daniel Rawlins Agri ulture Partial Term 06/30/2027
21
22 If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain.
23
24 Tara May introduced the item.
25 The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individuals.
26
27 6. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments Discussion
28 The Board discussed appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Board.
29
30 BACKGROUND: The Planning Board studies Orange County and the surrounding areas to
31 determine objectives in the development of the County. It prepares and recommends plans to
32 achieve that development, including the suggestion of policies, ordinances, and procedures. It
33 reviews development applications and makes recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
34
35 The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members.
36
37 The Planning Board does not make recommendations for appointments.
38
39 The following individuals and positions are presented for Board consideration:
40
23
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Chris Johnston Hillsborough Second Full Term 03/31/2029
Township
Jonah Garson At-Large First Full Term 03/31/2029
(reappointment)
BOCC Bingham Township Partial Term 03/31/2027
Appointee
BOCC At-Large First Full Term 03/31/2029
Appointee
BOCC Chapel Hill Township First Full Term 03/31/2029
Appointee
1 If the positions listed above are filled, no vacancies remain.
2
3 Tara May introduced the item.
4 The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint Chris Johnston and Jonah Garson.
5 Vice-Chair Fowler nominated Ana Garcia Turner for the Chapel Hill Township position.
6 Commissioner Greene nominated Allison Freeman for an At-Large seat.
7 Commissioner McKee nominated Othlone McCalla for an At-Large seat.
8 For the Chapel Hill Township and At-Large seats, Greene recommended a slate of Ana
9 Garcia Turner and Allison Freeman.
10 Commissioner McKee expressed concern with the slate method of nominating candidates.
11 He explained his reasons for nominating Othlone McCalla.
12 Commissioner Portie-Ascott agreed with Commissioner McKee.
13 Commissioner Greene withdrew her slate of nominations. She explained her reasons for
14 supporting Allison Freeman for the Planning Board.
15 Vice-Chair Fowler explained her reasons for supporting Ana Garcia Turner for the
16 Planning Board.
17 The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Ana Garcia Turner for the Chapel Hill
18 Township position.
19 The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Othlone McCalla for the At-Large position.
20 The Board agreed to readvertise for the Bingham Township position due to few applicants.
21
22 Adjournment
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to adjourn
25 the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
30
31
32 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board
33
34 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board