[0:22] This will 942. Days of our.
[0:29] Lives.
[0:35] So when I get the conditions for changes to the agenda to do it.
[0:44] Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead and.
[0:51] Okay.
[0:59] Good evening everyone. My name is Jean Hamilton. I am chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. I welcome everyone to our July 9th, 2026 business meeting. I want to start out By recognizing that at the end of the dice we have picture and flowers. And the flowers were from Morinaga to honor Commissioner James Bedford, who many may know that she died unexpectedly. Oh. Excuse me. On June 21st, um, Commissioner Bedford had been elected to the board in 2018. We elected in 2022. She served as board chair from 2022 to 2025. Um, and so we're having her seat vacant to put the picture and flowers to honor her and want everyone to know that we will be doing something more formally, um, later this summer. Um, and that her, um, family is planning a memorial service on August 22nd. Um. And, um. We miss her. We miss her.
[2:30] So, um.
[2:35] Going on. We will. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda?
[2:41] Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, we have, uh, several people here tonight for, I'm sure this item six d long time, long time homeowner assistance program. I would petition that we change the order, uh, and move six d up to, uh, the first item for the regular agenda, please.
[3:07] Okay, so I'm going to take that as a motion. I second. And there's a second. All in favor? Aye. interposed none so that, um that is adopted. We will move item um six d now will be six a thank you. And also want to note that, um, there had been a planning public hearing advertised for July 9th. However, that public hearing will be held at a later date and advertise to the public, um, as per the North Carolina General Statutes.
[3:50] I'm going next. We have public comments, uh, for items not on the printed agenda.
[4:01] Um.
[4:04] I just like, uh, to read the public charge. Um, the. We pledge respect to all present. Ask those attending the meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other. Captain, staff and commissioners, at any time. Should a member of the board of the public fail to observe this charge? The chair will take steps to restore order and decorum should become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting. The chair will recess the meeting until such time if there is a general commitment to this public charge. We also ask that all public, all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers and computers be turned off or set to silent vibrate. And please be kind to everyone. Um.
[4:51] So there's one person, um, to make public comment on an item, not on the agenda. And that's Sandra. Uh, third, and also just always to review the process. And Commissioner McKee just walked away. But, you know, we have the time. We have three minutes when the timer starts, uh, when you start speaking, the timer will start and the light will turn green when there's 30s left, uh, it will turn yellow. And when the three minutes are up, it will turn red. And please wrap up your sentence. So, uh. Thank you. Come on up. Yes.
[5:45] I am Sandra, I am a native of Chapel Hill. Lived here all my life. Family. Been here since the 1800s. I found out, doing an appeal process of my property that I was being double taxed for half an acre. Okay, I thought that was it, they said. This doesn't rarely happen, but yet they have a statute that says they can only go back five years. Well, at the meeting, they gave me all the maps and everything else, and I'm looking. And I have a friend that's a retired real estate attorney and a broker. And we went over the paperwork. And guess what else we found? In 1952, my father deeded an acre of land to my neighbors. I'm still being double taxed for that acre since 1952. The half acre happened in 1969.
[6:47] And I'm just I'm lucky to have a friend. That's a you that used to be. There's a retired real estate attorney because the numbers that they had was right there. If we saw it. And and I had another meeting and the lady apologized and said she should have sold it. But do you know how this is affecting me? My parents are dead in their grave, and I'm glad that they can't be here to see because my father could not read or write. And I'm told, well, it's the landowner supposed to know. But back then, even if you could read and write the way those deeds was written up, it didn't say you had five acres. There was coordinates. There was lots. There wasn't clear. And now here I am. I'm 70 years old, and I'm finding this out and discovering this. And I think that that statue is just crooked. If there was not a statue, they didn't feel the need for a statue. If it only happened, you know, like every now and again, they wouldn't have never made that statue if you cannot. I know how hard my father worked. My thought there were two and three jobs just to hold on to his land and take care of his family. And now I have to sit here and realize all those years he worked so hard to try to give something that he was being.
[8:19] He was being cheated and things were just taken from him. Grant you. 1952. That was Jim Crow. A lot of people of color did not have an education. There was a bad time back then. When I was born, my parents couldn't even vote. And if you don't think that. This just doesn't remind me of the past. Think again. It's wrong. It's crooked. And in the end, it does. There's no incentive for them to to to keep it to, to make it better. Because the longer they don't do anything, the more the county gets, regardless of because all they're going to have to pay is five years and I'm sorry I win a few seconds over, but I'm sorry I'm very emotional about this. It's wrong and it's crooked.
[9:12] Thank you. Thank you.
[9:21] All right. Is there anyone else who wants to make a comment? Um, on an issue, not on the printed agenda? Um, who hasn't signed up on the form?
[9:34] All right. Thank you. All right, now we're going to move on to announcement petitions and comments by board members.
[9:43] I'll start with Commissioner Carter.
[9:48] Uh, good evening, Madam Chair. Thank you. Uh, and, um, I'll keep my comments fairly brief. Um, I do want to recognize our empty chair. Um, and, uh, a beacon and I missed has gone dark way too soon with the loss of Commissioner Bedford. And I do appreciate that our board will take the coming weeks, uh, to prepare to fully recognize her many contributions here in Orange County. So I'll reserve my thoughts for that time. Um, on her passing. Uh, for now, I'll just say that she will be greatly missed. Um, I did want to, um, also just recognize that it was one year ago this week. That tropical depression. Chantal, uh, struck our area. And, um, I do want to thank our staff for all the work they've done over the past year and the manager's office and emergency services and DSS and the health department and across our municipalities To learn from that experience and implement a number of major changes for how we respond to such crises in the future. Um, and so, um, and in our consent agenda, there's a note about specifically, um, improved flood detection that's been implemented by emergency services, in part with a grant from um, Duke Energy. So thank you to the staff for all that work. We know it was an incredible response that required a lot of work across the county. And so I'll leave my thoughts there for this evening.
[11:37] Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Green.
[11:41] Thank you. It's really quite sobering to see James that his photograph over there smiling at us as if she were here. It's very, very hard for all of us. I'll just say briefly that, James said. And I started in local public office at the same time. we were both. She was elected to school board. I was elected to the county commission. I mean the town Chapel Hill Town Council in 2003, uh, didn't really work together at much at all until we both were elected to this board in 2018, and we traveled together to Asheville for the county commissioner boot camp. You know, the school of government puts on. And that's when I really started to get to know James Data and understand what a genuine, caring, smart, thoughtful person she was. And we became more than colleagues from that moment on, really, really friends and colleagues. And, um, yeah, there will be more to say. But, um, my heart is with her family and with with all of us. I want to announce a couple of things. Uh, I sent you all this morning. The Go triangle report for the last year. I continue to be impressed with the go triangles work and hope to hope to. I know we're planning a work session with them in the fall, and I think that'll be a good opportunity for all of us all to understand what what how go triangle is serving the region, how we can work together. On July 4th, this momentous July 4th, big July 4th this year, I participated in two events on on that day one with Chair Hamilton. I was at the colonial end for the unveiling of the book that the Visitor Center had put together through the America 250 grant money that they got through us. And the book is written by Valerie Schwartz Schwartz. And it's quite beautiful. And, um, uh, Commissioner Prescott. Yes. There there it is. It is. Uh, there are still copies available, I'm sure, at although I'm sure they will go fast. They are free. Uh, you can pick one up at the visitor center in Chapel Hill. And that evening, uh, it was the close of the all day celebration that had been going on, going on in River Park called Together We Are America, which involved live music and crafts and watermelon and all kinds of cool stuff. And I want to I gave remarks on behalf of all of us and gave a well-deserved shout out to both Katie Murray and Greg Bell, who did a phenomenal job of really putting that event together with the town of Hillsboro. So it was a really nice way to celebrate 4th of July this year.
[14:21] Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Ricky.
[14:24] Yes. As you can tell in our voices, we all are extremely affected by the loss of our colleague James, head of Bedford. It really became a I guess it came home for real to me yesterday afternoon when I attended in her place, the chief's council meeting, which occurs every other month. I had served on that several times before. James Etta was our representative on that. I sit in her stead for that, and if the board should choose, I will take that position also. But, uh, the the Chiefs were very complimentary on her involvement, on her interest, on her support, not only for things all, uh, associated with fire and fire departments, but the entire county. So we're going to very much miss her, and we're going to make best endeavor to look for the best candidate to replace our position.
[15:22] Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
[15:23] Thank you. And good evening, everyone. Um, it is hard sitting here. Um.
[15:33] Next to.
[15:35] Commissioner.
[15:36] Bedford's picture, her flowers, her board packet.
[15:43] And I am too grateful to have served alongside of her. She was free to give advice to help me as the new commissioner. Be the best commissioner I could be. So I am grateful for having served alongside of her.
[16:07] Okay, so now on to some good news. Um, echoing, um, Commissioner Greene's comments on a gathering of voices. Um, I too attended that event on the fourth. Yeah.
[16:20] Were you.
[16:20] There?
[16:21] No. No, you weren't there.
[16:22] It was four of us earlier.
[16:24] Okay.
[16:24] Sorry, sorry. Yes. And, um, I'm really excited that Orange County will receive an award at the National Association of Counties event or convention next week. Commissioner Carter and I will have the privilege of speaking for just a few moments about this work And, um, the things that were shared by so many different, um, folks in the community that helped to make Orange County what it is today. So I'm grateful for the opportunity to receive the book, to hear the, um, to be a part of the event on um, on the fourth and just to to read the information also. Um, I just want to take a moment to recognize our library staff. You all know that we went through some extremely hot days, and, um, our main library in Hillsborough and the Drake location served as cooling centers during that extreme heat. Uh, they extended the hours through Friday and Saturday. They had they saw over 1100 people come through those doors. And I am grateful to them being available to offer that relief to our community members. So do you want to say thank you to the library director, Aaron? I know I can't pronounce your last name, but thank you to her and her staff for stepping up and serving our community in that way. Thank you.
[17:56] Yeah. Thank you. And I want to, you know, add my appreciation to the library staff for, um, having the cooling centers open this past weekend when it was very hot. Also, um, want to remind commissioners that we have a doodle poll, um, to reschedule the half day retreat for the 2050 land use plan. Um, I just I just mentioned it, in case you hadn't seen it and hadn't done it usually on the last one, but I, um, and so, uh, you know, that's something we're looking to schedule and then and we'll be talking about later. Uh.
[18:42] To put on our schedules the July 28th once we approve it, in order to have a meeting that includes filling the vacancy. Um, and also there'll be a couple of other items as well.
[19:03] And, um, yeah, as we all said, this is hard. Uh, Commissioner Bedford, uh, with someone we all were turned to for advice and I can see myself turning my head saying, yeah, James, what should we be doing? But we will go on because, um, the county's work is important, and James Etta would want us to do that. And we honor her by, um, being prepared, being kind and doing the work.
[19:41] So now we are going to move on to a proclamation of appreciation for our departing Orange County Health Director, Quintana Stewart. So I think we'll just go ahead and read the proclamation. And then, Quintana, if we'd love you to come up and and make some comments.
[20:05] All right. Commissioner Carter.
[20:08] Orange County Board of Commissioners proclamation recognizing and expressing appreciation for Quintana Stewart, public health director, upon her departure from Orange County. Whereas Quintana Stewart, after nearly ten years of dedicated service to Orange County to the Orange County community, is leaving her position on July 10th, 2026. And whereas Quintana began her role as Orange County's health director in 2017, leaving her previous position as assistant health director in Forsyth County.
[20:42] And Whereas, Wenona has served the county and the Board of Health with excellence, professionalism and a deep commitment to ensuring healthy outcomes for all of our residents. And Whereas, Quintana has overseen the department's two health clinics, a dental clinic, a mobile health dental clinic, environmental health services, the Family Success Alliance, and multiple preventive health and health promotion programs. And Whereas, Quintana has consistently worked to align health department programs with the goals and priorities of the Boards and Commissions Board, Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Health, and to improve care, update billing practices, and enhance direct services to the community.
[21:27] And Whereas Quintana service in Orange County includes leading the county through the Covid 19 pandemic, which necessitated the implementation of urgent health and safety protocols and. Whereas Quintana worked tirelessly to inform and guide the community through the pandemic and her calm and steady leadership, as well as her work to secure tests, personal protective equipment and vaccine supplies, saved lives and provided critical prevention resources to the community.
[22:01] And Whereas, Quintana. Has forged strong collaborations with other departments and community organizations, which has strengthened service delivery and improved efficiencies. And Whereas, Quintana has received local and national recognition for her work, including the 2025 Naco. Erotic. My apologies. Sometimes I can't pronounce words correctly. Quintana, a Heroic Hands Award and 2022 Ron Levine Public Health Agency Legacy Award, the 2021 WHL Hometown Hero Award, and the 2021 Greater Champion Carver Chamber. Duke Energy Citizenship and Service Award.
[22:46] And Whereas Quintana will be greatly missed by her colleagues throughout Orange County for her compassion, sense of humor, and her steady leadership during challenging times. Now, therefore, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby recognize and express deep appreciation and gratitude for the services rendered by Quintana Stewart to the Orange County community and wish her well in her new endeavors. This, the ninth day of July, 2026 and I move approval of the proclamation.
[23:27] Second.
[23:28] All right. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? I oppose none. Thank you. Quintana steward, for your leadership. For your contributions.
[23:43] Thank you. Y'all know I'm not a woman of many words, so this will be really brief. Um, but I do just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you to each of you. Um, to Manager Myron, who believed in me back in 2017 and gave me a chance to come over from being an assistant deputy director to taking on the full health director role. Um, I learned a lot here in Orange County. Um, I worked a lot here in Orange County. Um, but I wouldn't give anything for the experience. Um, you all have made me a much better leader, a better person. Um. And I am really sad, like, it's hitting that this is my last, um, board of county commissioners meeting, so thank you for the opportunity to serve this community. Um, met a lot of wonderful people. Um, Miss Kathleen Anderson over there. So I'm going to take the breastfeeding campaign on the road to my next adventure and see if we can't get some things done there. But thank you all for the opportunity and for all the support. Um, I know Chair Hamilton. We spent a lot of time together during Covid. Um, so we survived. Um, so really, I just thank you all, and, um, I will miss you greatly. So thank you.
[25:01] Thank you.
[25:09] Let's come down.
[25:47] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[26:19] All right. We have no public hearings. I also failed to mention, um, Commissioner Amy Fowler is not present. She is on vacation. And so now for our regular agenda, we have moved up. Um, item D on the Long-Time Homeowners Assistance Program. Uh, potential alteration to the program threshold and targeting. And Blake Ross, our housing director, will come and present.
[27:00] Thank you. Blake.
[27:01] Good evening, commissioners.
[27:27] Okay.
[27:28] So basically I'm here this evening as a follow up to our April meeting, where we discussed two ideas for alterations to the longtime Homeowners Assistance program. I'm returning here with more details and answers to the questions from your April meeting at the time, in hopes that the board will be ready to make a decision on these changes in time for this year's LA season, which starts in about a month. So there were two main recommendations, and one was from staff and one was a petition of a commissioner. The staff recommended increasing the eligibility threshold from five years to ten years. If we had applied that in the previous season, that would have affected 137 households who would have been ineligible, and that would have lessened the amount of assistance we paid by $62,000, which would have gone to other households that were assisted. Longer time homeowners. Um, and the reason staff is recommending this change is it would prioritize the longest tenured residents with higher assistance amounts. There could be exceptions allowed for family transfers that have taken place more recently. We heard some concerns about that, particularly in the North Side neighborhood. And so the rationale was that residents that have bought homes since 2016, when home prices had been high for a while in Orange County, may not have been the originally intended program demographic when this program was created.
[29:06] And the petition by the commissioner was a suggestion that we target assistance to a specific demographic of households that meet three criteria. 70 years of age for Head of Household. They've owned the home for at least 20 years, and they are earning 30% area median income or less in the previous year. 100 households would have been eligible under these terms. And the idea is that we, um, we basically alter the formula, the calculations of how assistance is allocated so that these families will receive more assistance, um, in future years, which will, um, which will effectively make it as if they are receiving the same amount of overall assistance and, um, paying the same amount in overall taxes. Um, so the policy mechanism, mechanism there would purely be to amend the formula, um for towards the specific demographic to achieve a higher level of assistance to them than we have been paying. I ran the calculations on this and this would amount to almost $42,000. That highlighted figure here, when we're factoring in the recently approved tax increase for FY 2627, so that almost 42,000 represents the amount of increased taxes that we would expect these households to owe. And so that would represent almost double the amount of assistance that they received in 2025. Um, and if all other things remained equal, uh, diverting this amount of money to this new demographic would result in an average $60 decrease to the rest of the 700 households that we had assisted. Um, as I state later on, though, this would not actually, um. Well, I'll I'll get to it later on a later slide. But with the savings from the threshold raise from five years to ten years, there would actually not be a decrease in assistance to other households. We would have sufficient money to cover this increased cost and still have more money than we had used last year for assistance. So a case study, um, of, of this new change would look like, um, a household with a total property value of 287,000.
[31:57] Their tax bill will have increased from last year's 1837, $1837 to $1958, for an increase of $121. And then we would target the formula not for each specific household, but on average to meet this new level of, of assistance. So, um, a 6% increase, let's say, um, which would allow us to assist these families to a greater degree than we had in the past. Um, there was another question. We I received an April about setting asset limits for participants. I do think the staff suggestion would be not to assist any household that owns more than one home. Um, the issue may be tracking down this information, and I plan to talk to the tax office about how that may be possible. Um, but as far as further assets, we can request investment information, but we can't ensure disclosure of other investments. So that's, um, that's a weakness of the program that has always existed. Um, not sure about ways around that, but willing to accept suggestions, of course.
[33:17] That's right.
[33:21] And so other considerations combined with the proposed threshold increase from 5 to 10 years. The nearly $42,000 in extra assistance to work towards the commissioner petition would be more than offset by the 62,000 savings by increasing the threshold for this next year. Um, one of the questions that we need to consider is, would we want to, um, eliminate the cap amount? There's a $1,000 maximum assistance cap right now. So are we saying one of the outstanding questions is do we want to eliminate that cap for these families if we pass this Recommendation. And the other issue is it won't be a factor for this coming year if these changes are made, but in the subsequent year, I would anticipate, if we want to fund the program for all participants to a similar level that they will be getting this next year, there will likely be an increase needed, or we will start to see a decrease in assistance to the larger pool of applicants who aren't in that smaller demographic.
[34:44] Um, the last slides I left up here, these are left over from the April meeting, and these were answering just general questions about the data from this last year. I'm not going to go through that unless anyone has specific questions about it.
[35:05] All right. Thank you very much. Um. Questions, commissioners.
[35:11] I've seen. I've seen lots of hands. Okay. I'm going to start with Commissioner Scott.
[35:17] And then I just need a reminder. Blake. Um, I know what the new recommendation is for folks who are over 70 and, um, are at 30% Ami or less. What is the requirement? The income requirement right now and age requirement. Can you just remind me?
[35:35] So there's no age requirement right now. Um, older, older heads of household do by our formula get more assistance. Like we weight the those households more currently. Um, but there's no age threshold. It's just the threshold is income level. Home value and length of time owning home.
[35:57] So the income level currently is also 30%. Am I and.
[36:01] No, it's 50%. Am I.
[36:02] Percent? Yeah. Okay.
[36:07] Thank you.
[36:08] All right. Commissioner green.
[36:10] Um.
[36:11] So let's say a household this past year is, uh, has been in their home for five years or six years. Um, have you given any consideration to, like, phasing them out over time as opposed to just cutting them off? They got it one year, and now they don't get it the next.
[36:30] Um, I think grandfathering in the the households that have been assisted up until now is certainly an option. It won't involve as much savings as I had calculated, but, um, that's something we can do. I've not given it much thought.
[36:48] But it's worth thinking about for sure.
[36:50] Okay. Commissioner Carter.
[36:53] Uh. Thank you. I would call Blake that there was some discussion about the legal framework for the current program, and that the current program was based on home guidelines. And there was some discussion, some turning to look at, you know, attorney. Um, there was some discussion about, uh, perhaps some considerations as we think about the new program or the, the revised or the 70%, under 30% Ami portion. Did we resolve those questions?
[37:30] Yes. I've worked with the attorney's office and been given clearance for this, um, while and then, um, been clarified that we should be referring to this as a grant assistance program. Um, which is what it is. So, um, while we're doing that and while we're adjusting the formula to assist folks in general rather than looking at specific Households and figuring out like how we get them to the same exact burden from the previous year. We're doing all right.
[38:13] So I do have a follow up.
[38:15] Okay. Follow up.
[38:16] And yeah, and the follow up, um, has to do with, um, and I'm with all, uh, considering, uh, Commissioner Greene's question about folks who are currently receiving assistance and how to address the transition off the program. When I think of a long time homeowner in the county, certainly five years doesn't, you know, and this is very subjective, right. But five years certainly doesn't feel like a long time homeowner. Um, even ten years strikes me as a question mark. And so I wonder if there's been any. And I think maybe it can be gleaned from what you've presented to us, Blake. But the analysis of if we were to really think about long time as 20 years and maybe I can't recall if the board discussed this and formalized its goal here, um, uh, knowing that there might be a grandfather and a transition to that definition of time frame. Um, because and then there's also the component of our current program, which is, um, 50% Army and helping folks at that level versus 30% the folks who really are in stress with our property tax challenges here in the county and how we really shift. And is it our goal to shift the focus towards supporting those folks who are the most vulnerable with larger grants, or is that not where we want to go with the program? So I just put that out there for us to discuss, which would mean more money for the new option and less money, potentially for the first option.
[40:02] Um, one point of clarification. Two I didn't insert it into a slide, but it's in your abstract because I got the information after I had prepared the slide deck, but I was requested to follow up with Marion Chief Jackson Center about how we decided to move from ten years to five years. Um, they the person I spoke to there, um, was not. Um, they did not remember it the way that the commissioner I forget which commissioners said that, but, um, they remembered that the reason that we originally increased it from ten or decreased or from ten years to five years was because we did not have much uptake on program assistance in the first year, so that it was actually the threshold was lowered to get more program participation. Um, I don't I, I delved further to ask like how much this would impact if we did increase the numbers. Um, and they were able to give me some numbers. They said, and this is in your abstract. The change in threshold would affect three households. Out of the 42 households that were assisted last year that the MC Jake works with. Um, one of those households, uh, would be granted an exception under the family transfer exception that I mentioned, and two of them actually would have it. Um, she said that because of the work of the Tax Office and Tax Justice Coalition and because their habitat homes, their taxes have already been lowered. Um, so they wouldn't actually be affected either. So she had no objection to changing this based on that.
[41:55] Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner McKee. No. Go ahead. No.
[42:01] Um. Yes. I, as the person who petitioned for this, uh, a little background, I'd been rolling around different scenarios for for a couple of years, uh, to try to figure out how to slow down the exit from Orange County of a lot of our low wealth individuals, particularly low wealth homeowners, to disincentivize selling their property because of of taxes. Uh, I think I've related this story at least one time publicly and maybe several times board members. But I'm going to reiterate it. Uh, well, before I became a commissioner of standing in the tax office late December, Along with a lady from Fairview, and in our general conversation, she made a comment about the envelopes that I had in my hand. I had, I don't know, 5 or 6 different envelopes, tax statements. And and I told her, I said, this is not. Her comment was, you must own a lot of property. And I said, no, I don't own a lot of property. These are a lot of farm trucks and they're not very valuable, but I have to pay tax on them. Her reply to me was, we're okay this year, but next year we may have to sell the car.
[43:35] Next year we may have to sell the car, that truck in order to pay the taxes on the house.
[43:46] That has stayed with me a long time.
[43:51] So that is the reason that I started this, trying to figure out some way to help these people that are in jeopardy of losing their home to a tax foreclosure. I'm not saying this is perfect. I was originally planning on trying to push something through as a standalone, but as Commissioner Carter mentions, there may have been issues with legality. There may have been issues with the legislature, but our attorneys have looked at this, and I do not believe that we are crossing any particular red line on this one because we are not doing anything to limit taxes. We're simply trying to incentivize people to be able to to stay in Orange County by reducing or granting help on their tax bills. Um, so that is the background on this. And if we move forward with this, let's not pretend that we're going to help a lot of people, because the limitations that I put forward are pretty extreme. 30% of am I is about 30, $35,000.
[45:11] You've got to live in the home 20 years, and you've got to be over 70 years old. And when you reach 70, I'm 74. As of last Sunday, I'm at the end of my working career, folks. A lot of other folks 70 years old have ended their working career. A lot of those folks are living on Social Security, maybe Social Security alone, but every December they've got to go to that tax office and they've got to pay a bill. And if they don't pay that bill, then they've got to deal with the foreclosure at some point in time, not immediately, but at some point in time. This is going to be very limited. It can be changed at any point by a future board. Increased or decreased. Held the same parameters. Changed whatever that board decides to do to make it better. But we need a starting point, and this is a starting point. And embedding it into the long term homeowners program gives it a basis and gives it a justification. So that is the background on it.
[46:19] Yeah. Thank you very much. So commissioners, I mean heard really good comments. I want to I want us to move toward some decision and looking at different points. Um, okay. We'll have, uh, public comments, but let me just, um, you know, first say that, you know, my understanding of the program. The changes would change the formula, so it would help relieve the burden for folks who are 30% Ami or below who've lived there longer, who are older. So that. Commissioner Carter, what you said about like that is the intent of this change and staying within legal guidelines. Um, and to help, um, provide more money and to maybe be more appropriate to the intent of the program, because initially it was ten years. And I have to admit that I was surprised when it changed to five. But there were arguments and I was like, okay, so I certainly think that, you know, that ten years is, um, is reducible. And it sounds like the folks who came in and spoke to us about the change are okay with the ten years. Um, you know, I would be in support of, you know, if someone had more than one home, um, and then want to come back around the cap to understand that better. And maybe I should ask that question now. I mean, the cap is for everybody. And so if we lift the cap, we have to lift it for everyone. I would assume, in order to maintain the legality of the program versus having a special group who had the cap or didn't. Um, attorney John Roberts, does that make sense?
[48:25] Yes.
[48:27] Okay. Um, so.
[48:33] So I think we I just want that out there that if we change the cap, it has to be for everybody. But I will start stop with my question and comments. Take public comment on this issue and then board. We will come back and have time to deliberate more about what we're going to do.
[48:58] All right, so I see five names. Um, for public comment on this item. And the first person is Beverley Walton.
[49:12] Okay. Thank you. Next I have Judge Beverley Scarlett come and speak.
[49:24] Good evening, commissioners, and respect to our former chair, um, Commissioner Bedford. I am here to implore you all with everything I have in me to. Two. Get us a good long time homeowners program that's going to benefit our elders. You all have, by and large, fail to pay attention. When I've spoken in the past, even for the MLK speech I did in January 2024, when I projected the way that the taxes were being increased, that we would lose our teachers, our police officers, EMS. Guess what? It is happening. People are losing their homes. You owe it to us because right here in our Department of Revenue handbook, which I'm presuming you did not read, I did the very thing I complained about is addressed, that is taxes being assessed, comparing apples to oranges. That should have never happened. It says the cell comparison approach. This method involves researching the actual recent sales of properties similar to the one being valued. Similar, the sales prices are adjusted somewhat to account for relatively minor differences. When you have properties that are three times the value of the property that's being assessed in that folder. Driving up the cost of that tax assessment,
[51:28] you violated this. You need to take responsibility for it. I appreciate you all going out to events. That's a good thing. But that's not helping my people stay where they belong. And I'm going to tell you right now, I've been here for a very long time. I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. When it gets to the point that I cannot pay my taxes, take me right there to the Eno River. I understand drowning is the less painful thing. Drown me and then plant me on my land with my ancestors. We deserve it. So, you know, out of retirement, I am working full time for free to keep people in their homes from January through the end of June for completely free and just a few of us. And I'm sorry, but I need to get this out. We've saved $5 million. Five and counting. Thank you.
[52:40] Thank you. Next we have.
[52:47] Horace Johnson.
[52:54] Good evening, commissioners. And again, my condolences to the board members for the loss of Miss Bedford. Thank you. Earl, you got me on. Yes.
[53:06] Just for.
[53:06] You. Just for me. Um. I find it mind numbing to be here because you just recently voted to increase the property tax again to four point something percent. I know Travis had put out there 3.5. Here's the problem. I'm supporting the increase in funding for the LA because this is just the beginning. What the judge just said is just the tip of the iceberg. Why would you increase a property tax to a machine that's broken? I have a car outside with no wheels. Who wants to buy it? Not any of you, because it doesn't make sense. So when you got property valuations being ignored and people come in with numbers out of the sky when there's no comparable, and you put that on a person and make a fixed income, and then the next year you raise it the property taxes again, but limited access to LA or Homestead Acts. What kind of sense does that make? The accountability comes to you. Because if I'm not, if I'm correct with the oversight of the commissioners, you have oversight of the tax office. Is that right? When they bring something to you, you should sit down and talk about it. Do any of you go out and look at the constituency that you serve? These people are suffering. Why would you vote on something that's broken? And now we've got a debate whether we're going to give more money to help people stay in their homes. It doesn't make sense to me. And maybe I'm telling people that who vote for people stop voting based on color. Stop voting based on clicks. Stop voting based on party. Start voting for somebody who will get in the street and find out what's really going on with these people. I've got three people in Fairview getting put out of their houses by the end of this month. I found places for two of them to go for rentals, because someone else has bought their properties and raising the prices because of their taxes. So until we start addressing that, you're going to see more of me, less of the judge, because she has a very low temperature for this. And I'm just curious as to what are you thinking about when you raise the vote to raise these taxes? Do you not know what's going on in the tax office, how they're making up numbers coming out of clear blue skies with no comparables? How do you justify raising it to 4%? So think about that because it's not going to only happen to everybody around here. Look at the population. Seniors are dwelling away. We're hiring people outside the county. People are moving out here. The kids population in schools are dropping. Hillsborough Elementary is only half the capacity of the home, because people can't afford to stay here and send their kids to school and buy lunches and put gas in their car and pay for bills. We're losing people every day as we speak, and now we gotta fight again to keep more money in this. And I'm looking at that graph. Hillsborough alone 224 households in Orange County. Three it's just ridiculous. So think about that and figure out a way to come together, galvanize yourselves together, and get past the events that you go to attend to for photographs, and think about the people who voted you in. Thank you.
[56:13] Thank you.
[56:17] Next. Mike Hickey.
[56:20] I believe.
[56:20] He's speaking on item six as well.
[56:23] As.
[56:23] Reverend Campbell is speaking on item eight.
[56:25] See?
[56:26] All right. Thank you.
[56:27] Miss Walton has come back. If.
[56:31] Okay. Go ahead. Beverly Walton.
[56:37] Thank you.
[56:38] And I also miss Commissioner Bedford. She always greeted me with a smile and a hug. But that's not why I'm here. I look back at some of the taxes that my husband and myself paid, and every year it went up. And I noticed every year we struggled to pay them. I was talking to my grandson, who is 21 years old, and he says, grandma, what are you going to do with your house? And I said, what do you mean when I die? I said, I don't know what y'all going to do with my house when I die, because the taxes in Orange County are going to be so high. By the time you all, I hope I live long enough. By the time you all inherit it, you'll have be making money where you can actually pay. And I'm going to say it just like I said it to him, white folks tax bill, because the black people and brown people of Orange County are footing all the funding. The revenue for Orange County, all these rich people that are moving in are not putting these bills. And it is so unfair. And as county commissioners, we voted you in. And you know, I can't talk loud. We can vote you out. But also you need to do something about your planning board. And whoever has hearts can say, pitch these numbers out of the sky. We deserve to live here because we built Orange County. These people that are moving here, that come from New York and wherever they that I know, they pay astronomical taxes, they come here and it's a drop in the bucket for them. They didn't build Orange County and they will destroy Orange County. You wanted to stay historical? Okay. Continue to let them move in and not pay taxes. And it will be historical. It won't be in Orange County. Thank you.
[58:34] Thank you.
[58:38] All right. That's all the folks I have on the sheet. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this topic?
[58:46] If you can give your name to Laura Jensen, our clerk, that will be helpful.
[58:55] Okay.
[58:58] Good evening.
[59:00] Um.
[59:02] First of all, in loving memories of Mr. Miss Bedford, um, I want to say I met her maybe 25 years ago. Um, we worked on Chapel Hill. First I, I I ep program to really get it started in Sheffield school system. So we got to work together for at least six months together, and she was the most wonderful person that I can meet, could have met. And also I wanted to thank. On behalf of Perry Hill Community Association, um, you all approve funding for a commit many park at in their community and Miss Beth was there to do the dedication and she was so loving. She's just like a neighbor, a friend, and we really appreciate the relationship that she built with our community. So on behalf of, um, what we're here to talk about is the taxes. Um, I represent, um, I represent many physicians, but tonight I want to speak on behalf of habitat for humanity. And I know that as it pertains to trying to figure out what is the right appraisals for our community and the way habitat has supported the information that has been received through the town, to the town, to lower our taxes. Um, the homeowners and the county and habitat is still sort of confused on how those taxes are figured and allocated when the homeowners might apply for assistance versus, um, habitat. Um, writing, um, uh, appeals for our homeowners to lower our taxes and everything. So the low, um, long term program supports our homeowners, but most of our homeowners of seniors. We only have one senior community. But we are also advocate advertising to all communities about this program. My main concern is the communication you all will have to these homeowners, these seniors that are not getting the information. That is my main thing, is how do they get the information that these programs are available?
[1:02:07] Yeah. Thank you. And anyone else wants to speak. Okay. Go ahead and please give your name to Laura Jensen and or announce it up here.
[1:02:21] Just briefly, I do want to say that the fact that the numbers.
[1:02:27] Come out of the air.
[1:02:28] Is real, because.
[1:02:31] I.
[1:02:31] Worked with several, many people and lately I worked with Miss Parrish. And so ten days ago, she had her meeting before the BOE, and she has just retired. She's a professional, and, um, she's just a great person. So anyway, she, um, she had her comps, and her comps were more in line with what she wanted her valuation to be. So, of course, we have a new, um. Mr. Burgess was there, so she showed this presentation and he asked. She called me as many as she came out of there. So he said said to the assessors, Where did you get these numbers? Where did you get these numbers? And they were, you know, rolling around their chair and they couldn't say a word. So they had pulled them out of the sky. He really ended up getting mad at them. So that was, you know, I wish she was here. It's her birthday today, you know, so she can't be here. But thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
[1:03:40] All right. Um, thank you, everyone, for speaking. Commissioners.
[1:03:46] We need to discuss and decide on this item.
[1:03:54] I guess one way to break it down is to
[1:03:59] look at some of the elements. How many folks.
[1:04:03] Are in support of moving it from to ten years? From five years.
[1:04:12] I'm supporting us. Ten years to five years on the. From five years to ten years.
[1:04:18] I'm sorry. Yeah, five years to ten years. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. At least. Well, I mean, it sounds like there's a formula that can also be adjusted, but as far as who's eligible, the eligibility be ten years versus five years to be eligible for the program.
[1:04:37] Yes. I'm in support of. And I'll comment. I'm in support of us going to ten years.
[1:04:41] Okay.
[1:04:42] At least ten years. If we can go to 15 or 20 with some kind of a transition so that we can raise our. I'll just cut to the chase so that we can raise the awards because we're going to run into this problem. As you pointed out, Madam Chair, with the cap having to be expanded for everyone. So how can we give a bigger award to the people who are most in need? Is the question I have for us.
[1:05:07] And for me. For the you know, you know, I want to make decisions based on the information we have. And so if we moved it, then I would want Blake to come back and tell us what that would look like. And that's why I would hesitate in, in saying, oh, let's make eligibility start at 20 when we don't have any basis to know who that will impact. Um, so that's that's my hesitation in making that change. But I'm comfortable with saying ten years. And then obviously the formula can be adjusted to weight more grant money to those who have lived in their homes longer. I so I feel as Prescott and then Commissioner Mackay.
[1:06:03] I am.
[1:06:04] In.
[1:06:04] Support of moving from five years to the ten years, and I know that it is our. I want to make sure that we, the folks that are most in need, get all the funds that they need to get so that they can continue to live here. Um, and I know that you just said we want to deal with the information that we have right now, and so I won't talk about, uh, what may be coming in November because I'm sure there are next budget season. We'll we'll discuss. Okay. Yeah, I think we want to at this point, just stick with what we know. We know we're in an environment where things are going to change. Um, but again, so I see everyone supporting the eligibility starts at ten years. Um, and again, knowing that the formula is going to be weighted so that those who live there longer have lower income, will have more assistance.
[1:07:04] And, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, I just want to make sure I'm clear. Okay, so it's for the first part of the program, the traditional long time homeowners that we're discussing moving from 5 to 10.
[1:07:15] No. Go ahead. Wait wait wait wait. Then.
[1:07:18] And then for the second piece, the that Commissioner McKee proposed, which is the additional we're proposing that start at 20 is am I right.
[1:07:28] Yes. Yes, yes I thought.
[1:07:30] No that's not my understanding.
[1:07:31] That is absolutely.
[1:07:33] No because it's one program. It's not a separate program.
[1:07:36] There's a separate embedded program within this is an amendment to the long term homeowners assistance program.
[1:07:44] That is not what I understood from Blake. And that's so.
[1:07:50] Yeah, I may have missed communicated it, but I believe Commissioner McKee is correct. We're talking about the threshold is the 5 to 10 year. But then within the program itself to identify this demographic, that we would calculate the formula to be able to assist with more grant funds.
[1:08:09] Right.
[1:08:10] Right. But but it's it's one program in which the wait will be changing.
[1:08:18] Exactly.
[1:08:19] It's not a separate program.
[1:08:20] No, it's not a separate program.
[1:08:22] That's key because otherwise we would have legal issues. Is my understanding. I just want to make sure I'm clear then, because I thought that it meant that folks could get extra money. Right. Right. Yes. Right. Okay. So you get funds if you're in that ten year, 50%. Am I, um, or below 50% or below? And also, if you've been in your home for 20 years, you're 70 and you are really at 30% Ami, you get an additional amount.
[1:08:54] That's exactly my intent.
[1:08:55] Right. But it's through the formula and the weighting. So it's one program. It's not a separate program. It's just the way you the formula to. Wait, how much assistance?
[1:09:06] Yeah. It sounds like y'all are describing the same thing to me. Just in different words.
[1:09:12] Okay.
[1:09:13] But yeah, I mean, like, I wouldn't think about it as they get one amount and then they get a separate amount because they're only going to get one amount. It's just the the members of that smaller demographic will get a larger amount.
[1:09:27] Okay. Right. Okay.
[1:09:29] And and if I might add, the members of that demographic have to live at home for 20 years, right?
[1:09:35] Right. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:09:38] Okay. Right.
[1:09:40] I just want to be clear.
[1:09:42] Well, where I'm at.
[1:09:44] I mean.
[1:09:45] It's.
[1:09:46] Say somebody lived in their home 19 years. They would get more than if they lived there ten years, right? I mean, it's a sliding it's a formula that.
[1:09:53] Right.
[1:09:54] Okay. That moves.
[1:09:55] It's already weighted towards that, but once they crossed that 20 year threshold, they would jump up a significant amount.
[1:10:00] Yes.
[1:10:01] Oh, yeah.
[1:10:01] It's just with the way we're planning to reshape the formula.
[1:10:07] They if I'm.
[1:10:09] Like.
[1:10:09] Yeah.
[1:10:09] Go ahead.
[1:10:11] The additional amendment of 20, 70 and 30% is designed for a very small demographic, not for a broad overlaying homeowners assistance program. It is embedded within the Homeowners Assistance Program in order to address possible issues. Because we have this program in place, this program has not had any issues. It has not been challenged. So embedding this within that I think eliminates that possibility.
[1:10:50] Right. And that's.
[1:10:51] What.
[1:10:51] It is an amendment or an embedded additional additional grant within that homeowners program.
[1:11:04] I think we are saying the same thing, but we're thinking about it differently.
[1:11:08] But at the end of the.
[1:11:09] Day, we just don't have our verbiage.
[1:11:11] Locked in yet.
[1:11:12] And that's okay, because I think we all are going to agree. Commissioner Carter, and then we're going to move on. Okay.
[1:11:19] So I do have a question about Caps and how those will work. Right. And the scenarios and maybe scenarios are the easiest way to visualize this because as we're increasing awards with and there'll be step functions. Right. You hit a certain threshold and once you hit 20 years of residency you'll get a much higher amount. Um, and those are the criteria, the 70 years and the 30%. Am I but what happens with the caps if if we have a program wide? It's a single program is I think we're reinforcing in this discussion. We have a single cap. Are those folks going to be maxed out so that the impact of that benefit is really not there? So I'm just trying to understand the scenario.
[1:12:08] Yeah, I think that's a legitimate question. And I would have to run some numbers about what it would look like to eliminate the Cap program wide. I was not imagining that I was I was imagining perhaps eliminating the cap just for this demographic. Um, but if if our legal team doesn't feel like that would be appropriate, then I'd have to consider what it would look like to eliminate the Cap program wide. And I can't speculate on that right now.
[1:12:45] Okay.
[1:12:46] I mean, so I mean, so given that sort of uncertainty, Um, we can go on and leave the cap or bump it up at a certain amount. Right. I mean, because there's a timing issue. I know I had looked on the website and there's already, uh, information out to the community about the program, and, and we know it's going to change. So I, I do think it's important to, you know, make a decision, you know, for this year and, you know, and even though I know I would love to have a stable program because it would drive me nuts if I had to keep changing the criteria. However, I also given the funding and the limits and our concerns. You know we will. But right now, are folks okay with the thousand dollar cap, or do we want to bump it up to another number and go ahead and make a decision on this so we can keep going?
[1:13:56] Okay. I've seen different hands up.
[1:14:00] I just want to make sure I'm clear. If the.
[1:14:03] Cap is left, will.
[1:14:05] Those.
[1:14:05] Folks.
[1:14:06] Who.
[1:14:06] Are.
[1:14:07] 70 been.
[1:14:07] In their home 20 years? 30% or less? Am I? Will they really feel an increase or will they not there?
[1:14:17] There are some within that 100 households that are already receiving $1,000, so they would not receive more assistance next year. Um, despite their tax bill rising, I don't know the exact number that are at that thousand dollar threshold. I'd have to go check my spreadsheet and I can get that to you tomorrow. But, um, but yes, I don't I don't think it would affect, uh, A significant I mean, I think it would be like in the ten household range maybe, um, if I'm trying to recall what I saw on the spreadsheet. Um, so it would not be the majority of households that are already maxed out. Um, but it would affect some of them to leave the cap in place, as is.
[1:15:08] Commissioner McKee.
[1:15:12] My feeling is that moving from 5 to 10 years is reasonable, because it was not the original intent of the board when we started this program to define long term as five years. Yeah, I think we're talking 20 to start with, um, as far as the caps.
[1:15:36] As I mentioned earlier, uh, this board later a new board, there will be a new board after December and it'll be a 46% change in board. It'll be three new members so that a future board can make adjustments if necessary. I would suggest as a means of moving this along that we move it to ten years. We leave the caps in place for this year. The the effect may be for a few people, but they're still going to get that thousand dollar grant. And then anyone else who follows in that 20, 70, 30% will max out a thousand. But that can be moved. That can be changed after we see how the program works. Right now we are looking we're trying to look into the future and figure out what the effects is going to be without any historic data to, to, to, to use to base it on. So after the first year that could be reevaluated both for the cost of it, the effectiveness of it, and is it really working for the people? It's for this amendment that it's really designed for, which are those on the on the very lower income scale that are in danger of being foreclosed?
[1:17:04] Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Green.
[1:17:08] Yeah.
[1:17:08] I just raised the question about the grandfathering just to make sure we.
[1:17:12] Could you mind, um, commenting on the cap, and then I'm going to so that we I want to hear everyone's view about the cap.
[1:17:21] I didn't realize that.
[1:17:23] Yeah.
[1:17:23] Sorry. Farm of the.
[1:17:24] Cap.
[1:17:24] Okay. Commissioner Carter.
[1:17:28] Yeah. Given Blake's informal assessment that the number of folks who would be limited is small. And that's the key for me. It's what is going to be the impact for the folks who were intending to assist. And I know the intention is this will help most of the folks in that demographic. It's going to have a material impact for them on their bills, most of them. And so and because we don't completely understand what's going to happen if we raise the cap to $2,000, because then that affects 800 other folks. And it could to, to paraphrase, blow a hole on our budget. Um, I would say I would be comfortable keeping the cap as is until we get more information and making adjustments, as Commissioner McKee suggests, until we know.
[1:18:24] More. Yeah. Thank you. Now, actually, Commissioner Green, I do want to go to the grandfathering.
[1:18:30] Okay.
[1:18:31] No, I just raised the question. Yeah, we can discuss it.
[1:18:35] Yeah. Thoughts about grandfathering those who have been getting assistance at at five years. Commissioner Carter.
[1:18:46] It's a question again, it's what is that dollar impact and can we absorb that? Um, I know that, Blake. You showed us, um, the changes in the program would produce $62,000. Um, uh, it would. They would drive an additional $62,000 in assistance. Is that right?
[1:19:08] Yeah, that's the total. Some that have owned the home between 5 and 10 years. But I don't.
[1:19:14] Know, that would reduce the amount of assistance that we're providing. Yeah. And then the, the the new criteria for the elders would add about 42,000. So there's about a $20,000 gap that could be used toward grandfathering. Is that a fair way to think about it?
[1:19:33] Yes. Although if we're grandfathering in all of these 137 households, and we're assuming they all reapply, then that's not a savings anymore. Um.
[1:19:45] But there's 42,000 extra. I'm sorry. I just jumped in.
[1:19:49] Yeah.
[1:19:50] So hold on a moment. Um, Blake, see what you just said again?
[1:19:55] If we're going to grandfather in these 137 households and assuming most of them are applying, that's no longer a savings of 62,000.
[1:20:06] Gotcha. Okay.
[1:20:07] So we we could probably guess that some of them will not apply. Some of them, um, may have left the area. May, um, forget I don't know. There may be some reasons they don't apply again. Um, but I would anticipate the vast majority of them would apply, and therefore changing the threshold wouldn't have an immediate effect. It would just be a downstream effect.
[1:20:32] All right. Thank you. um. Commissioner Ascot.
[1:20:37] I was just wondering, though, is it possible? Um. And how would it delay anything if we not make the decision on leaving the cap in for the next year? If we got more information at the next business meeting and and make a decision then. But if we could see what the numbers really are with, um, increasing that cap so that we make sure that we don't even displace those.
[1:21:05] So the cap, the.
[1:21:07] Cap decision, I believe, and I'll defer to John over here, but I believe that decision can wait because it's not affecting how we take in applications. It's not affecting eligibility or anything like that. It's only affecting the output on the back end. So I think that that could probably wait. If you all want to wait and reconsider that. Um, what can't wait is the threshold, the ten year and what we want to do there because we have to get materials out. We have a hard deadline next week to have all materials updated. Um, and we can't start a program and change the eligibility after we've started the application window.
[1:21:51] So just to make sure I'm clear, though, considering the tax increase we just approved, if those folks are at that thousand dollar cap, they will feel that increase.
[1:22:07] Mhm. Right. Mhm.
[1:22:09] Yes.
[1:22:13] Yeah. Commissioner McKee.
[1:22:15] We could very well go ahead and and move everything and move everything forward tonight. But at a later date this year if the, if the numbers justify moving the cap at that point we could come back and revisit this year?
[1:22:31] Yes, yes. I like.
[1:22:32] That. Okay.
[1:22:35] Okay. So I'm hearing ten year eligibility. Thousand dollar cap. But with opening to revisit if we need to, um, and want to, there's, um, discussion about grandfathering. Seems like that would undermine the savings. Um, so I just want to hear, um, who wants to, you know, basically not grandfather, given that.
[1:23:11] Oh, are we voting or just. Yeah, I wanted to be able to see what that number really is, though. If we grandfathered people, what really will be the financial impact? Okay. And can we decide that, um, at a future meeting or do we have to.
[1:23:26] I mean, you know, I'm just going to say folks need to know, and they need to know now in order to get the word out. So I think we have to we have to decide, okay. I mean, otherwise things, you know, right then, I mean, if I look at the website now, I would be confused because it doesn't reflect the changes. So I think we need to decide, get the information out for people so that they can apply and get, um, assistance this year. And you know, we as a board, you know, always challenge with how we make decisions and how much information we need. And, and, and I think we have to think about how to do things differently. But I think for now, given the timing, we need to give direction to Blake and and keep going so folks know what to expect.
[1:24:20] I can partially answer your question though. So the calculation I have is on the bottom of this slide without the $62,000, there would be an average of $60 decrease to the 700 households that weren't a part of this demographic. Now, that was when I was not imagining maintaining a cap for them. So I think this amount would actually be lower. It would be a smaller decrease for the 700 households, because there will be households in that 100 household demographic that will not receive as high of an assistance increase as I was anticipating.
[1:25:00] Okay. Thank you.
[1:25:02] Okay. Commissioner Carter.
[1:25:05] Just for clarity, because I'm looking at Blake's, um, slide, uh, slide 11, I think in his packet that shows home valuation by a number of years owned, there's 137 households in the 5 to 9 year range. And I would say, you know, we're at a at a place where, You know, we've had tremendous tension in our budget discussions because the budget's under strain. We know that this is a demographic that is not long time. So, you know, I think somehow we're looking at 137 households. If we're looking to to grandfather, I think we should start a transition plan and ramp them at some level down. Some of these folks are going to hit ten years this year also, so they'll be eligible. Um, so I think we just need to have that conversation, which is don't grandfather to the full extent for 5 to 9 years have a transition plan because that's really not long time homeowners.
[1:26:14] All right. Commissioner green and then I will.
[1:26:16] Yeah, I guess that wasn't clear.
[1:26:18] Yeah.
[1:26:18] Mr. Carter, I'm not sure I understand. I mean, what I was thinking when I raised the question was that somebody this year has been there five years next. Then we don't let anybody five years in the next year. Next year it's six years. Next year it's seven years. Next year is eight years. Next year it's nine years. Next year it's ten years. In other words, the the people who will actually this year it would be six years because people last year got it at five years. So this year that cohort would have been there six years and they get it. And then the number moves up every year. Is that that's what I was thinking. So that somebody I mean I agree five years is not a long time. I'm just thinking kind of basic fairness of, you know, they were in the program and suddenly they're just kicked out.
[1:27:09] Mhm.
[1:27:10] So is that does that help you.
[1:27:13] Yeah it does. I think some type of a transition and maybe it's a faster transition. But I think some type of transition makes sense but not a full grandfathering in.
[1:27:22] What's the difference? What would be? What were you thinking was fool grandpa wasn't clear.
[1:27:27] Okay.
[1:27:28] Because I thought that that's what it meant was it would roll forward.
[1:27:34] So.
[1:27:36] But we don't have the numbers. We? Yeah. We don't have the numbers.
[1:27:40] Okay. I want to ask folks, you know, um, say yes or no to grandfathering Commissioner Prescott. Yes, yes.
[1:27:55] Commissioner is something that can be discussed at a future date either this year or as an amendment later on.
[1:28:04] I don't think so.
[1:28:05] I don't how can that be? Because people need to know.
[1:28:09] What I'm saying is leave it without the grandfathering clause. And at some future date, if a board decides that at that time grandfathered moving in.
[1:28:18] Then there's the. There's no.
[1:28:20] Points. Okay. You're saying no to grandpa?
[1:28:22] No, grandfather.
[1:28:22] Okay. I'm going to say no grandfathering just because of the cost.
[1:28:31] I would like to keep it as simple as we can.
[1:28:36] I'm going to say yes. Grandfathering. It's moving it up.
[1:28:41] Commissioner Carter.
[1:28:47] I like simplicity. I also recognize that there are people in this 137 cohort who are likely in need, and so I would like to see some kind of a transition. And I would like to have staff make a recommendation to us as part of their program.
[1:29:03] Um, one recommendation that occurs to me now is just as we're altering the formula to, to target more assistance towards the Commissioner McKee's demographic, we can alter the formula to um, to grant less assistance to homeowners in the in the 6 to 9 year range. Um, that's the first thing that occurs to me.
[1:29:31] I could I could live with that.
[1:29:37] We could potentially even establish a new minimum that, that that they would receive. But I haven't had a chance to present options to you also.
[1:29:49] So I'm going to say just that we'll go ahead with this because I know you have to get materials out. And the main, the main thing you wanted is the ten years. However, you also need to reflect that some folks that would not be the case and obviously check with the legal team to make sure that's all legal. And um, you know, go forward with the direction. And if you need to come back to us, you will let us. You'll let us know. Um, but I think this is where we are now. Um, and I and I hope in the that we can figure out a way to not be back in this place with this program. Um, and I have to figure out maybe we have to do more work at work sessions in order to hammer this stuff out, because it's not working. Um, Commissioner Carter. Because let me just add because we don't know that. Right? This is a grant program. We have only so much money. And so, you know, somewhere something will have to give, as you said, for some other folks, so that that's just part of it. Um, Commissioner Carter, then Commissioner McKee. And then we're going to go on to our agenda.
[1:31:08] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and I really appreciate this conversation that we're having for our community members as well. Um, so to put a point on it for the grandfathering discussion, I do support the direction that Blake articulated, which is specifically to look at some funding that moves from the 5 to 10. The formula is adjusted down in the 5 to 10, and that that funding is made available to the most vulnerable folks in the second criteria level, which is the more funding will shift from the 5 to 10 over to folks in the 77 years of age or older, under 30% ami, um, who've lived in their homes 20 years or more. Is that that's what I took away, and I support that direction.
[1:31:59] All right. Commissioner McKee and then Commissioner Green.
[1:32:01] And.
[1:32:01] Commissioner Green has a comment. I'll defer because I'm going to make a motion.
[1:32:06] Okay. Yeah. My comment was that the website perhaps could say this program is phasing out for years five until ten and that, you know, and other language that you come up with that makes it clear to just makes that clear to folks. And then the formula could reflect, you know, less money for people from 5 to 10.
[1:32:27] And in the meantime, this year the eligibility threshold will be six years.
[1:32:33] Yes.
[1:32:36] Yes. Phasing out for people who began at five years last year. Something like that.
[1:32:41] Right.
[1:32:42] We'll explain that for sure. But. But you don't use it on a flyer, for example.
[1:32:46] I'm sorry, but we don't want people beginning the program at six years. We only want people who were in it last year to be able to move up to six years.
[1:32:56] I got you. So only returning households that have six years of home ownership or more. Okay.
[1:33:06] Yeah. Is that okay? I'm looking at our attorney. Any concerns with.
[1:33:12] No, no. No concerns.
[1:33:13] Okay. Thank you. Okay.
[1:33:15] Okay. I have a motion.
[1:33:16] Because I feel like this is important enough to have a yes or no motion. We can make adjustments later on. I would move that. We move forward with the amendment to move to a ten year, um, eligibility and that we include the, uh, separate amendment to go to a 70 year, 20 year occupancy. 30%. Am I and that we authorize the staff to determine a formula for, uh, phase out or grandfathering.
[1:33:56] I'll second.
[1:33:57] That. Oh, okay.
[1:33:58] All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. That passes. And hopefully enough direction. Thank you for an in-depth discussion.
[1:34:12] Thank you commissioners.
[1:34:13] And thank you all for your consideration.
[1:34:17] Now let's now we're moving on to the adoption of the final financing resolution. I think that should be next.
[1:34:29] The.
[1:34:29] Board discussion for the vacancy.
[1:34:32] I'm going to you know what.
[1:34:33] Let's okay.
[1:34:34] Do you want to rearrange.
[1:34:35] I rearrange I want to make a, um.
[1:34:39] Okay.
[1:34:39] Ask to make a motion to amend, to move the adoption of the final financing resolution up to the next.
[1:34:49] Um, I'll. Second. Second.
[1:34:51] All those in favor? Aye, I oppose none.
[1:34:59] And we have Gary Donaldson, the chief financial officer.
[1:35:06] Good evening. Commissioners also extend thoughts and prayers and condolences as well.
[1:35:15] You recall back in May we had a public hearing where we combined this series 2026 A and B bond. So we've legally met that requirement with the public hearing that occurred back in May. Um, the reason again for the series 2026 B and why we had a A was just the timing. Um, you approved on June 16th budget amendment 12 A, which adopted the guaranteed maximum price for the crisis diversion center.
[1:35:53] So in terms of the looking at the the project budget, which totaled 21.4 million, uh, the series 2026. A had the professional services and land of 3.5 million hits, an alliance contribution of 1.1 million and also general fund transfer of 250,000. That leaves the project budget at 24.5 million for the series 2026. Be the terms of similar and with respect to the A bonds you know that says 20 year maturities of the useful life. We expect that this building obviously will will extend beyond that period. The principal and interest payment dates April 1st October 1st. We always use a very conservative planning interest rate on the series. A the true interest cost was 3.6%. It's typical that we we come in below the planned rate. Um, this is all obviously the the ad valorem tax rates, the rating again. You know that on the series A about a month ago affirmed our Triple-A rating. And also this the limited obligations because of the annual appropriation is always a notch below our Triple-A rating. So the Moody's and Standard and Poor's are the rating agencies for for the series B bonds.
[1:37:34] Um, again, you know, the the collateral similar to the the a bonds the northern and southern campus Justin justice facility and now the crisis facility will serve as the collateral collateral. So really that is again the metrics here so well well chronicled on On the metrics, the debt to AV. As you know, the ceiling is 3%. And of course, you know that to service to general fund revenues is 15%. All this presented to the the credit agencies. And you saw at the, um, the reports that were were sent to you in that regard. So that's really to the point in terms of the all the the abstract includes the documents that you would be, um, approving the financing resolution. But Bond Council was here also the other documents associated with the financing we will price later this month. And so that's presentation.
[1:38:44] All right. Thank you very much. Um, let me go ahead and make the motion. This is something that we have discussed in different ways. This is something that we know Commissioner Bedford felt passionately about. So I moved the improve the final financing resolution authorizing completion of the series 2026 B financing for the Crisis Diversion Center.
[1:39:05] Second.
[1:39:06] Okay. All in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? None that passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Upon council.
[1:39:16] And now we will move to item six. Was 6A6A now six C um, discussion on the process for the board of the commissioners vacancy.
[1:39:33] So.
[1:39:37] Um, you know, by state statute, um, we know that we have to fill the vacancy, um, due to the death of Commissioner Bedford, um, within 60 days, uh, because of this, if not the clerk of court would fill it because of the timing of this. Um.
[1:40:03] So there's sort of two processes that Board of County commissioners will fill the vacancy with the recommendation of the Orange County Democratic Party. Um, but then also because Commissioner Bedford, um, was running unopposed in the November. Um, it is the Orange County Democratic Party who will determine who's going to be on the ballot to replace her there. So so, commissioners, what we have before us today is to determine the process that we are going to use to choose, um, a person to fulfill the rest of Commissioner Bedford's term. Uh, because of the timing, the Orange County Democratic Party has already put it on the website and advertised for applications for people who are interested, both in the vacancy and being on the ballot. Um, and given that that's, um, already out there, you know, I recommend that we, uh, not ask folks to make another application. Um, but to use that process at the Orange County Democratic Party has started. Um, in order to determine who we want to put on for the vacancy.
[1:41:32] But I will stop there and get other input about the process.
[1:41:39] Okay.
[1:41:41] I support.
[1:41:42] That.
[1:41:44] All right. Um, we have, you know, on consent to change the calendar to have an additional regular meeting on July 28th in order to choose. Um, so my understanding is the Orange County Democratic Party is collecting applications until July 13th. So I suggest that whatever they've collected to date, that we will get those and that will be our pool.
[1:42:20] Okay.
[1:42:22] Um.
[1:42:24] Okay. With that, I'd prefer to follow the process we've done before, but because it's a double appointment, I'm not going to make an argument out of it.
[1:42:32] Yeah.
[1:42:33] I also, Commissioner.
[1:42:35] I was just going to also point out that the the party does plan to have a forum that will be online on June, July the 20th, where, uh, all of us is potential voters for our own for the vacancy can view that forum and and see the see the candidates um in real time.
[1:42:59] Yes. Thank you for that addition. Um, I know I won't be available, but hopefully it will be recorded and I could see it after the fact.
[1:43:09] Um.
[1:43:09] It's informative.
[1:43:11] Oh, yeah.
[1:43:12] Yeah.
[1:43:12] I mean.
[1:43:13] Yeah.
[1:43:14] So so I'm seeing nods that we will use the application process of the Orange County Democratic Party. Um, I know I have shared with them, uh, the questions that we have asked at previous, um, vacancies. And at this point, I think I and I know that some individual commissioners have, um, submitted questions at the parties open for questions for the candidates during that forum. And so we'll suggest any commissioners who has additional questions to go ahead and submit them to the party in that way? Um, I mean, it seems like they'll have plenty of questions. And with the limited time that they can choose the ones that they think best, uh, reflect what they're looking for. And again, we can listen in and decide.
[1:44:11] Do we?
[1:44:13] Let me just put this out there for thoroughness. Want to have candidates come and make any statement to us on July 28th?
[1:44:24] Yeah.
[1:44:27] Okay. I'm seeing I'm seeing.
[1:44:29] No.
[1:44:30] Two no's. Commissioner Scott.
[1:44:35] I think that, um, we have the opportunity to submit questions to, um, um, to the party.
[1:44:43] Right.
[1:44:44] We have the opportunity to be a part of that meeting and listen. Um, and then they're going to share the information with us. That's what you suggest in this. Share everyone's information with us.
[1:44:57] So I'm really.
[1:44:58] Seeing that.
[1:44:59] In the applications they get they will share. And I know the applications has questions obviously during the forum that's going to be recorded or either people, hopefully those who can commissioners who can attend will be attending. I know I can't attend, but hopefully I can watch recording. And also I'll hear from you all what you learned from that. Um, so then what I'm hearing is that on July 28th, when we meet, we will simply we will be talking about those candidates and, um, and deciding based on that who will fill the vacancy. Obviously, with the recommendation of the party.
[1:45:43] That that was the last point. I was going to say, we will be receiving a recommendation that will, you know, be presented along with the backup information about who else applied in their application. So, um, but of course, the recommendation will be seeing that as well.
[1:45:59] Well, exactly. We will be seeing the recommendation of the party who they want for the vacancy. And you know, my I have heard that there will be one person that would be for the vacancy and for the ballot, but we don't we don't know could still be two separate processes. And so I encourage everyone to look on the Orange County Democratic Party's website and really understand the process, um, um, for choosing who they're going to recommend to the board of county commissioners for the vacancy and understand who they're going to put on the ballot. Um, because, you know, it is my understanding it is the chair and vice chairs of district one precincts, who will decide who the candidate will be?
[1:46:47] And our input is only for that unexpired term, not for whose names will be on the ballot.
[1:46:54] That's right. Right. Yes. We will get what Commissioner Carter says. We will have the recommendation of the party, but we'll also have all the folks who applied for us to consider.
[1:47:08] For the unexpired term.
[1:47:09] For the unexpired term.
[1:47:10] Yes.
[1:47:14] All right. We will. And just one more point. We will have also the name of the person, both people. Oh, sorry. I should say both positions. Yes. Who? They have not selected for both. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[1:47:26] Yes.
[1:47:27] Commissioner McKee.
[1:47:28] And full disclosure, I've already had a conversation with one interested applicant for the filling of the vacancy. I will be having conversation with another one shortly, and I'm open to having conversations to anyone that is interested in filling that vacancy.
[1:47:46] Yeah, I mean, I think we as individual commissioners can I certainly gotten, you know, emails from some. And that's something that yeah, we, we will do and be open to doing. All right.
[1:48:01] One last question. Yes. And when you say that we've shared, um, our previous questions with the party, that's these questions. Yes.
[1:48:09] Okay. Yeah.
[1:48:13] Okay.
[1:48:16] All right. Well, I mean, this is I don't think there's anyone signed up for this item. No. Does anyone who wants to speak on this item? All right. Seeing? None. All right. Thank you very much. Board.
[1:48:34] And now.
[1:48:44] I think we're moving on to the review and establishment of oversight responsibility for the Orange County tax Administrator.
[1:48:57] All right.
[1:49:02] All right. Thank you, Chair Hamilton. Uh, so tonight we will look at some information, um, and make a decision regarding how the oversight responsibilities for the tax administrator will work as we move forward in our advertisement for that position, which is imminent. Um, as well as how that oversight will work once that position is selected. So just a brief timeline about where we've been and where we're going. So, as you know, back in March, we had the final report on all of the final appeals and neighborhood reviews. Uh, Nancy Freeman, of course, has retired. John Burgess is currently serving as our acting tax administrator. Uh, simultaneously, we have our associates who is reviewing the assessment reappraisal process, and we'll bring back recommendations later this summer and into the fall. And then Developmental Associates is, uh, engaged in working on the recruitment on behalf of the county and the board. So as, as you know, the board does have the legal responsibility and authority to appoint and remove a tax collector and a tax assessor in Orange County. We have chosen to combine those two roles into a single tax administrator. The statute, however, is silent on how that. Once that person is appointed, what happens from there, how that person is evaluated, how that person is supervised on a day to day basis receives assignments, how the work plan is established and whatnot. And so and because of that, sort of the default position is employees who are covered under the personnel ordinance in the county are at the serve at the direction of the county manager. And so that's how this position has been organized in the past. But not all counties, of course, organize it in that same fashion. And so we did do a survey of counties, a voluntary survey. Basically, you rely on the goodwill of other counties to respond. We did get 11 responses back, but we asked them about the formal reporting responsibility. Day to day supervision. Who conducts the annual performance review and who establishes the annual work plan. This table shows the detail of those 11 responses. I've bolded the ones where the board is involved in some facet of the oversight of of the the tax administrator. In most counties, at least some three three of the counties. There's the formal reporting relationship shared between the manager and the board of commissioners in eight of eight of those other counties. That responsibility is assumed by the manager, assistant manager. Deputy manager. One county has performance evaluations conducted only by the board. Two counties have the manager perform the evaluation with input from the board, and then eight counties assign that responsibility for the evaluation to the the manager or one of his or her assistant managers. And the same goes for for work plans largely. Most counties have a assign that responsibility to the to the county manager or one of his or her assistants. And then day to day supervision is generally the responsibility of the the manager or one of his or her assistants. So one, we've got about five options at the board can discuss and talk through, ranging from basically the board assuming exempting the position from the Personnel Ordinance and having that position report to the board. The board conduct annual performance evaluations, approve work plan, and provide sort of day to day management of supervision. Uh, and then we sort of step back from there, where the board assumes responsibility for perhaps the work plan and all of the other functions are delegated to the manager. There's also an option where the manager would be required to seek input from the board, uh, when, as, as for example, I would if I were tasked with doing that performance evaluation, I could be required as a matter of policy to seek the board's input on that evaluation and then report that back to you. Um, you could also require the manager to provide that evaluation and work plan to you as a as a matter of information, not as much a sort of a direct input or just basically delegate everything to the manager. And then, you know, when, when problems arise, I would come, I would come back to you. Um, so that's sort of the range of responsibilities that are that we'd be talking about here. Um, as I said, the there is no single way to organize the the tax administrator responsibilities. Uh, John Burgess, our current acting tax administrator, had worked under a system where, like Johnston County, where the board and the manager share reporting responsibility and the board approved, conducted the performance evaluation. And also in latter more recent years, under a process where the manager was responsible for that performance evaluation. And and you know, he said it it went well both ways. And I think what we just need to think about is, you know, in cases where things aren't going well, how the board wants to provide input or if things are going well, how the board wants to communicate that back to the person that they have appointed. Um, so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:56:02] Any questions?
[1:56:05] I don't see any.
[1:56:06] I do have a question. Okay. Yes. So and I think I know the answer. Travis. We kind of prefaced it, but, you know, there's a couple of counties that come to mind that have been called out. Um, as, as, you know, Practitioners of best practice. Right wake. And I believe also they didn't respond to this survey. Correct.
[1:56:28] They they didn't. I think Commissioner Green had spoken to one of the Durham County commissioners and can provide her the information that she gathered.
[1:56:38] Yeah, sure. If you want me to answer that now. Um, I did talk to a commissioner in Durham County, and what they do is pretty much what we've got is option two. Um, the board, um, meets with the tax administrator and reviews an annual work plan. And also they do do the performance review, but they don't do the day to day management.
[1:57:02] And she said it works really well.
[1:57:08] Commissioner, do.
[1:57:09] You have a question for Commissioner Green? Um.
[1:57:14] I thought I'd heard that Durham requires the tax administrator to attend all of the meetings. Is that correct?
[1:57:22] You did? Yes. Um, I don't think it's a requirement. I mean, I think that they had a tax administrator who just decided to do that, and that that tradition has continued from one tax administrator to another. So, sure, it is something we could think about.
[1:57:40] And, um, another question for Commissioner Green.
[1:57:45] Okay.
[1:57:46] Um, did Durham, the Durham commissioners mentioned, commissioner mentioned whether, um, their tax administrator is exempt from the personnel ordinance?
[1:58:00] We didn't discuss.
[1:58:01] That. Okay.
[1:58:09] I mean, my understanding is they have to be if there's going to be.
[1:58:15] Well, I guess John would tell us when.
[1:58:18] So the only.
[1:58:19] Way we would need to amend the personnel ordinance is if the board decided to totally take over, um, day to day supervision. Um, you know, uh, work plan development, uh, reporting everything. Um, if the board. Option two. Option two is that, uh, Travis just mentioned, you would not need to do that because the manager would retain, uh, supervisory day to day supervisory authority.
[1:58:47] Okay.
[1:58:48] And then just option three would be the same because the manager would still have day to day.
[1:58:55] Um.
[1:58:56] That's correct. Option three as well.
[1:58:59] So it's only in.
[1:59:00] And four.
[1:59:02] Right. So two three and four and probably five.
[1:59:05] Two and.
[1:59:06] Five. Yes.
[1:59:07] So only option.
[1:59:08] One.
[1:59:08] Only option one. Okay. Yeah that's helpful.
[1:59:13] Thank you. Yeah, that is helpful.
[1:59:14] I will add for for appearance reasons I would not recommend option one and I can go into detail about my recommendation if that becomes a serious consideration of the board.
[1:59:31] I mean, I will just say that, um, yeah. I mean, I would not recommend option one either. I think, um.
[1:59:39] We don't.
[1:59:39] Want that.
[1:59:40] Uh, but I'm certainly, you know, looking at 2 or 3 so that it's a joint, um, joint responsibility to both the board and, um, the county manager to look at the annual work plan and also, uh, and do the performance evaluation.
[2:00:04] Um, okay. I see I don't know whose hand came up first.
[2:00:08] Or on me, I think.
[2:00:10] Okay. Sally. Uh, Commissioner Green.
[2:00:12] I would I'll just say that with option two. And I don't remember how this discussion how what I learned from Durham County, but, um, I, I really am attracted to option two. I would add, though, that we the board get, um, input from the county manager because we have not the board would not have, you know, had day to day supervision. So I would say that that that would be a good addition to number two.
[2:00:45] Could you elaborate on that a little bit more because that blends two and three together. Correct.
[2:00:51] Um.
[2:00:55] So I think in in Commissioner Greene's example, the board would have final decision making authority on the performance evaluation, but in doing that would say, hey, County Manager, what do you how do how do you think the tax administrator is doing exactly put together their performance evaluation.
[2:01:15] Right.
[2:01:15] The other is kind of the other way around.
[2:01:17] The other.
[2:01:17] Yeah, the other.
[2:01:18] This would be the board would really be the one doing the evaluation but would not be doing it in a vacuum. We would be having have advice from the people in the manager's office who had worked day to day with the person.
[2:01:30] So just to clarify, so then our new practice would look like pit counties.
[2:01:45] Except it would be board input with count. It would be the board with the county manager's input.
[2:01:50] Exactly.
[2:01:50] It would be pit with that twist.
[2:01:52] Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.
[2:01:57] Um.
[2:02:04] Oh, I think yeah.
[2:02:05] Well, the formal reporting responsibility, I guess that would be to the manager.
[2:02:12] So I think.
[2:02:14] I don't think it's.
[2:02:14] Just words. Words, words.
[2:02:17] Yeah. So I think, I think what we would do, for example, in the position uh, announcement and also in the position profile would be to say would be to detail what each is responsible for. The manager is responsible for day to day supervision. The board, you know, is responsible for the the initial appointment and then annual performance evaluations with input from the manager.
[2:02:42] And the work plan review.
[2:02:43] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:02:46] Commissioner Carter.
[2:02:47] So I think I support Commissioner Greene's, um, suggestion, um, with perhaps a slight tweak. Um, so Pitt County and it may or may not be a slight tweak. So you can keep me honest here, but Pitt County has formal reporting responsibility with the board And the county manager so joined. I support that and it has. I think our twist was under annual performance evaluation. It has the board with the county manager's input.
[2:03:20] Mhm. Yep.
[2:03:22] And then I think for Pitt County we well I'll speak for myself. I support the approach of in that case it's flipped the county manager as it's listed with the board's input. Keep that keep pit county's model there for the approval of work plan goals and priorities.
[2:03:44] And then for the last one, the day to day supervision, it would be the county manager. That's what I would support.
[2:03:53] Okay. I want to just jump in to make sure because. So I'm going to look at pit county. And so what I'm hearing. But I want to make sure formal reporting responsibility is the Board of Commissioners and the county manager. Joint annual performance evaluation is the board of county Commissioners, with input from the county manager for approval of work plans, goals and priorities. Does that stay the county manager with the board input or does it flip as well?
[2:04:27] For me, it flips. For Maryland. It doesn't.
[2:04:29] Okay. That's and.
[2:04:31] I okay. So that yeah that's.
[2:04:35] The.
[2:04:35] Thing I think I'm.
[2:04:41] I think I like the way Pitt County does it. Just thinking about the amount of detail work to get a work plan and goals and priorities, that that might be something that the county manager who already has, you know, a system to track that would make sense with the board input. So I think I agree with Marilyn on that. Just thinking about the, the practical logistics of of tracking that.
[2:05:10] And we'd have input as a board.
[2:05:12] Yeah.
[2:05:15] Other thoughts.
[2:05:17] And so we would get input.
[2:05:22] I guess I'm, I'm just trying to think it through. Um.
[2:05:30] Travis would submit to us.
[2:05:34] The work plan, which is which is what we have right now. Or it could change with the recommendation from the consultants, possibly. And then we provide our input and then on what the plan would really look like. But how often would we get performance updates.
[2:05:55] Well, I mean that's.
[2:05:57] It would be and you would, you would follow. So if the board is conducting the evaluation. I would assume it would follow the same cadence as the manager, clerk and attorney is an annual performance evaluation.
[2:06:13] Hmm.
[2:06:16] I mean, I think.
[2:06:19] Right. I mean, I think, um.
[2:06:24] I'm thinking two things. One, what do we need now in order for the, um, for development associates to go out with information to recruit the new tax administrator. And then if we need more time to work out the details of our expectations.
[2:06:48] I mean, if the board just tells me tonight that you would like to conduct the performance evaluation annually, that's what we'll, we'll we'll say that the reporting responsibility is a joint reporting responsibility. Day to day supervision from the manager board conducts a performance evaluation.
[2:07:09] Right.
[2:07:09] And yeah.
[2:07:11] And that's enough. And then we can figure out what that looks like.
[2:07:16] And we can figure out what approval of the work plan, goals and priorities looks like.
[2:07:20] Right. But also and then for the annual I mean, if we.
[2:07:25] Like.
[2:07:25] Um, right. It says annual performance evaluations, but if we want to check in on work plans and something before that that we could decide what that looks like.
[2:07:36] Yes. Yes, yes.
[2:07:38] Okay. I see two hands. I think Earl's had. And they'll go to Commissioner Green. Sorry. Commissioner McKee?
[2:07:45] Yeah. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, John, but tax administrator is not an employee of this board. It's an employee of the county.
[2:08:00] We appoint. But he is not one of our three employees.
[2:08:04] Not in that sense, no.
[2:08:07] But we I mean, we appoint. I understand that, but under.
[2:08:09] The current personnel ordinance, the tax administrator is subject to those terms. The only three who are not are the three that the board directly appoints.
[2:08:19] And I ask this question because over my tenure, I have seen individual commissioners and groups of commissioners get way too involved in department day to day department direction. Uh.
[2:08:41] Just I'll just leave it. I've seen individuals and groups of commissioners get way too far down in the weeds with county business. We have a manager that handles day to day operations, runs the county, manages. The employees understand this as an appointment, not a higher. But and I can live with the county model. What I want to stress is that I do not. I will use myself. I will not say anything about any other commissioner. I do not have the time, nor am I going to delegate that or dedicate the effort to try to find out exactly every nuance of that tax department in order to be able to give an honest evaluation of whether this tax administrator is doing a good job. The manager can it is is an incumbent on the manager to know what every department head, including this department, is doing, how they're doing their job. I'm not qualified to make a performance evaluation on somebody that I'm not going to interact with more than a few times a year. That's my concern. I do not want to create a situation where.
[2:10:13] I've seen department heads be forced out because of personnel clashes with commissioners, with policy differences with commissioners or groups of commissioners. And I see a great deal of potential because of not because of this board, but because of the issues that have been present and continuing within that department. That pressure, political pressure applied to a future board Will influence their decision more than a true evaluation of the performance of that office, which I do not have. Nor, if I sit here 20 more years, would I have at that point to give an honest evaluation of how that person sitting in that position is doing their job right?
[2:11:12] Thank you, Commissioner Green and Commissioner Scott. And then to wrap this up.
[2:11:17] Um, so I've not been on the tax workgroup, but obviously as a commissioner aware of the issues with the tax office and with our community in terms of wanting more accountability to the tax office. I think that, um, we don't have to commissioners don't have to be in the weeds with, uh, with the, um, with the management of this position in order to be able to, to do an annual performance. I also am kind of surprised at the that some of us would not want to pay for this board to approve the work plan, because, I mean, that's the kind of thing that I thought that this board was grappling with is that we wanted a better handle on what the tax administrators work plan actually was and how they were accomplishing it. So, um, I, you know, I don't know if any other counties do it like Durham County, but I suspect that they don't think that they have the day to day expertise to understand how to, um, really manage a tax administrator. But they feel like they do have the, the authority and they've taken the responsibility to do the annual evaluation and the work plan. So, um, again, I thought that's what we what I thought that's part of the problem we were trying to address here was more accountability, uh, through us of the tax administrator.
[2:12:44] Right.
[2:12:45] Yeah. Thank you.
[2:12:46] Scott, I think I'm echoing what Commissioner Green is saying. I thought that when we look at where we are right now, what the community has been saying to us and have been saying to us for years, and if we don't make the changes, then it seems like we'll continue to have what we have in terms of the oversight and the monitoring of the work plan. And that hasn't seemed to work for us. And so I'm supportive of us having the input and approval of the work plans, the goals, those priorities, and being involved in the annual performance evaluations. And if I can just throw this, I know that we meet some of us meet regularly with Travis, I mean, with the county manager monthly. And, um, if that is an option for us to also have those sit downs, then I know that doesn't have to be written, but.
[2:13:43] Yeah, just hold, I want to, um.
[2:13:49] I mean, I, you know, I think, um,
[2:13:55] I think we need to go ahead and indicate our support for the Pitt County. Um, I'm going to make a motion. Um, as Marilyn, um, described it. And I think that model gets us where the board has input on the work plans, because I bet even Durham County, they're getting the county manager to bring them that data. So I that's, I think, uh. Um, so.
[2:14:34] And, Madam Chair, just before you make the motion, if I may, I, I do agree with, um, Commissioner Greene's point that, um, we all. And I think we're all agreeing that we all want to have input into that work plan. And so there's a nuance here between who's leading, gathering that information. And I could see it working either way. You know that we're leading that or the county manager is leading that as I feel comfortable, as long as we it's a formal process and we do need to define for the manager how frequently we want to discuss that. And so taking that offline. So there's more structure. There's structure that may be different from the way we've done it in the past will help us bridge that concern. Because yes, we've all talked about this. And as part of how do we engage more as a board. So I appreciate you point there. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that.
[2:15:27] So I'm going to make a motion to, um, follow the Pitt County. In terms of formal reporting, responsibility is shared by the Board of County Commissioners and the county manager, the annual performance evaluation with is going to be the board's responsibility, with input of the county manager, the work plan, goals and priorities for the county Manager with board input and the day to day supervision and operational direction is the county manager.
[2:16:02] I would second that.
[2:16:03] Okay. Um. All right. The motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. So that passes five zero. Thank you very much. And I, um, I feel strongly that anyone that is a board that we're appointing, that we need to make sure we get the information to make sure, um, that they are doing the job that, uh, reflects the needs of our county. And, um, I think it will. It will help the board take responsibility for understanding the important aspects of what the tax office does and hopefully, in conjunction with our county manager, make the changes so that we will be more transparent and fair. Thank you.
[2:16:58] Thank you.
[2:16:59] All right. It is 917. We have one more regular item. So I'm going to go ahead and we'll have the.
[2:17:13] Six E the solicitation of offers to purchase 2823 mill house road. And Dave Stansell our deeper director. Thank you for your patience.
[2:17:24] Thank you. Good evening. Um, so I'll be brief. Just a quick recap, and I'd like to put the map back on the screen that you may recall seeing in March. I think everyone remembers where this property is, but it is on Millhouse Road, about a mile north of Eubanks Road, and as you can see on the map, it abuts the north side of the old County landfill on the south. To the west of the property is Duke Forest. On the other side of Millhouse Road is, of course, the railroad tracks, the Jay Branch and the Town of Chapel Hills Operations Center. So back in November, we had a work session, and the board provided direction to staff about what should be made available. We were looking at options for this property to be used, potentially for a, uh, some type of a soccer field. I use the term loosely. We all recognize that lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, other sports use the same size field. But coming out of that meeting, the board basically said that about 45 acres, which is the area that we had looked at in previous iterations. this property had been looked at for a couple of different things, and this is the most buildable part of the property for, um, soccer fields in the type of facilities that we were talking about. So it's approximately 45 acres shown here on the map. The idea was that it would be a public purpose use sale. So that would be with a sale to a nonprofit purchased for the use as a soccer or similar sized field sports with some conditions. And on November 11th, the board stated that it should be managed for private and some public usage to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the county on the details of the arrangement for the sale and the future use of the property, and there is a reversion clause that was brought up that night that if the landowner does not use it for the purposes for which it's intended, the property ownership reverts back to the county. So with those instructions, we went back and created a draft offer of Solicitation or Solicitation of Offers document that was presented on March 17th for the board's review. We used our request for proposals or RFP template for that, and that this is not really a request for proposals. And I think one of the comments we got from the board that night was it was a little onerous and maybe over the top. So one of the part of our instruction was to try and clarify, streamline the document. And so we've tried to do that in what we've given to you tonight to drop that boilerplate language that was in the original document. We also commissioned a new appraisal of the property with the conditions that had been stated and agreed to factored in. And as was suggested at the meeting in March, we expanded the time frame for proposals to be received. So if you look at the draft document, there's now two months to be able to submit proposals as opposed to one month. So tonight we have a revised Solicitation of Offers document. It could be published as early as July 14th next week depending on changes that are needed. And that would yield a possible proposal due date of September 18th. And so if the board is ready to proceed, the manager, the attorney and staff would publish the document, receive proposals and offers, vet the proposals, perhaps including interviews as needed, and negotiate terms of a potential sale and a memorandum of agreement, which would then be presented, of course, to the board for review and approval. Be glad to answer any questions.
[2:21:08] Any questions, Commissioner McKee?
[2:21:10] Yes, sir. Was this appraisal done on the contingency of use instead of land value?
[2:21:17] Yes.
[2:21:18] So those conditions that I read off earlier, the reversion clause, that it should be used by a nonprofit for a soccer field complex. Those are the those conditions were factored into the appraisal.
[2:21:31] That that was what I was thinking because land, as I mentioned in the earlier meeting, are less than 15 miles to the west of this. Just sold for $62,500.
[2:21:45] I consider this a fire sale.
[2:21:48] Yes, it made a significant difference. You may remember the original appraisal was about three times the amount that this new one was.
[2:21:56] I know that that's I really object to selling taxpayer funded property at this price.
[2:22:06] Mhm.
[2:22:08] Uh, Commissioner Scott, do you have.
[2:22:10] Any.
[2:22:11] Comments?
[2:22:13] I was just wondering though, are we going to include the appraised value in the solicitation or how will are we suggesting that, um, anyone making an offer would not need to know that information?
[2:22:34] I think the way the document is written, it proposals can be submitted with any dollar amount. So they do not have to adhere to the appraised value. But obviously they will know that we know that we have an appraisal that says this is the value of the property. So they could submit in a different amount, and that would be part of, I'm sure, the criteria that the manager of the attorney and staff would look at as we were evaluating it, um, how did how did that match up to what we've been told the property value is?
[2:23:08] So would you have a rubric to help you determine which offer you would accept over the other? What would it make another offer better than the other?
[2:23:16] I think.
[2:23:17] They are.
[2:23:17] And this this was actually in the original proposal, but we didn't put it in this one. There was a matrix that we had had 6 or 7 different criteria for evaluation, and so we'd need to review that and make sure that that's accurate. But yes, and that would be one of them would be, you know, the the dollar amount that is being offered for the property, I'm sure would would be one of the things that we would look at, you know, experience with operating a facility of the type that's being requested. Um, the proposal itself, there are there is some language in the document that tells tells the would be buyers what we're expecting to see in the offer. And so I don't think we have that finalized, but there would be a set of criteria that would be used to evaluate. But if you want to get a sense of it, I can I can send you the table that was in the previous draft that I think is a pretty good example of what we'd be using.
[2:24:16] That would be good. And also, are they able to share with us the appraisal, a copy of the appraisal that was done.
[2:24:23] You would like a copy of the appraisal that was done?
[2:24:25] Yes. I would like to see that.
[2:24:28] Sure.
[2:24:29] So I'm kind of, um. Any other questions or comments? I'm almost sensing that.
[2:24:39] That.
[2:24:40] That we're going to want more information before.
[2:24:45] We can make a decision on this. That's what I'm sensing, Commissioner Green.
[2:24:52] I mean, the matrix, I do remember, at least I remember it being there from from the last version. And I say you're going to put that or some version of it back in there. Um. I'm not. What other. I mean, I'm I'm ready. I think this this works for me. I don't. What what other information are we missing?
[2:25:12] Well, Commissioner Scott asked for the actual copy of the appraisal.
[2:25:18] For us.
[2:25:18] To. Oh.
[2:25:20] For us to have a chance to see.
[2:25:21] It, and then are we going to contest it or what?
[2:25:27] I'm not sure I know. I guess I'm just.
[2:25:33] I think we have an obligation to the taxpayer to make sure that we get us as much money as we can for the property. Okay. And so I didn't remember exactly what that number was before this new appraisal, but I just want to see it and to ensure that we're doing what's best by the taxpayer.
[2:25:55] Yeah.
[2:25:57] Commissioner McKee.
[2:25:58] And then I'll clarify my objections just a little more. I mean, of course, the the price bothers me greatly, but the thing that bothers me maybe even more, we're setting conditions for use on this property. My fear is that we would also be expected, and that's a broad term to commit at some point in time to supporting development costs on whatever is built there. Because we're we are we're requiring it to be public use.
[2:26:40] In the verbiage. And I fear that whoever is coming back with proposals to buy this property for the uses specified are going to want the county to step up and contribute to our development costs.
[2:27:01] But, Commissioner Keay, and correct me, I mean, that may happen, but I mean, we don't even have to take. I mean, this is a solicitation of proposals. It doesn't mean.
[2:27:13] That we have to say.
[2:27:14] What you're saying. I'm just expressing a concern.
[2:27:17] Well, in some ways, I mean, that's.
[2:27:21] I mean, we as we as the Board of commissioners, right, are always in this position where we are looking at a piece of property. We've talked about it in previous meetings about this is what we want to use this land for. You know, obviously we can change, but that's, you know, the way this is written, it gives us, always gives us that option to say no. And it's really up to us as a board to be making those decisions. And so if you're saying yes, you're concerned that a board may do that. Well, yeah, because that's what we do.
[2:27:59] And if we were getting full value for the land, I would have much less concern over development costs for future use. I think we're losing out on the price. My my objection is the price.
[2:28:12] Right. So but so that issue. Um, I think as a as. As a board we'll have input on when we get the solicitations back at that point if we want to do that, or we can hold and and bring this back later.
[2:28:35] Maybe worth. No. I'm sorry. I was just going to say there certainly will be negotiation with the proposals that are received, both in terms of with the staff. And then I'm assuming when once it comes to the board, the board may want to enter into negotiation on some of the areas.
[2:28:53] So actually.
[2:28:54] Before.
[2:28:55] Before any more comment, there is one person here to speak on this topic. So I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and do that and then we can continue. Um, our board comment. So Mike Hickey.
[2:29:22] Good evening, Mike Hickey, executive director of Rainbow Soccer. So potentially somebody who might put in a bid. So maybe we can kind of discuss. Um, not discussed, but I can bring some points forward that I think you have to consider is that this project is potentially a 3 to $5 million project, an average turf field to be built with lights and parking and bathrooms and everything else that goes with it. Average is about 1.2 to 1.5 million to bid. So the cost of the land to the buyer to the nonprofit is a small portion of the whole thing. What the county potentially gets back on this is a facility or a park for its constituents that it didn't have, didn't pay for it. In our proposal, we never considered asking the county to contribute. I mean, that's not something we're obviously. This is all new. We've had discussions with Travis and David, you know, trying to figure out how to do this, but we represent 2500 or so participants and the fields in Chapel Hill and are packed. There's no room. Um, you may have noticed there's a World Cup going on right now. And I know we talk soccer, but we are just past July 4th, and we are already waitlisted for our participating participants for the year, for the fall season. So I think a lot of this is the two things I wanted to bring up today. As far as the, um, the agenda was, item was concerned was the memorandum of understanding, which obviously is going to be the big, you know, so we go to build something and it doesn't work out. And suddenly the county wants to take it back. It's kind of an odd, you know, odd way to go about it. But we understand that for us, we have no other use for it than soccer field. So, you know, um, I think we'd like to see a draft of what that looks like, mostly because as a nonprofit, we don't have the kind of cash to pay for this. We have to have investors and sponsors to to raise the money. And that's going to be a big sticking point for them, is to see what happens if we buy the land and get 500,000 into development in the county says, nope, we want it back, whatever that looks like. Um, the second item in the agenda was there was a two year, um, cap on on. You know, we'd have to have this complete in two years. And I think that most of you realize that's very difficult for us to do. Um, not only does is it, um, you know, dot issues and, you know, stormwater management issues and raising, raising funds issues, grading and so forth. Um, but, you know, there's just there's a lot to do. And the two items that we wanted to address today was the potential for the memorandum of understanding to be in written form so we can see it, and then, uh, maybe a 3 to 4 year window for us to, to build, which I think we're not building grass fields, we're building, you know, hardscape. So that's it. Thank you.
[2:32:30] All right. Thank you.
[2:32:34] Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this topic? Please make sure that your state your name. So our Laura Jensen, the clerk, can record it.
[2:32:49] Hello, I'm Mike strand. I'm with Triangle United soccer partners with Rainbow Soccer in Chapel Hill. And I, I understand the perception of trying to sell the land for its maximum value. This piece of property was originally to be a park developed with Chapel Hill and the county currently, as Mike Hickey stated, there is a severe shortage of recreational space, so although I understand maximizing the sale, you also have a responsibility to provide services and what the community wants as the taxpayers. And with the severe shortage of recreational space for both adults and children, this is an opportunity to have somebody build a park that, per the understanding, would be available for public use at no expense to the county. You would be serving the taxpayers
[2:33:44] in a great way. And to think about the economic impact of how many hotel rooms we would bring in on a monthly basis, not for 2 or 3 tournaments like another big club may do. Triangle United brings in on the average 400 hotel nights a month in season for our top level traffic teams. Right now, 90% of that business is going elsewhere. Soccer comm was built for an impact, but most of you know, the people that come to use that are staying in another county, and we're not reaping the tax benefit of building the facility where we did, which is close for over half of the year because they're grass, not turf fields. And the maintenance on that is a very high thing. Somebody is offering to bring online multiple fields for public, private use that the taxpayers do not have to pay for. And if trying to squeeze another 1 to 200,000 out of that ticket, I understand that may be the path you take, but the economic impact and the value to the citizens that this project would bring is significant. So thank you.
[2:34:52] Yeah. Thank you.
[2:34:58] Okay. Commissioner green.
[2:35:00] Um, well, first to address this, a small, small point. Reversion clauses in real estate contracts are not unheard of. And it's reasonable, I think, in this case, um, to Commissioner McKee's worry, which I know you've expressed before about the county later being asked to to, um, subsidize or support this piece of property. Um, that can be worked out in the contract. Um, I mean, that that's that's that's that's the board's call. And, um, that this, this board can can make a decision that it can forestall that from, from the get go. Um, I had a third thought. Mhm. Um, I'll come back to it.
[2:35:49] Okay. Other.
[2:35:50] Excuse me. Pardon me. The third thought is that Commissioner Porteous is concerned about the appraisal. I mean, it would cost money, but we could get another we week to get a second appraisal done, if that's if that's the concern. If I.
[2:36:03] Thought this value came from a second appraisal that was done.
[2:36:06] Well, we could get a third. I mean, if you're still concerned about the appraisal, we could get a third appraisal.
[2:36:12] There was original appraisal of the entire 79 acres in March of 2025, and then we got a new one done by the same appraiser, um, this spring. So there is a second appraisal, but it was a different appraisal because it was looking at the 445 acres focused and the conditions. Mhm.
[2:36:34] I would like to see it though. See the appraisal.
[2:36:39] So we um someone can make a motion and a second and see if it, if we get approval or we can um, someone can move to table this item. Um, but I think we have. gone as far as far as we can at this point.
[2:37:00] Yeah. May I make a comment? Yes. Um, so, um, I know this boy discussed this use, um, and recollection. I had intended to go back and watch our discussion to refresh, but my recollection was that, you know, there were questions about the use itself, and the board arrived at the use that's articulated here. Um, and so, um, so there's that. And I think that may be still in some commissioners minds about the use and the intended use. Um, but taking the decision that was made, uh, some time ago. Um, I, I would like to see the appraisal and I would just have a question. Dave, when we do a second appraisal. Do we usually do it with the same appraiser or. Um, I'm just thinking about, um, and all due respect to the comment earlier about, um, the economic impact to of this kind of a facility and benefit for recreation to our adults and our children. I see that value certainly in Chapel Hill. Um, but I do also appreciate the questions that came earlier from some of my colleagues about making sure that we do maximize the impact back for our taxpayers. So with all that being said, um, do we usually go back to the same appraiser or is, you know. Um, it depends.
[2:38:32] It depends. Um, we don't do that very much. Um, typically the first appraisal is good. Uh, you know, the benefit of using the same appraisers. They already know the property. They've already been through all the details about it and looked at it and in detail and probably a little less expensive because they know the property, you know. Now, the converse would be you get a completely fresh look from somebody else if you did another one, but not unusual. And this is an appraisal that we've used before for conservation projects and a number of other things. So there are several appraisers that we use and this is one of them.
[2:39:10] Okay.
[2:39:11] Yeah, I, I, I certainly see the value of this kind of project. Um, we have many, many needs for public lands. So I also have that in mind. But I would like to see the appraisal. I would, um, before we finalize the approval.
[2:39:28] So, so so, I mean, it seems to me that we can go ahead and vote on this, right, solicitation and also see the appraisal, because then that may determine, at the end of the day what we decide. So it's not an either or. We could do both. Is that.
[2:39:50] Yeah. That's right. We. We can share the. You could go ahead and make a decision on how you want to proceed. We could share the appraisal. And then, you know, if for some reason, you see something that makes you say, no, bring this to a screeching halt. We can do that, too. We're not. The good thing is, we're not bound by the formal RFP sort of process here. So I think we could make a change in decision. John, correct me if I'm wrong. If the board decided, wait a minute. We see something we want to talk further about.
[2:40:16] Yeah. So I'm going to move to authorize staff to issue and publish the solicitation document, receive proposals and offers, and negotiate terms of potential sale under the conditions and provisions of the Solicitation of offers and the statutory parameters provided above, and provide the board with a copy of the appraisal.
[2:40:36] I'll second.
[2:40:39] Or any final comments.
[2:40:41] Made on it. I don't have any opposition to the use of it. I see the value of it. I'm going to vote for this because we can move forward at this point with a negotiation, and we can stop it at any point in time. So to stop it now would would be useless. Uh, but I want to make sure that we know what we're getting into and, and yes, the, um, the value of it for recreation is, is tremendous. But I just want to make sure we maximize and know what we're getting into.
[2:41:16] Okay. Final comment and final comment.
[2:41:18] Um, I do I support the project. I do want to see the appraisal. Um, and I'm grateful that we have the option of getting a, a another appraisal if we need to. Um.
[2:41:35] I know that to me, it seems like we, um, have a habit or have a practice, if you will, of selling our property. Way below market value. And we have a lot of needs in this county. And so, you know, I'm just a bit perplexed as to why we function that way.
[2:42:03] You know what I'm going to hold, you can have. Um, so I'm going to call a vote. All in favor of the motion, say I, I, I. Any opposed? No. Earl, were you and I.
[2:42:23] I'm an I. Okay. I'm. I'm willing to move forward at this point knowing that we can stop at any point in the discussion.
[2:42:28] Yeah. All right. Have it 4 to 1. Thank you.
[2:42:32] Thank you very much.
[2:42:35] All right. We have no reports. Uh, we have a consent agenda. Uh, a couple of changes. Um, I'm going to move to pull item eight D off consent to clarify that the July 28th and 6 p.m. August 25th meetings aren't special meetings as defined by statute, and are regularly scheduled doc meetings upon adoption of the change. But let's pull it off and also pull item eight. I off consent to postpone consideration until August 25th to provide additional time for review and consent and comment. Is there? Um.
[2:43:14] Wasn't there someone here to speak on an on on one of those?
[2:43:17] Yes, it's item eight C.
[2:43:20] And I'd like to pull that to allow someone to speak.
[2:43:23] Okay. So also pull item um eight C off. Yes. To allow comment. Um, is there a second.
[2:43:35] Second.
[2:43:36] To the poll? All in favor? I if we need to. Okay. So, um, so let's approve the rest of the consent agenda.
[2:43:47] Move to approve the rest of the consent agenda.
[2:43:49] Second.
[2:43:50] Second.
[2:43:50] Okay. All in favor?
[2:43:52] Aye.
[2:43:52] Aye. Any opposed? None. So the previous consent agenda, except for item um, 88, I, um, eight. See, let's, um. Go ahead and move to approve item eight D, which again is a change in our schedule to clarify that it's going to be a regularly scheduled meeting. Uh, not a special meeting.
[2:44:23] Motion to approve eight d on a consent agenda.
[2:44:26] On favor.
[2:44:27] Second.
[2:44:28] Okay. Sorry. Commissioner McKee made the motion. Commissioner green seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Uh, then. Um. Well, I guess maybe we already did it. I is off. Am I adding more steps now? Late in the day?
[2:44:49] I think I think you're good.
[2:44:50] Okay, so go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead and just approve that. Item eight I is off.
[2:44:58] I make the motion to second.
[2:45:01] That is the motion on eight.
[2:45:04] Well, eight I's, so we don't need to. Um, well, discussion and approval of the items removed, but we're approving that they're removed.
[2:45:12] Oh, okay.
[2:45:13] So we.
[2:45:13] Did that.
[2:45:14] Did we.
[2:45:15] Not? Well.
[2:45:16] Well, I specifically removed a D or whatever the number was I did that was only for that item.
[2:45:23] So I think we're fine. So let's have comment on eight C which I'm, which is about property tax releases and refunds and.
[2:45:40] Mr. Robert Campbell, do you want to come up and do you want to make a comment on Etsy before we vote on it?
[2:45:56] Just be ready with the timer.
[2:46:02] Brother Campbell from the Rogers Eubanks community sitting here tonight.
[2:46:14] Hearing your discussions. And I wanted to bring all this together under the proper tax relief of refund and then ask how we look at the motor vehicle property tax relief refund. And then we look at the long term homeowners assistance program. The conversation that y'all had tonight about all that came before this. I see that you have a difficult process to go through. And then your discussion about who's going to oversee the tax department.
[2:47:02] I come to express a strong support for the residents around Orange County.
[2:47:10] Those who have given their time, who have worked and have paid taxes for over 65 years, plus risk being displaced from their homes because of tax evaluation that I believe.
[2:47:37] That those who made the assessment did not come in the community to observe the property.
[2:47:47] Some may have done a drive by, but they don't see the total picture of the property.
[2:47:56] The farm that is taking place, a word that we don't like to use, but we must express it sometime. Systemic gentrification through the process of policies and program that does not concern the property owner who lives on the property, but see it as a way of local income. We don't think about all those who have worked those jobs for so many years. Unfair pay, but yet and still they found ways to pay their taxes and to maintain their homes.
[2:48:42] Now being forced off of their property. Due process of policies and the common use of law.
[2:48:54] You have a difficult job to oversee the tax department. You have a difficult decision to make or how that you're going to go about doing that.
[2:49:10] But I commend you for taking the effort to hear our voices and take our input to help you through this process.
[2:49:21] The job is on your shoulders, but I ask you to go in these communities and look at the properties versus some of the upgrade property which is being built around the older houses.
[2:49:39] Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[2:49:43] Thank you.
[2:49:48] Okay. Now I move consent item C uh.
[2:49:53] Okay. Um, second Commissioner McKee, a motion by Commissioner Green. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None that passes.
[2:50:06] All right. And we are. County manager's report.
[2:50:16] Uh, thanks. Chair. Hamilton, I just, uh, on behalf of the staff, just wanted to recognize how deeply we will miss, um, Commissioner Bedford. She was always thoughtful and kind and respectful, even when we weren't at our best. Um, she always said that she was a slow thinker, but I never really bought that for a second, but just wanted to express our deep, deep sympathy to to her family.
[2:50:42] Yeah. Thank you. County attorney's report.
[2:50:47] Um.
[2:50:49] Each one of the lawyers.
[2:50:50] In my office, uh, interacted with Commissioner Bedford, and they all were greatly impacted by this. And, um, her loss and wanted me to convey that, uh, each one of them will miss her and, um, appreciated the fact that she always, um, expressed her concern for staff. Uh, so, um, and I second that she always did that. Um, I do have one brief update. Uh, as you all know, the there's a there's a budget, um, I believe, and there are numerous negative impacts to local government. If you have a chance, please take a look at the association's, um, brief overview. Uh, they have some, uh, um, generic or general, uh, information about some of the negative impacts. Uh, I'll give you, after we've had a chance to review them in house or in the office, I'll give a more detailed, um, look into that and let you see that. Thank you.
[2:52:03] Thank you. We have appointments. So thank you. Tara.
[2:52:10] Okay.
[2:52:17] Okay. Um, so the first appointment would be for you to consider, um, a recommendation made by the Board of Health. They would. They recommend that you appoint Doctor Laura Vila Torres to fill a seat that was recently, um, left vacant, and this would be an actual motion? And second, please, do you agree?
[2:52:40] Motion to approve. Missed the board recommendation.
[2:52:48] Okay.
[2:52:49] A second.
[2:52:50] All right. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None that passes five zero. And then?
[2:53:04] We have the update.
[2:53:06] Yes. So, due to Commissioner Bedford's passing, there are some seats that are vacant now on the boards that she was serving on specifically. Um, well, there are one, two, three, four, six boards or, sorry, seven. And each of them. Some of them are not meeting until August, but you probably want to go ahead and choose someone now to serve. And then if when a new commissioner is appointed, maybe you could reconsider if they might want to take on some of these positions. Um, but specifically, the Board of Social Services is meeting July 20th, so whoever is chosen should probably make sure they're available for that. And they would have to take an oath of office. And then, um, there the meeting for the the governing board, the COC governing board, previously the leadership team, um, is meeting July 20th as well.
[2:54:09] Okay. So I'm, I, you know, talking with folks, I'm going to just go down and what I've heard that people were okay, it's a jump in if, Um. It's not what you or not what I understand. Um, board of Social Services, I believe. Commissioner Amy Fowler expressed interest.
[2:54:32] So you had a motion?
[2:54:36] Yeah. Do we need a motion for that.
[2:54:38] One.
[2:54:38] At.
[2:54:38] The end?
[2:54:38] Yeah. Okay with that? Okay.
[2:54:40] Okay.
[2:54:41] Um, for the Central Pines Rural Planning Organization. I'm going to recommend, since there's already an alternate that we don't put another commissioner on. And Commissioner Scott will show up at those meetings. Um, for the Durham Technical Community College board of trustees. I think, Commissioner Carter, you expressed interest in doing that. Okay.
[2:55:06] And if I could just say you will have to take an oath for that as well. So I'll make sure that we get that done.
[2:55:12] Okay. Um, fire Chiefs Association Commissioner McKee to take on that one. Um, Justice Advisory Council again. There's two on the alternate. I will we won't put another commissioner on um for the NC 513 continuing care governing Board Commissioner Sally green said that you were interested in taking that. And then for the Solid Waste Advisory Group, again, there's two commissioners on the alternate. I will, uh, cover those duties. Okay. So I think we have done it.
[2:55:49] Any make a motion to go ahead except the volunteers?
[2:55:54] Okay, I will second that. All in favor? Aye aye aye. Any opposed? None. All right. Great. Thank you. Um. There's information items. Um, we have no closed session, so I'm going to go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn.
[2:56:13] So move. Moved.
[2:56:14] All right. All in favor? Aye. I thank you very much, everyone, for.