Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-17-2026 - Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 3117/26 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS MEETING February 17, 2026 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 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. Additions or Changes to the Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Hamilton read the public charge and reviewed the instructions for making public comment. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Vibeke Talley and Rafael Velez, delegates to the North Carolina Senior Tar Heel Legislature addressed the Board and shared appreciation from senior center participants regarding Orange County's senior centers. Vibeke Talley explained their monthly information tables at the two senior centers and shared that participants have overwhelmingly expressed gratitude for the senior center programs. Rafael Velez detailed their effort to collect handwritten testimonials from senior center participants about how the programs have positively impacted their quality of life. These testimonials, totaling 14 new letters, will be mailed to North Carolina House and Senate representatives to advocate for continued and expanded funding of senior center programs. He said he will also email copies to the Board. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions, and Comments by Board Members Chair Hamilton offered Lunar New Year and Mardi Gras greetings before inviting other Commissioners to speak. Commissioner Carter echoed the holiday greetings and added Ramadan Mubarak wishes. She reported on attending a Lunar New Year celebration with Commissioner Portie-Ascott and noted their upcoming trip to the National Association of Counties Annual Legislative Conference in Washington DC, where they would meet with senators and Congresswoman Foushee. She took a moment to acknowledge the passing of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, praising his 2 historic presidential run, advocacy for civil rights, social justice, and affordable healthcare, and his leadership of the Rainbow Coalition with the rallying cry "Keep Hope alive." She also provided an update on the Tax Assessment Work Group's progress, noting their work on understanding reappraisals,focusing on vertical equity and commercial property valuation, reviewing the appeals process, and seeking clearer communication strategies. She encouraged residents to visit Orange County's website and sign up for newsletters to keep track of this work. Commissioner Bedford passed on making comments. Commissioner McKee reported on attending the Justice United forum with other commissioners, where he declined to endorse three of their eight requests, explaining that meeting all requests would require a 7-cent tax increase. He appreciated participants' understanding of the county's fiscal constraints. He petitioned the Board to formally commit to minimal tax increases in the upcoming budget discussions. Vice-Chair Fowler reported on several events she attended since the last meeting. She said she attended the Ag Summit the day prior and enjoyed visiting the vendor tables there. She attended the most recent School Collaboration meeting and discussed school budgets, student population decline, and mental health. She attended the Annual Legislative Breakfast on mental health on February 71", and on February 5t" she attended the Durham Technical Community College campus expansion celebration. She thanked Commissioner Carter for mentioning the passing of Rev. Jesse Jackson, and shared that she had the opportunity to hear him speak at an American Public Health Association meeting when she was in her residency and getting her master's in public health. She said he was a force and wished him peace. Commissioner Greene underscored the sympathies expressed on the loss of Rev. Jesse Jackson as well as the holiday recognitions. She said she also attended the Ag Summit, which was focused on sustainability and strategies for success for farmers. She attended the Justice United forum and expressed her appreciation for the work of that group and for holding the board accountable on tax issues. On February 7t" she attended the Extension and Community Association Annual Achievement Day, which highlighted women who are doing thousands of hours of amazing volunteer work. Finally, on February 5t", she attended Habitat's first ever summit on affordable housing policy. She said she would share a fuller report from that event with the Board later. Commissioner Portie-Ascott started by sharing that she had the opportunity to read "Mae Among the Stars" to students at Carrboro Elementary as part of the African American Read-In. She highlighted how powerful it is for children to see themselves reflected in the stories of possibility. She attended the NCACC meeting in Forsyth County, where leaders discussed economic pressures on counties, particularly around affordability, revenue stability, and long-term growth. She said that counties support property tax reform but need flexibility, transparency, and replacement funding. She also participated in the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee meeting with Central Pines. She said they heard regional planning updates, including the rollout of a new commuter dashboard that helps members better understand travel patterns and pressure points across the region. She said they also discussed projected timelines and the importance of reducing uncertainty to avoid major cost increases later in projects. She shared that Orange County projects are on track right now. Chair Hamilton highlighted her opening remarks at the Ag Summit, emphasizing how farming demands adaptability, creativity, and strong partnerships. She thanked the Carol Woods Charitable Fund for its $175,000 gift supporting the Master Aging Plan and Department of Aging. She said partnerships are essential, given the limited county resources. 3 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. OWASA Annual Update Presentation The Board approved a proclamation designating February 2026 as Black History Month in Orange County. BACKGROUND: At the beginning of each calendar year, OWASA representatives appear before the Board of Commissioners to make a presentation on recent OWASA activities. OWASA Board Chair Michael Hughes, Secretary Johnny Randall, and Executive Director Todd Taylor will present the annual update. OWASA Board Chair and Orange County representative, Michael Hughes, began the following presentation: Slide #1 •range Water and Sewr Authority- • • Commissioners OWASA Annual Update Randall,Michael M.Hughes,PE Johnny • Our comm u nity's trusted partner for clean water and environmental protection. Slide #2 Presentation • . • WaterTreatment 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 0 • Biodiversity,Conservation Easements,and Streambank 0 Stabilization p 0 0 4 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 Michael Hughes provided a construction update on two major projects: the Clearwell and PFAS treatment facilities. OWASA decided to decouple these projects, proceeding with the Clearwell construction while deferring PFAS treatment. This decision was based on staff successfully managing treatment processes to meet proposed regulatory limits, deferred regulations, site constraints, and the need to address broader PFAS issues, including residuals management and landfill leachate concerns. Slide #4 Clearwelt Project Timetine _--qLI Pause for Board Direction Smonths B."plr•`�I°" I x I N.L Yub N I 1 .=coh l Path New Basis of Design 6 months o'w" T" I x General Design 14 months fj}-P-4- • 30%Design 5months I rmso.+k" I i 60%Design 5 months 90%Design 4months d°96 ows" r PWS Permitting 6 months I °w%°••sr•°a e Special Use Permit 13 months kal u- ' .Site Permitting 5 months I I Final Design 1 month " Bldding 4 months I 01" a Construction 33 m_onths 20M 2D27 2D28 2029 2030 2031 Michael Hughes said if started now, the Clearwell project would run through 2031. 5 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 Michael Hughes outlined OWASA's rate history, noting significant increases from 5% in fiscal year 2022 to 16% in 2023, then 9% in 2024, 15% in 2025, and 7% in 2026. The five-year Capital Improvement Program requires $250 million, with the two major projects accounting for nearly $200 million. OWASA generates approximately $55 million annually in gross revenue with about $10 million in net revenue. 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 PFAS is reaching drinking water wells. 0 0 Regarding PFAS in drinking water wells near Orange Grove Road and Highway 54, Michael Hughes said OWASA organized a working group with public and environmental health experts. Due to legacy biosolids applications by other utilities, a collaborative study involving multiple organizations will examine PFAS distribution in drinking water wells across Chatham and 6 Orange counties. Michael Hughes said OWASA Deputy Director Monica Dodson informed him before the meeting that the group secured $1.5 million in research funding. Slide #7 Collaborative Initiative to Understand: Biosolids Land Application a • Water PFAS in Drinking - ORANGE COUNTY DE Q NORTHCARaLINA NORTH CAROLINA Department of Envlmnmenlal(IM PEAS` It research network FryLab CHATHAM COUNTY e NORTH CAROLINA collaborafory �O'9Iy Cp�Q`�Q `1 .��1-111-1 OWASA Inter-Agency Working Group Slide #8 Bounds of Preliminary Engineering Study Area Shown in Orange Collaborative Effort on Infrastructure i r � i I r for Land i e Development i Chapel Hill V and OWASA 1 r u 1 Southern StudyArea Sewer vow ,a.ra.W 23 IEumM nr parcrls.]39 Michael Hughes discussed infrastructure planning for southern Chapel Hill areas, noting Chapel Hill's $50,000 grant supporting collaborative sewer facility studies to optimize infrastructure alignment and support growth. OWASA is working with the development community to improve communication and trust, reviewing standards and specifications, and developing 7 reimbursement policies for developers who install infrastructure serving larger areas than their immediate projects require. Slide #9 rM 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 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 D - . . Costs • Lower a barrier to development 8 Johnny Randall continued the presentation: Slide #11 • ' ` Response to Tropical Storm • 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 • Maintenance called in 0 • Lost the ability to operate Cane Creek Reservoir 0 • Met water quality standards,no loss of service to 0 customers. 0 Johnny Randall praised OWASA staffs exceptional response during Tropical Storm Chantal, particularly their commitment to camping at facilities during the emergency. Slide #12 0 WIN ' r ' ;r What does-12 feet look like on the Reclaimed Water ' Structure? —4 feet higher than Hurricane Florence n 9 Johnny Randall highlighted the unprecedented flooding at University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir, noting that Chantal's watermark exceeded Hurricane Florence levels significantly. Staff effectively managed a major sewer line break on botanical garden property next to Morgan Creek by pumping sewage to nearby manholes for proper treatment. Slide#13 OWASA Responseto Tropical Storm _ a M d Camelot Dr.Water Main Break(11 15 AM) Slide #14 Biodiversity, Conservation and Streambank Stabilization Current standard practice Proposed new practice ' i ^� Partners include: NC Cooperative Extension ;.- NC Wildlife Resources Commission Triangle Connectivity Collaborative Johnny Randall discussed OWASA's participation in the Triangle Connectivity Collaborative, using wildlife corridor mapping data to better manage areas for biodiversity conservation. OWASA overlaid wildlife corridor maps with sewer line locations and partnered with the Wildlife Resources Commission and NC Cooperative Extension on experimental streamside stabilization projects, moving from traditional rip rap to plant-based bank stabilization in wildlife corridors. 10 Chair Hamilton thanked Michael Hughes, Johnny Randall, and OWASA staff for this presentation. Commissioner Greene asked for additional information about the southern Chapel Hill project challenges. Michael Hughes explained that one significant challenge is the need for sewer line extensions to support development in the newly annexed area of southern Chapel Hill. He said the existing infrastructure currently serves the South Creek development only. He noted that developers must extend sewer lines to their properties, which can be costly in terms of both construction and design/permitting expenses. To address these challenges, he emphasized the collaborative work being done between OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill. He discussed that Chapel Hill's$50,000 grant supports a joint study with OWASA to determine the optimal alignment of sewer facilities, which could allow new developments to tie into existing systems more efficiently. He also mentioned the possibility of developing a reimbursement policy for developers who install infrastructure that benefits larger areas and not just their individual projects. This policy could distribute the costs more equitably among those benefiting from the extensions, ultimately lowering a barrier to development. Commissioner Greene said this goes to show how difficult it will be to get housing there. Michael Hughes asserted that OWASA remains committed to finding ways to facilitate strategic growth and support the development of additional housing. This includes working with the broader development community to boost communication and trust, and reassessing existing standards and specifications to better engage with developers and engineers. Commissioner Carter thanked them for this presentation and update. She also thanked OWASA staff for their work during Chantal. She asked Michael Hughes to talk more about what led to decision to separate out PFAS effort. Michael Hughes explained that the site where both the Clearwell and PFAS projects were planned had numerous constraints, including limited parking spaces needed for construction work. These constraints, coupled with deferred regulatory requirements, led to the decision to prioritize the Clearwell construction. He explained that OWASA's staff has been effectively managing water treatment processes to ensure that the water provided met proposed regulatory levels, reducing the urgency of the PFAS project. Vice-Chair Fowler inquired about the 16% rate increase in FY 23 and the timeline and funding strategy for the required capital expenditures. OWASA Deputy Director, Stephen Winters, said OWASA typically finances such projects using bonds with a maturity of 20-25 years. Vice-Chair Fowler asked if bonds are only being taken out for the Clearwell right now. Stephen Winter explained that OWASA has been strategically increasing rates to build necessary fund balances ahead of significant expenditures, and nothing has been borrowed yet. Commissioner McKee asked about the PFAS level in the water supply. Michael Hughes clarified that the raw water from Cane Creek Reservoir has a PFAS concentration of 110 parts per trillion. However, thanks to the diligent work of OWASA's staff and the current treatment processes, the PFAS levels in the treated water supplied to residents are reduced to approximately seven parts per trillion, adhering to the proposed regulatory limits. Commissioner McKee thanked them for keeping PFAS at the forefront, even though it was deferred. He said he will be bringing forward a petition about using OWASA property for waste collection in the southern part of the county. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if reimbursing households that want to tap into the lines being built is the only idea at this time. Michael Hughes said that is just a concept at this point. He assured her there would be additional conversations and public engagement on this issue. Commissioner Bedford asked which entity is allowed to build water and sewer in the areas in question. 11 Michael Hughes said the OWASA Charter says capital projects cannot be extended outside of service area, and her question would be better answered by Planning. Vice-Chair Fowler added that it was her understanding that OWASA provides service, it must be scaled to the property in question and cannot be more than is necessary. She said the thought of building larger infrastructure for others to tap into is confusing to her. Michael Hughes said any service extension would be appropriately sized for anyone upstream. Going back to the rate increase, Chair Hamilton pointed out that the implemented increase was to prepare for both the Clearwell and PFAS projects. She asked if there will be an amended fee now that one is deferred. Stephen Winters said OWASA is in the process of determining how much pressure will be relieved by deferment and how that will impact rates. Chair Hamilton asked about the outcome of OWASA's discussion with residents who were concerned about the flooding of Morgan Creek. Johnny Randall said the meeting was at University Lake Dam with different stakeholders represented. At the meeting, OWASA explained that proper procedures were followed, but there was a question about who is responsible for notifying surrounding properties of flooding. He said Carrboro Emergency partners hold that responsibility, and USGS gauging stations above and below the dam will inform them of emergencies. He added that in the case of Tropical Storm Chantal, it happened incredibly fast. 5. Public Hearings None. 6. Regular Agenda a. FY26 Q2 Annual Work Program Amendments for Transit The Board considered FY26 Quarter 2 (Q2)Amendments to the Annual Work Program (AWP) for transit. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Staff Working Group (SWG) held a special meeting on Friday, October 31, 2025, to consider proposed amendments to the Annual Work Program. Agencies submitted amendments to the Staff Working Group which were subsequently distributed for public comment. No public comments were received. The Staff Working Group recommended that the BOCC approve the attached AWP FY26 Q2 amendments as a slate. 1. GoTriangle: Service Planning Staff GoTriangle has requested $37,908 to replace existing approved funding from GoTriangle and Wake Transit with Orange County Transit funding. The approved cost-sharing table for GoTriangle staff is as shown below: GOTRIANGLE I ORANGE I WAKE I 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 12 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 Article II, section 2.036, of the Transit Governance Interlocal Agreement states supplantation, "the opportunity for parties to this agreement to use certain funding sources to replace existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems," is not allowed for sales and use Taxes for Public Transportation or Regional Transit Authority Registration Tax. Additionally, the supporting documentation from GoTriangle references a staffing analysis conducted by Wake County in 2018 that Orange County did not endorse or participate in. Wake County is currently in the process of revisiting and updating this, and the outcomes will remain unknown for several months. Regardless of any updates, Orange County may not be able to match Wake's rate of funding due to the significant differences in available funding resources between the two counties. Durham County was asked to share funding for this position — as shown on the tables — and the request was not approved by the Staff Working Group. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment impact for FY26 is $37,908 on the approved FY26 Orange County Annual Work Program. 2. GoTriangle: Route 800 GoTriangle has requested additional funding for Route 800 from both Orange and Durham counties, citing unforeseen congestion creating service delays as justification for increased operating costs. Route 800's on-time performance rate for October was 74.4%, slightly below GoTriangle's overall on-time performance rate of 82.9% for the same period. This request would continue a pattern of increasing funding for Route 800 for a cumulative 99% increase from the base year 2024. 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% 13 The Durham County Staff Working Group did not approve this request in Q2, or in Q3 when it was reconsidered. This request was not presented to Durham County Board of Commissioners for its consideration. GoTriangle Route 800 provides all-day/every-day regional connections along NC-54 and 1-40 between the University of Chapel Hill (UNC) Hospitals and the Regional Transit Center and serves people traveling between Chapel Hill, Southpoint, Research Training Park (RTP), and Raleigh at off-peak times. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment impact for FY26 is $123,370 on the approved FY26 Orange County Annual Work Program. 3. Chapel Hill Transit: Amendment to Existing Protect Name & Scope Chapel Hill Transit(CHT) is requesting two (2)amendments to support the North-South Bus Rapid Transit (NSBRT) project, and the twenty percent (20%) nonfederal match, anticipated when the request was made. CHT received a 60% design cost estimate for the NSBRT this past summer. This updated estimate is more than $10 million higher than prior estimates and includes $20 million for property acquisition, according to CHT staff. The latest update provided by Chapel Hill Transit Staff to Orange County places the total cost of the project at$188 million. The proposed amendments add $5.8 million to the $32.3 million in existing financial commitments from the Prior Transit Work Plans, CHT Partners, and the Town of Chapel Hill. 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 CHT is requesting to amend the FY26 Annual Transit Work Program for vehicle acquisition to more explicitly describe the use and purpose of already-allocated funding and to incorporate NSBRT progress. The Annual Work Plan currently provides $2,065,267 for Chapel Hill Transit to purchase two (2) vehicles for the existing North-South Route. The proposed amendment would clarify that those vehicles would be dedicated to the NSBRT project when construction is completed. The 60-foot diesel vehicles will be uniquely branded and custom fabricated to serve NSBRT's elevated station platforms, communicate with systems unique to BRT, and provide enhanced BRT amenities. The vehicles will not be interchangeable with the rest of the CHT fleet due to Federl 14 Transit Administration (FTA) requirements that vehicles purchased for this program are not used for any other purpose other. CHT proposes purchasing NSBRT vehicles in the current year, so that the vehicles are delivered approximately twelve (12) months prior to the launch of NSBRT revenue service. The year of lead time is required for vehicle/systems acceptance and testing and operator training. On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, CHT contacted the County's Transportation Services Department and stated: "We've made a few changes to NSBRT's funding sources, and we would like to remove our requests from the Staff Working Group's recommended Q2 amendments." In accordance with the interlocal agreement, the process for supporting CHT's request is for the Board of Commissioners to reject the AWP Q2 Amendment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendment has a net zero impact on the approved FY26 Orange County Annual Work Program. 4. Chapel Hill Transit: Converting Operating to NSBRT Capital CHT is requesting to reallocate $3.7 million in FY26 to FY29 operating funds currently designated for staffing to improve service on four (4) existing routes to capital funds to be used as part of a local match for the North-South Bus Rapid Transit project. The funds are currently programmed to increase service span and frequency on the following CHT routes: • Route CW: Improve weekday midday service, • Route HS:Add weekend service, • Route NS: Reduce peak headways to six minutes, and • Route D: Extend route's eastern terminus to Patterson Place. Chapel Hill Transit has stated, "unfortunately, we simply do not have enough operators to implement these projects at this time," and if the amendment is approved, there will be no operating impact because the services are not currently in operation. The operator positions will be re-considered as part of CHT's Short Range Transit Plan. CHT is not requesting changes to the timing of the allocations designated to occur over three fiscal years. EXISTIN ID GPROJE FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 TOTAL CT 23CHTTS0J 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 N : ($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 Chapel Hill Transit has requested this item also be removed from the Staff Working Group's recommended Q2 amendments. Sarah Williamson, Interim Transportation Director, made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY STAFF WORKING GROUP FEBRUARY 2026 Sarah Williamson explained that the Board would be considering amendments to the transit tax district annual work plan for quarter two. She provided an overview of the Orange County Staff Working Group (SWG), which works on current transit needs, addressing rising costs, new service areas, and improving access to bus stops, park and rides, and other emerging needs as the county grows. The group reviews the annual work plan and budget, consider mid- range project programming and financial model updates, and develop project-level agreements. 16 Slide #2 r� c. 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 Sarah Williamson explained that the SWG is governed by an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) executed in March 2023 Orange County, Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization, and GoTriangle. The ILA lays out organizations that participate, processes for updating participation, and specifics of how some funds are distributed. It also includes by-laws and financial policies and procedures Slide #3 WORK PLAN -- & QUARTERLYPlan/Quarterly AnnualWark _- UPDATE L Updates PROCESSTransit Tax - Distribution G,up -=— County 17 Sarah Williamson explained that the SWG meets at least monthly, and produces the Annual Work Plan and Quarterly Updates that are delivered to County Commissioners and the GoTriangle Board. This chart shows the workflow and the documents that are in packets at each stage of the quarterly updates. She said the quarterly updates are important to updating the workplan, and the Board should be seeing quarterly updates in October, January,April, and July. Slide #4 TriangleWest Transponation SWG MEMBERS (#)=wring members Chair Hamilton asked if majority votes determine if an item moves forward. Sarah Williamson said yes. Slide #5 a 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. 18 Slide #6 QUARTER 2 AMENDMENTS FISCALYEAR 2026 Slide #7 GOTRIANGLE REQUEST #I:SERVICE PLANNING STAFF Current Proposed FTEs 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. Sarah Williamson said, after consulting with GoTriangle late yesterday, they have demonstrated this is not supplantation under state law. She added that a timely staffing study is proposed in the FY27 Annual Work Plan, and she would like the results of that study to be considered, not the 2018 Wake study, to determine if/how to share responsibility for service planning staff. She said the new staffing study has been approved in Durham and will be considered by the Orange County SWG tomorrow. She explained that this funding request (in its current form)was not approved by the Durham SWG for FY26 Q2. 19 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. Sarah Williamson said that GoTriangle has shared additional information about this funding request since the Board's agenda packet was published. The new information states that in FY25 the cost share for route 800 was 74% GoTriangle, 13% Durham Transit Plan and 13% Orange Transit Plan, and the cost increase being considered is for expanding service. She said that Staff recommend the Board reject this amendment to the annual work plan and ask the SWG to consider maintaining the current level of service in the FY27 Annual Work Plan, not increasing the service as proposed in the FY26 Q2 amendment, and additionally, that the SWG evaluate route modifications and ridership levels as part of the Annual Work Plan process. 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. 20 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 Sarah Williamson said the County Manager's recommendation is for the Board to reject the FY26 Q2 amendments. She said they were sent to the Board as a slate and should be rejected as a slate. She added that the second part of this recommendation is that the associated funds be held in undesignated fund balance for future application. The reason for that recommendation is that in January, the tax district's financial model showed a $4.2 million shortfall for planned projects for FY27 without any expansions. An updated model was shared with staff last night that seems to be on better ground, but the tax district hasn't been clear about what changed. She said that until staff can understand the variables and the model, it makes the most sense for these funds to be held in undesignated fund balance. Commissioner Greene noted that the issue with supplantation was resolved, but is still noted on this slide. Travis Myren said "supplantation" could be replaced with "allocation based on a more current staffing study". A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to reject the AWP FY26 Q2 amendments, as a slate, and request that the SWG hold the associated funds in undesignated fund balance for future application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports a. Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Program Report for 2025 The Board received a report on the results of the Calendar Year 2025 Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) program, which assists low-income Orange County homeowners with a discount or rebate on their property tax bills. BACKGROUND: County staff worked with community partners on a five-month campaign to increase awareness about program eligibility and the apply process with the goal of increasing the number of program applicants from 2024. LHA campaign efforts in 2025 included: 21 • The Tax Office included an LHA program information flyer alongside the 2025 tax bills that were mailed in August 2025. • County staff worked with community partners including the Jackson Center, Homeowners United, and Justice United to promote the LHA program. • Staff organized visits to local churches, and the Rogers Road and Cedar Grove Community Centers to complete LHA applications and distribute LHA flyers. • Staff partnered with church congregations in Orange County, including in northern Orange, to share information. • Staff emailed prior applicants to remind residents that they must apply every year to receive an award. • Staff coordinated with the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board to host a community meeting with more than 50 residents, including opportunities to complete or submit an application in person. Similar to 2024, advertisements were not placed in area newspapers. This saved the County more than $10,000 in administrative costs and did not appear to impact the accessibility of the program. The number of applications increased from 2024 to 2025 by 58%, from 604 to 955 applicants. Staff calculated award amounts using the following guidelines: • All applicants were arranged in priority order o FIRST: Tax Burden, largest to smallest o SECOND: Length in Home, longest to shortest o THIRD: Age, oldest to youngest • Staff determined a multiplying factor for the remaining $377,805 in available funding and used this to reduce all other awards by the same percentage. • All eligible homeowners received a minimum award amount of $200 or up to the full amount of the County portion of their tax bill if it was less than $200. • Award amounts were the County portion of the tax bill less 2%of the applicant's household income. Between August 1 and November 3, 2025, the County received 955 applications and awarded $509,804 (including $86,999 in Chapel Hill supplemental funding and $45,000 in Carrboro supplemental funding). The minimum award amount was $200. The average award amount for recipients was $491.97, and the median award amount was $432.70. This award amount will increase slightly in the coming weeks, as staff must still apply the $18,720 that the Board added to program funds as part of discussion in December 2025 and a budget amendment in January 2026. A second round of supplemental checks will be sent out to applicable homeowners. LHA Applications Submitted 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage Eligible Applications 502 83% 805 84% Ineligible Applications 102 17% 149 16% TOTAL 604 954 22 LHA Award Amounts 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage $200 129 26% 190 24% $201-$300 54 11% 84 10% $301-$500 102 20% 185 23% $501-$999 112 22% 243 30% $1,000+ 105 21% 103 13% TOTAL 502 805 The County received the highest number of LHA applications during August. 84% of all received applications were approved. The most common reasons for application denial were home value exceeding limits and income exceeding limits. Housing staff invested approximately 115 staff hours following up with residents to ensure that improperly completed applications did not result in a denial. The demographics of LHA Awardees are as follows: Racial Demographics of LHA Awardees 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage White 282 56% 455 57% Black 101 20% 178 22% Asian 39 8% 96 12% Other 25 5% 15 2% Undisclosed 55 11% 61 7% TOTAL 502 805 23 Age Demographics of LHA Awardees 2024 2025 Number Percent Number Percent :555 86 17% 101 13% 56-60 37 7% 40 5% 61-65 63 13% 66 8% 66-70 82 16% 103 13% 71-75 91 18% 94 12% 76-80 69 14% 95 12% 81-85 36 7% 41 5% 86+ 38 8% 40 5% No data 0 0% 225 28% TOTAL 502 805 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. For households that received both Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill funding, staff applied the calculation formula for Orange County first and determined that assistance amount. Staff then applied the same formula a second time for assistance from Chapel Hill. The award amount was then proportionally reduced based on the amount of funding that Chapel Hill provided compared to Orange County. Staff also doublechecked all of these households to ensure that no recipients received more assistance than their overall tax burden. As an example, if a household had $25,000 of income per year, had an eligible home value and met the threshold requirement for assistance, staff applied the previously approved prioritization (e.g. time in county, age of household and income level) in accordance with past practice. The household might be eligible for $1,000 of assistance for Orange County. Staff then applied the same prioritization to the example household that is Town of Chapel Hill eligible to determine a new award amount. Staff then reduced that award amount proportionally according to the total funds provided by the Town. Staff suggests the County reconsider eligibility requirements to target funds toward longer-term Orange County residents. With the eligibility threshold at five (5) years of ownership, many residents are able to receive assistance even after purchasing a home since housing prices have inflated. By lengthening the eligibility requirement to at least ten (10) years, or even setting a purchase-by date (e.g. 2015), the County could assure that limited funds are assisting the longest residing homeowners and households of least means. As noted in the following table, 137 of the 805 awardees purchased their homes since 2016, and those households received assistance totaling $27,400. If the period for ownership was lengthened, this assistance could go to longer-term homeowners who are more likely to need the assistance, as they purchased their homes when homes were more accessible to low-income households. The table below models the potential redistribution of those funds: 24 Amount of Assistance by Length of Time Owned Number of Average $27,000 spread across New 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 Blake Rosser, Housing Director, made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING DEPARTMENT Results of CY25 Longtime Homeowner Assistance (L.HA) Program February 17, 2025 25 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 nORANGECOUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT Slide #3 Side-by-side comparison, 2024-25 2024 2025 - Number Percentage Number Percentage 502 83% 805 84% 102 17% 149 16% r 604 954 2024 2025 Number Percentage Number Percentage i+i'a�ll, 129 26% 190 24% i 54 11% 84 10% i 1 102 20% 185 23% 112 22% 243 30% r i i 105 21% 103 13% �� 502 805 nORANGECOUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT Blake Rosser said the program received 954 applications, a significant increase of 350 applications from the previous year, and awarded assistance to 805 applicants totaling $509,804. Chapel Hill contributed $86,956, and Carrboro provided $45,000 for the first time. The minimum 26 award remained $200, with an average award of nearly $492 and a median of $433. The most common reason for denial was ineligibility due to exceeding income limits or home value thresholds. The award distribution showed many recipients received the minimum $200 amount, while the largest group received between $500-$1,000. 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 18% 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 Blake Rosser said racial and age demographics remained relatively similar to previous years. He noted that Housing staff would be meeting with the tax office in March to debrief the process and develop programmatic suggestions and ideas for board consideration at a future work session. 27 Slide#5 For any questions: •Blake Rosser •brosser@orangecountync.gov •919-245-2492 n ORANGECOUNTY O HOUSING DEPARTMENT Commissioner Carter asked about the information on the age of applicants. She said a fair number did not have age data and asked why that was. Blake Rosser said it could mean there was an issue with the survey, or that staff didn't include the age when inputting paper applications. Vice-Chair Fowler asked if some applicants were also receiving assistance through programs in the Tax Office. Blake Rosser said he doesn't have that data, but the Tax Office should. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what the average increase was for tax bills. Blake Rosser said he will include that information in a follow-up communication to the Board. Chair Hamilton asked what qualifications must be met to receive assistance through this program. Blake Rosser said he will also follow up with that information, as he doesn't have it on hand. PUBLIC COMMENTS Larry Reid advocated for reconsidering eligibility criteria for co-living situations, citing examples of sisters and families living together whose combined incomes disqualify them despite individual financial constraints. Elizabeth Young, representing the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition, described a friend whose property valuation increased from $350,000 to $1 million and presented several policy recommendations, including increasing program funding to $1 million annually, making property assessments more equitable, improving appeals access, and dedicating $1.5 million for deeply affordable homeownership. Following public comments, Commissioner Carter appreciated staffs suggestion to consider lengthening the home ownership timeframe beyond the current five years, potentially providing larger benefits to longer-term residents. She asked for information to avoid unintended consequences of favoring high-value properties. Commissioner Greene said she has also been concerned with the length of homeownership. She noted that the current program already weights awards based on length of ownership. 28 Vice-Chair Fowler noted that the program website says there may be exceptions is a member of the household is 70 or older or has a disability. She asked if these exceptions were utilized this year. Blake Rosser said yes. He said he will follow up with those statistics if it was listed on the application. Commissioner Bedford said the length of homeownership requirements was decreased to 5 years to account for cases when family members inherit properties. Blake Rosser agreed that community members have used that example as a point of concern when mentioning decreasing the length of homeownership. Commissioner McKee said he supports this program and increasing the availability of it. He questioned if 5 years of homeownership was long enough to be considered "long-term". He advocated for a 10-20 year minimum to better target those most likely to face displacement. He also raised an issue with residents with higher home values qualifying for the program but recognized that the revaluation increased values drastically. He also agreed with adding exceptions for inherited properties, but said he wanted the program to serve those who need it most, like those making 30-50%AMI. Chair Hamilton said it sounds like time should be carved out for the Board to have more discussion on this and for them to get a refresher on why the eligibility requirements for the program were initially decided. She emphasized the need for stability in program rules, noting the importance of consistency for recipients who rely on annual assistance. She also highlighted the need to consider how changes might affect younger families with children, which the county needs to attract and retain. Commissioner Portie-Ascott noted that 2% is subtracted based on household income. She asked if that is still appropriate when thinking about people on a fixed income. Blake Rosser explained that the award would stay higher for people on a fixed income by using a standard percentage. Commissioner Carter expressed appreciation for the Board's decision to expand the program to the point that it is now. She agreed with Chair Hamilton's suggestion for this to be a work session topic for additional discussion. Commissioner McKee said he has mentioned freezing taxes for homeowners who are 65 or older and have low incomes in the past. He said he's followed the discussion on property taxes at the state-level but has no confidence North Carolina will follow others in doing that. He said he wants to build something into this program that would freeze taxes for residents who are 65 years old and meet the other necessary criteria. Chair Hamilton reiterated the need for a work session discussion. Blake Rosser said the Housing Department and Tax Office will meet in March to debrief and come up with other suggestions and ideas for the Board to consider. Commissioner Bedford asked staff to also look at how Durham and Mecklenburg have adjusted their similar programs. b. Animal Services' History and Presentation on Current Services and the Community Animal Clinic The Board received information on Animal Services' history and received a presentation on current services and an overview of the new Community Animal Clinic. BACKGROUND: Orange County Animal Services began in 1953 with a single dog warden and a focus on rabies control. At that time, there was no adoption program, no volunteer program, and no focus on animal welfare. Over time, as concerns with animal welfare gained traction and canine variant rabies was eradicated, animal services priorities shifted to an increased focus on animal care and placement. An adoption program was created, and finding homes for pets became a central focus of sheltering. 29 Between 1979 and 2004, the Animal Protection Society 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 veterinary care for sick or injured animals arriving in its care. On July 1, 2004, Orange County assumed responsibility for providing animal services, and on June 1, 2009, Orange County Animal Services opened the current location on Eubanks Road in Chapel Hill. Over the last two decades, Animal Services has shifted its focus from simply placing animals to also supporting pet owners in the community and empowering families to keep their pets. To help with this, Animal Services offers several safety net resources, such as a pet food pantry, spay and neuter vouchers, and veterinary assistance. In March 2025, Animal Services opened the Orange County Community Animal Clinic, allowing staff to provide care to owned animals, further increasing the ability to support community members and keep pets with their families. Staff estimates that approximately 12,550 pet owners in Orange County may need low-cost veterinary services, which are now provided through the Community Animal Clinic. The goal is for this clinic to become self-sustaining through donations, grants, and payment by those clients who can pay. From July to December 2025, staff provided care to 122 pets through the Clinic. The Clinic has recently received a $79,552 grant from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This grant will cover operational costs this year. Staff plans to propose an additional veterinary health care technician position for approval. Through a separate item on this same February 17, 2026 Business meeting agenda, staff is requesting approval of an updated fee schedule for various Clinic fees. Staff has attached information on Animal Services' history, and will provide a presentation at the meeting on the current services and programs, including the Community Animal Clinic, and staff's proposed future plans and goals. Elizabeth Overcash,Animal Services Director, made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NC ANIMAL SERVICES 30 Slide #2 Creation of Orange County - K Animal Services +� • 1953-The Orange County Animal Control Program was �} established in 1-953 with the appointment of the first Dog Warden and the opening of the Dog Pound.The Dog Warden r e provided services to the unincorporated parts of the county 1 / , and focused on rabies control. . • 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 r care,nutritional food,disease and parasite control,and !f veterinary care for sick or injured animals arriving in its care. July 1,2004-Orange County assumed responsibility for 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 �� f 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 Y�,r robust volunteer program. 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) Elizabeth Overcash highlighted the Department's shift to most animals being fostered rather than being housed on-site. 31 Slide#4 ANIN{AL f „ 2 F N� ® ©SEIIVIM PET ADOPTION A � e EN Blood Drive EVT ' � S' MOVEMBER g2#10.E035 IOAM•gPM at Orange County Anlmal5ervbes AT SOVTXERN STATESRR90 ocTO8ER18,2025:10AM$25.O0mEAsori AL ..-^.. o - CAT)02 e, ' ram,•,... .,�,�,,. VACCINE CLINIC Saturday,11/22/25 ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES-1601 EUBANKS RD.CnAPEL MLL,NC �r FW DAMWIFI VACCINI�� =RA81ES VACCINES PETMICROgNPSCAINNIICiSTATION #34MICROCHIPS This inIII imp —the IiV.-1 drAgh••t tMOMOE••K Aaame�•rsE wAlamA• 4 / munity,als and helps keep lh,m out of �� �� aMlsers lhr•ugh spay/aeussr msi,mncs and MLM OET Wii Ai1bA 11AELMA•1(•AMY Orange County Anlmai servks5 od.ranced community outreach. 141 MI E1iLlvY1 ACMM ©1601 Eudanhs Road L ChapeINIII,NC SCAN 01LDOG v.00 a.m.-7O0 p.m. ) 101:/ u J BASIC NEEDS 6 j HEALTHCARE ��.> :;".`., a..,.,,„�u...,.,,,:..., ❑•tb ❑• nY°oi.�`"w°"" n`s.a "�v'� :e"" DOG 102: 0 O 5 ,`,-';"` �mN� BEHAVIOR It Slide#5 Sheltering StaffIF ►t • Animal Services Director(1) 1 1 • Assistant Director(1) ' • Medical DirectorNeterinarian (1) ` -- • Program Manager(1) • Assistant Program Coordinator(1) ` I • Business Officer(1) y �J r • Communications Specialist(1) �r • Animal Care Supervisor(1) • Animal Care Technicians(6) • Veterinary Health Care Technicians(4) • Customer Service Supervisor(1) • Office Assistants(4) 32 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. Elizabeth Overcash said that animal control activities totaled 4,200 calls, the same as 2024. Services include enforcement of ordinances and state laws, rabies control, injured animal care, livestock assistance, and law enforcement support. Officers operate 8-5 weekdays with 24/7 on-call coverage for emergencies, including bites, rabies exposures, and injured animals. 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 F o Livestock(or other animals) in roadway and/or creating hazard o Injured deer(if law enforcement is unable to dispatch) 1 33 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. Slide #9 Movement to a Community-Centric Model • We have shifted again,and many shelters, including Orange County Animal Services,are A* following the Human Animal Support Services(HASS)model. HASS launched in P 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. 34 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 , greatest barrier for pet owners. 00 now 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. 35 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. 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 thatapply Which of the following best describes the reason(s)you declined care?Select E all thatapply. • Veterinary costs have increased by over ■%Carewasnotworth the cost 0%Could notafford 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$89.999 competition, higher workforce costs, increased specialty services,and $90,000 or more reduced intermediate options. Pets are also livinglonger,and with older age there Aong pet owners who say they have not br their pet to the veterinarian within the past year,or g mhave e brought their declined care recommended by a veterinarian. are more medical expenses. Due to ound og,otals may sum to 70pWc tt% P PetSmart Charities-Gallup,Nov.13-20,2024,and Dec.2,2024-Jan.9,2025 GALLUP 36 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. Slide #15 coM/�j� Orange County Q� /). Community Animal Clinic r�L � v 7` • Licensed since March 2025 11 • Allows Animal Services to provide 0 , r care to owned animals o Allows access to care CLINIC o Walkins, calls, emails o Animal control cases from field Elizabeth Overcash shared that the clinic saw just over 100 clients in its first year but has already seen as many animals in January and February 2026 as in the entire second half of 2025. 37 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 Elizabeth Overcash shared success stories including Hadden, whose unhoused owner walked six miles for treatment of a painful foot growth, and Sasha, who received treatment for severe skin conditions while her owner lived in their car. In both cases, owners were connected with additional human services resources. Slide #17 400 ova ( L 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 JMaIe):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. L 38 Slide #18 / "ft 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 $47,16 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. Slide #19 do Current Financial Situation • Currently,we are not self-sustaining. o The Ctinic 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. 4 r o We are working to assist these community members and treat their animals so that these families may remain together. • We are pulling from our medical and surgical budgets to cover any Clinic costs. o Medical Supplies(appropriation):$41,475 ■ Percentage used as of December:85% o Su rgicaL Supplies(appropriation):$31,800 5 • 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 w- 39 Slide #20 Families Served • July to December 2025: f�•�' i o 35 cats ■ 16 veterinary care ■ 19 spay/neuter o 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. Slide #21 Expected Expenses to Meet Goals Our goals for this year areas 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$62A 7 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$79,552 TO FULLY COVER THESE INITIAL CLINIC COSTS. 40 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. 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. ' 41 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 Vice-Chair Fowler thanked staff for the presentation. She said she appreciates the approach of having everyone, regardless of status, being able to own and care for pets. Commissioner Bedford said that, at a future date, she would like to learn more about what the towns are contributing to Animal Control. She noted the department's role in emergency response by housing pets during natural disasters like Tropical Storm Chantal. She congratulated the department on the realization of its goal to offer full veterinary services. Commissioner McKee commended the staffs professional and effective response in a situation he became involved with at a resident's request. Chair Hamilton thanked the department for their community service while noting the importance of achieving self-sustainability given budget constraints and competing county needs. Commissioner Bedford said pets are a part of the family, and programs like these can't always be self-sustaining. She said that pet care it is a social justice issue that is worth subsidizing. 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda A motion was made by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to approve the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes for January 16, 2026 Retreat and January 20, 2026 Business Meeting The Board approved the minutes for the January 16, 2026 Retreat and January 20, 2026 Business Meeting. 42 b. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2026 The Board approved a change to the meeting schedule for the Board of Commissioners for calendar year 2026. c. Proclamation Declaring February 24, 2026, as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County The Board approved a proclamation officially proclaiming February 24, 2026, as " Spay Neuter Day" in Orange County. d. Proposed Additions to Animal Services Fee Schedule for Community Animal Clinic & Purchasable Collars & Leashes The Board approved fees associated with the launch of the Orange County Community Animal Clinic and to approve modest charges for the sale of collars and leashes to support Animal Services programs. These fees support cost recovery for supplies and services, promote responsible pet ownership, and ensure the continued sustainability of community programs. e. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #7 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 2025-26. f. Contract Renewal — Murray's Landscape Maintenance and Horticultural Services The Board approved a contract renewal with Murray's Landscape Maintenance and Horticultural Services for maintenance and upkeep of grounds at County buildings. g. Resolution of Approval — Acceptance of Donation of Triangle Land Conservancy Property (Penny) The Board adopted a resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of a 0.3-acre parcel of land to be donated by Triangle Land Conservancy. h. Approval of Budget Amendment #7-A to Fund the Reimbursement to the Town of Carrboro for the Completion of Drakeford Library Complex and Two Facility Improvements The Board approved Budget Amendment #7-A to fund a reimbursement to the Town of Carrboro for the completion of the Drakeford Library Complex and to also fund two (2)facility improvements. i. Approval of Duke Energy Easement for the Construction and Maintenance of Underground Power Lines on County Property Leased to TowerCo The Board approved an easement with Duke Energy for the construction and maintenance of underground power lines for a communications tower being built by TowerCo on property leased from the County, and authorize the County Manager to sign the easement documents, after final review by the County Attorney. j. Resolution Amending the 2020 Affordable Housing Bond/CIP Funding for Homestead Gardens The Board approved a resolution amending the 2020 Bond/Capital Investment Plan (CIP) awards to allow for more straightforward contracting for the Homestead Gardens project. Staff is proposing to change the recipient of $1.5M in funding from the Center for Community Self-Help to a combination of CASA and Community Home Trust. k. Approval of Amendments to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board Policy The Board approved amendments to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board Policy (Advisory Board Policy) as discussed and requested during the January 16, 2026 Board Retreat, and approve other non-substantive amendments. I. Approval of Updated Draft BOCC Rules of Procedure The Board approved updated draft BOCC Rules of Procedure. m. Boards and Commissions —Appointments The Board approved the Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed during the February 10, 2026 Work Session. 43 9. County Manager's Report Travis Myren outlined his recommendations for recruiting a new tax administrator following Nancy Freeman's announced retirement in early April. He proposed using an executive recruiter and establishing a small group of commissioners to guide the process. The group's responsibilities would include reviewing recruiting firm proposals, selecting the best partner, guiding stakeholder interviews for the position profile, approving the position profile and compensation strategies, and helping narrow candidates from the recruiter's initial pool of 8-10 down to 3-4 finalists for full board interviews in closed session. He said that he and Deputy County Manager, Cait Fenhagen, are meeting with NCACC to discuss potential interim candidates. Commissioners Hamilton, Carter, and McKee volunteered for the subcommittee. The Board agreed that the full Board would review the smaller group of applications identified by the Executive Recruiter if needed. Otherwise, the subcommittee would review them for finalists, and the full Board will interview them. Commissioner Bedford emphasized the importance of a national search. Commissioner McKee asked if internal promotions are possible. Travis Myren confirmed that both options would be examined. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts reminded the Board that the Property Tax Committee meeting would be held the following day at 10:00 am and would be livestreamed for public viewing. 11. *Appointments None. 12. Information Items • February 3, 2026 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Memorandum — Financial Report - Second Quarter FY 2025-26 • Appeals and Neighborhood Reviews Update Reports (Only Reports Updated Since February 3, 2026) Commissioner Bedford asked about the appeals and reappraisal information, noting that since the tax increase came in at approximately 1.5% rather than the projected 3%, the budget shortfall might be reduced by about $3 million rather than the projected $21 million. Travis Myren confirmed that every 1% under the 3% projection yields approximately $2 million in revenue. 13. Closed Session None. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jean Hamilton, Chair Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board