Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-17-2026; 8-a - Minutes for February 17, 2026 Business Meeting 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2026 Action Agenda Item No. 8-a SUBJECT: Minutes for February 17, 2026 Business Meeting DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Minutes (under separate cover) Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board, 919- 245-2130 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as listed below. BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. Attachment 1: February 17, 2026 Business Meeting FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • GUIDING PRINCIPLE — COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS We provide information and opportunities for engagement in a transparent manner so that all in our community have knowledge, understanding, and a voice. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve minutes as presented or as amended. Attachment 1 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 February 17, 2026 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, February 9 17, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jean Hamilton, Vice-Chair Amy Fowler, and 12 Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Marilyn Carter, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- 13 Ascott 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT. None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT. John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin 17 Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below.) 19 20 Chair Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. 21 22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 23 There were no changes to the agenda. 24 25 Chair Hamilton read the public charge and reviewed the instructions for making public 26 comment. 27 28 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 29 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 30 Vibeke Talley and Rafael Velez, delegates to the North Carolina Senior Tar Heel 31 Legislature addressed the Board and shared appreciation from senior center participants 32 regarding Orange County's senior centers. Vibeke Talley explained their monthly information 33 tables at the two senior centers and shared that participants have overwhelmingly expressed 34 gratitude for the senior center programs. 35 Rafael Velez detailed their effort to collect handwritten testimonials from senior center 36 participants about how the programs have positively impacted their quality of life. These 37 testimonials, totaling 14 new letters, will be mailed to North Carolina House and Senate 38 representatives to advocate for continued and expanded funding of senior center programs. He 39 said he will also email copies to the Board. 40 41 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 42 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 43 44 3. Announcements, Petitions, and Comments by Board Members 45 Chair Hamilton offered Lunar New Year and Mardi Gras greetings before inviting other 46 Commissioners to speak. 47 Commissioner Carter echoed the holiday greetings and added Ramadan Mubarak wishes. 48 She reported on attending a Lunar New Year celebration with Commissioner Portie-Ascott and 49 noted their upcoming trip to the National Association of Counties Annual Legislative Conference 50 in Washington DC, where they would meet with senators and Congresswoman Foushee. She 51 took a moment to acknowledge the passing of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, praising his 2 1 historic presidential run, advocacy for civil rights, social justice, and affordable healthcare, and his 2 leadership of the Rainbow Coalition with the rallying cry "Keep Hope alive." She also provided an 3 update on the Tax Assessment Work Group's progress, noting their work on understanding 4 reappraisals,focusing on vertical equity and commercial property valuation, reviewing the appeals 5 process, and seeking clearer communication strategies. She encouraged residents to visit 6 Orange County's website and sign up for newsletters to keep track of this work. 7 Commissioner Bedford passed on making comments. 8 Commissioner McKee reported on attending the Justice United forum with other 9 commissioners, where he declined to endorse three of their eight requests, explaining that 10 meeting all requests would require a 7-cent tax increase. He appreciated participants' 11 understanding of the county's fiscal constraints. He petitioned the Board to formally commit to 12 minimal tax increases in the upcoming budget discussions. 13 Vice-Chair Fowler reported on several events she attended since the last meeting. She 14 said she attended the Ag Summit the day prior and enjoyed visiting the vendor tables there. She 15 attended the most recent School Collaboration meeting and discussed school budgets, student 16 population decline, and mental health. She attended the Annual Legislative Breakfast on mental 17 health on February 71", and on February 5t" she attended the Durham Technical Community 18 College campus expansion celebration. She thanked Commissioner Carter for mentioning the 19 passing of Rev. Jesse Jackson, and shared that she had the opportunity to hear him speak at an 20 American Public Health Association meeting when she was in her residency and getting her 21 master's in public health. She said he was a force and wished him peace. 22 Commissioner Greene underscored the sympathies expressed on the loss of Rev. Jesse 23 Jackson as well as the holiday recognitions. She said she also attended the Ag Summit, which 24 was focused on sustainability and strategies for success for farmers. She attended the Justice 25 United forum and expressed her appreciation for the work of that group and for holding the board 26 accountable on tax issues. On February 7t" she attended the Extension and Community 27 Association Annual Achievement Day, which highlighted women who are doing thousands of 28 hours of amazing volunteer work. Finally, on February 5th, she attended Habitat's first ever summit 29 on affordable housing policy. She said she would share a fuller report from that event with the 30 Board later. 31 Commissioner Portie-Ascott started by sharing that she had the opportunity to read "Mae 32 Among the Stars" to students at Carrboro Elementary as part of the African American Read-In. 33 She highlighted how powerful it is for children to see themselves reflected in the stories of 34 possibility. She attended the NCACC meeting in Forsyth County, where leaders discussed 35 economic pressures on counties, particularly around affordability, revenue stability, and long-term 36 growth. She said that counties support property tax reform but need flexibility, transparency, and 37 replacement funding. She also participated in the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee 38 meeting with Central Pines. She said they heard regional planning updates, including the rollout 39 of a new commuter dashboard that helps members better understand travel patterns and pressure 40 points across the region. She said they also discussed projected timelines and the importance of 41 reducing uncertainty to avoid major cost increases later in projects. She shared that Orange 42 County projects are on track right now. 43 Chair Hamilton highlighted her opening remarks at the Ag Summit, emphasizing how 44 farming demands adaptability, creativity, and strong partnerships. She thanked the Carol Woods 45 Charitable Fund for its $175,000 gift supporting the Master Aging Plan and Department of Aging. 46 She said partnerships are essential, given the limited county resources. 47 48 49 3 1 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 2 a. OWASA Annual Update Presentation 3 The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Black History Month in Orange 4 County. 5 6 BACKGROUND: At the beginning of each calendar year, OWASA representatives appear before 7 the Board of Commissioners to make a presentation on recent OWASA activities. OWASA Board 8 Chair Michael Hughes, Secretary Johnny Randall, and Executive Director Todd Taylor will present 9 the annual update. 10 11 OWASA Board Chair and Orange County representative, Michael Hughes, began the 12 following presentation: 13 14 Slide #1 or Orange Water and Sewer Authority Orange County Commissioners OWASA February1 JohnnyMichael M. Hughes, PE •. Our community's trusted partner for clean water and environmental protection. 15 16 17 Slide #2 Presentation • . • Water Treatment Construction Update • Annual Rate Study • UNC Study of PFAS in Local Drinking Water • Southern Area Sewer Planning Study • Considerations for Reimbursement for Water and Sewer System Development/Extension • OWASA Response to Tropical Storm Chantal • Biodiversity,Conservation Easements,and Streambank 0 Stabilization p 0 0 18 19 4 1 Slide #3 WaterTreatment Construction Update • Two Major Construction Projects • Clearwell — Moving Forward • PFAS Water Treatment— Deferred • Evaluation of Other Over-Arching PFAS Issues • Residuals from Water and Wastewater Treatment • Guiding Principals that Consider Public Health, Environmental Protection,and the Cost of Water 0 • Community Engagement p 0 0 2 3 Michael Hughes provided a construction update on two major projects: the Clearwell and 4 PFAS treatment facilities. OWASA decided to decouple these projects, proceeding with the 5 Clearwell construction while deferring PFAS treatment. This decision was based on staff 6 successfully managing treatment processes to meet proposed regulatory limits, deferred 7 regulations, site constraints, and the need to address broader PFAS issues, including residuals 8 management and landfill leachate concerns. 9 10 Slide #4 Clearwelt Project Timetine p,< �, �u, I Pause for Board Direction 5 months ��: 1c• /ar° ipl L n I I z n.M auf,K I I = New Basis of Design 6 months �� o"�" � Crocel Path Task I 3 General Design 14 months :��•i"3r"la.a°" • 30%Design 5months I 30%Di1pn I s 60%Design 5 months I Sox Did+ ° 90%Design 4months 7, 0rr1pi PWS Permitting 6 months 3 Special Use Permit 13 months Site Permitting 5 months -' Final Design 1month I rwD.fpn ` Bidding 4 months I wnw� zs Construction 33 months 2= Z27 2028 2029 2030 2031 11 12 Michael Hughes said if started now, the Clearwell project would run through 2031. 13 5 1 Slide #5 OWASARate Study 5% 0% 5% 16% 9% 15% 7% 7% 8% 7% 5% Actual Projected Rate Study is underway that will help ensure: • Costs are equitably allocated across customer types • Revenues,by customer types,are recovered appropriately >Any rate structure adjustments are anticipated to go into effect in October 2027. Analysis Board Review�"' • Analysis 7 Outreach Oct Oct 2 3 Michael Hughes outlined OWASA's rate history, noting significant increases from 5% in 4 fiscal year 2022 to 16% in 2023, then 9% in 2024, 15% in 2025, and 7% in 2026. The five-year 5 Capital Improvement Program requires $250 million, with the two major projects accounting for 6 nearly $200 million. OWASA generates approximately $55 million annually in gross revenue with 7 about $10 million in net revenue. 8 9 Slide #6 StudyUNC of • • OWASA organized a working group to discuss the issue with public and environmental health experts from the three counties Orange, Alamance,and Chatham • UNC Institute for the Environment,staff and leadership from the N.C.Department of Environmental Quality,and the N.C. Collaboratory • Due to legacy application of biosolids in the area by other utilities, and other unknown potential sources of PFAS,it is important to study the PFAS distribution in the area more broadly to get a holistic 0 view of how HAS is reaching drinking water wells. 0 0 10 11 Regarding PFAS in drinking water wells near Orange Grove Road and Highway 54, 12 Michael Hughes said OWASA organized a working group with public and environmental health 13 experts. Due to legacy biosolids applications by other utilities, a collaborative study involving 14 multiple organizations will examine PFAS distribution in drinking water wells across Chatham and 6 1 Orange counties. Michael Hughes said OWASA Deputy Director Monica Dodson informed him 2 before the meeting that the group secured $1.5 million in research funding. 3 4 Slide #7 Collaborative Initiative to Understand: Biosolids Land Application a • PFAS in Drinking WaterWells � 4B ORANGE COUNTY DEQ NORTH CAROLINA NORTH cnRouNn Department Of Environmental Duali� �tFtA � yytwork V4 /_\ �Q�PNGE �oG�� t FryLab q CHoAT HAM COUNTY coIG orafory yO�y Gp�Q`�Q �1 x OWASA Inter-Agency Working Group 5 6 7 Slide #8 Bounds of Preliminary Engineering Study Area Shown in Orange Collaborative Effort on Infrastructure f � I 1 for • Development Chapel Hill 3! f I and i 1 OWASA w r j / 1 r Southern Area Sewer JJ{lJ Study 77 ] Area'.360.23 a<rn _ HumM of p.rrtNs]39 8 9 Michael Hughes discussed infrastructure planning for southern Chapel Hill areas, noting 10 Chapel Hill's $50,000 grant supporting collaborative sewer facility studies to optimize 11 infrastructure alignment and support growth. OWASA is working with the development community 12 to improve communication and trust, reviewing standards and specifications, and developing 1 reimbursement policies for developers who install infrastructure serving larger areas than their 2 immediate projects require. 3 4 Slide #9 EWM Goals for Listening Sessions Collaboration • Gain a deeper understanding of the local development on community's experiences working with OWASA Development • Open lines of communication and build trust to support a more collaborative relationship to better support the Towns' goals for housing • Identify what is working well in the plan review process and where improvements would be most valuable Listening Sessions with • Learn which OWASA Standards and Specifications may be Development creating challenges or unintended negative impacts on Community development projects 5 6 7 Slide#10 Collaboration Objectives for Reimbursement Policy on Development Support the planned growth of the Towns and County • Support the development of additional housing • More equitably distribute the costs of extensions to those parties benefiting from Considerationthose extensions Reimbursement for System . . • Lower a barrier to development D - 8 9 10 11 12 8 1 Johnny Randall continued the presentation: 2 3 Slide #11 OWASA Response to Tropical Storm Chantal • University Lake • Staffed throughout the storm • Reached record levels • Activated Level (of 3)Dam Emergency Action Plan • Cane Creek Reservoir • Staffed throughout the storm • Lost Utility Power • Operated all 7 water release gates at 3.5 of 4 feet • Water Treatment Plant • Double staffed I • Maintenance called in 0 • Lost the ability to operate Cane Creek Reservoir • Met water quality standards,no loss of service to 0 customers. 0 4 5 Johnny Randall praised OWASA staffs exceptional response during Tropical Storm 6 Chantal, particularly their commitment to camping at facilities during the emergency. 7 8 Slide #12 . �` � �� "tea " xl ili ' 1� '° F j id ' i µ What does-12 feet look like on the Reclaimed Water !_ a Structure? •—4 feet higher than Hurricane Florence 9 9 1 Johnny Randall highlighted the unprecedented flooding at University Lake and Cane 2 Creek Reservoir, noting that Chantal's watermark exceeded Hurricane Florence levels 3 significantly. Staff effectively managed a major sewer line break on botanical garden property next 4 to Morgan Creek by pumping sewage to nearby manholes for proper treatment. 5 6 Slide #13 OWASA Responseto Tropical Storm a a '6 ` Cametot Dr.Water Main Break 1:15 AM) 7 8 9 Slide #14 Biodiversity, Conservationand Streambank Stabilization 7 S Current standard practice Proposed new practice Partners include: • NC Cooperative Extension .,a A • NC Wildlife Resources Commission 10 Triangle Connectivity Collaborative 11 Johnny Randall discussed OWASA's participation in the Triangle Connectivity 12 Collaborative, using wildlife corridor mapping data to better manage areas for biodiversity 13 conservation. OWASA overlaid wildlife corridor maps with sewer line locations and partnered with 14 the Wildlife Resources Commission and NC Cooperative Extension on experimental streamside 15 stabilization projects, moving from traditional rip rap to plant-based bank stabilization in wildlife 16 corridors. 10 1 Chair Hamilton thanked Michael Hughes, Johnny Randall, and OWASA staff for this 2 presentation. 3 Commissioner Greene asked for additional information about the southern Chapel Hill 4 project challenges. 5 Michael Hughes explained that one significant challenge is the need for sewer line 6 extensions to support development in the newly annexed area of southern Chapel Hill. He said 7 the existing infrastructure currently serves the South Creek development only. He noted that 8 developers must extend sewer lines to their properties, which can be costly in terms of both 9 construction and design/permitting expenses. To address these challenges, he emphasized the 10 collaborative work being done between OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill. He discussed that 11 Chapel Hill's$50,000 grant supports a joint study with OWASA to determine the optimal alignment 12 of sewer facilities, which could allow new developments to tie into existing systems more 13 efficiently. He also mentioned the possibility of developing a reimbursement policy for developers 14 who install infrastructure that benefits larger areas and not just their individual projects. This policy 15 could distribute the costs more equitably among those benefiting from the extensions, ultimately 16 lowering a barrier to development. 17 Commissioner Greene said this goes to show how difficult it will be to get housing there. 18 Michael Hughes asserted that OWASA remains committed to finding ways to facilitate 19 strategic growth and support the development of additional housing. This includes working with 20 the broader development community to boost communication and trust, and reassessing existing 21 standards and specifications to better engage with developers and engineers. 22 Commissioner Carter thanked them for this presentation and update. She also thanked 23 OWASA staff for their work during Chantal. She asked Michael Hughes to talk more about what 24 led to decision to separate out PFAS effort. 25 Michael Hughes explained that the site where both the Clearwell and PFAS projects were 26 planned had numerous constraints, including limited parking spaces needed for construction 27 work. These constraints, coupled with deferred regulatory requirements, led to the decision to 28 prioritize the Clearwell construction. He explained that OWASA's staff has been effectively 29 managing water treatment processes to ensure that the water provided met proposed regulatory 30 levels, reducing the urgency of the PFAS project. 31 Vice-Chair Fowler inquired about the 16% rate increase in FY 23 and the timeline and 32 funding strategy for the required capital expenditures. 33 OWASA Deputy Director, Stephen Winters, said OWASA typically finances such projects 34 using bonds with a maturity of 20-25 years. 35 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if bonds are only being taken out for the Clearwell right now. 36 Stephen Winter explained that OWASA has been strategically increasing rates to build 37 necessary fund balances ahead of significant expenditures, and nothing has been borrowed yet. 38 Commissioner McKee asked about the PFAS level in the water supply. 39 Michael Hughes clarified that the raw water from Cane Creek Reservoir has a PFAS 40 concentration of 110 parts per trillion. However, thanks to the diligent work of OWASA's staff and 41 the current treatment processes, the PFAS levels in the treated water supplied to residents are 42 reduced to approximately seven parts per trillion, adhering to the proposed regulatory limits. 43 Commissioner McKee thanked them for keeping PFAS at the forefront, even though it was 44 deferred. He said he will be bringing forward a petition about using OWASA property for waste 45 collection in the southern part of the county. 46 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if reimbursing households that want to tap into the lines 47 being built is the only idea at this time. 48 Michael Hughes said that is just a concept at this point. He assured her there would be 49 additional conversations and public engagement on this issue. 50 Commissioner Bedford asked which entity is allowed to build water and sewer in the areas 51 in question. 11 1 Michael Hughes said the OWASA Charter says capital projects cannot be extended 2 outside of service area, and her question would be better answered by Planning. 3 Vice-Chair Fowler added that it was her understanding that OWASA provides service, it 4 must be scaled to the property in question and cannot be more than is necessary. She said the 5 thought of building larger infrastructure for others to tap into is confusing to her. 6 Michael Hughes said any service extension would be appropriately sized for anyone 7 upstream. 8 Going back to the rate increase, Chair Hamilton pointed out that the implemented increase 9 was to prepare for both the Clearwell and PFAS projects. She asked if there will be an amended 10 fee now that one is deferred. 11 Stephen Winters said OWASA is in the process of determining how much pressure will be 12 relieved by deferment and how that will impact rates. 13 Chair Hamilton asked about the outcome of OWASA's discussion with residents who were 14 concerned about the flooding of Morgan Creek. 15 Johnny Randall said the meeting was at University Lake Dam with different stakeholders 16 represented. At the meeting, OWASA explained that proper procedures were followed, but there 17 was a question about who is responsible for notifying surrounding properties of flooding. He said 18 Carrboro Emergency partners hold that responsibility, and USGS gauging stations above and 19 below the dam will inform them of emergencies. He added that in the case of Tropical Storm 20 Chantal, it happened incredibly fast. 21 22 5. Public Hearings 23 None. 24 25 6. Regular Agenda 26 a. FY26 Q2 Annual Work Program Amendments for Transit 27 The Board considered FY26 Quarter 2 (Q2)Amendments to the Annual Work Program (AWP) 28 for transit. 29 30 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Staff Working Group (SWG) held a special meeting on 31 Friday, October 31, 2025, to consider proposed amendments to the Annual Work Program. 32 Agencies submitted amendments to the Staff Working Group which were subsequently distributed 33 for public comment. No public comments were received. 34 35 The Staff Working Group recommended that the BOCC approve the attached AWP FY26 Q2 36 amendments as a slate. 37 38 1. GoTriangle: Service Planning Staff 39 GoTriangle has requested $37,908 to replace existing approved funding from GoTriangle and 40 Wake Transit with Orange County Transit funding. 41 42 The approved cost-sharing table for GoTrian le staff is as shown below: GOTRIANGLE ORANGE WAKE DURHAM Transit Services Planning 65% 0% 35% 0% Manager Senior Transit Service Scheduler 65% 0% 35% 0% Transit Service Planner II 65% 0% 35% 0% Transit Service Planner 65% 0% 35% 0% Total 2.6 FTEs 1.4 FTEs 43 12 1 The proposed Annual Work Plan amendment would Chan e the cost-share to the following: GOTRIANGLE ORANGE WAKE DURHAM Transit Services Planning 50% 8.25% 25.25% 16.5% Manager Senior Transit Service Scheduler 50% 8.25% 25.25% 16.5% Transit Service Planner II 50% 8.25% 25.25% 16.5% Transit Service Planner 50% 8.25% 25.25% 16.5% Total 2 FTEs .33 FTEs 1 FTEs .66 FTEs 2 3 Article II, section 2.036, of the Transit Governance Interlocal Agreement states supplantation, "the 4 opportunity for parties to this agreement to use certain funding sources to replace existing funds 5 or other resources for public transportation systems," is not allowed for sales and use Taxes for 6 Public Transportation or Regional Transit Authority Registration Tax. 7 8 Additionally, the supporting documentation from GoTriangle references a staffing analysis 9 conducted by Wake County in 2018 that Orange County did not endorse or participate in. Wake 10 County is currently in the process of revisiting and updating this, and the outcomes will remain 11 unknown for several months. Regardless of any updates, Orange County may not be able to 12 match Wake's rate of funding due to the significant differences in available funding resources 13 between the two counties. 14 15 Durham County was asked to share funding for this position — as shown on the tables — and the 16 request was not approved by the Staff Working Group. 17 18 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment impact for FY26 is $37,908 on the approved FY26 19 Orange County Annual Work Program. 20 21 2. GoTriangle: Route 800 22 GoTriangle has requested additional funding for Route 800 from both Orange and Durham 23 counties, citing unforeseen congestion creating service delays as justification for increased 24 operating costs. 25 26 Route 800's on-time performance rate for October was 74.4%, slightly below GoTriangle's overall 27 on-time performance rate of 82.9% for the same period. 28 29 This request would continue a pattern of increasing funding for Route 800 for a cumulative 99% 30 increase from the base year 2024. 31 ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE REQUEST CHANGE ANNUAL CHANGE AMOUNT COST PERCENT FY24: Base Year $430,262 FY24: FY25 Estimate $122,735 $552,997 28% FY25 $88,651 $641,648 16% FY26 $383 $642,031 <.01% FY26: Q2 Amendment $123,370 $765,401 19% FY27: FY26 Q2 Amendment $216,878 $858,909 12% TOTAL $428,647 99% 32 13 1 The Durham County Staff Working Group did not approve this request in Q2, or in Q3 when it was 2 reconsidered. This request was not presented to Durham County Board of Commissioners for its 3 consideration. 4 5 GoTriangle Route 800 provides all-day/every-day regional connections along NC-54 and 1-40 6 between the University of Chapel Hill (UNC) Hospitals and the Regional Transit Center and serves 7 people traveling between Chapel Hill, Southpoint, Research Training Park (RTP), and Raleigh at 8 off-peak times. 9 10 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment impact for FY26 is $123,370 on the approved FY26 11 Orange County Annual Work Program. 12 13 3. Chapel Hill Transit: Amendment to Existing Project Name & Scope 14 Chapel Hill Transit(CHT) is requesting two(2)amendments to support the North-South Bus Rapid 15 Transit (NSBRT) project, and the twenty percent (20%) nonfederal match, anticipated when the 16 request was made. 17 18 CHT received a 60% design cost estimate for the NSBRT this past summer. This updated estimate is 19 more than $10 million higher than prior estimates and includes $20 million for property acquisition, 20 according to CHT staff. The latest update provided by Chapel Hill Transit Staff to Orange County places 21 the total cost of the project at$188 million. 22 23 The proposed amendments add $5.8 million to the $32.3 million in existing financial commitments from 24 the Prior Transit Work Plans, CHT Partners, and the Town of Chapel Hill. 25 EXISTING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS AMOUNT Prior Transit Tax Annual Work Plans $29,125,000 CHT Partners $2,000,000 Town of Chapel Hill $1,144,322 TOTAL $32,269,322 PROPOSED AWP FY26 Q2 AMMENDMENTS Route NS Vehicles $2,065,267 Converting from Operating to Capital $3,765,411 TOTAL $5,830,678 GRAND TOTAL $38,100,000 26 27 CHT is requesting to amend the FY26 Annual Transit Work Program for vehicle acquisition to 28 more explicitly describe the use and purpose of already-allocated funding and to incorporate 29 NSBRT progress. 30 31 The Annual Work Plan currently provides $2,065,267 for Chapel Hill Transit to purchase two (2) 32 vehicles for the existing North-South Route. The proposed amendment would clarify that those 33 vehicles would be dedicated to the NSBRT project when construction is completed. The 60-foot 34 diesel vehicles will be uniquely branded and custom fabricated to serve NSBRT's elevated 35 station platforms, communicate with systems unique to BRT, and provide enhanced BRT 36 amenities. The vehicles will not be interchangeable with the rest of the CHT fleet due to Federl 14 1 Transit Administration (FTA) requirements that vehicles purchased for this program are not used 2 for any other purpose other. 3 4 CHT proposes purchasing NSBRT vehicles in the current year, so that the vehicles are delivered 5 approximately twelve (12) months prior to the launch of NSBRT revenue service. The year of 6 lead time is required for vehicle/systems acceptance and testing and operator training. 7 8 On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, CHT contacted the County's Transportation Services 9 Department and stated: 10 "We've made a few changes to NSBRT's funding sources, and we would like to remove our 11 requests from the Staff Working Group's recommended Q2 amendments." 12 13 In accordance with the interlocal agreement, the process for supporting CHT's request is for the 14 Board of Commissioners to reject the AWP Q2 Amendment. 15 16 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment has a net zero impact on the approved FY26 Orange 17 County Annual Work Program. 18 19 4. Chapel Hill Transit: Converting Operating to NSBRT Capital 20 CHT is requesting to reallocate$3.7 million in FY26 to FY29 operating funds currently designated 21 for staffing to improve service on four (4) existing routes to capital funds to be used as part of a 22 local match for the North-South Bus Rapid Transit project. The funds are currently programmed to 23 increase service span and frequency on the following CHT routes: 24 25 Route CW: Improve weekday midday service, 26 • Route HS: Add weekend service, 27 • Route NS: Reduce peak headways to six minutes, and 28 • Route D: Extend route's eastern terminus to Patterson Place. 29 30 Chapel Hill Transit has stated, "unfortunately, we simply do not have enough operators to 31 implement these projects at this time," and if the amendment is approved, there will be no 32 operating impact because the services are not currently in operation. The operator positions will 33 be re-considered as part of CHT's Short Range Transit Plan. 34 35 CHT is not requesting changes to the timing of the allocations designated to occur over three 36 fiscal years. 37 EXISTIN ID GPROJE FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 TOTAL CT 23CHTTS01 Route CW: ($102,750) ($210,443) ($215,700) ($221,100) ($749,993) Improve Midday Service 24CHTTS01 Route HS: ($86,150) ($176,600) ($181,000) ($185,500) ($629,250) Weekend Service 26CHTTS13 Route NS: ($322,679) ($330,740) ($339,020) ($992,439) Eubanks- Southern Village 15 26CHTTS14 Route D: ($453,153) ($464,474) ($476,102) ($1,393,729) UNC- Patterson Place 20CHTCD03 — North- $188,900 $1,162,875 $1,191,914 $1,221,722 $3,765,411 South 1 2 Chapel Hill Transit has requested this item also be removed from the Staff Working Group's 3 recommended Q2 amendments. 4 5 Sarah Williamson, Interim Transportation Director, made the following presentation: 6 7 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY STAFF WORKING GROUP FEBRUARY 2026 8 9 Sarah Williamson explained that the Board would be considering amendments to the 10 transit tax district annual work plan for quarter two. She provided an overview of the Orange 11 County Staff Working Group (SWG), which works on current transit needs, addressing rising 12 costs, new service areas, and improving access to bus stops, park and rides, and other emerging 13 needs as the county grows. The group reviews the annual work plan and budget, consider mid- 14 range project programming and financial model updates, and develop project-level agreements. 15 16 1 Slide #2 AIL- All March 2023 INTERLOCAL Orange County, Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization,and Go Triangle AGREEMENT Includes Bylaws and Financial Policies and Procedures Provides structure for Transit Tax use and reimbursements 2 3 Sarah Williamson explained that the SWIG is governed by an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) 4 executed in March 2023 Orange County, Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization, 5 and GoTriangle. The ILA lays out organizations that participate, processes for updating 6 participation, and specifics of how some funds are distributed. It also includes by-laws and 7 financial policies and procedures 8 9 Slide #3 WORK PLAN - & QUARTERLY AnnualWark UPDATE _- PROCESSF SIW�i In, =_ =_- 10 17 1 Sarah Williamson explained that the SWG meets at least monthly, and produces the 2 Annual Work Plan and Quarterly Updates that are delivered to County Commissioners and the 3 GoTriangle Board. This chart shows the workflow and the documents that are in packets at each 4 stage of the quarterly updates. She said the quarterly updates are important to updating the 5 workplan, and the Board should be seeing quarterly updates in October, January, April, and July. 6 7 Slide #4 Triangle West Orange County(2) Transportation GoTriargle(2) Planninrganization SWG MEMBERS R SWG Administrator (#)=wring members 8 9 Chair Hamilton asked if majority votes determine if an item moves forward. 10 Sarah Williamson said yes. 11 12 Slide #5 Pursuant to the interlocal agreement the SWG: SWG I) Consists of voting members from Orange County,GoTriangle, RESPONSIBILITIES & Triangle West(MPO),Chapel Hill,Carrboro,Hillsborough,and ACTIONS Mebane; 2) Is jointly charged by all parties with coordinating planning and implementation aspects of the Orange County Transit Annual Work Program,as well as facilitating elements of the Orange County Transit Multi-Year Vision Plan and serving in an advisory role to the Orange County BOCC,DCHC MPO Executive Board,and GoTriangle Board of Trustees; 3) Serves as an administrative and advisory arm to the parties of the agreement; 4) Recommends Work Program amendments to the BOCC, which,if denied by the BOCC,it will adjust,modify,etc.,and resubmit for further BOCC consideration. 13 14 18 1 Slide #6 QUARTER 2 AMENDMENTS FISCALYEAR 2026 2 3 4 5 Slide #7 GOTRIANGLE REQUEST #I:SERVICE PLANNING STAFF Current FTEs Proposed FTEs GoTriangle 2.6 GoTriangle 2 Orange 0 Orange .33 Wake 1.4 Wake I Durham 0 Durham .66 Total 4 Total 4 ■ Manager's Recommendation:This amendment requests to supplant GoTriangle supported staff with funding from Durham and Orange Counties.Supplantation is prohibited by section 2.036 of the Interlocal Agreement.Durham County has also rejected this request. 6 7 Sarah Williamson said, after consulting with GoTriangle late yesterday, they have 8 demonstrated this is not supplantation under state law. She added that a timely staffing study is 9 proposed in the FY27 Annual Work Plan, and she would like the results of that study to be 10 considered, not the 2018 Wake study, to determine if/how to share responsibility for service 11 planning staff. She said the new staffing study has been approved in Durham and will be 12 considered by the Orange County SWG tomorrow. She explained that this funding request (in its 13 current form)was not approved by the Durham SWG for FY26 Q2. 19 1 Slide #8 GOTRIANGLE REQUEST #2: ROUTE 800 ■ Durham considered and did not approve, twice ■ Manager's Recommendation: This is a jointly funded expansion project between Orange and Durham Counties. Durham has rejected this amendment, and the County Manager cannot justify a one-sided increase without the partnership with Durham. 2 3 Sarah Williamson said that GoTriangle has shared additional information about this 4 funding request since the Board's agenda packet was published. The new information states that 5 in FY25 the cost share for route 800 was 74% GoTriangle, 13% Durham Transit Plan and 13% 6 Orange Transit Plan, and the cost increase being considered is for expanding service. She said 7 that Staff recommend the Board reject this amendment to the annual work plan and ask the SWG 8 to consider maintaining the current level of service in the FY27 Annual Work Plan, not increasing 9 the service as proposed in the FY26 Q2 amendment, and additionally, that the SWG evaluate 10 route modifications and ridership levels as part of the Annual Work Plan process. 11 12 Slide #9 CHAPEL HILLTRANSIT REQUESTS . Amendment to Existing Project 2. Converting Operating to Capital ■ Chapel Hill requests to withdrawal the amendments ■ Manager's Recommendation:Although Chapel Hill Transit has requested to withdraw this amendment given more current information about the NSBRT,the Board must reject the amendments as a procedural matter for the Staff Working Group to clean up the amendment package originally sent to the BOCC for approval. 13 20 1 Slide #10 RECOMMENDATION The Manager recommends that the Board reject the AWP FY26 Q2 amendments, as a slate, and requests the SWG hold the associated funds in undesignated fund balance for future application. Significant Concerns: ■ Service Planning Staff. Potential Supplantation ■ Route 800: Cost Sharing • CHT: Request to Withdrawal, Procedural 2 3 Sarah Williamson said the County Manager's recommendation is for the Board to reject 4 the FY26 Q2 amendments. She said they were sent to the Board as a slate and should be rejected 5 as a slate. She added that the second part of this recommendation is that the associated funds 6 be held in undesignated fund balance for future application. The reason for that recommendation 7 is that in January, the tax district's financial model showed a $4.2 million shortfall for planned 8 projects for FY27 without any expansions.An updated model was shared with staff last night that 9 seems to be on better ground, but the tax district hasn't been clear about what changed. She said 10 that until staff can understand the variables and the model, it makes the most sense for these 11 funds to be held in undesignated fund balance. 12 Commissioner Greene noted that the issue with supplantation was resolved, but is still 13 noted on this slide. 14 Travis Myren said "supplantation" could be replaced with "allocation based on a more 15 current staffing study". 16 17 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to reject 18 the AWP FY26 Q2 amendments, as a slate, and request that the SWG hold the associated funds 19 in undesignated fund balance for future application. 20 21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22 23 7. Reports 24 a. Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Program Report for 2025 25 The Board received a report on the results of the Calendar Year 2025 Longtime Homeowner 26 Assistance (LHA) program, which assists low-income Orange County homeowners with a 27 discount or rebate on their property tax bills. 28 29 BACKGROUND: County staff worked with community partners on a five-month campaign to 30 increase awareness about program eligibility and the apply process with the goal of increasing 31 the number of program applicants from 2024. LHA campaign efforts in 2025 included: 21 1 • The Tax Office included an LHA program information flyer alongside the 2025 tax bills that 2 were mailed in August 2025. 3 • County staff worked with community partners including the Jackson Center, Homeowners 4 United, and Justice United to promote the LHA program. 5 • Staff organized visits to local churches, and the Rogers Road and Cedar Grove 6 Community Centers to complete LHA applications and distribute LHA flyers. 7 • Staff partnered with church congregations in Orange County, including in northern 8 Orange, to share information. 9 • Staff emailed prior applicants to remind residents that they must apply every year to 10 receive an award. 11 • Staff coordinated with the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board to host a 12 community meeting with more than 50 residents, including opportunities to complete or 13 submit an application in person. 14 15 Similar to 2024, advertisements were not placed in area newspapers. This saved the County more 16 than $10,000 in administrative costs and did not appear to impact the accessibility of the program. 17 The number of applications increased from 2024 to 2025 by 58%, from 604 to 955 applicants. 18 19 Staff calculated award amounts using the following guidelines: 20 • All applicants were arranged in priority order 21 o FIRST: Tax Burden, largest to smallest 22 o SECOND: Length in Home, longest to shortest 23 o THIRD: Age, oldest to youngest 24 • Staff determined a multiplying factor for the remaining $377,805 in available funding and 25 used this to reduce all other awards by the same percentage. 26 • All eligible homeowners received a minimum award amount of $200 or up to the full 27 amount of the County portion of their tax bill if it was less than $200. 28 • Award amounts were the County portion of the tax bill less 2% of the applicant's household 29 income. 30 31 Between August 1 and November 3, 2025, the County received 955 applications and awarded 32 $509,804 (including $86,999 in Chapel Hill supplemental funding and $45,000 in Carrboro 33 supplemental funding). The minimum award amount was $200. The average award amount for 34 recipients was $491.97, and the median award amount was $432.70. This award amount will 35 increase slightly in the coming weeks, as staff must still apply the $18,720 that the Board added 36 to program funds as part of discussion in December 2025 and a budget amendment in January 37 2026. A second round of supplemental checks will be sent out to applicable homeowners. 38 39 LHA Applications Submitted 40 41 2024 2025 42 Number Percentage Number Percentage 43 44 Eligible 45 Applications 502 83% 805 84% 46 Ineligible 47 Applications 102 17% 149 16% 48 TOTAL 604 954 22 1 2 3 LHA Award Amounts 4 5 2024 2025 6 Number Percentage Number Percentage 7 8 $200 129 26% 190 24% 9 $201-$300 54 11% 84 10% 10 11 $301-$500 102 20% 185 23% 12 $501-$999 112 22% 243 30% 13 14 $1,000+ 105 21% 103 13% 15 TOTAL 502 805 16 17 18 The County received the highest number of LHA applications during August. 84% of all received 19 applications were approved. The most common reasons for application denial were home value 20 exceeding limits and income exceeding limits. Housing staff invested approximately 115 staff 21 hours following up with residents to ensure that improperly completed applications did not result 22 in a denial. The demographics of LHA Awardees are as follows: 23 Racial Demographics of LHA Awardees 2024 2025 26 Number Percentage Number Percentage White 282 56% 455 57%29 Black 101 20% 178 22%30 Asian 39 8% 96 12%31 13 J L Other 25 5% 15 2%33 Undisclosed 55 11% 61 7%34 TOTAL 502 805 35 36 37 23 Age Demographics of LHA Awardees 2024 2025 2 Number Percent Number Percept 555 86 17% 101 130/16 56-60 37 7% 40 5%6 61-65 63 13% 66 8%7 66-70 82 16% 103 130/,9 71-75 91 18% 94 120%Q 76-80 69 14% 95 12�1 1 L 81-85 36 7% 41 50/1 86+ 38 8% 40 5044 No data 0 0% 225 28V TOTAL 502 805 16 17 18 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 19 20 For households that received both Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill funding, staff applied 21 the calculation formula for Orange County first and determined that assistance amount. Staff then 22 applied the same formula a second time for assistance from Chapel Hill. The award amount was 23 then proportionally reduced based on the amount of funding that Chapel Hill provided compared 24 to Orange County. Staff also doublechecked all of these households to ensure that no recipients 25 received more assistance than their overall tax burden. 26 27 As an example, if a household had $25,000 of income per year, had an eligible home value and 28 met the threshold requirement for assistance, staff applied the previously approved prioritization 29 (e.g. time in county, age of household and income level) in accordance with past practice. The 30 household might be eligible for $1,000 of assistance for Orange County. Staff then applied the 31 same prioritization to the example household that is Town of Chapel Hill eligible to determine a 32 new award amount. Staff then reduced that award amount proportionally according to the total 33 funds provided by the Town. 34 35 Staff suggests the County reconsider eligibility requirements to target funds toward longer-term 36 Orange County residents. With the eligibility threshold at five (5) years of ownership, many 37 residents are able to receive assistance even after purchasing a home since housing prices have 38 inflated. By lengthening the eligibility requirement to at least ten (10) years, or even setting a 39 purchase-by date (e.g. 2015), the County could assure that limited funds are assisting the longest 40 residing homeowners and households of least means. 41 42 As noted in the following table, 137 of the 805 awardees purchased their homes since 2016, and 43 those households received assistance totaling $27,400. If the period for ownership was 44 lengthened, this assistance could go to longer-term homeowners who are more likely to need the 45 assistance, as they purchased their homes when homes were more accessible to low-income 46 households. The table below models the potential redistribution of those funds: 47 48 24 Amount of Assistance by Length of Time Owned Number of Average $27,000 spread across New 7 Households Amount longer tenures Average Years Owned (Percentage) Amount (approx.) 5-9 (since 2015) 137 (17%) $27,400 $200 -- -- 10-14 (since 2010) 101 (12.5%) $23,825 $236 $1,800 $254 15-19 (since 2005) 79 (9.8%) $25,529 $323 $1,926 $348 20-24 (since 2000) 81 (10%) $33,132 $409 $2,504 $440 25-29 (since 1995) 102 (12.7%) $51,591 $506 $3,897 $544 30+ (before 1995) 285 (35.4%) $231,649 $813 $17,496 $874 1 2 Blake Rosser, Housing Director, made the following presentation: 3 4 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING DEPARTMENT Results of CY25 Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Program February 17, 2025 5 6 7 8 9 25 1 Slide #2 Program impact increased from 2024 954 applications received, 805 Awarded $509,804 awarded ($86,999 from Chapel Hill) Minimum Award amount: $200 Average Award amount: $491.97 Median: $432.70 Most common reason for denial: Home value/income exceeding limits n ORANGECOUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT 2 3 4 Slide #3 Side-by-side comparison, 2024-25 - 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage 502 83% 805 84% 102 17% 149 16% MUM 604 954 - 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage 129 26% 190 24% 1 i i 54 11% 84 10% i r r 102 20% 185 23% 112 22% 243 30% r i i 105 21% 103 13% 502 805 n ORANGE COUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT 5 6 Blake Rosser said the program received 954 applications, a significant increase of 350 7 applications from the previous year, and awarded assistance to 805 applicants totaling $509,804. 8 Chapel Hill contributed $86,956, and Carrboro provided $45,000 for the first time. The minimum 26 1 award remained $200, with an average award of nearly $492 and a median of $433. The most 2 common reason for denial was ineligibility due to exceeding income limits or home value 3 thresholds. The award distribution showed many recipients received the minimum $200 amount, 4 while the largest group received between $50041,000. 5 6 Slide #4 Racial, Age demographics remain similar across years DemographicsAge 2024 2025 2024 2025 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percentage Number Percentage ® 282 56°/ 455 57% 86 17% 101 13% 101 20% 178 22 ® 37 7% 40 5% 39 8% 96 12% IllifflIIII63 13% 66 8% 25 5% 15 2% ® 82 15% 103 13% ® 91 18% 94 12% 55 11% 61 7% 69 14% 95 12% 502 805 36 7%a 41 5% 38 8% 40 5% 0 0% 225 28% 502 805 ORANGE COUNTY Q HOUSING DEPARTMENT 8 Blake Rosser said racial and age demographics remained relatively similar to previous 9 years. He noted that Housing staff would be meeting with the tax office in March to debrief the 10 process and develop programmatic suggestions and ideas for board consideration at a future 11 work session. 12 13 27 1 Slide #5 For any questions: •Blake Rosser •brosser@orangecountync.gov •919-245-2492 n ORANGtCOUNTY O HOUSING DEPARTMENT 2 3 4 Commissioner Carter asked about the information on the age of applicants. She said a 5 fair number did not have age data and asked why that was. 6 Blake Rosser said it could mean there was an issue with the survey, or that staff didn't 7 include the age when inputting paper applications. 8 Vice-Chair Fowler asked if some applicants were also receiving assistance through 9 programs in the Tax Office. 10 Blake Rosser said he doesn't have that data, but the Tax Office should. 11 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what the average increase was for tax bills. Blake 12 Rosser said he will include that information in a follow-up communication to the Board. 13 Chair Hamilton asked what qualifications must be met to receive assistance through this 14 program. 15 Blake Rosser said he will also follow up with that information, as he doesn't have it on 16 hand. 17 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS 19 Larry Reid advocated for reconsidering eligibility criteria for co-living situations, citing 20 examples of sisters and families living together whose combined incomes disqualify them despite 21 individual financial constraints. 22 Elizabeth Young, representing the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition, 23 described a friend whose property valuation increased from $350,000 to $1 million and presented 24 several policy recommendations, including increasing program funding to $1 million annually, 25 making property assessments more equitable, improving appeals access, and dedicating $1.5 26 million for deeply affordable homeownership. 27 28 Following public comments, Commissioner Carter appreciated staffs suggestion to 29 consider lengthening the home ownership timeframe beyond the current five years, potentially 30 providing larger benefits to longer-term residents. She asked for information to avoid unintended 31 consequences of favoring high-value properties. 32 Commissioner Greene said she has also been concerned with the length of 33 homeownership. She noted that the current program already weights awards based on length of 34 ownership. 28 1 Vice-Chair Fowler noted that the program website says there may be exceptions is a 2 member of the household is 70 or older or has a disability. She asked if these exceptions were 3 utilized this year. 4 Blake Rosser said yes. He said he will follow up with those statistics if it was listed on the 5 application. 6 Commissioner Bedford said the length of homeownership requirements was decreased to 7 5 years to account for cases when family members inherit properties. 8 Blake Rosser agreed that community members have used that example as a point of 9 concern when mentioning decreasing the length of homeownership. 10 Commissioner McKee said he supports this program and increasing the availability of it. 11 He questioned if 5 years of homeownership was long enough to be considered "long-term". He 12 advocated for a 10-20 year minimum to better target those most likely to face displacement. He 13 also raised an issue with residents with higher home values qualifying for the program but 14 recognized that the revaluation increased values drastically. He also agreed with adding 15 exceptions for inherited properties, but said he wanted the program to serve those who need it 16 most, like those making 30-50%AMI. Chair Hamilton said it sounds like time should be 17 carved out for the Board to have more discussion on this and for them to get a refresher on why 18 the eligibility requirements for the program were initially decided. She emphasized the need for 19 stability in program rules, noting the importance of consistency for recipients who rely on annual 20 assistance. She also highlighted the need to consider how changes might affect younger families 21 with children, which the county needs to attract and retain. 22 Commissioner Portie-Ascott noted that 2% is subtracted based on household income. She 23 asked if that is still appropriate when thinking about people on a fixed income. 24 Blake Rosser explained that the award would stay higher for people on a fixed income by 25 using a standard percentage. 26 Commissioner Carter expressed appreciation for the Board's decision to expand the 27 program to the point that it is now. She agreed with Chair Hamilton's suggestion for this to be a 28 work session topic for additional discussion. 29 Commissioner McKee said he has mentioned freezing taxes for homeowners who are 65 30 or older and have low incomes in the past. He said he's followed the discussion on property taxes 31 at the state-level but has no confidence North Carolina will follow others in doing that. He said he 32 wants to build something into this program that would freeze taxes for residents who are 65 years 33 old and meet the other necessary criteria. 34 Chair Hamilton reiterated the need for a work session discussion. 35 Blake Rosser said the Housing Department and Tax Office will meet in March to debrief 36 and come up with other suggestions and ideas for the Board to consider. 37 Commissioner Bedford asked staff to also look at how Durham and Mecklenburg have 38 adjusted their similar programs. 39 40 b. Animal Services' History and Presentation on Current Services and the Community 41 Animal Clinic 42 The Board received information on Animal Services' history and received a presentation on 43 current services and an overview of the new Community Animal Clinic. 44 45 BACKGROUND: Orange County Animal Services began in 1953 with a single dog warden and 46 a focus on rabies control. At that time, there was no adoption program, no volunteer program, and 47 no focus on animal welfare. Over time, as concerns with animal welfare gained traction and canine 48 variant rabies was eradicated, animal services priorities shifted to an increased focus on animal 49 care and placement. An adoption program was created, and finding homes for pets became a 50 central focus of sheltering. 51 29 1 Between 1979 and 2004,the Animal Protection Society of Orange County(changed to Paws4ever 2 in 2008) administered the County government contract to operate animal services and its open- 3 admission animal shelter, providing rescue, health exams, humane care, nutritional food, disease 4 and parasite control, and veterinary care for sick or injured animals arriving in its care. 5 6 On July 1, 2004, Orange County assumed responsibility for providing animal services, and on 7 June 1, 2009, Orange County Animal Services opened the current location on Eubanks Road in 8 Chapel Hill. 9 10 Over the last two decades, Animal Services has shifted its focus from simply placing animals to 11 also supporting pet owners in the community and empowering families to keep their pets. To help 12 with this, Animal Services offers several safety net resources, such as a pet food pantry, spay 13 and neuter vouchers, and veterinary assistance. In March 2025, Animal Services opened the 14 Orange County Community Animal Clinic, allowing staff to provide care to owned animals, further 15 increasing the ability to support community members and keep pets with their families. 16 17 Staff estimates that approximately 12,550 pet owners in Orange County may need low-cost 18 veterinary services, which are now provided through the Community Animal Clinic. The goal is for 19 this clinic to become self-sustaining through donations, grants, and payment by those clients who 20 can pay. From July to December 2025, staff provided care to 122 pets through the Clinic. The 21 Clinic has recently received a $79,552 grant from the American Society for the Prevention of 22 Cruelty to Animals. This grant will cover operational costs this year. Staff plans to propose an 23 additional veterinary health care technician position for approval. Through a separate item on this 24 same February 17, 2026 Business meeting agenda, staff is requesting approval of an updated 25 fee schedule for various Clinic fees. 26 27 Staff has attached information on Animal Services' history, and will provide a presentation at the 28 meeting on the current services and programs, including the Community Animal Clinic, and staff's 29 proposed future plans and goals. 30 31 Elizabeth Overcash,Animal Services Director, made the following presentation: 32 33 Slide #1 Orange County AnimaL Services ORANGE COUNTY NC Current Activities and Future Goals ANIMAL SERVICES 34 35 36 30 1 Slide #2 Creation of Orange County Animal Services R± • 1953-The Orange County Animal Control Program was established in 1 53 with the appointment of the first Dog Warden and the opening of the Dog Pound.The Dog Warden r provided services to the unincorporated parts of the county 1 and focused on rabies control. v • 1979-2004-The APS of Orange County(changed to Paws4ever in 2008)administered the county government contract to operate animal services and its open-admission animal shelter,providing rescue,health exams,humane ) care,nutritional food,disease and parasite control,and 11 veterinary care for sick or injured animals arriving in its care. • July 1,2004-Orange County assumed responsibility for I providing animal services,after concerns arose regarding the management of Animal Services under APS of Orange County. • June 1,2009-Orange County Animal Services opened the current location on Eubanks Road.Orange County Animal Services was a fully functioning department in its own right, with an animal control program,adoption program,and �s robust volunteer program. 2 3 4 Slide #3 Current Statistics • Intake: 3,197(2025); up 9%from 2024(2,925) • Live Release: 2,894(2025); up 10%from 2024(2,620) 0 91.6% live release (up from 91.2% in 2024) o Considered"no kill"since 2022 (only around 30%of shelters meet this threshold in NC) o North Carolina is the third highest state in number of dogs/cats euthanized • Volunteer Hours: 18,455 (2025); no data before 2025 o Robust volunteer program; over 350 active volunteers • Dogs Fostered: 2,151 (2025); no data before 2025 • Cats Fostered: 1,352(2025); no data before 2025 • Animal Control Activities: 4,259(2025); same as 2024(4,259) 5 6 Elizabeth Overcash highlighted the Department's shift to most animals being fostered 7 rather than being housed on-site. 8 9 10 31 1 Slide#4 D. • D, ProgramsOCAS Out! SERVICES ANIMAL *,��« � 9��sarnl�tcwstvr.��1� ��'� ©seRrolcEs .� "" ie PET AD0�710N �� LpYMA� N6YEMRERR2N0.Y035 IRM1-?RM at Orange County Animas Services 4T SOVTXp1N STATESRRRORO/•,�— ocroeERle,zozsaoaM$25.00 RP mN" I/\mot �rNw ?•,t fitll lF..in{ , ~ VACCINE CLINIC Saturday,11/22/25 } ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES-1601 Eu6ANKS RM CHAPEL MILL,NC +\r FW OAZM/r*,W VAMFIFS mi 11Q RAWEf VACCIHEf r PET HIICROCMIP SCANNNIG STATION �MICROCNiPS � This iniriet�„e impee„es the r,s ei ' � � •nsa6•:swm,m etwme�s NSR w.searas 4 mmunity eats and helps keep them eue eF �� 1� shelRers lhrouyh spay/ne ter msisianca and NN+OET Op •T•e,aIC.TY KpRW ©Orange County Animal 5ervkes ad�ranced community outreach. K»M°Nf+ e1ilVAN RtSIiR 1601 Eubanks Rd - a•"" -. SCAN ChaWHHI,NC IN � ...._._ E!�� BASEC NEEDSIN YDIIIDEIR! lliiJJ HEALTHCARE � #y"�y_,�y�gg,, ..... s B H"IDOR 111 •❑ ❑ ll ME- C7 3 4 Slide #5 5 Sheltering Staff Ir • Animal Services Director(1) L, I • Assistant Director(1) .:: • Medical Director/Veterinarian (1) • Program Manager(1) • Assistant Program Coordinator(1) • Business Officer(1) y • Communications Specialist(1) • Animal Care Supervisor(1) • Animal Care Technicians(6) • Veterinary Health Care Technicians(4) z • Customer Service Supervisor(1) • Office Assistants(4) 6 7 8 9 10 32 1 Slide #6 Animal Control • We currently have: o Animal Control Manager(1) o Training and Lead Officer(1) o Senior Animal Control Officer(1) o Animal Control Officer(5) • Our officers work 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. during the week and respond to emergencies afterhours and on weekends. o Most animal concerns can wait a business day. o If we were to respond to non-emergency calls on weekends,we would need additional staffing both in animal control and in the shelter, as more staff would be needed to intake incoming animals outside of normal operating hours. 2 3 Elizabeth Overcash said that animal control activities totaled 4,200 calls, the same as 4 2024. Services include enforcement of ordinances and state laws, rabies control, injured animal 5 care, livestock assistance, and law enforcement support. Officers operate 8-5 weekdays with 24/7 6 on-call coverage for emergencies, including bites, rabies exposures, and injured animals. 7 8 Slide #7 Animal Control • Afterhours, holiday, and weekend response is limited to: o Neglect/cruelty situations(that CANNOT wait until the next business day) o Aggressive animals o Injured strays o Rabies exposures o Bites to humans o Law enforcement requesting assistance o Livestock(or other animals) in roadway and/or creating hazard o Injured deer(if law enforcement is unable to dispatch) l i�1 `:' Jf brat#iig 9 10 33 1 Slide #8 Guiding Philosophies in Animal Welfare • In 2011,the Humane Society of the United States(now Humane World)launched Pets for Life,creating a nationwide shift in sheltering. • Prior to this,sheltering professionals generally believed that shelters were better equipped to handle pets than the community and would remove pets from owners they felt were not deserving of those pets. • Pets for Life is a social justice movement based on the following: o Systemic inequity and institutional barriers have created an extreme lack of access to pet resources, such as affordable veterinary and pet wellness services.These challenges are no different than the lack of access to healthy food,education,jobs,health care,and housing by underserved communities. o The deep connection humans feel with pets(the human-animal bond)transcends socio-economic,racial, and geographic boundaries;no human should be denied the joy,comfort,and benefits of this connection due to inequity and lack of access to care and resources. • Pets for Life pushed shelters to enable pet owners,rather than judge them,by providing access to resources such as pet food,veterinary care,spay/neuter resources,etc. 2 3 4 Slide #9 Movement to a Community-Centric Model • We have shifted again,and many shelters, including Orange County Animal Services,are .4 " following the Human Animal Support Services(HASS)model. HASS launched in 2020. • HASS is a community-centered model that works to keep pets with their families by providing support services for both humans and their pets. • Animal Services and Human/Social Services work together to serve people and pets. 5 6 7 8 9 10 34 1 Slide#10 • Orange County Animal Services is following the HASS model to provide care to our people AND our animals. • We have increased our communication and connectivity with the other Orange County departments. Knowing what resources each department offers—and how to obtain Human Animal those resources—is essential to providing access to care. Support • We provide our own resources for pet owners, including: Services o A pet food pantry. o As part of Chewy's donation gram,we received • • 27 pallets of food in December 2025. o Low-cost or no-cost spay and neuter. o Low-cost or no-cost veterinary services. • Of all these services,access to veterinary care is the , L now greatest barrier for pet owners. 00 2 3 4 Slide #11 National Statistics • The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(ASPCA)estimates that over 20 million pets live in poverty (2020). • A Humane Society of the United States(now Humane World)2024 study found that 43%of all pet owners indicated that they have been unable to pay for their pets'needs at some point because of financial reasons. • Pets for Life reported In 2020 that 77%of the approximately 23 million pets currently living in underserved communities in the United States have never been seen by a veterinarian and 87%are not spayed or neutered. • PetSmart Charities-Gallup State of Pet Care Study:Pet Parents'Assessment of American Veterinary Care(2025) o This study showed that 52%of pet parents reported having nottaken their pets to theveterinarian within the past year,even when they felttheir pet needed veterinary care,or declined care recommended by a veterinarian. o The percentage of these pet owners were particularly high among:18-to-29-year-olds(59%),black pet owners(58%), Hispanic pet owners(57%),and pet owners living in households earning less than$60,000 annually(55%). o Even people with higher incomes are affected;27%of pet parents earning more than$90,000 who have declined care say they did so because they could not afford it. o Approximately in 10 pet owners were interested in alternative veterinary care methods for their pets,such as community clinics(38%),home visits from a veterinarian(38%),or telemedicine(37%).Black pet owners(54%),18-to 29-year-olds(48%),and those living in households earning less than$60,000 annually(47%)reported the highest interest in community clinics. 5 6 7 8 9 35 1 Slide #12 1 Orange County Statistics • We can estimate that there are at least 12,550 low-income pet owners in Orange County. o As of Apr[[2025,21,416 people(14%of Orange County residents)were enrolled in Medicaid(meaning they make less than 1.4 times the federal poverty level). o As of Apri12025,9,163 Orange County residents were receivingfood stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP).Based on county food insecurity numbers,it is estimated that an additional4,000 residents may be eligible for SNAP benefits.SNAP eligibility is generally capped at 1.3 times the federal poverty level. o There may be overlap between these groups,but we can safely saythat at least 14%of Orange County residents or 21,416 people could be classified as having incomes so low that they cannot afford standard Living expenses,much less veterinary care. o Approximately 58.6%of North Carolinians own a pet(2018 AVMA study),so we can assume that of the at least 21,416 financially insecure individuals in Orange County,around 12,550 individuals own a pet.Therefore,we can estimate that there are at least 12,550 pet owners in Orange County who may have need of low-cost veterinary services. 2 3 4 Slide #13 Comparison of Pet Owners Who Declined Care Due to Affordability or Perception That Care Was Not Worth the Cost,Based on Household Income Which of the following prevented you from getting veterinary care for your Access to Care pet(s)in the last 12 months?Select all that apply, Which of the following best describes the reasol you declined care?Select all that apply. • Veterinary costs have increased by over 0%Carewasnotworth the cost %Could not afford the Cost 60 percent over the past decade. Less than$36,000 • This is due to higher costs for the $36.000 to$59,999 medications and supplies,greater corporate ownership,decreased pharmacy revenue due to online $60.000to$69.999 competition, higher workforce costs, increased specialty services,and $90,000 or more reduced intermediate options. Pets are also livingloner,and with older age there Among petowners who say they have not brought their pet to the veterinarian within the past year Or g❑ g have ever declined care recommended tryaveterinanan. are more medical expenses. Due to rounding.totals may sum to 10M t1% p PetSmart Charities-Gallup,Nov.13.20,2024,and Dec.2,2024-Jan.9,2025 GALLUP 5 6 7 8 9 10 36 1 Slide #14 Orange County Assistance • Orange County Animal Services is working to provide access to care.Previously,this has been accomplished through two main voucher programs: o (1)a veterinary care assistance program,funded by donations,and o (2)a spay/neuter assistance program,funded by state reimbursement and grant funding. • Veterinary Care Assistance Program 0 2023-assisted 34 animals-cost of$11,701.86-average cost:$344.17 per pet 0 2024-assisted 12 animals-cost of$5,346.32-average cost:$445.53 per pet 0 2025-assisted 47 animals-cost of$16,649.91-average cost:$354.25 per pet(and depleted funding) o This program was donation funded and has depleted funding. • Spay/Neuter Assistance Program o 2023-sterilized 701 animals-cost of$67,607-average cost:$96.44 per pet 0 2024-sterilized 492 animals-cost of$42,785.10-average cost:$86.96 per pet 0 2025-sterilized 613 animals-cost of$74,892.70-average cost:$122.17 per pet o This program is funded by state reimbursement and grant funding;however,neither source of funding fully covers the expense of this program. 2 3 4 Slide #15 colVjtij� Orange County j901;j� /�,. Community Animal Clinic r 4U v � • Licensed since March 2025 woo • Allows Animal Services to provide r care to owned animals o Allows access to care CLINIC o Walkins, calls, emails o Animal control cases from field 5 6 Elizabeth Overcash shared that the clinic saw just over 100 clients in its first year but 7 has already seen as many animals in January and February 2026 as in the entire second half of 8 2025. 9 10 37 1 Slide #16 Haddon The First Clinic Client • First client—Lee and his dog, Haddon o Unhoused o Mass on front left foot that made walking painful o Lee and Haddon walk everywhere o Performed surgery on the mass and updated vaccines • Helped owner connect with support services for food and shelter, including Inter-Faith Council 2 3 Elizabeth Overcash shared success stories including Hadden, whose unhoused owner 4 walked six miles for treatment of a painful foot growth, and Sasha, who received treatment for 5 severe skin conditions while her owner lived in their car. In both cases, owners were connected 6 with additional human services resources. 7 8 Slide #17 �N<v�OM4py/ ova (! C1INk Clinic Services Optional services to Add While Your Pet Is Here for Its Appointment We're a,pp to ptmtiee aedAorel reaan services Wang your petavlaa m tclpleep Veml'mtlhy aM pmtedeo. SURGERY Spay and Neuter I 17 Dog Spar(Feorakt:615a(6175 075 Ibs or more) ❑Ong Neuter(Mak):5120(6176 If 751bs or mare) o Low cost ❑Cat Spay(Female):$85 ❑Cat IN JMele):670 o No cost ❑TNVR Cats SpayAeuter:No Cost;658 donation request wellness/Prevention VACCINES TESTING ❑Raaksya«men-rearaa-reed-5aa a oeaNumwrmTtat-Rg o Vaccines(some grant provided) R'-dbyI.;p--a�iaat Nadi®,aratai niaceaa_ soreer,amr——aped n�me.q�ao>s. Cue yeerry ore'ery 3yeara. Cue at6 monde,then—,nily ❑Cog EiNar�prRura(OHPP)-sta ❑aN Felire Leukemis'FNTez[-S4a o Deworming i=mmcrs door rmm parvo aiater�r,orb dneraenoua cnaa�mrrweremag�eaakr�r,ewra�a. muses.one every2wesha anal 20 weelaeom,yaarty o Flea/tick et ❑Boraatale Ieenntl CotNN-a1fi R o Heartworm/FIV/FeLVtesting playgroups. ❑cat olmanp.riFVRco)-S,a Illness/In ur Prptaataeamrmmmapratnyviruaaearaparvewmpania 1 Y oue every 2 vreeka umil3)weeln oltl,yearly efkr. PREVENTATIVES OTHER SERVICES o Skin issues ❑FlexTlch Pr aran8on-f1a ❑ onwmhe�P,ypr—anaal M='Pd- —to.1pap.91roh o Respiratoryilnesses -s,0 oH;;�mP�tMm 66 peclaiylnwangp _ o Amputations one-lime wce arauaae wan crew era negative ro• �` _ o No radiographs/no bloodwork w � heermcrrn Pravarexn ere emh a wiemmdtaaAdY Etta.F-1145 Eaamleesapplyto anylaon-eur6kal appolmmem.inelutllni weUneae eaema.Smgery patients • we are requesting changes to our fee schedule to account mcawea boat avem pnortc surgery,waica Ia fncludetl In tba caster the prscatlura. Total cost:s for these expenses. 9 L 10 38 1 Slide #18 000 Goals • One goal is to allow access to care for our community's most vulnerable and underserved populations. Cost to Costfor Profit J&e OCAS the "o • Keep pets in their families,rather than in the shelter. ' In addition to the moral argument for this,there is also financial incentive for the county to keep pets housed Cat Spay $57.42 $95 $27.58 with their humans.We are going to pay for these pets either way. Cat Neuter $22.82 $70 $47,19 Dog Spay $94.94 $150 $55.06 • We can do this in part by charging community members who can pay so that we can charge lower Dog Neuter $73.49 $120 $46.51 fees(or no fees)to community members with financial insecurity. • A future goal is to be self sustaining. 2 3 4 Slide #19 r . 10 Current Financial Situation Currently,we are not self-sustaining. o The Clinic is still new(although word is spreading daily). ! o Many of our clients are financially insecure.They may lack secure housing,transportation,and funding. o Many clients come in through Animal Control and have no means of providing veterinary care. }f o We are working to assist these community members and treat their animals so that these families may remain together. • We are pultingfrom our medical and surgical budgets to cover any Clinic costs. o Medical Supplies(appropriation):$41,475 s • Percentage used as of December:85% y :j o Surgical Supplies(appropriation):$31,800 y Y; • Percentage used as of December:61% o Funds paid by Clinic clients as of December:$4,480 o Donations to the Clinic as of December:$23,726 r,. 6 7 8 39 1 Slide #20 Families Served • July to December 2025: r 0 35 cats 4. " ■ 16 veterinary care ■ 19 spay/neuter 0 87 dogs Sasha is an 8-year-old female German shepherd mix.Her ■ 44 veterinary care owner is unhoused.Sasha came to us with red,irritated, and itchy skin and unaltered.Through our Clinic,we were ■ 43 spay/neuter able to spay Sasha and treat her skin. Her owner came back to show us her improvement.Sasha would not have been able to stay with her owner if not for the Clinic.Her owner was incredibly grateful. 2 3 4 Slide #21 Expected Expenses to Meet Goals Our goals for this year are as follows: • Assist at least 100 community animals with veterinary care. c Last fiscal year,we assisted 47 animals with veterinary care at an average cost of$354.25 per pet.We did not meet our community's needs;instead,our program ceased when we depleted funding.Through the Clinic,we expect to care for 100 community animals at a cost not to exceed(and likely to be less than)$35,426. • Provide at least 200 free or reduced-cost spay/neuter surgeries. o We are still providing spay/neuter vouchers through the state reimbursement program;however,since we must supplement these vouchers from our own budget,shifting some of these surgeries to the Clinic will provide a cost savings. o The average cost per surgery through the voucher program in 2025 was$122.81 per pet.We estimate that the average cost per surgery performed at the Clinic is$62.17 per pet.If we add vaccines,deworming,and other additional minor services,the average cost is approximately$106.00 per pet,making the total estimated cost for 200 surgeries$21,200. • Purchase veterinary software to assist in scheduling appointments and managing payments,at an annual cost of$10,800, • Purchase additional medical equipment(ultrasound,tonopen,otoscope)to increase diagnostic capabilities and provide for greater continuity of care,at a total of$12,127. ANIMAL SERVICES HAS RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION of CRUELTY To ANIMALS FOR$79,652 TO FULLY COVER THESE INITIAL CLINIC COSTS, 5 6 7 8 9 10 40 1 Slide #22 Expected Staffing Needs to Meet Goals • We are requesting an additional Veterinary Health Care Technician(VHCT)position to assist the medical team with the increased workload. • We currently have four VHCTs,who provide care for nearly 3,000 animals annually,including: o Performing surgery for thirty or more animals daily,two to three times each week; o Administering vaccinations and examinations on incoming animals and foster animals in a growing foster program; o Administering medication and treatmentto animals both in the shelter and in foster care; o Adhering to stringent regulations by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Resources and the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board; o Performing basic husbandry duties; o Managing controlled drug logs and documenting drug usage; o Performing humane euthanasia;and o Cleaning and maintaining surgical instruments and the surgery suite,among other tasks. • The VHCTs are now caring for MORE animals: o We have seen a steady increase in intake numbers since 2020;in 2025 we received nine percent more animals than in 2024. o With the opening of the community animal cLinic,the VHCTs will see an additional200to 300 animals annually. 2 3 4 Slide#23 The Orange County Community Animal Clinic provides access to care for the underserved members of our community and their pets. Healthy Community Objectives • The clinic aligns with healthy community objectives,as it supports the basic needs and financial security of low-income County families,helping to create a robust safety net of economic supports that help build long-term financial security. Objectives Social Justice Principle • The clinic also supports our guiding principle of social justice, as it is the underserved communities that are facing the greatest disparities in accessing veterinary care.The clinic is a resource that will allow pet owners facing financial burdens to bridge the gap and access veterinary care. ' GNP 5 6 7 8 9 10 41 1 Slide #24 Future Plans In 2026,we will work to develop a strategic plan to help guide us toward our goals,including: • Increasing availability and accessibility of resources o Both at our shelter and in diverting people to other county departments o In April,Animal Services will become a practicu m site for the UNC School of Social Work o Coordination with community partners to get resources to residents where needed Growing our presence in the community o Attending more events o Collaborating with community partners c Senior programming,both at the senior centers and retirement communities Providing more child education in schools and camps o Greater presence in schools o Working with DEAPR to fill educational blocks at camps Ensuring sustainability for the community animal clinic o The Clinic is a critical resource for our community's most vulnerable populations;we must ensure its success Elevating professionalism in Animal Services o Continued training and adherence to best practices 2 3 Vice-Chair Fowler thanked staff for the presentation. She said she appreciates the 4 approach of having everyone, regardless of status, being able to own and care for pets. 5 Commissioner Bedford said that, at a future date, she would like to learn more about what 6 the towns are contributing to Animal Control. She noted the department's role in emergency 7 response by housing pets during natural disasters like Tropical Storm Chantal. She congratulated 8 the department on the realization of its goal to offer full veterinary services. 9 Commissioner McKee commended the staffs professional and effective response in a 10 situation he became involved with at a resident's request. 11 Chair Hamilton thanked the department for their community service while noting the 12 importance of achieving self-sustainability given budget constraints and competing county needs. 13 Commissioner Bedford said pets are a part of the family, and programs like these can't 14 always be self-sustaining. She said that pet care it is a social justice issue that is worth 15 subsidizing. 16 17 8. Consent Agenda 18 19 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 20 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 21 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 22 23 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to approve 24 the consent agenda. 25 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 28 a. Minutes for January 16, 2026 Retreat and January 20, 2026 Business Meeting 29 The Board approved the minutes for the January 16, 2026 Retreat and January 20, 2026 Business 30 Meeting. 31 32 42 1 b. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2026 2 The Board approved a change to the meeting schedule for the Board of Commissioners for 3 calendar year 2026. 4 c. Proclamation Declaring February 24, 2026, as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County 5 The Board approved a proclamation officially proclaiming February 24, 2026, as " Spay Neuter 6 Day" in Orange County. 7 d. Proposed Additions to Animal Services Fee Schedule for Community Animal Clinic & 8 Purchasable Collars & Leashes 9 The Board approved fees associated with the launch of the Orange County Community Animal 10 Clinic and to approve modest charges for the sale of collars and leashes to support Animal 11 Services programs. These fees support cost recovery for supplies and services, promote 12 responsible pet ownership, and ensure the continued sustainability of community programs. 13 e. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment#7 14 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 15 2025-26. 16 f. Contract Renewal — Murray's Landscape Maintenance and Horticultural Services 17 The Board approved a contract renewal with Murray's Landscape Maintenance and Horticultural 18 Services for maintenance and upkeep of grounds at County buildings. 19 g. Resolution of Approval — Acceptance of Donation of Triangle Land Conservancy 20 Property (Penny) 21 The Board adopted a resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of a 0.3-acre parcel 22 of land to be donated by Triangle Land Conservancy. 23 h. Approval of Budget Amendment #7-A to Fund the Reimbursement to the Town of 24 Carrboro for the Completion of Drakeford Library Complex and Two Facility 25 Improvements 26 The Board approved Budget Amendment #7-A to fund a reimbursement to the Town of Carrboro 27 for the completion of the Drakeford Library Complex and to also fund two(2)facility improvements. 28 i. Approval of Duke Energy Easement for the Construction and Maintenance of 29 Underground Power Lines on County Property Leased to TowerCo 30 The Board approved an easement with Duke Energy for the construction and maintenance of 31 underground power lines for a communications tower being built by TowerCo on property leased 32 from the County, and authorize the County Manager to sign the easement documents, after final 33 review by the County Attorney. 34 j. Resolution Amending the 2020 Affordable Housing Bond/CIP Funding for Homestead 35 Gardens 36 The Board approved a resolution amending the 2020 Bond/Capital Investment Plan (CIP)awards 37 to allow for more straightforward contracting for the Homestead Gardens project. Staff is 38 proposing to change the recipient of $1.5M in funding from the Center for Community Self-Help 39 to a combination of CASA and Community Home Trust. 40 k. Approval of Amendments to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners 41 Advisory Board Policy 42 The Board approved amendments to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners 43 Advisory Board Policy (Advisory Board Policy) as discussed and requested during the January 44 16, 2026 Board Retreat, and approve other non-substantive amendments. 45 I. Approval of Updated Draft BOCC Rules of Procedure 46 The Board approved updated draft BOCC Rules of Procedure. 47 m. Boards and Commissions —Appointments 48 The Board approved the Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed 49 during the February 10, 2026 Work Session. 50 51 43 1 9. County Manager's Report 2 Travis Myren outlined his recommendations for recruiting a new tax administrator following 3 Nancy Freeman's announced retirement in early April. He proposed using an executive recruiter 4 and establishing a small group of commissioners to guide the process. The group's 5 responsibilities would include reviewing recruiting firm proposals, selecting the best partner, 6 guiding stakeholder interviews for the position profile, approving the position profile and 7 compensation strategies, and helping narrow candidates from the recruiter's initial pool of 8-10 8 down to 3-4 finalists for full board interviews in closed session. He said that he and Deputy County 9 Manager, Cait Fenhagen, are meeting with NCACC to discuss potential interim candidates. 10 Commissioners Hamilton, Carter, and McKee volunteered for the subcommittee. 11 The Board agreed that the full Board would review the smaller group of applications 12 identified by the Executive Recruiter if needed. Otherwise, the subcommittee would review them 13 for finalists, and the full Board will interview them. 14 Commissioner Bedford emphasized the importance of a national search. 15 Commissioner McKee asked if internal promotions are possible. 16 Travis Myren confirmed that both options would be examined. 17 18 10. County Attorney's Report 19 John Roberts reminded the Board that the Property Tax Committee meeting would be held 20 the following day at 10:00 am and would be livestreamed for public viewing. 21 22 11. *Appointments 23 None. 24 25 12. Information Items 26 • February 3, 2026 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 27 • Memorandum — Financial Report - Second Quarter FY 2025-26 28 • Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports (Only Reports Updated Since 29 February 3, 2026) 30 31 Commissioner Bedford asked about the appeals and reappraisal information, noting that 32 since the tax increase came in at approximately 1.5% rather than the projected 3%, the budget 33 shortfall might be reduced by about $3 million rather than the projected $21 million. 34 Travis Myren confirmed that every 1% under the 3% projection yields approximately $2 35 million in revenue. 36 37 13. Closed Session 38 None. 39 40 Adjournment 41 42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to 43 adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. 44 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 Jean Hamilton, Chair 47 48 49 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 50 51 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board