Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-10-2026 - Work Session 1 APPROVED 315126 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 10, 2026 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jean Hamilton, Vice-Chair Amy Fowler, and Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Marilyn Carter, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie-Ascott COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, 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 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. 1. Boards and Commissions —Annual Work Plan Summaries The Board received brief presentations from representatives from the first group of County boards and commissions on their annual work plan summaries and provide feedback and/or direction. Presentations from the second group of boards and commissions on their annual work plan summaries are scheduled for the Board's March 10, 2026 work session. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) requests that County boards and commissions complete reports on the activities each board conducted over the past year and a plan for future activities consistent with the BOCC's strategic goals. The Chairs or other board representatives make presentations to the BOCC to share information in their written reports. A second group of work plan presentations is scheduled for the March 10, 2026 work session. Boards and commissions presenting at this meeting are: Board Name Representative(s) Presenting Orange County Parks and Recreation Council Natalie Ziemba Historic Preservation Commission Art Menius Agricultural Preservation Board Michael Hughes Commission for the Environment Ian Morse Animal Services Advisory Board Allan Polak Human Relations Commission Rhian Carreker-Ford Affordable Housing Advisory Board Lynn Nilssen Orange County Housing Authority Board Jana Murdock-Doherty Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Judson Williamson Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board, introduced the item. Natalie Ziemba, of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council, said they co- sponsored the Nature of Orange photography contest. She said she represented the council on 2 the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. She said members of the council also participate in other community groups. She said they are working with the OUTBoard on overlapping opportunities between the bike/ped plan and the trails master plan. She said the Perry Hills Mini Park opened in June. She said they served as the steering committee for the trails master plan and will have survey and public feedback results compiled in 2026 and will also wrap up work on the trails master plan. She said they will continue to co-sponsor the Nature of Orange photography contest and advise on opportunities for completing Mountains to Sea Trail. She said they are looking forward to future developments at Blackwood Farm Park. She said they are also looking forward to the construction of new county recreation center and that demand outpaces the existing supply of recreational spaces and opportunities. She said they are interested in cross cultural programming at parks with community groups and partnering with other groups to maximize shared output by sharing limited resources. She said demand for pickleball courts and soccer fields remains high. She said they hope that there will be opportunities for partnership and collaboration with the schools so that all sites will benefit from future developments. Commissioner Portie-Ascott thanked Natalie Ziemba for her presentation. She noted the request to collaborate with schools on shared recreational facilities. She asked why the schools' facilities cannot be used anymore and what caused the change. Natalie Ziemba said she thought it ended before the pandemic. She said the logistics are difficult to manage, but they would love to bring back a partnership. Chair Hamilton said this might be a good topic for the school collaboration work group. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if it is an issue with just one school district or both. Natalie Ziemba said the council serves the county parks system, and the county's spaces are limited. She said that Town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have their own recreational facilities. David Stancil, DEAPR Director, said it's mainly a need for collaboration with Orange County Schools. He said there are preliminary conversations about shared recreational space with the new elementary school. Commissioner Carter said the need came up when discussing the land use plan as well, and she thanked Natalie Ziemba for the presentation. Commissioner Greene asked for more information about the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group (IPWG). She asked if the schools are involved. Natalie Ziemba said that county parks stakeholders gave updates at the last IPWG meeting, and the council provided an update on the trails master plan. David Stancil said the schools send representatives to the IPWG. Commissioner Bedford gave some of the history of the use of shared recreational spaces between the county and the schools. She said the schools have concerns about damage to the courts without the financial resources to repair. She said the elementary schools used to have locked playgrounds. She said that with the changes in school personnel, they were going to take a new look at a partnership. She also noted the security challenges with sharing recreation space at the schools. Art Menius, of the Historic Preservation Commission, said the Strayhorn House application was expected to be approved by the state the following Thursday and they expect it to be on the National Register within 45 days. He said they will pursue National Register status for a Modernist house north of Carrboro. He noted the many small, unmarked, and abandoned cemeteries in the county and said they are trying to locate and protect them. He said they are working with the Human Resources Commission to create markers remembering the enslaved people who lived and worked at Blackwood Farm Park. He said Harvey's Chapel AME donated the cemetery to the county and it will be connected to the trails at Seven Mile Creek. He said they will identify what is likely more than 100 grave sites at the location. He said the owners of two black schools are interested in working with the county to protect these sites from demolition. He said they worked with the Lands Legacy Program to preserve the Henry Calvin Andrews house with a historic preservation easement. He said that they are getting more sites into the landmark 3 program. He said that the Occoneechee replica village and the oldest surviving grist mill in the county were substantially damaged during Tropical Storm Chantal. He updated the Board on the status of book and the digital marker program. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what amount of money they are looking for in a small grant program. Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator, said they are looking for a small amount of county money to leverage for other grant programs to protect historic properties. He said that it could be an incentive for property owners to make improvements to their properties. Commissioner Bedford thanked the Historic Preservation Commission for their interest in remembering black veterans from the Cedar Grove community. Commissioner McKee thanked the commission for their interest in preserving old barns and black schools in the county. Commissioner Greene noted that the Moorefields application was approved at the previous business meeting. Michael Hughes of the Agricultural Preservation Board said the board's major accomplishment was completing the updated Agricultural Viability and Farmland Stewardship Plan, replacing the 2009 plan after three years of work. He said the board presented an initial draft to commissioners in April and incorporated feedback from the county attorney and planning staff. He said the final plan will be presented in spring 2026 for acceptance. He said the plan addresses key challenges including loss of prime farmland to development and decreasing economic viability of farming driven by high land values. He said the Voluntary Agricultural District program added three farms totaling 110 acres in 2025, bringing the total to 17,689 acres on 158 farms. He said they hosted a successful VAD breakfast attended by about 60 landowners and co- hosted a workshop on conservation easements and farm succession planning attended by 35 farmers. Commissioner Carter asked about the time frame for hearing more on the tools and policies to help young farmers. Michael Hughes said a year. Vice-Chair Fowler asked how the board interacts with North Carolina preservation programs. Peter Sandbeck said that they work a lot with the state programs. He said that Christian Hirni of DEAPR received a large grant to do agricultural easements. He said the board applied for a grant for a cost of community services study for Orange County. He said it will be a cost analysis for local governments to service different land uses. Ian Morse, of the Commission for the Environment, said they worked on the Community Climate Action Grant review process in the fall. He said they will be working on the State of the Environment report in 2026. He said they received 20 nominations for the RIPPLE Award. He said they participated in the Earth Evening event in 2025. He said they will work on the Nature of Orange photography project, continue to coordinate with the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, and identify priorities for the Lands Legacy action plan. He said the Climate Action Plan has been a great resource for the commission. He said their goals for 2026 are continuances of their efforts from 2025. He said they would like for the county to reestablish full Community Climate Action grant funding. He said they want to support the Sustainability Office's efforts in heat mitigation. He said it's important work for the county to respond to increasing heat waves. He said they struggle with recruiting and retaining volunteers and want to improve the age diversity of the commission. He thanked the staff that support the commission. Commissioner Carter thanked Ian Morse and the commission for their thorough review of the Community Climate Action Grant applications. Ian Morse credited county staff for their work on the grant program Allan Pollak of the Animal Services Advisory Board said they hosted an ice cream truck event for Animal Services employees. He said they worked on a renewal of the Pat Sanford grant. 4 He said they worked with the Public Education Talking Points campaign to ensure the public is knowledgeable about Animal Services. He said they held three dangerous dog hearings. He said they assisted with fundraising efforts for Animal Services. He said in 2025-26, there are no vacancies. Deborah Hill, also of the Animal Services Advisory Board, said they will continue supporting the dangerous dog hearing panel if needed in 2026. She said they want to update the orientation video and frequently asked questions list. She said they want to support veterinarian efforts for unhoused residents with pets. She said they plan to hold two employee appreciation events. She said they will work on the Pat Sanford grant and the Volunteer of the Year award. She said they would like to have a youth delegate on the board and build a dog training program at the facility. Commissioner Bedford asked if it is common for volunteers to take animals home during winter weather events. Deborah Hill said that has occurred in other instances of bad weather so that animals are taken care of if staff cannot get to the facility. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what happens during a dangerous dog hearing. Deborah Hill said the panel determines if the dog meets the definition of a dangerous dog. She said that a determination does not involve euthanasia. She said the owner must meet certain requirements for 18 months. Allan Pollak reiterated that dogs are not euthanized if they meet the dangerous dog definition. He said there are precautions put into place to reduce the likelihood of someone getting hurt by the dog. Chair Hamilton thanked Animal Services for the work they did during the winter weather events to ensure that people in the shelter could stay with their animals. Rhian Carreker-Ford of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) said they've built stronger community ties with Mildred Council Mama Dips Community Dinner and the Pauli Murray Awards. He said they are planning the next community dinner and awards ceremony. He said that through their community conversation series, they are trying to facilitate and bridge the gap between organizations offering services and consumers of those services. He said the Pauli Murray Awards is scheduled for May 2026. He noted the project for adding historical markers to Blackwood Farm Park. He said they are beginning a youth engagement initiative. He said that youth have a desire to participate, but there isn't a way for younger people to engage in the same way as older residents. He said they plan to create a youth engagement program for creating solutions to community problems. He said the HRC has heard community concerns about safety and affordability. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the HRC receives fair housing complaints. Paul Slack, Chief Civil Rights and Civic Life Officer, said they are receiving fair housing complaints. He said they've received 22 over the last four months. He said that some are currently in the investigation phase. Matthew Ferguson of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board said they completed a report on HOME funds since the federal program began. He said they restarted community meetings. He said they met with developers to discuss challenges building affordable housing and how they can work together to increase supply. He said in 2026, they will have more meetings with developers and another community meeting. He said they want to analyze how the county spent bond funds on housing in the last 20 years. He said they want to collaborate with other advisory boards and departments., including zoning. He said tariffs will prevent rehabilitation funds from stretching as far as they'd hoped. He said that if housing is a priority for the county, the Housing Department will need more funding. Commissioner McKee asked for the upcoming dates for the developer and community meetings. 5 Matthew Ferguson said the community meeting will take place on March 10, and the developer meeting will be in May. Blake Rosser, Housing Director, said they will work with the Community Relations department to publicize the community meeting. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what barriers the developers mentioned at their meeting. Blake Rosser said he would send a summary of that to the Board. Jana Murdock-Doherty of the Orange County Housing Authority Board said their main area of work is facilitating the housing choice voucher program. She said they supported residents during Tropical Storm Chantal. She said they moved the project-based vouchers to the admin plan so they can work with those. She said they released an RFP for project-based vouchers, which is the waitlist selection for new participation assistance. She said they had their first selection on their waitlist in five years, which meant they had to update preference points on the waitlist. She said they've started providing additional information sheets for participants to help them understand the program and how they can utilize it. She said they developed a plan to transition emergency housing voucher clients to the normal housing choice voucher program after funding was discontinued. She they made updates to termination policies to be fair to both residents and landlords. She said they held a meet and greet between the board and residents. She said staff puts out a twice-yearly newsletter and hosts landlord roundtables. She said they work closely with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness. She said the collaboration with the partnership is with waitlist referral and the move on initiative, which is how they issue vouchers to clients to utilize various transitional housing options. She said they want to transition graduating foster youth to housing choice vouchers. She said their biggest activity will be project-based vouchers. She said that the lack of affordable housing inventory is the biggest obstacle for getting people into the program and utilizing vouchers. She said the funding outlook for 2026 is also a concern, specifically the HUD appropriations bill. She said that they heard funding will remain steady, but potentially won't increase. Blake Rosser said the HUD bill was passed since the work plan was developed and there was a normal increase. He said they still have concerns about stability. Commissioner Bedford asked what a project-based voucher is. Blake Rosser said project-based vouchers are attached a unit rather than a household. He said it allows for more stable inventory. He described the department's efforts to develop the program. Commissioner Bedford asked if the goal is for a person on a project-based voucher to find more permanent housing with the typical voucher. Blake Rosser said the resident could stay as long as they'd like, or they could get a voucher after a year and move somewhere else. He said they would create a waitlist for project- based voucher recipients. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how many units are part of project-based vouchers. Blake Rosser said about 51 units total. Judson Williamson of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will distribute $1.3 million to the community. He said they are seeing a slow down in sales which will affect community grant distributions. He said they are looking to build an ABC store in the northern part of the county. Commissioner McKee said declining revenue is a two-edged sword in this case. Commissioner Carter asked how a new store in northern Orange County would impact sales. Judson Williamson said they anticipate drawing customers from other counties. He said the location is at a busy intersection. Commissioner McKee agreed with Judson Williamson's assessment. 6 2. Presentation of Fee Study for Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) The Board received a presentation reviewing the fees and cost recovery for the programs in Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) by MGT Consulting. BACKGROUND: In recent years, the strain of inflation has had a significant impact on the County's annual operating budget. For many fee-based activities particularly, the County had two (2) options through the budget. First, the budget could either absorb those cost increases and increase the tax impact of providing these services. Alternatively, the County could pass on fee increases to the users of these programs through fee increases. As a result, the County Manager authorized the Budget Office to conduct a fee study of major fee generating departments. The Budget Office conducted a request for proposals (RFP) and selected MGT Consulting to provide a detailed model of the cost drivers for three (3) County departments. The consultant worked closely with staff in Planning & Inspections, DEAPR, and Emergency Services. MGT collected data around the costs of operating programs, the fee level and volume of collections, the organization of the departments and the indirect costs of supporting each department. The costs were then aligned to different fees to determine the total cost of each fee activity and each fee division overall. In the attached MGT report, the total cost to the County of operating fee based programs in these three departments is $21.7 million dollars. The County generates fees in these programs of$7.6 million or 35% of the cost of the programs. This leaves $14.1 million in County subsidy to operate these programs. This unique methodology of analyzing the total cost of the fee is different than the typical County or departmental review of fee operations. Typically, the budget document reviews cost recovery at the division or cost center level. Which totals all costs and revenues in the division. This review does not include any costs outside of the division, including indirect support costs or supervisory costs of department administration. Due to this difference of calculation, the percentages in this report will be different and lower than are normally detailed in the annual budget document. The MGT report also puts the County fee schedule in context of selected peer comparisons. While the MGT report provides a financial picture of the fee-based programs, there are qualitative factors that play a role in setting fee schedules. The County should assess aligning fee programs with the priorities of the strategic plan and consider the impact of fee costs on demand and accessibility of fee based programs on the users of those programs. The attached PowerPoint presentation provides a framework of the various qualitative features that go into setting fees and cost recovery targets. Staff requests feedback from the Board on the importance of different factors in setting rates. Following this presentation and Board discussion, the County Manager will use the priorities expressed to recommend fee changes for the FY 2026-27 Budget. Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, introduced the item and made the following presentation: Slide#1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Fee Study Report DEAPR, Planning & Inspections, Emergency Services February 10, 2026 Worksession 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 NOW['"C;AROLINA 8 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 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 Recover ORANGE COUNTY 4 NORTH CAROLINA 9 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. �1 5 ORoRrH GE COUNTY 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 CAROLINA 10 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. �1 7 ORANGE COUNTY 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 CAROLINA 11 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. �1 s ORAN HE COUNTY 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 LIDO 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 Vice-Chair Fowler said that increasing fees could potentially backfire, but she noted that streamlining Planning processes and approvals could make it cost less for the county which would align with the Board's housing priorities. Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, said there are a few different approaches that he's considered. He gave some examples of streamlining review and public hearing 12 processes that could reduce the amount of time and workload on staff. He said increasing fees for special use permits could be a discouraging policy signal to people who may be considering zoning or a special use permit for their property. Vice-Chair Fowler asked if the potential efficiencies would reduce the number of FTEs needed in the department. Cy Stober said it may result in the amount of work staff would do on subdivisions. He said staff could manage it at current levels, but he did not think it would result in less staff. Commissioner Carter asked how the Town of Chapel Hill is doing while they update their land use plan and what county staff is learning. Cy Stober said they don't have data since the plan was approved six weeks prior. Commissioner Carter asked what was the last subdivision that came before the Board of Commissioners. Cy Stober said the Stonewall subdivision on Miller Road came through in September 2025. Commissioner Carter asked if they came to the Board in a different form than by right. Cy Stober said no. Commissioner Greene said she remembered when those came through and she was confused because they were by-right. She said it also confuses the community. She said she supports that change. Cy Stober said it recently was reviewed by the Ordinance Review Committee. Chair Hamilton said she would like to see more data and hard numbers before the Board decides. She would like to see the current fee structure. Kirk Vaughn said they are hoping to learn more about what the Board is interested in, and they will bring that information back to the Board. Chair Hamilton said it's a lot of information to go over in short amount of time. Commissioner Bedford read from page 48 of the agenda packet. She said the best opportunity per the consultant was to combine and reduce the number of fee listings within the building, miscellaneous and trades permits. She supported that change. Cy Stober said it is underway. Commissioner Bedford suggested setting a fee structure that acknowledges long-time homeowners. She also suggested setting a tiered fee structure. Cy Stober said the erosion control fee schedule is tiered. He said for building inspections he'd like to have one or two pro rata approaches. He said the highest service level, which would be in a larger building with typically a larger developer, would have a progressive fee to it. He said it would not be just proportional, it would be a higher tier. Commissioner Bedford said that's what she favored, but she didn't want to be the highest. 13 Slide #11 Fee Study Review — Erosion Control Fee Recovery %* Net Cost . . 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. �1 OR11 ANGE COUNATY Kirk Vaughn noted that while the county looks at the fees individually, the user experiences them as a whole package and does not consider if one is high vs. one that is low. 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. RANGE COUNTY 12 NORTH CAROLINA 14 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 CitylCounty 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. ORANGE COUNTY 13 NORTH CAROLINA Vice-Chair Fowler said she thought the county should get closer to full recovery of costs, given the county's budget constraints. Commissioner Carter agreed with Vice-Chair Fowler. The rest of the commissioners indicated their agreement by nodding their heads. Slide #14 Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation Fee Recovery% Net Cost . 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 -Y 14 NORTH CAROLINA 15 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. �1 ORANGE COUNTY 15 NORTH CAROLINA 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. 16 ORANGE COOUNA Y 114CWTM CAR Commissioner McKee said it was odd that the subsidy for adult athletics would be higher than for youth. Kirk Vaughn said the consultant made the same comment. He said there are opportunity costs for subsidizing certain programs above others. 16 Commissioner Carter asked if staff knows how many out of county users there are at DEAPR. She asked if there a way to identify that information so that a tiered fee structure could be implemented, if desired. Kirk Vaughn said you don't see a many out of county users for the youth programs. He said you might see it more for adult athletics as people can drive other places to join a league. David Stancil said they have different facility rates for county and out of county users. In relation to Commissioner McKee's comment, he said DEAPR does not do any senior recreation. He said adult recreation can have really low numbers of athletes, just 6 or 7 participants, and it's hard to spread recovery costs among such a low number. He said they have over 1,000 youth participants and about 125 total adult participants. Commissioner Bedford supported increasing the alcohol permit fee. She said she wanted to subsidize youth athletics. She asked if there is a state or Medicaid rule that says the Youth Enhancement Fund cannot be used for summer camp. Kirk Vaughn said the Youth Enhancement Fund is county money. He said DEAPR has its own program which uses OCS free and reduced lunch certificates, and that is not applied to afterschool, summer camp, and preschool. Commissioner Bedford asked for clarification. David Stancil said the Youth Enhancement Fund in DSS is county money and helps pay for children's activities. He said they use the reduced lunch certificates as a way to provide a discount for classes and programs. He said they don't have a way to cover themselves for afterschool, summer camp, or preschool. Commissioner Bedford said foster children, and kids on free and reduced lunch should have the greatest subsidy the county can provide. She said she would not want to increase fees there. She said not having fees at Central Recreation encourages people to come out play and not engage in criminal activity. David Stancil said this conversation was held by the Board 15 years ago. He said there was a charge of $3, but the commissioners at the time did not want to discourage anyone from coming in to play basketball. Commissioner Bedford said she supported keeping it if possible. She discussed the tennis court reservation concerns from the public. She said she'd like DEAPR to find a way to work that out. David Stancil said users are paying double what they did a few years ago. He noted the complexities of the conversation about usage of facilities and when they are being used. Commissioner Carter asked for clarification on adult athletics. David Stancil said any recreation for seniors is handled by the Department on Aging. He said the adult athletics programs are tai chi, martial arts, basketball, and volleyball. He said there are 10 times as many youth athletes as there are adults. Commissioner Carter said she supported Commissioner Bedford's comments about providing for youth programming. She said she'd like the county to review adult athletics fees. Commissioner Bedford noted the issue of balancing administrative costs and setting fees. David Stancil agreed and gave an example of establishing out of county vs. in county users. He said reviewing addresses takes up considerable staff time and may not be worth setting a specific out of county fee. Kirk Vaughn said subsidy programs can have administrative costs, but it can also be invasive. He said it often comes down to income verification. He said peer counties provide subsidies in varying ways, such as sliding scale, but that might be difficult to manage for a county of our size. He said if the Board is interested, they could look at expansion of subsidy programs and making sure they are supporting those who need it the most. Chair Hamilton noted the Board's agreement of his comments. 17 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. ORANGE COUNTY 17 NORTH CAROLINA 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 community's 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. 18 ORANG COOUNA Y 18 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 15t 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 Commissioner Carter asked if the Orange County Schools lack of payment has been going on for a long time. Kirk Vaughn said it has. Commissioner Bedford asked how much money is involved with the schools' non- payment. Kirk Vaughn said he couldn't recall exactly, but it's between a few thousand and tens of thousands of dollars. He said it's not the biggest program for the county. Chair Hamilton observed that taxpayer money would go to paying the inspection fee at Orange County Schools. Kirk Vaughn said the schools must be inspected multiple times. He said it's not the biggest program and not the biggest concern. Commissioner Carter said that the plan is to build new schools and asked how much Fire Marshal work will be driven by future construction. Kirk Vaughn described the various types of inspections that could occur. Commissioner Bedford said if it's not tens of thousands of dollars then it is less of a priority to her. She said one way to recover the cost is to hold back some of the payment to the schools. 19 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 24/7 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 ALSIBLS 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 throu1 bWANGE COUNTY 20 Federal law prohibits an automatic discount for self pay patients. WOR-rx CAROLIWA Kirk Vaughn said the county only spends $40,000 a year on the hardship waiver. Commissioner McKee asked if it is income-based. Kirk Vaughn said it is. He said it is only for full-time residents of the county, meaning not university students. Chair Hamilton asked what the fee recovery rate is in other counties. Kirk Vaughn said they haven't looked at that. He said the ability to do cost recovery depends on your payer mix. He said if they have a higher level of insured patients, they they get a higher cost recovery regardless of the fee. He said in 2026 a lower percentage of their payer mix is self-pay, and Medicaid expansion may have had an impact. Vice-Chair Fowler said Alamance and Durham seem to have higher fees, and she suggested keeping Orange in line with neighboring counties. Chair Hamilton said this is a service where there is inelasticity of demand. Commissioner McKee said the main worry for the patient is how many minutes away the ambulance is. 20 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 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 C A.ROLINA Chair Hamilton said that they can evaluate the impact of fee changes on demand. She said changes with an adverse impact could be adjusted. She said this will be a foundation to making sure that the true cost of a service is being covered and that county can help those who can't pay. Commissioner Carter thanked staff for the report. 21 Commissioner Bedford observed that demographic changes could impact service needs and demands. 3. Board of Health —Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Board of Health. BACKGROUND: The Board of Health makes policy and is charged with protecting and promoting public health in Orange County. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all eleven (11) members, with representatives from specific health-related professions and the public. The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Dr. Natalicio At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2027 Serrano If the individual listed above is appointed, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individual. 4. Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board — Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board. BACKGROUND: The Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board is charged with developing and coordinating visitor services in Orange County. It also implements marketing programs that enhance the economic activity and quality of life in the community. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seventeen (17) members, with representatives from specific entities and fields. The Carrboro Town Council, Chapel Hill Town Council, and Hillsborough Board of Commissioners each nominate a member to serve. The following individuals have been nominated to serve: 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 22 If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Chapel Hill 06/30/2026 Vacant since 05/07/2025 Downtown Partnership Staff NOTE: There are no applicants eligible for this vacancy. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individuals. 5. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Board. BACKGROUND: The Economic Development Advisory Board works cohesively with the County's Economic Development staff and other economic development partners to position Orange County as a competitive location for business opportunities. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all ten (10) members, with representatives from various fields. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Joy Mercer Entrepreneur Second Full Term 06/30/2029 Daniel Rawlins Agriculture Partial Term 06/30/2027 If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended individuals. 6. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Board. BACKGROUND: The Planning Board studies Orange County and the surrounding areas to determine objectives in the development of the County. It prepares and recommends plans to achieve that development, including the suggestion of policies, ordinances, and procedures. It reviews development applications and makes recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members. The Planning Board does not make recommendations for appointments. The following individuals and positions are presented for Board consideration: 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 If the positions listed above are filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint Chris Johnston and Jonah Garson. Vice-Chair Fowler nominated Ana Garcia Turner for the Chapel Hill Township position. Commissioner Greene nominated Allison Freeman for an At-Large seat. Commissioner McKee nominated Othlone McCalla for an At-Large seat. For the Chapel Hill Township and At-Large seats, Greene recommended a slate of Ana Garcia Turner and Allison Freeman. Commissioner McKee expressed concern with the slate method of nominating candidates. He explained his reasons for nominating Othlone McCalla. Commissioner Portie-Ascott agreed with Commissioner McKee. Commissioner Greene withdrew her slate of nominations. She explained her reasons for supporting Allison Freeman for the Planning Board. Vice-Chair Fowler explained her reasons for supporting Ana Garcia Turner for the Planning Board. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Ana Garcia Turner for the Chapel Hill Township position. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Othlone McCalla for the At-Large position. The Board agreed to readvertise for the Bingham Township position due to few applicants. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Fowler, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jean Hamilton, Chair Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board