HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-03-2026 - Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 315126
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUSINESS MEETING
February 3, 2026
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, February
3, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jean Hamilton, Vice-Chair Amy Fowler, and
Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Marilyn Carter, Sally Greene, Earl McKee (arrived at 8:37
pm), and Phyllis Portie-Ascott
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board
Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. All commissioners were present.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to add A
Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms at the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security as Item 4-c.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Hamilton read the public charge and reviewed the instructions for making public
comment.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
None.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Chair Hamilton expressed gratitude to county staff for their hard work keeping residents
safe during the inclement weather over the past couple of weeks. She said the community was
lucky not to get the worst of the storms, but it took a lot of effort to make sure the county was
ready if the worst happened. She announced that she will make remarks at the Durham Tech
campus expansion celebration on Thursday at 1:30 PM, in the Lyons Health board room, and will
also speak at a Habitat Housing summit on the same day.
Commissioner Carter echoed thanks for staff and community partners during the winter
storms. She said that today, a community member shared a video called Race in America, which
provided some very powerful data that speaks to the historic and current injustice and the bias
that exists within systems in the United States like incarceration, law enforcement, schools, and
so much more. She connected this to the evening's proclamation recognizing Black History Month
2
and recognized the opportunity to continue fighting inequity and injustice in all forms. With that
sentiment in mind, she read the following proclamation that the Board added to the agenda:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION ADVOCATING ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVED OVERSIGHT, AND
REFORMS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
WHEREAS, citizens of the United States and law-abiding immigrants have suffered violence and
the violation of their constitutional rights at the hands of agents of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, and
WHEREAS, this trend has been occurring in numerous cities and states across America, and
WHEREAS, community safety depends on the public's trust that law enforcement officers comply
with the U.S. Constitution and federal, state, and local laws, and that they act in residents' best
interests, and
WHEREAS, local law enforcement and local government play a key role in ensuring community
safety, and
WHEREAS, the public trust has been eroded by the actions of federal agents, underscoring the
urgent need for accountability and reform in the administration of federal immigration
enforcement;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, as elected
representatives and concerned constituents, urge its elected representatives in the U.S. Senate
and House to take immediate legislative action to ensure accountability, improve oversight, and
reform the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to protect the rights of all residents and restore
public trust
THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
Jean Hamilton, Chair
Orange County Board of
Commissioners
Commissioner Greene shared that she attended a GoTriangle board meeting on January
28t", and the board endorsed the Wake County Transit Plan's idea to reinvest $125 million of its
transit fund money to the regional rail project. She said if it happens, this will mean a train line
straight from Raleigh, NC to Richmond, VA.
Vice-Chair Fowler recognized February as Black History Month and Human Relations
Month, and said it was fitting to add the resolution read by Commissioner Carter. She quoted
Maya Angelou: "I've learned that people will forget what you said. They will forget what you did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel." Commissioner Fowler emphasized the
need to ensure Orange County residents feel respected, included, and welcome to engage in the
community. She said that Maya Angelou also spoke about "doing better when you know better",
and that is why it's critical to speak out at a time when reform is needed. She said she wants
people to remember feeling welcome, included, and valued, and to know that we are speaking
3
out for our community, and wholeheartedly supports the resolution. She also added her thanks to
county staff who were involved in caring for the community during the weather-related
emergencies. Finally, she shared that since the Board's last meeting, she attended the GoTriangle
Special Tax Board meeting, where no increases were approved, and also attended the Triangle
West TPO meeting.
Commissioner Bedford briefly reported on Durham Tech's Facilities and Finance
Subcommittee meeting, noting a clean state audit with only two small findings, which have already
been corrected. She noted that the five-year strategic plan is expiring, and the subcommittee will
have a retreat next month to work on the new one. She also thanked Asset Management Services
staff for ensuring safe access to the building during the icy weather.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott echoed thanks to staff who kept the community informed and
safe during the icy and snowy weather. She connected Black History Month to current events and
said this month is an opportunity for reflection, but also responsibility. She said Black History is a
story of people who helped build this country while being denied full access to it, and it is a story
of resilience, innovation, and organizing in the face of exclusion. She continued, we are also living
in a moment where many of our neighbors are carrying fear across the country, and there is
aggressive rhetoric, heightened enforcement, and families being separated. She emphasized that
even when those actions are happening somewhere else, fear shows up here. Commissioner
Portie-Ascott pointed out the erosion of trust due to this fear and said she believes that trust is
the foundation of everything local government is supposed to be. She concluded by stating: "I
want to say plainly to anyone in our community who feels unseen, unheard or left behind, that you
matter. You are valued, and you deserve dignity, safety, and opportunity.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Black History Month Proclamation
The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Black History Month in Orange
County.
BACKGROUND: Black History Month originated from the efforts of Carter G. Woodson and three
colleagues, who established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH) in
1915. Their mission was to research, preserve, and promote the achievements of Black
Americans and people of African descent. Inspired by the fiftieth anniversary of emancipation
celebrations in Washington, D.C., the ASNLH introduced the concept of a Negro History Week in
1926.
This celebration was intentionally placed in February to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln
and Frederick Douglass, two pivotal figures in the fight for freedom and equality. Over time, the
event grew in prominence, culminating in 1976 when President Gerald Ford officially expanded
the observance to the entire month of February. President Ford called on Americans to"seize the
opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area
of endeavor throughout our history." Since then, every U.S. president has recognized Black
History Month.
This year's theme is "A Century of Black History Commemorations", which highlights the 100tn
annual celebration of Black History week/month in the United States.
Paul Slack, Chief Civil Rights Officer, introduced the following proclamation, and the Board
read it in turn:
4
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BLACK HISTORY MONTH PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it is essential to sustain a harmonious and inclusive society; Orange County
discourages practices and actions deemed detrimental to the peace, welfare, and progress of
our community; and
WHEREAS, Black Americans, descendants of people forcibly taken from Africa and subjected to
the brutalities of slavery, White supremacy, and family separation, have survived and overcome
over 400 years of systemic oppression, creating a vibrant and dynamic legacy that is central to
the cultural, economic, and political fabric of this nation; and
WHEREAS, the resilience, innovation, and indomitable spirit of Black Americans have pushed
this nation closer to the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy that the Founders expressed
but did not fully pursue, even as they have fought tirelessly against the enduring specter of racial
injustice, oppression, violence, and discrimination; and
WHEREAS, Black history is not only a celebration of winners and victories won, but also a
testament to the years and lives lost in the pursuit of equity, inclusion, social justice, and liberation;
and
WHEREAS, we honor the legacy of leaders, martyrs, visionaries, and revolutionaries who
sacrificed safety to defy both legal and illegal acts of oppression, from the children who led in the
Children's Crusade of 1963, to the students who formed the decentralized organization of the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), to the Freedom Riders who spent 1961
traveling cross country on buses; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme of "A Century of Black History Commemorations" highlights the
100th annual celebration of Black History in the USA, highlighting the longevity and impact of Dr.
Carter G. Woodson's efforts to implement the original, week-long recognition of Black History;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, do proclaim
February 2026 as "BLACK HISTORY MONTH" and encourage residents to honor this
distinctive month by becoming more enlightened as to the true history of Black Americans in this
Country and in our community.
THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
Jean Hamilton, Chair
Orange County Board of
Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Portie-Ascott, seconded by Commissioner Greene,
to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
b. Human Relations Month Proclamation
The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Human Relations Month in
Orange County.
BACKGROUND: Human Relations Month was established to promote understanding, respect,
and cooperation among people of diverse racial, cultural, and social backgrounds. The
observance emerged in the mid-20th century, during a period marked by significant social change
and growing national attention to civil rights, equity, and democratic participation. Its purpose is
to encourage reflection, dialogue, and action that strengthen relationships and foster inclusive
communities.
Paul Slack introduced the following proclamation, and the Board read it in turn:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners established the Human
Relations Commission in June 1987 with the desire to "encourage mutual understanding and fair
treatment of all citizens"; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that to achieve justice
and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to create an atmosphere
where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission, having diligently served Orange
County since 1987, still remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity and
understanding throughout the county; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's Civil Rights
Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual' s race, color, creed,
religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, affectional preference, disability, age, marital status, or
status with regard to public assistance; and
WHEREAS, continued work is necessary to advance civil rights for all residents and to reduce
harm resulting from discrimination, disability, and systemic or institutional barriers that limit
individuals' access to fair and equal treatment; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners affirm their responsibility to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and to respond to
emerging challenges that threaten these rights; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages residents to take an
active role in opposing injustice and to work together to ensure freedom, justice, and equal
opportunity for all; and
WHEREAS, Orange County remains committed to progressing towards being a place with more
equitable and inclusive practices that strengthen the well-being of the entire community;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
February 2026 as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County, and call upon all residents to
6
promote civil rights by celebrating multiculturalism, embracing diversity, and supporting equal
access and opportunity for all who live and work in Orange County.
THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
Jean Hamilton, Chair
Orange County Board of
Commissioners
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Chair Hamilton, to approve and
authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. A Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms at the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
The Board approved a Resolution Advocating Accountability, Improved Oversight, and Reforms
at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
BACKGROUND: This item was added at the beginning of the meeting.
Chair Hamilton introduced the resolution and noted that it was read during Commissioner
Carter's comments.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Board members thanked Commissioner Carter for bringing this resolution forward.
5. Public Hearings
None.
6. Regular Agenda
a. Approval of the School Construction Interlocal Agreement
The Board discussed and considered approving the School Construction Interlocal Agreement
(ILA) with both School Districts and created an associated County position to facilitate its
implementation.
BACKGROUND: During the 2024 bond process, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed
its policies and procedures around school capital funding, updating the School Capital Funding
Policy and the Major Project Planning Addendum. The Board requested staff review and propose
an ILA to strengthen accountability and transparency for upcoming school construction and
renovation projects. Staff reviewed similar arrangements in other counties with active school
construction, including an ILA from Wake County. The attached draft ILA codifies a joint school
construction Core Team comprised of staff from all three entities. This Core Team will have
assigned roles, meet quarterly and more often as needed, and report back to the Joint Meeting
of the Board of Commissioners and School Boards at least once per year. Additionally, there
are provisions in the agreement that school staff report on the alignment with County policies,
that the Team maintain information for public consumption, and that that each party identifies a
liaison for its respective governing board.
Subsequent to the initial review of the ILA and upon discussions at the October 21, 2025 Board
of County Commissioners' Business meeting, staff amended the ILA. The major revisions are
highlighted below:
• Maintaining one ILA between all three boards but allows the ILA to remain in force if
one party terminates the agreement.
• Establishing that the ILA applies to all projects that utilize 2024 GO Bond Projects.
• Article IV is amended to standardize requirements with the School Capital Funding
Policy as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
This draft was provided to members of the Board of County Commissioners and staff of both
school districts. The school district staff have requested three additional changes to the ILA, for
the Board of Commissioners' consideration. Those changes are:
• 4.01 i d & e -Amending the approval to appropriation. This is meant to clarify that by the
Board of County Commissioners approving funding for projects in the budget, they are
approving the projects.
• 4.01 iii - Changing the design payment timing as design is paid at milestones, not all at
once.
• 4.01 v- Removing the requirement for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), changing
it to a recommendation. School staff have identified that there would be projects that use
bond funds that are not new construction, such as HVAC and Roof replacements, where
CMAR would not be a reasonable procurement method. The attorney for both school
districts additionally contends that General Statute 143-128.1(e) does not permit any
public entity to delegate the determination of appropriate construction method.
As design funds have been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, both school
districts have proceeded with design of their first school construction project. County staff have
met with school staff in December as a precursor to the formal CORE team. School staff have
committed to following the structure of the School Capital Funding Policy and have already
committed to using CMAR as the construction method for both first elementary school builds.
Both districts will be releasing requests for proposals (RFPs) to select a construction manager
at risk in the spring.
Along with the ILA, the County reviewed options in managing this process, and determined that
it would be preferable to have staff provide oversight and communication during the project
construction, rather than hiring a project management firm. The Manager recommends adding
a 1.0 FTE (full time equivalent) School Capital and Financial Analyst to coordinate the meetings
of the CORE Team, report back to the Board on school construction, and manage all public
communications, including maintenance of a dashboard and all non-online materials. This
position would also consolidate other school related tasks that currently reside in different
departments, such as the coordination of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and the reporting of capital expenditures for
financing and reimbursement. This proposed position would be funded from Pay-Go funds set
aside for Project Management. Funds totaling $500,000 were budgeted in FY 2026, and
$1,000,000 is planned annually for future years. The County would retain approximately$36,000
for a position starting on February 3, 2026 for FY 2026, and retain approximately $90,000
annually in future years from that pool to fund the position. The remaining funds will be allocated
8
to the School Districts for project and program management expenses. These funds were set
aside from school project budgets to ensure that the districts would adequately invest in project
and program management functions. The Manager recommends that the position be approved
by the Board with approval to proceed with the ILA.
Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, made the following presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Interlocal Agreement Draft
February 3rd, 2026
Board of County Commissioners
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
OUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
9
Kirk Vaughn emphasized that the ILA is not the only avenue to improve oversight of the
schools during their capital construction process. He explained other components as written on
the slide.
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
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
10
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
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
Kirk Vaughn explained that the statute detailed on this slide is the basis for the school's
attorney's concerns about the CMAR.
11
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
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
Commissioner Bedford said she is okay with changing the word from "approval' to
"appropriation" as suggested by school staff. She asked for clarification on how the Board would
be involved in the appropriations.
Kirk Vaughn said that major projects will come to the Board twice: once for design, and
once for construction.
12
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how cost overruns or change orders that would impact
the amount of funding that has already been appropriated would be handled.
Kirk Vaughn explained that the work group would provide early warnings through regular
communications, allowing the Board to understand issues before they become critical.
Vice-Chair Fowler commented that having a CMAR should prevent change orders.
Kirk Vaughn said that while a CMAR helps, things happen during projects, but having an
owner's contingency budget as part of the budget for the project helps manage those issues
before having to come back to the Board.
Commissioner Carter thanked staff from the county and school districts for their work so
far. She said suggested a change in Section 3.05 from "the core team should meet at least
quarterly" to "the core team shall meet at least quarterly".
Chair Hamilton asked how other Commissioners felt about that change.
All commissioners agreed with Commissioner Carter's suggested amendment.
Chair Hamilton backtracked and asked if all commissioners agreed with changing
"approval" to "appropriation" as suggested by school staff and agreed to by Commissioner
Bedford.
All commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Carter also suggested changing "may present an information update" in
Section 3.06 to "shall" or"will".
Kirk Vaughn said this came up at the last meeting, and the language remained the same
because the Board cannot require other elected bodies to instruct their staff to make reports on
any kind of schedule.
Commissioner Carter understood that point and reiterated that it is a strong hope of the
Board that regular reports would be made.
Commissioner Bedford asked if wording about the supplemental pay-go funds should be
added to Section 1.01, where it reads "to be funded by the 2024 Orange County General
Obligation Bond." She said the work group should also be looking at those funds because they
may also be funding major projects.
Kirk Vaughn said there won't be a project that is going to be funding only using pay-go
and not the bond money. He explained that the only thing pay-go will touch that school
construction wouldn't, is high-priority needs projects, specifically those that require more funds
than would typically be given.
The Board agreed to leave that section as-is, based on Kirk Vaughn's explanation.
After discussion, the Board agreed with the following school board-recommended
changes:
• 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.
Commissioner Greene added her encouragement for a CMAR to be utilized by both school
districts, even though it can't be required as part of the ILA.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to approve
and authorize the Chair to sign the ILA with the discussed changes, authorize the County Manager
to forward the ILA to both school boards for approval, and approve the establishment of the related
School Construction and Financial Analyst position.
13
Commissioner Bedford asked if staff would come back to the Board if there is a need for
additional funding for the new position.
Kirk Vaughn said any reclassification of the position would happen administratively.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Update to Interlocal Agreements between County and Towns on Tax Collection
The Board:
1) Received 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) Considered 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; and
3) Considered authorizing the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to initiate
discussions with the cities of Durham and Mebane based on pending expiration of
those respective tax collections agreements
BACKGROUND: In 1979 the County entered into an agreement with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough whereby the Orange County Tax Collector would, on behalf of the Towns, bill and
collect their tax levies in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160A-461.
In 2006 the agreement was updated, and the municipal tax collection rate was set at 0.5% of the
annual amount collected for each of the towns. The expiration was set not to exceed 99 years
from July 1, 2006. The agreement requires unanimous agreement from all three towns to make
amendments and requires a one-year notice for termination.
In 2009, an addendum was approved by all parties that, in addition to the 0.5%tax collection rate,
updated the agreement to add an agreed-upon annual surcharge for new software installed for
the purpose of tax ownership, billing, and collection. However, the annual surcharge addendum
has not been utilized to supplement revenue for the County.
Research by Tax Office staff indicates that the current 0.5% municipal tax collection rate is below
the state average and does not sufficiently sustain the costs incurred by the County to bill and
collect municipal taxes, including software costs.
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.
The County separately has agreements with the cities of Durham and Mebane that are both
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026. The Tax Office proposes to initiate discussions with both
jurisdictions to address the pending expirations and also in order to potentially standardize the
fee schedule and expiration schedule between all of the municipal collection ILAs.
14
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. These
enhancements will be targeted to ensure a more equitable and better communicated revaluation
in 2029. The County will be able to utilize additional municipal funding to fund the
recommendations made by the consultant and other tax office divisions enhancements.
Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, made the following presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Interlocal Agreement — County and Towns
Taxation Collection
Board of Commissioners
Business Meeting
February 3,2026
Nancy Freeman introduced collections managers Valerie Curry and Bernice Gwynn.
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.
OR 2 ORANGE
COUNTY
CA
15
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
3 NORTH CAROLINA
Vice-Chair Fowler asked why the surcharges were never used to supplement revenue for
the County.
Nancy Freeman said she believes it wasn't implemented due to turnover in leadership in
the Tax Office. She said she has wanted to work on this since she was appointed Tax
Administrator, but it has been complicated because it involves the towns and requires a one-year
notice for changes.
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 NOR't'H CAR0I.INA
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said this slide shows a wide range of annual costs, between
$48,000 and $224,000. She asked for some examples of situations that would result in such a
large fluctuation.
Nancy Freeman said annual fees for service would constitute something like $48,000,
which would increase over time, but would still be relatively similar. She said they may see an
annual cost of$224,000 when there is a change in the software, like a one-time upgrade fee.
16
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 Surcharges
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 CARMAMA
Commissioner Carter asked what those totals would have been for 2025.
Nancy Freeman said she can follow up with those figures.
Slide #6
History: Municipal Fee
for Tax Collection
Revenue Municipal Fee for Collections
WO-000.00
sa0°.000.00
• County received $410,000 in $ °
FY 2025
s2s0.00oa0
E200.000A0
Increase from 2016 to 2025 5150.000.00
• 5100.000.00
— $127,373 �,.000M
- 45% 2015 2017 201E 2E19 2020 2021 2= 2= 2024 Z025
ORANGE COUNTY
6 NORTH C.AROLIT4A
17
Slide #7
Tax Office Operating
Expenses
Tax Office Expenditures
• Increased by 62% since 2016
• $1 ,882,056 increase in annual
needs 34.000.000,00
• Operating Expenses have 33000m°60
outpaced Municipal Fee SZOOCA900
Revenue
51.006.000.00
• Municipal Fee covers 7% of Dept ODO
Expenses
2016 2017 2018 2019 2920 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
ORANGE COUNTY
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/o
Wake County survey. 1.50% 10
2.00% 4
• 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
0.85% 1
• Ten counties charge 1.5% 1.25i 1
Grand Total 17
Median 1.50%
• Average rate 1.45% Average 1.45%
ORANGE COUNTY
8 NOR'YH CAROL-INA
Commissioner Bedford asked if the 62% increase for the department's operating
expenses on the previous slide represents the whole department, or only the collections division.
Nancy Freeman said that the number represents the full department, including all three
divisions: land records/GIS, assessment, and collections.
18
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
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.
10 ORANGE
COUNTY
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked why some other counties are charging a lower fee to
certain towns and if it would be beneficial for Orange County.
Nancy Freeman said some of it may have to do with the age of the agreements, but she
isn't sure because she just got responses from other counties today and wasn't able to follow up
yet. She said she noticed that Durham County charges the City of Durham 1%, which is less than
19
what they charge other towns, and not much more than the 0.5% Orange County charges them
for fewer than 50 total parcels.
Commissioner Carter brought attention to the Wake County approach, which included a
goal to have municipal fees cover 50% of the department's operating and revaluation expenses.
When comparing, Orange County would have to go significantly higher to achieve that
percentage.
Kirk Vaughn said Wake County can achieve that goal by charging towns 0.75% because
they are much more urban, whereas Orange County has a higher percentage of its tax base in
the unincorporated areas of the county. He said the Board could look at trying to set a target for
how much municipalities should cover based on the percentage of parcels in each jurisdiction.
Chair Hamilton encouraged Board members to remember that Wake County is much
bigger and has growing towns and industries, and to be careful about comparing.
Commissioner Carter asked if the Board, with information from staff, should be having a
policy discussion about setting a target. She said the one thing not yet reflected is what will come
as recommendations from the Tax Assessment Work Group. She said this is also a piece of what
the Board should anticipate before getting too far into the conversation and acting on the
agreements.
Commissioner Greene said she wonders if the current percentage of expenses covered
by municipal fees was just happenstance or a policy discussion in Orange County. She said what
the percentage should be is a policy discussion. She said she thinks the Board should also
discuss moving revaluations to every two years.
Chair Hamilton said that she sees a time issue with the policies that are expiring at the
end of June. She said she thinks the Board should have a policy discussion in the future but
should also act to address the concerns at hand with the expiring policies.
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 QUIZI Ii AROL L.IN1
20
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 NORTH CAROLTNA
Vice-Chair Fowler asked if state law dictates how much can be collected through these
fees. She posed a question to the Board on whether the county should be collecting more than
the cost to do the collections for the municipalities.
Nancy Freeman said there are no limitations in state law on this issue.
Vice-Chair Fowler said that in her opinion the goal should be to recover the cost of doing
the collections. She said she liked Kirk Vaughn's suggestion about the percentage charged to
each municipality being proportionate to the population or the amount of properties in each place.
She asked if staff has had any conversations to date about changes with the towns.
Nancy Freeman said county staff have generally mentioned to the towns' staff that the
agreements are dated and need to be updated, but no specific conversations have taken place.
Commissioner Bedford said she is in favor of having separate agreements with each
municipality in the future. She suggested pursuing extensions of the existing agreements to
address the deadlines and then for the Board to continue having conversations.
Commissioner Carter said she feels this is a policy discussion for the Board to have, not
the Tax Assessment Work Group, about a policy that is reasonable, fair, and equitable. She
supported moving toward separate ILAs with each municipality as Commissioner Bedford
mentioned. She also agreed with Commissioner Bedford about pursuing extensions.
Kirk Vaughn asked if triggering the termination clause on the other ILA with the three towns
would make sense if the Board would like to pursue extensions for the Durham and Mebane
agreements
Chair Hamilton said she thinks it's most appropriate to have discussions with the towns
and let them know the Board's intentions to amend the agreements/pursue new agreements and
give them an opportunity relay what their thoughts are.
Vice-Chair Fowler said it is her hope that those discussions could happen within a year's
time so that the new ILAs could be created. She said there is a one-year termination clause that
is time-sensitive that the Board should act on and suggested that the conversations Chair
Hamilton wants should take place in the meantime.
Commissioner Bedford said she believes it could be detrimental to tell the towns an
approximate charge now, when that might change after the Board sees real numbers. She said
she is willing to forego a year of an increase to be more accurate.
21
Kirk Vaughn explained that the joint ILA needs some sort of sunset, and new ILAs with
each of those three towns can be negotiated.
John Roberts reiterated that the agreement requires a 12-month notice for termination,
which would be necessary in order to pursue new agreements.
Kirk Vaughn said the termination could be set now in order to pursue the separate ILAs,
and discussions about revenue is a separate conversation that can happen over a longer period.
Chair Hamilton reiterated her desire for there to be conversations with the towns.
Commissioner McKee arrived at 8:37 pm.
A motion was made by Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to:
1) authorize 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, and the
possibility of replacing the current joint ILA with separate ILAs that follow a shorter
expiration schedule;
2) direct the Tax Office and Budget Director to report back to the Board after discussions
with the three towns in April 2026; and
3) authorize the Tax Administrator and Budget Director to initiate discussions with the
cities of Durham and Mebane, and with the pending expiration of those respective
agreements, direct staff to present the Board with proposed amendments extending
the agreements or with new ILAs with the two jurisdictions.
Vice-Chair Fowler asked about the hesitation with proposing an increased fee as part of
the motion.
Commissioner Bedford said she thinks it's better not to right now because they don't have
data to show what the increase should be.
Chair Hamilton agreed with Commissioner Bedford.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Reports
None.
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
Commissioner Portie-Ascott removed items 8-f and 8-g from the consent agenda.
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to approve
the remaining consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she isn't opposed to selling county-owned property, but
she is concerned about the valuation and selling process. She said she isn't comfortable with
selling property based on an internal appraisal and a single offer.
22
Alan Dorman said typically when county property is sold, it's because someone
approaches the county with an interest in purchasing. He said Asset Management Services(AMS)
then checks with county departments that may have an interest in the property. If there are no
objections, they ask the interested party to make an offer, and after negotiations, they submit a
cashier's check to the Finance Department. He presented a spreadsheet showing that since 2022,
the county had sold only six properties, mostly small parcels to adjacent property owners. The
exception was 129 East King Street in Hillsborough, which sold for $400,000 after two parties
competed, far exceeding the $160,000 appraisal. He said in his experience, these parcels have
not been valuable to anyone besides the adjacent property owners for a variety of reasons.
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
Commissioner Portie-Ascott suggested that it isn't possible to know what is valuable
unless it has been put on the market. She said it is easy if you are not in the business of selling
real property to look at something tiny and think that's not of any real value, but asked why not
have a real process.
Alan Dorman said he received quotes for appraisals for the two properties on the agenda
this evening at a price of $1,500 each. He suggested the county could move forward with these
quotes and add the price to the buyer's fees.
Commissioner Carter said this is another important policy discussion and ask Asset
Management to document a process for county property and how it is brought forward to market.
Commissioner Greene said the upset bid process is one way of getting other buyers to
the table.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if this is the only way that counties can sell property.
John Roberts said there are statutory limits on how counties can sell property. He
explained the statutory limitations on property sales, listing the acceptable methods:
advertisement for sealed bids, negotiated offer with upset bid process, public auction, exchange,
and private sale to a nonprofit for public purpose.
She asked if the county was not allowed to advertise properties that are for sale publicly.
John Roberts said the Board could have a list of county properties that are for sale, but
the actual sale must be in accordance with state law.
Alan Dorman said that he could prepare a list, but pointed out again that many of the
parcels are most valuable to the adjacent property owners.
23
Vice-Chair Fowler said 28 properties were listed a couple of years ago for non-profits for
affordable housing purposes and only 1 was acceptable and all the others were deemed non-
usable.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how those properties were marketed before.
Vice-Chair Fowler said the information on all properties was given to the housing
nonprofits in the county. She said for the two properties on the agenda tonight, one of them is
landlocked and has no easement, and the other has an electrical tower running right through the
middle of it.
Alan Dorman confirmed that one of the properties has a transmission tower on it and
showed a picture:
AL
Alan Dorman said the potential buyer wants to have a 24/7 self-serve retail farm product
sales through a smart locker system on the land. He said he doesn't know if that is possible or
not, but he is willing to pay the county $8,250 for the right to buy the land.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if that is for one acre of land.
Alan Dorman answered yes.
Going back to Vice-Chair Fowler's comments, Commissioner Greene said the last time
there was a tranche of affordable housing money, the county looked at all pieces of county-owned
land that could possibly be used for affordable housing. Non-profits were invited to look at the
properties, and there was only one property that one non-profit was interested in. She said this
list of properties did not include the two properties on the agenda tonight because, presumably,
they could not be developed for affordable housing.
Commissioner Carter asked John Roberts to repeat the options for selling.
John Roberts said the options are advertisement for sealed bids, negotiated offer
advertisement, upset bid public auction, and exchange. He explained that with an exchange, it
doesn't have to involve comparably valued properties; it can be a county property exchanged for
dollars and some other property or something like that. He said the only other sale option is a
private sale directly to a nonprofit for a public purpose.
Commissioner Carter asked which methods were used for these two properties.
Alan Dorman said these two properties would be sold through an upset bid process. He
said if the Board approves the start of the upset bid process, the final offer will come back before
the Board for approval.
24
Commissioner Carter asked if the county could decide not to sell the properties, and how
the properties could be advertised if the Board did not move forward right now.
Alan Dorman said the Board does not have to sell the properties. He said staff could
investigate the possibilities for broader advertisement and how much that may cost and could
come back to the Board with an analysis.
Chair Hamilton summarized the discussion.
Vice-Chair Fowler moved approval of 8-f and 8-g. Commissioner Greene seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Bedford said she is fine with an upset bid process but noted significant
discrepancies between offered prices and tax values. She said she is willing to vote for 8-f, but
asked for 8-g to be separated into its own motion.
Vice-Chair Fowler said reiterated that the property included as 8-g has no easement and
for the upset bid process, it would be helpful to post a sign visible to other adjacent property
owners so they could bid if they would like.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if social media could be used to inform people about
opportunities to purchase county property.
Chair Hamilton said she thinks that should be part of a broader policy discussion.
Commissioner Carter asked if the parcel in 8-g is buildable.
Alan Dorman said it would be to whoever bought it, but they would have to get an
easement from neighbors, which is not a guarantee.
Commissioner Carter said she would like the Board to do more work on a policy before
she can vote to sell county property.
Commissioner McKee said the property with the tower is not suitable for any use. He
explained that Duke Energy will never let anything be built in the right of way, and the right of way
take up almost the entirety of the property. He said the usefulness of the landlocked property is
contingent on a neighbor granting an easement, which he believes is unlikely.
Commissioner Greene said using social media doesn't seem like a policy discussion, and
they should do it.
Chair Hamilton called for a vote on the motion on the floor.
VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Greene, Chair Hamilton, Vice-Chair
Fowler, and Commissioner Bedford); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Carter and Commissioner
Portie-Ascott)
MOTION PASSES
Commissioner Bedford made a motion to use social media to advertise these upset bid
properties.
VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Carter, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Greene, Vice-
Chair Fowler, Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Portie-Ascott); Nays, 1 (Chair
Hamilton)
MOTION PASSES
25
a. Minutes — None.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for two (2)taxpayers
with a total of two (2) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution to release property tax values for three (3) taxpayers with a total
of three (3) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
d. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for five (5) bills for the 2025 tax year.
e. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2026
The Board approved changes to the meeting schedule for the Board of Commissioners for
calendar year 2026.
f. Proposed Sale of 1.18 Acre Property, PIN# 9834289281, Mebane, NC*
The Board approved the sale of a County-owned 1.18-acre property, PIN #9834289281, near
Mebane, NC, and approved a resolution authorizing the sale of the property through a negotiated
offer, advertisement, and upset bid process.
g. Proposed Sale of 1.24 Acre Property, PIN# 9865614458, Hillsborough, NC*
The Board approved the sale of a County-owned 1.24-acre property, PIN #9865614458, in
Hillsborough, NC, and approved a resolution authorizing the sale of the property through a
negotiated offer, advertisement, and upset bid process.
h. Approval of Prequalification Assessment Tool for the Crisis Diversion Facility
The Board approved the Prequalification Assessment Tool for the purpose of prequalifying bidders
for the construction of the Crisis Diversion Facility.
i. National Register of Historic Places Recommendation for Moorefields
The Board received and endorsed the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC's) finding that
the historic property known as Moorefields meets the criteria for an updated listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (Additional Documentation and Technical Correction).
* denotes item removed from consent agenda for discussion
9. County Manager's Report
Cait Fenhagen, Deputy County Manager, spoke on behalf of County Manager, Travis
Myren. She noted that the February 10t" work session agenda is included for the Board's review.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts had no report for the Board.
11. Appointments
None.
12. Information Items
• January 20, 2026 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100
• Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports (Only Reports Updated Since
January 20, 2026)
13. Closed Session
None.
26
Adjournment
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to adjourn
the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Jean Hamilton, Chair
Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board