HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-08-21 Agenda Regular Meeting101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 1 of 3
Agenda
Board of Commissioners
Remote regular meeting
7 p.m. March 08, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Due to current public health concerns, this meeting will be conducted remotely using Zoom. Public comment
instructions are available below the agenda.
Please use the bookmark feature to navigate and view the item attachments.
1.Public charge
The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners pledges to the community of Hillsborough its respect. The board
asks participants to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner with the board and with fellow
participants. At any time should any member of the board or any participant fail to observe this public charge,
the mayor or the mayor’s designee will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the mayor or the mayor’s designee will recess
the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
2.Audience comments not related to the printed agenda
3.Agenda changes and approval
4.Public hearing: Neighborhood petition to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street
Residents of Thomas Ruffin Street have petitioned for a street name change
5.Appointments
A.Orange County Climate Council – Appointment of Marc Miller to Hillsborough’s at-large seat and Wendy
Kuhn to at-large alternate
B.Tourism Board – Reappointment of Tommy Stann to Restaurant/Pub Seat
6.Items for decision ― consent agenda
A.Minutes
1.Joint Public Hearing Jan. 21, 2021
2.Regular meeting Feb. 8, 2021
3.Work session Feb. 22, 2021
B.Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
C.Acceptance of new section of sidewalk at 153 W King St. (Colonial Inn)
D.Information only – intent to use COVID Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funding to
repair Exchange Park Lane bridge
E.Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 2.6 and 3 –
Technical Review Committee
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 2 of 3
F. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 3.8 and 3.9 –
Waivers and minor changes
G. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.7 – Design
Requirements
H. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.21 - Streets
7. Items for decision ― regular agenda
A. Ordinance to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street
B. Consistency statement and ordinance amending the Zoning Map at 618 and 700 NC Hwy 86 North
C. Update on train station planning
D. Discussion of potential contract with Orange County for all fire inspections
E. Budget Proposal – option to lower dependent healthcare premium costs
F. Hot topics for work session March 22, 2021
8. Updates
A. Board members
B. Town manager
C. Staff (written reports in agenda packet)
9. Adjournment
Interpreter services or special sound equipment for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act is available
on request. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, call the Town Clerk’s Office
at 919-296-9443 a minimum of one business day in advance of the meeting.
Public Comment Instructions
For public hearings, agenda items and items not on the agenda
Public Comment ― Written
Members of the public may provide written public comment by submitting it via the Board of Commissioners
contact form by noon the day of the meeting. Public hearing comments may be submitted for 24 hours
following a public hearing.
When submitting the comment, include the following:
• Date of the meeting
• Agenda item you wish to comment on (Example: 5.C)
• Your name, address, email and phone number
Public Comment ― Verbal
Members of the public can indicate they wish to speak during the meeting by contacting the town clerk using the
town clerk contact form by noon the day of the meeting.
When submitting the request to speak, include the following:
• Date of the meeting
• Agenda item you wish to speak on (Example: 5.C)
• Your name, address, email and phone number (The phone number must be the number you plan to call in
from if participating by phone.)
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 3 of 3
Prior to the meeting, speakers will be emailed a Zoom participant link to be able to make comments during the
live meeting. Speakers may use a computer (with camera and/or microphone) or phone to make comments.
Speakers using a phone for comments must use the provided PIN/password number.
The public speaker’s audio and video will be muted until the board gets to the respective agenda item. Individuals
who have pre-registered will then be brought into the public portion of the meeting one at a time.
For concerns prior to the meeting related to speaking, contact the town clerk at 919-296-9443.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: March 8, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
4
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Public hearing: Neighborhood petition to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street
Attachment(s):
1. Petition
2. Town Code section
3. Written comment received
Brief Summary:
The town received the attached petition from residents using Thomas Ruffin Street as their home address. Under
Town Code 7-37, they have asked that the name be changed to Hope Lane. The code requires a public hearing prior
to town board action.
Action Requested:
Conduct public hearing.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The petition meets the ordinance requirements. The requested name is available and does not create a duplication in
the county.
Financial Impacts:
Approximately $3,000 for new signs, notification, and staff time.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
The submitted petition identifies Hope Lane as the requested street name. Staff has been contacted by residents,
who have indicated the neighborhood may have a different name in mind and may present a different request at the
hearing.
Ordinance #20200914-5.C
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7 OF THE TOWN CODE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Hillsborough Town Code is hereby amended to add Section 7-37, Street
Naming and Renaming as follows:
Section 7-37 Street Naming and Renaming
a) Streets located within the town of Hillsborough, whether public and private,
shall not be named or renamed by any method except those set forth in this
Article. All existing, proposed, or constructed public or private streets shall
have a street name and address range assigned by the address administrator.
b) New Street Names
a. No new public or private street shall be named without approval of the
address administrator.
b. The name of any new street, whether it is public or private, shall not
duplicate or be phonetically similar to any other street already named
within Orange County, relying on the street database maintained by
Orange County Emergency Services. This subsection shall not apply to
the extension of existing streets, which should whenever possible be
given the same name.
c. If applying an existing street name to the extension of a street creates a
duplication or the need to renumber more than a dozen existing
addresses to create the correct address ranges, the address administrator
may seek renaming all or a portion of the extension.
d. New subdivision streets, whether public or private, shall be named prior
to the approval of any proposed subdivision or plat.
c) Renaming Public Streets
a. The town board may initiate a public street renaming by a majority vote
when presented with a request from the address administrator as
described in subparagraph (e) below, a request from a resident of the
street as described in subparagraph (f) below, or upon the board’s
initiative. The board is not required to call a hearing on all requests it
receives.
b. If the town board decides to entertain a renaming request, the town
board will schedule a public hearing on the potential street name change
as specified in this section.
c. The address administrator will provide notice of the public hearing at
least 10 working days in advance of the hearing as follows:
i. posted signs at two locations along the impacted street
ii. written notice mailed to all property owner and residents or
businesses impacted by the change
iii. written notice transmitted to emergency service providers in the
county
Ordinance #20200914-5.C
iv. written notice in a newspaper of general circulation in
Hillsborough so the ad is published not more than 25 or less than
10 calendar days before the hearing.
d. The town board may make a decision on the street renaming
immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing or at a future meeting
not more than 35 days after the close of the public hearing.
e. The address administrator may request a street renaming when any of
the following occur:
i. a street name creates a duplication of another street name within
Orange County
ii. a street name interferes with the accurate dispatch of emergency
service or postal delivery
iii. one street has two commonly used names or where portions of
what appears to be the same street has two or more names
iv. an existing street is being extended and the extension create a
duplication or the readdressing of more than a dozen existing
addresses to create accurate address ranges.
f. Any resident may request the renaming of a public street by filing a
written request with the address administrator. The request must
contain the name and address of the person making the request, the
name of the street requesting to be changed, the suggested new name,
the reason for the change, and the supporting signatures of the
owner(s) of at least 75 percent of the parcels addressed on the street in
question. Each parcel addressed on the street in question shall have
one vote. The town board will consider comments from impacted non-
owner residents and impacted non-owner businesses during the
hearing process, in addition to the views of property owners.
g. The town board may establish a fee for processing renaming requests
to reflect the cost of advertising, written notices, and sign replacement.
d) Renaming Private Streets
a. The owners of property served by a private road may rename that road
after verifying that the new name does not create a duplication within
the county and the name otherwise complies with this section. A
written request, signed by all impacted property owners, must be
submitted to the address administrator. The address administrator will
contact Orange County Emergency Services and receive written
verification of non-duplication. The address administrator will send
change of address notifications if the name change is non-duplicative
and complaint with this section.
e) Content of Street Names
a. Street names must use common spelling found in a standard dictionary.
b. Only letters of the alphabet and blank spaces should be included in a
street name. Street names that are numbers (i.e. First Street) must be
expressed using alphabetical characters and not numbers. Street names
should not contain the following:
i. Symbols or punctuation;
Ordinance #20200914-5.C
ii. Abbreviations of the main title of the street or street name;
iii. A single alphabetical character;
iv. Words that begin with "old" or "new;"
v. Offensive words or language in accordance with G.S. 147-54.7
c. All street names shall contain a street name suffix designation. Suffix
designations of streets include, but are not limited to, the following
terms: avenue, boulevard, court, circle, lane, parkway, place, street, trail
or way. All street suffix designations may be abbreviated in compliance
with National Emergency Number Association (NENA) Addressing
Standards
Section 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and
was duly adopted this 14th day of September, 2020.
Ayes: 3
Noes: 0
Absent or Excused: 2
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
From:
To:Margaret Hauth; Sarah Kimrey
Subject:Re: The renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street
Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 10:52:38 AM
Dear Margaret Hauth and Sarah Kimrey,
I am in receipt of the Town's notice of a meeting in which the renaming of Thomas
Ruffin Street will be discussed. A schedule conflict prevents me from attending, but I
wish to express my opinion on this matter, both as a Hillsborough resident and a
person to whom our African American heritage matters dearly. Recently, I appeared at
a meeting to encourage a developer to name a private road after the important Black
Hillsborian who once owned the land rather than after his construction company: the
Commissioners should know that Jim Mathewson has yet to put signage at Mason
Payne Road, named after the generations of Black Hillsborough masons from the
family of David Payne and I would appreciate it if someone from the Town would
encourage him to do so.
Here are my comments regarding Thomas Ruffin Street (below): I would like them to
either be read at the meeting or, at least, included in the Commissioners' file for their
consideration:
"My name is Dorothy Potter Snyder and I live at 110 North Nash
Street in Hillsborough. I applaud the residents of Thomas Ruffin
Street for initiating the renaming of the street where they live. It
is good and wise of them to do so, especially knowing such efforts
to cleanse our Town of the names and symbols of racists and
bigots have in the past met with not only resistance but also with
intimidation and violence. I praise their courage and commitment.
I do not, however, agree that the new name proposed is the best
one.
The proposed name, Hope Street, seems rooted in a desire to find
unifying names that project a kinder and more positive future.
That is both well and good. However, removing the names of
bigots from our public buildings and streets does not undo the
300-plus years of erasure of Black people in our Town. Our Mayor,
Jenn Weaver, has begun to highlight important Black residents on
her Instagram page. I suggest that we honor one of these men
and women by naming Thomas Ruffin Street after one of them:
Here are some Hillsborough residents she has highlighted along
with their very brief qualifications for being honored with a street
name:
1. Horace Johnson, Sr. Street -- this is my favorite choice, our
Town's only Black mayor in history. It is horrible that nothing
is named after him.
2. Bonnie Davis Street -- We have few streets named after
women in our Town, so this is my second favorite choice. A
civil rights activist, she facilitated racial integration in the
Orange County extension service and 4-H, showing people
how to eat well on a budget.
3. Dr. Freddie Parker Street, author, scholar and civil rights
activist.
4. Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett Street, lead scientist on the Moderna
vaccine)
5. Dr. Albert Leon Stanback Street. Mr. Stanback was the
beloved and revered principal of Hillsborough/Central High
School. He is far down on this list only because he already has
a school named after him.
We do not eliminate the deliberate historical erasure if Black
people in our Town with generalities, however well-intended. We
erase it by emphasizing and holding up the lives and
achievements of Black people."
This is my statement. I ask that the Commissioners and the residents of Thomas
Ruffin Street take my comments into consideration as they make their decision about
the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Potter Snyder
D.P. Snyder
Hillsborough, NC
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning – Public Space
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
5.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Orange County Climate Council – Appointment of Marc Miller to Hillsborough’s at-large seat and Wendy Kuhn to at-
large alternate
Attachment(s):
1. Marc Miller volunteer application
2. Wendy Kuhn volunteer application
Brief Summary:
Hillsborough’s previously appointed at-large members to the OCCC have stepped down. Mr. Miller and Ms. Kuhn
have volunteered to serve and have expertise fitting to the Orange County Climate Council.
Action Requested:
Appoint Marc Miller as Hillsborough at-large member and Wendy Kuhn as Hillsborough at-large alternate to Orange
County Climate Council.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
N/A
Financial Impacts:
N/A
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
N/A
Advisory Board Application
If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to your community, please
complete this form. Volunteers for the Parks and Recreation Board must be at least 13 years old, and volunteers for all
other boards must be at least 18 years old.
Name:
Marc Miller
Home address:
326 W Margaret Lane
Home phone number:
919-245-8663
Work phone number:
617-750-8900
Email address:
marc@fortpointtc.org
Place of employment:
self-employed/semi-retired
Job title:
Editor
Birth date:
Dec. 27, 1947
Gender:
Male
Ethnic origin:
White
Boards you would be willing to serve on:
First choice — Orange County Climate Council
Reasons for wanting to serve:
The changing climate is rightfully described as an existential issue for humanity, calling for action on all of us as
individuals and as a community. As the world’s climate becomes hotter and wetter, with more frequent extremes, the
impacts of climate change—and how we collectively and individually respond to it—directly affect such critical areas
of life as our water and food supplies, transportation, economic development, human rights, international relations,
intrastate relations, and human relations. Scientists began warning of the dangers of climate change in the 1970s. Some
environmentalists and governments took up the warning in the next decades, but action was slow and we wasted
precious time. Climate change is a major reason that the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists now
sits at 100 seconds to midnight. The importance of creating a sustainable society cannot be overestimated.
Have you served or are you currently serving on a town board? If so, which ones and when?
No
Relevant work, volunteer or educational experience:
After receiving a PhD in American history, I have worked since the mid-1970s with nonprofit organizations as an
editor and manager of publications and communications. Initially, I worked at the Institute for Southern Studies in
Durham, as an editor of “Southern Exposure,” a journal of politics and culture on many issues, including the
environment. After moving to Boston, I worked first as a senior editor of “Technology Review,” MIT’s journal of
science and technology policy. This included work around the earliest warnings of climate change (including the
opportunity to interview then-Vice President Al Gore in the early 1990s about global warming). Later, I served as
director of publications and communications at Cultural Survival, a human rights organization that, among other things,
pioneered the development as Rainforest Crunch as a way to preserve the Brazilian rainforest and promote indigenous
economic self-sufficiency in South America. While I am now mostly retired, I regularly work as a freelance editor for
the Union of Concerned Scientists. My current project is editing a series of reports on local, state, and national policies
to promote the transition to transportation systems based on electric vehicles.
How are you connected to Hillsborough (live, work, play, shop, own property)?
My wife and I moved to Hillsborough in July 2020 when we purchased a house here.
Have you reviewed the Vision 2030 plan, and what are your thoughts about it?
The Vision Plan does not mention climate change, reflecting the state of politics when it was adopted only a few years
ago. However, the plan’s broad, future-oriented, and holistic approach connects to climate through several areas, such
as transportation, water, and economic development. Climate change is an issue for which local, regional, state,
national, and global considerations and realms of action intersect and/or overlap.
Have you reviewed other town documents (budget, strategy map, small area plans), and what are your thoughts
about them?
I have looked at some documents connected with the Historic Commission, given my background and continuing
interest in American history. Also, because my wife and I own our home in the historic district, I have been in touch
with the Planning Department.
What challenges do you see the town facing that could be addressed by the board or boards on which you wish
to serve?
Because climate change intersects with so much of our lives, there are many challenges the Climate Council could
explore and advise on. These include the relationship between local development and climate change, transitioning the
community from gas-powered transportation to electric vehicles, promoting recycling, tree planting, water-related
issues, the outfitting of private and public dwellings with solar power, incorporating climate change into science and
civics education, and others. Not the least of the tasks at hand is combatting misinformation about the science and
impacts of climate change as well as responses to it.
How you heard about this opportunity:
Other
Agreement:
3 I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular meetings. Attendance at the regular
meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners
may declare a vacancy on the board because of non-attendance.
Advisory Board Application
If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to your community, please
complete this form. Volunteers for the Parks and Recreation Board must be at least 13 years old, and volunteers for all
other boards must be at least 18 years old.
Name:
Wendy Kuhn
Home address:
709 Lorentellow Circle
Home phone number:
9196051069
Email address:
wendylkuhn@hotmail.com
Place of employment:
Break Through Consulting LLC
Job title:
Ower
Birth date:
Dec. 14, 1963
Gender:
Female
Ethnic origin:
White
Boards you would be willing to serve on:
First choice — Orange County Climate Council
Reasons for wanting to serve:
From a policy perspective, I think that the climate emergency impacts virtually every policy and practical issue local
governments face. As a long term resident of North Carolina and Orange County and a newer resident to Hillsborough,
I am personally committed to supporting efforts to address this emergency in any way that I can. I believe that my
strategic planning, project management, and facilitation skills will bring great value to the council. I am excited by the
opportunity to support the council and also to become more integrated in the community where I live.
Have you served or are you currently serving on a town board? If so, which ones and when?
I have not served on a Hillsborough Town Board
Relevant work, volunteer or educational experience:
I have a masters in Public Administration and a masters in Economics. My work history includes extensive experience
working with local, state, and federal governments. My current business provides strategic planning and project
management for government and not profit entities. I am immediate past president of the Board of Meals on Wheels
Durham, a Board I have served on for four years. In the past, I have been an active member of my Homeowners'
Association and was a member of the Town of Cary's Solid Waste Management Advisory Board.
How are you connected to Hillsborough (live, work, play, shop, own property)?
I live in Fiori Hill in Hillsborough and own my own small business that is based here. As much as possible my
shopping and recreation activities are based in Hillsborough.
Have you reviewed the Vision 2030 plan, and what are your thoughts about it?
I really appreciate Hillsborough's commitment to the unique geography of our area and the efforts to recognize the
traffic requirements of our small town while balancing those with ensuring the integrity of the Eno and recognizing our
role as stewards of this land for future generations. As we grow as a town, we have complex public policy issues to
address, made more complicated by many aspects of COVID including the economic uncertainties it brings. I celebrate
having a vision and working towards it and also appreciate the need for flexibility as we all navigate our uncertain path
forward.
Have you reviewed other town documents (budget, strategy map, small area plans), and what are your thoughts
about them?
I feel that I don't know enough on these topics to comment a great deal, I am looking forward to learning more.
What challenges do you see the town facing that could be addressed by the board or boards on which you wish
to serve?
Solving any aspects of the climate emergency takes all of us working together. I don't yet know specifically how the
council will solve unique Hillsborough challenges, but I do know that we all need to continuously work together and
identify both big and small things that we can do to make a difference. Sometimes this can look like sharing
information and sometimes it can be much bigger than that. I believe a county wide climate council is an innovative
approach to looking at the climate emergency and that it has the potential to be beneficial to the Town even though I
don't specifically know what that looks like. I am excited to learn more so that I can work with the Town and the
Council to identify specific responses to this question.
How you heard about this opportunity:
Internet
Agreement:
3 I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular meetings. Attendance at the regular
meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners
may declare a vacancy on the board because of non-attendance.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning – Economic Development
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
5.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannan Campbell, Economic Development Planner
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Tourism Board – Reappointment of Tommy Stann to Restaurant/Pub seat with term expiring March 8, 2023
Attachment(s):
1. Original application
Brief Summary:
At the March 1, 2021 Tourism Board meeting, the Tourism Board voted unanimously to recommend reappointment
of Tommy Stann.
Action Requested:
Reappoint Tommy Stann to his current Restaurant/Pub seat with a term expiring March 8, 2023.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
None
Advisory Board Application
If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident, at least 18 years old and willing to volunteer
your time and expertise to your community, please complete this form.
Name:
Tommy Stann
Home address:
4207 Bradford Ridge Rd
Work phone number:
9197324647
Email address:
tommy@hillsboroughbbq.com
Place of employment:
Hillsborough BBQ Company
Job title:
Owner
Birth date:
Sept. 8, 1970
Ethnic origin:
Caucasian
Boards you would be willing to serve on:
Tourism Board
(Must own or operate restaurant or must reside, own property or be employed in town)
Reason for wanting to serve:
Tourism is a huge part of the customer base for restaurants in Hillsborough. As a restaurant
representative, maximizing the number of customers throughout the week is a goal that
would help every restaurant and in turn generate more revenue via the prepared food and
beverage tax. I would like to play a role in drawing more out of town guests to
Hillsborough.
Work experience:
Owner, Sequoia Scapes Landscape Company 2002-2008
Wooden Nickel Pub 2008-2010
Pitmaster/Owner, Hillsborough BBQ Company 2011-present
Volunteer experience:
Over 3,500 pounds of BBQ donated to Orange Congregations in Mission
Meals donated to OCRA for delivery to Orange County Rural Seniors
How you heard about this opportunity:
Internet
Agreement:
✓ I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular
meetings. Attendance at the regular meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for
maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners may declare a vacancy
on the board because of non-attendance.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Administration
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Minutes
Attachment(s):
1. Joint Public Hearing Jan. 21, 2021
2. Regular meeting Feb. 8, 2021
3. Work session Feb. 22, 2021
Brief Summary:
None
Action Requested:
Approve minutes of the Board of Commissioners joint public hearing Jan. 21, 2021, regular meeting Feb. 8, 2021 and
the Board of Commissioners work session Feb. 22, 2021.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Approve minutes as presented.
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 1 of 8
Minutes
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners
Remote Joint Public Hearing
7 p.m. January 21, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present
Town board: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt
Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd
Planning Board: Chair Chris Johnston, Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Christopher Austin, Frank Casadonte, Lisa Frazier,
Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Scott Taylor and Toby Vandemark
Absent: Planning Board: Oliver Child-Lanning
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth called the roll
and confirmed the presence of a quorum. Weaver turned the meeting over to Planning Board Chair Chris
Johnston.
2. Agenda changes and approval
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented.
Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Planning Board
Vice Chair Jenn Sykes seconded.
Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Ferguson, Matt Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd;
Planning Board members Johnston, Sykes, Christopher Austin, Frank Casadonte, Lisa Frazier,
Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Scott Taylor and Toby Vandemark. Nays: None.
3. Open the public hearing
Johnston introduced the public hearing. He clarified that the requested zoning district, Light Industrial, is a
general-purpose zone, meaning a range of uses is permitted by right. He said this is a legislative decision for
the boards, meaning the members can take a wide range of information into consideration and the boards
have broad discretion in determining whether to approve the request. He added the applicant is not bound by
statements the applicant might make about potential use of the property, and no conditions can be placed if
the application is approved.
4. Rezoning Request
618 and 700 N.C. 86 N. — Applicant is David Morgan on behalf of owners to rezone 5.68 acres on the west
side of N.C. 86 North from Residential-40 to Light Industrial. (PIN 9865-83-2863 and 9865-83-4707)
Applicant David Morgan arrived.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 8
Hauth summarized the staff report and shared maps of the property, noting its location adjacent to the
town’s fleet maintenance division and vehicle fleet as well as Orange County’s motor pool and vehicle fleet.
The proximity of this property to two fleet operations was a significant factor in the land being designated
light industrial in the Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan. Hauth clarified the Future Land Use map is not a
zoning designation and instead represents the town’s general intent. She noted the purpose of the Light
Industrial zoning district is to accommodate light manufacturing, research and development, and other small-
scale uses that have minimal exterior movement of vehicles, materials and goods, as well as minimal
environmental and visual impacts.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik asked whether both parcels on the map are involved in the rezoning request.
Hauth confirmed that both are involved and owned by the same entity.
Hauth displayed the town’s zoning map, noting that the two parcels in question are zoned Residential-40 (R-
40) but are surrounded by parcels zoned Light Industrial and Office Institutional, while the properties across
N.C. 86 have residential zoning designations. The current applicant requests the two parcels be rezoned to
Light Industrial. Hauth outlined uses allowed by right in that zoning district, By comparison, the current zoning
is residential, allowing only residential uses and a few related uses.
Morgan said when investigating the site he discovered it would not be possible to run sewer lines to the
property. He said the absence of sewer lines limits how much the property can be developed because about
one-third of the site would be used for a septic field and a stream buffer. He said that while the property is
slightly larger than 6 acres in area, the site’s practical development would be significantly smaller and would
not house any intensive development. He added that the current residential structures are not worth saving.
Morgan said that the property is surrounded by commercial zones, including Light Industrial, and he pointed
out that the Future Land Use map also designates the area light industrial. He said he and the property owner
are asking for the parcels to be rezoned Light Industrial now, as they think that zoning would provide the
highest and best use for the property.
Morgan added that the property owner would like to create business flex space or a self-storage facility,
neither of which would be a high-intensity development or have a high impact on traffic. He said that he
thinks both flex space and a self-storage facility would be reasonable uses for the property and that the
application is a reasonable rezoning request.
Hornik asked Hauth whether the property is in the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction or within the town’s
corporate limits. Hauth answered that that the property is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction and that the
property would need to be annexed into the town in order for the town to provide sewer service. She added
that a sewer connection might also be subject to the recommendation of the utilities director, depending on
the intensity of the proposed water use.
Sykes asked where the stream buffer is on the property. She also asked for clarification that the property is
surrounded on three sides by maintenance yards and asked which property belonged to Orange County.
Hauth displayed an Orange County map with aerial photographs. She pointed out the town’s property to the
north of the applicant’s property and the county’s motor pool facility to the south. She also pointed out the
location of the stream flowing through the property’s northwest corner, noting that the stream buffer would
extend 50 feet on either side, making the portion of the property across the stream difficult or expensive to
access.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 3 of 8
Casadonte asked where the septic and repair fields would be located. Morgan said the septic field would be
located in the property’s northwest corner on the other side of the stream buffer, while the repair field would
be the northeast corner
Neighboring property owner Jeannette Vega arrived at 7:21 p.m.
Morgan clarified that the owner intended to use the property for business flex space and said that the
landscaping business was a fallback plan.
Vega said she lives at 705 N.C. 86 S., directly across the street from the property in question. She expressed
concern that a landscaping business on the property might leach pesticides into the ground and into the
stream, noting that for health reasons she avoids pesticides and chemicals on her property. She expressed
further concern about noise pollution that could result from development of the property, saying she already
has issues with noise from the construction company across the street. She acknowledged that Morgan had
stated the owner planned to use the property for flex space, but she worries because the owner is not
required to state a plan to use the space. Given that the site would need a septic field, she asked if the board
could restrict the type of development that could be built on the property, thus allaying concerns about
chemicals leaching into the ground or water.
Vega also expressed concern about increased traffic at the property. She noted that traffic at her driveway is
already difficult to navigate because she is on the other side of a hill. She said she had requested a traffic
study because of speeding and traffic noise, and the study’s results indicated a high number of large speeding
trucks regularly drive through the area. She said any type of commercial development on the property,
regardless of size, would only add to the area’s existing traffic, noise and pollution. She concluded saying she
wants to preserve the area’s small-town feel; and she feels any commercialization in the area would decrease
property values.
Johnston asked Hauth to clarify whether the board has the ability to add restrictions in a general-purpose
rezoning. Hauth clarified that the board could not add restrictions, but she added that there are items limiting
the developable nature of the site. She said that one criteria for rezoning land to an industrial zoning is the
site must generally have water and sewer service; she said the board could decide the site does not need to
connect to water and sewer and instead allow use of a septic field.
Vega expressed dismay that development continues to increase. She said she understands the town may need
flex space and suggested that a better place for such development might be within town limits.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd, Planning Board members
Austin, Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark. Nays: None.
Hauth clarified that the next step in the rezoning application process is for the Planning Board to receive the
application at its February meeting and make a recommendation, after which the town board would receive
the Planning Board’s recommendation in March.
5. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood arrived to explain Item 5C. Prospective Planning Board member
Hooper Schultz arrived to observe the proceedings.
A. Sections 2.6 and 3 — To redefine the role of the Technical Review Committee
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 4 of 8
Hauth introduced Item 5A and described the proposed changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
She explained the Technical Review Committee reviews development plans for nonresidential properties and
some residential properties. Its purpose is to ensure all review comments are provided at the beginning of a
project and to provide a forum to discuss conflicts. Hauth said it has become clear over time that the bulk of
the comments and questions are related to zoning ordinance compliance and that the current process places
staff in a difficult position of voting on items outside their expertise.
Hauth said the proposed text amendments to sections 2.6 and 3 would remove the voting process but keep
the communication aspect. The planning director or designee would become responsible for approving the
plan. Unsuccessful applicants could still appeal to the Board of Adjustment, leaving the process largely
unchanged from applicants’ perspectives.
Hornik added that in most localities the Technical Review Committee does not vote to approve or disapprove
a site plan but instead gives input to the staff or planning director. The suggested amendment would bring the
Hillsborough Technical Review Committee in line with what is done in most localities.
Hughes said his only concern is the elimination of the town manager’s ability to appoint representatives to the
committee. He said in some cases the town manager may want someone on the committee, and he would not
want to deny the manager that opportunity.
Johnston asked why the amendments removed the town engineer from the committee. Hauth said the title of
that position had changed to utilities director, but the person in that role would still be on the committee.
With no further comments or questions, the boards moved on to the next text amendment.
B. Sections 3.8 and 3.9 — To clarify differences among waivers, minor changes, and modifications to Special Use
and Conditional Use Permits
Hauth described the proposed changes to the section of the ordinance dealing with special use and
conditional use permits. She said the proposed changes are meant to clarify the difference between “waivers”
and “minor changes and modifications” and to limit the need for projects to return to the board for truly
minor deviations after a project is constructed. Hauth said the intent of the ordinance’s waiver provisions was
to allow applicants to seek relief in advance for items they knew they could not meet or wanted to meet
differently; as such, the waivers should be included in the public hearing before a project is authorized. Hauth
said the ordinance also allows for “minor changes and modifications” that are intended to be sought after
approval has already been granted, usually as a result of some small oversight. Hauth said that over time the
two categories have become confused, resulting in “minor changes” at the end of a project that trigger what
appears to be a waiver. This then triggers another public hearing at the end of a completed project. Hauth
said this situation creates a difficult situation for everyone.
Hauth said the proposed text amendments clarify that “waivers” are sought at the beginning of the process,
while “minor changes and modifications” should be handled at the end of the process as field mistakes or
field changes, which in minor amounts may allow noncompliance with the ordinance. She said staff uses a
“10% rule,” allowing staff to approve a 10% change on a mathematical requirement, such as a required
number of parking spaces. When such a change might result in ordinance noncompliance, the proposed text
amendment would allow staff to approve it without another public hearing.
Hughes asked Hauth to clarify how the proposed changes would affect Section 3.5.4, specifically the text
referring to conditional subdivisions. Hauth said that text amendment refers to changes to the Technical
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 5 of 8
Review Committee and falls under Item 5A; she apologized for not labeling the attachments clearly. She
clarified that the ordinance refers to minor subdivisions (4 or fewer lots, which staff can approve), conditional
subdivisions (5 to 19 lots, for which the Board of Adjustment must grant a conditional use permit), and special
subdivisions (20 or more lots, which require a public hearing and a special use permit).
She added staff is proposing the same language be added as Section 3.9.14 for conditional use permits.
Regarding staff’s use of the 10% rule, Johnston asked Hauth whether staff would always approve such a
change or whether there may sometimes be pushback. Hauth replied that the amendment had been written
such that if staff were ever uncomfortable with a change they could send it to the board.
Johnston asked whether it would be within the planning director’s purview to decide whether to bring a
change within that 10% range before the board. Hauth confirmed that it would.
Hornik pointed out that there have been a few similar situations under the existing regulations within the past
five or six years, where staff has brought such a change to the board.
Johnston asked for other questions or comments. None were offered.
C. Section 6.7 — To consolidate and change applicability of design requirements, including expanding
applicability to all new non-residential buildings and multi-family buildings
Hauth introduced the proposed changes. She said staff is recommending applying the design standards to
multi-family housing (apartment complexes). She said staff have reiterated many times that the design
standards had been placed in the ordinance as placeholder language in 2011. The standards have been
adjusted numerous times over the past nine years but are still subject to many waiver requests. She said the
proposed changes represent another attempt to further clarify and streamline the standards.
Hauth introduced Trueblood, who has had a vital role in refining Hillsborough’s design standards over the
years, to give a brief presentation on the design standards and proposed changes.
Trueblood shared her presentation onscreen. She gave a brief history of the design standards, described the
importance of having such standards, and described how the design standards help the town realize its vision
and values. She noted that regulation is the way the town influences the development of private property,
which contributes to the overall feeling and organization of the town. She emphasized the importance of
using regulations carefully to avoid long review processes, delays and unaffordability.
Trueblood noted that the standards’ applicability has changed over time. She said staff is suggesting
separating out standards that would apply to developments with tenants over 30,000 square feet. Trueblood
said that planning staff tried to identify the standards most necessary to achieve connectivity, walkability,
pedestrian scale and connectiveness because those are the primary factors contributing to the town’s values
of equity, vibrancy, sense of place and affordability. Staff also removed redundancies and made the standards
more concise.
Trueblood said design standards should support the town’s vision rather than enforce a particular aesthetic.
She concluded saying the town’s design standards are meant to support the town’s vision without overly
deterring growth, adding that periodic review helps ensure they are doing their job.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 6 of 8
Ferguson asked Trueblood why the design standards do not allow stucco. Trueblood said stucco does not hold
up well in North Carolina’s warm, wet environment. She added that because stucco is inexpensive it is often
chosen by lower-quality commercial developments that lack the staying power which Hillsborough aims to
attract. In contrast, materials like glass, stone, steel, brick and concrete do not deteriorate quickly, and those
buildings can have other uses once developed.
Bell thanked Trueblood for the explanation and review of the design standards.
Johnston noted Trueblood mentioned adding graphics to the ordinance and asked whether the ordinance
currently includes any of the graphics in the presentation. Hauth clarified that the addition of graphics will
happen in a later update. She said staff are looking for appropriate examples and plan to ask a graphic
designer to tweak some of the graphics.
Sykes expressed concern that the example graphics seemed to include predominantly brick buildings, saying
she would not want architects to follow a cookie-cutter pattern and produce buildings that meet the
standards but all look the same. She said including examples showing other building materials would help
inspire more creativity.
Scott asked what makes the design requirements different from a typical review board for a private
development. He wondered whether the design requirements make the town vulnerable to legal challenges
from people wanting to develop a property, such as a case where a developer wants to use stucco halfway
through a project due to costs.
Trueblood said the materials requirements have existed in the town’s ordinance for some time, clarifying that
staff revised the language to make it more concise but that the prohibited materials have not changed. She
added that local governments in North Carolina are authorized to regulate design in certain but not all
scenarios. Hornik clarified that local government cannot regulate design for single- and two-family residences,
which are governed by the residential building code, but he said the town can regulate design for multi-family
and commercial developments. Hauth added the town does not apply the design standards to smaller
renovation projects but only to new construction, which tend to be bigger projects with a bigger budget and
whose developers know from the beginning that the design standards apply.
Johnston asked for other questions or comments. None were offered.
D. Section 6.21 — To reference Appendix D of the Fire Code as applicable to street design
Hauth introduced the proposed changes. She said a number of years ago the town adopted Appendix D of the
Fire Code, which contains standards for fire apparatus access routes. Appendix D was referenced in other
sections of the Unified Development Ordinance, but it was not referenced in Section 6.21, referring to private
streets. Staff are seeing more requests for private roads to serve up to four houses, triggering reviews by the
fire inspector; staff also have found conflicts between the ordinance language and Appendix D. The proposed
changes eliminate the conflicting language, strike language allowing even narrower private roads and clarify
that standards for private roads in minor residential subdivisions rest with Appendix D of the Fire Code.
Hughes asked whether the language could be more readable for laypeople and said the language should
specify that the International Fire Code is being referenced rather than the state’s fire code. Hauth agreed
with Hughes’ suggestion.
Johnston asked for other questions or comments. None were offered.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 7 of 8
6. Close public hearing
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing on the text amendments. Bell seconded.
Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd, Planning Board members
Austin, Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark. Nays: None.
7. Update and discussion of upcoming amendments to meet N.C.G.S. 160D
Hauth gave a brief update on staff’s progress rewriting portions of the Unified Development Ordinance in
response to changes at the state level impacting local government land use regulation. She said the state has
extended the compliance deadline to July 2021, but local governments can also adopt changes early. Many of
the amendments are wording changes and updates that will improve consistency and transparency. She said
the most significant change is that special use permit zoning will no longer be allowed, due to problems with
the process in other areas of the state and the challenges of managing special use permits over time. She said
staff recommends a more streamlined process, noting the current system also is somewhat unclear to the
public. Hauth recommended the boards focus on the permitted use table in an effort to ensure the right uses
are allowed in each zoning district, with the right review process assigned to each use. Special use permits
should be reserved for uses with the most significant impacts beyond the development parcel. Hauth said
staff would like to try this simpler approach, which could be an experiment. She said the boards would see the
text amendments at the April public hearing.
Noting the changes on the horizon, Hauth asked the boards to begin focusing more on policy issues, guidance
and how the town would move ahead as a community, rather than focusing on development review.
Hughes said he thinks the ordinance rewrite gives the boards the opportunity to be proactive and clarify the
town’s public hearing processes to residents. He agreed that moving some decisions to a staff level to allow
board members to focus on policy would be a good idea. He wondered whether holding joint meetings more
frequently than every quarter would be helpful.
Johnston expressed concern about eliminating an avenue for public expression. He said public hearings with
large public turnout allow communication between the developer and the public and provide a chance for the
public to be heard. Johnston said he has full faith in the staff but would be nervous about potentially shutting
down an avenue for public expression.
Weaver agreed with both Hughes and Johnston’s comments. She said she sees value in this process and feels
curious and excited to see the proposed changes in April. Hauth clarified that the Planning Board will see the
proposed changes in detail before April. Weaver thanked Hauth for the work that staff has put into the
process of helping the town work better.
Hughes asked Hauth whether staff could create a table comparing changes between the existing ordinance
language and the proposed changes. Hauth confirmed that is possible.
Sykes said she agrees with Johnston and is concerned about loss of public input. She said comments at public
hearings tend to be concerned with shifts from rural to urban environments. She feels it is important to have
a way to receive public input when the board deals with big transitions, adding that what is considered a “big”
transition is often contextual. She wondered how the updated process might address the different
magnitudes of such changes in town.
Hauth agreed with Sykes. She suggested the answer might involve more public outreach and education rather
than a change to the ordinance.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 8 of 8
Hughes agreed with Sykes. He acknowledged the tension Hillsborough has experienced as a town
transitioning from a small rural town to a more suburban type of community. He said it is important for the
public to weigh in on decisions, and he wondered how the town might better educate the public about public
hearing processes and standards.
Trueblood agreed with Hughes that proactive education efforts would be helpful rather than waiting for
reactions to individual development plans. She said staff has been trying figure out how to broaden the public
conversation about how the town grows into the future, so that town goals, objectives and ordinances are
aligned with what the public wants. She said staff would lay out those efforts to the boards in the coming
months.
Johnston asked for other questions or comments. There was none.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Hughes moved to adjourn at 9:01 p.m. No second or vote is needed for adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Planning Director
Staff support to the Planning Board
Approved February 18, 2021
Minutes
Board of Commissioners
Remote regular meeting
7 p.m. Feb. 8, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt
Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd
Staff: Interim Human Resources Director Haley Bizzell, Interim Town Clerk/Human Resources
Technician Sarah Kimrey, Police Chief Duane Hampton, Assistant Town Manager/Planning
Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Town Manager Eric Peterson, Utilities
Director Marie Strandwitz and Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood
Opening of the meeting
Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Interim Town Clerk and Human Resources
Technician Sarah Kimrey called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum.
1.Public charge
Weaver did not read the public charge but noted that the board abides by it.
2.Audience comments not related to the printed agenda
There was none.
3.Agenda changes and approval
Weaver requested that Item 5C, a proclamation honoring Nancy Grebenkemper of PORCH Hillsborough, be
moved to become Item 6A.
Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner
Matt Hughes seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Ferguson, Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd. Nays:
None.
4.Appointments
Planning Board — Appointment of Hooper Schultz to fill current vacancy for a term expiring Jan. 31, 2024
Motion: Hughes moved to appoint Hooper Schultz to the vacant planning board seat. Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 1 of 9
DRAFT
5.Items for decision ― consent agenda
A.Minutes
1.Regular meeting Jan. 11, 2021
2.Regular meeting closed session Jan. 25, 2021
B.Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
C.Proclamation honoring Nancy Grebenkemper of PORCH Hillsborough
D.Proclamation declaring Hillsborough a Breastfeeding Family Friendly Community
E.Public Comment to North Carolina Utilities Commission Concerning Duke Energy’s 2020 Integrated Resource
Plan
Motion: Ferguson moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
6.Items for decision ― regular agenda
A.Proclamation honoring Nancy Grebenkemper of PORCH Hillsborough (moved from consent agenda)
Weaver welcomed Grebenkemper as a guest at the remote meeting. She then read the proclamation.
B.Request from residents to rename Thomas Ruffin Street
Planning Director Hauth said those who owned property along the street were 100% unanimous in requesting
the name change. She added that if the board wanted to consider changing the name, then calling a public
hearing would be the next step.
Bell asked if other street names were considered.
Marty Nelson, who lives on the street, answered that the residents of the street had considered a long list of
names.
Bell was hoping the residents would ask for it to be called Lydia Street for the name of the enslaved woman
who was shot in the back. Thomas Ruffin wrote the brief about that.
Nelson said Lydia Street was not considered; however, Jesse Ruffin was considered. He was a coachman.
Ultimately, it was decided to stay away from names.
Weaver said these neighbors have provided a model for how a street name change might work in the future.
Hauth explained that a public hearing is required if the board has the intention of approving the name change.
Motion: Ferguson moved to call a public hearing. Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
Lloyd said she was voting to hold the public hearing but she is not in favor of changing many street names.
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 2 of 9
DRAFT
It was noted that the public hearing would take place at the board’s regular meeting March 8.
C.Update on the impact of Reed v Town of Gilbert on local sign ordinance enforcement
In response to complaints about a large campaign sign that continued to be displayed in town long after the
election, Planning staff and the town attorney had prepared a memo for the board.
Hauth briefly explained that years ago a Supreme Court case involved a local ordinance and the regulation of
signs. As a result of that case, staff has not been allowed to read the content of a sign when regulating a sign.
However, practically speaking, staff must read the message on a sign sometimes to determine what type of
sign it is.
Hauth said the large sign that generated complaints has been moved, so it could be appropriate for the board
to do nothing.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik said context clues are used in the real world. The Supreme Court’s decision was
not unanimous and it changed a lot of longstanding case law. Signs have traditionally been categorized to
some extent based on the nature of the content.
The board agreed to not make changes to the sign ordinance at this time.
D.Potential revisions to town board processes and ethics in the code of ordinances, direction to the town
attorney
Hughes explained that his proposed revisions drew from the code of ordinances of other jurisdictions.
The mayor invited questions and comments page by page.
Sec. 2-11
Hughes explained his suggested revision that would permit commissioners to submit into the record a written
statement.
There was brief discussion about what is captured in the board’s minutes. Hauth clarified that the board’s
minutes are not a transcript but rather summaries. Hornik agreed and added that the minutes go well beyond
the bare minimum the law requires and they aren’t supposed to be transcripts.
English asked for clarification that nothing stops a commissioner from submitting a written statement now.
Hughes agreed and said the amendment would retain that right.
Sec. 2-15
There was discussion about possible revisions regarding public hearings. It was decided that continuing a
public hearing to the next regular board meeting could cause timing issues that might affect due process. This
revision was dropped.
Sec. 2-24
Hughes noted the code of ordinances states that an item can be referred to committee and the revision
would add the option of referring an item to an advisory board.
Sec. 2-23
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 3 of 9
DRAFT
Ferguson asked for wordsmithing, possibly replacing “citizen” with “parties before the board.”
Hornik noted Board of Adjustment members would not be considered “town officials” as it is defined in this
document, but Board of Adjustment members make decisions and need to abide by same or similar ethical
standards. He noted the need for another term or broader definition.
Hauth noted some town staff take oaths of office and serve as town officials in some situations.
There was a suggestion that all advisory board members should take an oath.
Hornik said he had enough direction to make revisions to Page 65.
Hornik noted revisions on pages 67 and 68 would reflect that members have to vote; they cannot just
withdraw. Revisions also need to clarify that domestic partners or spouses need to disclose interest but not
roommates.
Ferguson said disclosure of properties owned by household members gets into other people’s businesses. She
thinks this goes too far. She is concerned that there could be domestic violence situations where someone
might not want to disclose where they own property.
Weaver summarized that the changes on Page 66 might be too prescriptive. The board needs a strong code of
ethics that is manageable. She asked whether there were parts of the revision on this topic that
commissioners wished to keep.
English said it may be too prescriptive.
Ferguson mentioned her domestic violence concern again. Hughes understands but can look up where people
own property except with LLC, which manages to hide who owns the property.
Filling board vacancy (page 68)
Ferguson liked the process followed for filling a board vacancy. Bell agreed.
Bell asked Hornik for clarification on whether the board can call a special election. Hornik said no, the board
does not have the authority. The state legislature could give the board authority to call a special election if it
asked for it.
Weaver asked if the board could leave a seat empty if a general election was coming up relatively soon.
Hornik answered that the General Statute states the board shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy. Hornik
said another board chose not to fill that seat for six months.
Hornik will work on revisions.
E.Hot topics for work session Feb. 22, 2021
The strategy map will be the main focus.
7.Updates
A.Board members
Board members gave updates on the committees and boards on which they serve.
B.Town manager
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 4 of 9
DRAFT
Town Manager Eric Peterson noted Finance Director Daphna Schwartz had resigned to take another job and
Keri Carnes would be the interim director. A news release would be forthcoming.
C.Staff (written reports in agenda packet)
It was noted that the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee had decided to change from holding monthly
meetings to holding quarterly meetings in May, August and November.
8.Adjournment
Motion: Bell moved to adjourn at 9:16 p.m. Ferguson seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Kimrey
Interim Town Clerk
Staff support to the Board of Commissioners
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 5 of 9
DRAFT
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 02/08/2021 TO 02/08/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
02/08/2021 250,000.00 -35,000.00To cover PD Annex roof 20481 30,985.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 250,000.00 -5,000.00To repair PD Annex HVAC 20483 25,985.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 250,000.00 -1,124.00To cover OC Alerts 20489 24,861.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-110 PHONE/INTERNET/CODE RED
02/08/2021 6,720.00 1,124.00To cover OC Alerts 20488 9,617.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5100-5300-150 MAINTENANCE - BUILDING
02/08/2021 22,383.00 35,000.00To cover PD Annex roof 20482 61,288.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 22,383.00 5,000.00To repair PD Annex HVAC 20484 66,288.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5100-020 SALARIES
02/08/2021 1,081,188.00 -686.00To correct amendment 20491 1,080,502.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5100-021 PERSONNEL EXPANSION - SALARIES
02/08/2021 0.00 686.00To correct amendment 20490 0.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL
02/08/2021 14,500.00 -596.00To cover engineering 20485 15,028.78EBRADFORD
10-30-5600-5300-455 C.S./ENGINEERING
02/08/2021 14,000.00 596.00To cover engineering 20486 41,480.25EBRADFORD
30-70-5972-5972-002 TRANSFER TO WATER SDF RESERVE FUND
02/08/2021 0.00 43,792.00To record Water SDFs 20494 249,872.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 3,864.00To record Water SDFs 20502 253,736.00EBRADFORD
30-70-5972-5972-003 TRANSFER TO SEWER SDF RESERVE FUND
02/08/2021 0.00 39,997.00To record Sewer SDFs 20495 199,985.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 3,243.00To record Sewer SDFs 20501 203,228.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 -3,243.00Reverse Budget Amendment 20510 199,985.00EBRADFORD
30-80-3500-3523-002 WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
02/08/2021 0.00 43,792.00To record Water SDFs 20496 249,872.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 3,864.00To record Water SDFs 20503 253,736.00EBRADFORD
30-80-3500-3525-002 SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
02/08/2021 0.00 39,997.00To record Sewer SDFs 20497 199,985.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 3,243.00To record Sewer SDFs 20500 203,228.00EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 0.00 -3,243.00Reverse budget amendment 20509 199,985.00EBRADFORD
30-80-3880-3887-000 INSURANCE PROCEEDS
02/08/2021 0.00 49,360.00To replace damaged truck 20504 49,360.00JDELLAVALL
30-80-8140-5700-740 CAPITAL - VEHICLES
02/08/2021 0.00 49,360.00To replace damaged truck 20505 49,360.00JDELLAVALL
35-30-5900-5300-113 LICENSE FEES
02/08/2021 3,200.00 1,393.00ESRI license renewal 20506 4,993.00JDELLAVALL
35-30-5900-5300-165 MAINTENANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE
02/08/2021 72,500.00 -893.00ESRI license renewal 20507 71,607.00JDELLAVALL
35-30-5900-5300-350 UNIFORMS
02/08/2021 500.00 -500.00ESRI license renewal 20508 0.00JDELLAVALL
75-75-3870-3870-156 TRANS FR W/S US BUS 70 WTR PHASE I
02/08/2021 299,741.50 43,792.00To record Water SDFs 20493 553,477.50EBRADFORD
75-75-6900-5970-928 TRAN TO UTL CAP IMP-US 70 PHASE I
EBRADFORD 12:36:08PM02/02/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 2
GF-
Contingency
Admin.
PD-Admin.
PD-Patrol
PD-Patrol
Streets
Streets
WSF-
Transfer
WSF-
Transfer
WSF-
Revenue
WSF-
Revenue
WSF-
Revenue
Water
Distribution
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Water
Sys Dev Fees
Water
Sys Dev Fees
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 6 of 9
DRAFT
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 02/08/2021 TO 02/08/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
02/08/2021 299,741.50 43,792.00To record Water SDFs 20492 553,477.50EBRADFORD
76-76-3870-3870-155 TRAN FR W/S - COLLECT SYS REHAB
02/08/2021 1,008,106.50 39,997.00To record Sewer SDFs 20499 1,211,334.50EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 1,008,106.50 -3,243.00Correct budget amendment 20511 1,208,091.50EBRADFORD
76-76-6900-5970-927 TRAN TO UTIL CAP IMP FD - COLL SYS
02/08/2021 1,008,106.50 39,997.00Record Sewer SDFs 20498 1,211,334.50EBRADFORD
02/08/2021 1,008,106.50 -3,243.00Correct budget amendment 20512 1,208,091.50EBRADFORD
435,118.00
EBRADFORD 12:36:08PM02/02/2021
fl142r03
Page 2 of 2
Sewer
Sys Dev Fees
Sewer
Sys Dev Fees
APPROVED: 5/0
DATE: 2/8/21
VERIFIED: ___________________________________
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 7 of 9
DRAFT
Proclamation #20210208-5.D
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 8 of 9
DRAFT
Proclamation #20210208-6.A
Feb. 8, 2021
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 9 of 9
DRAFT
Minutes
Board of Commissioners
Remote work session
7 p.m. Feb. 22, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt
Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd
Staff: Budget Director Emily Bradford, Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell, Interim
Finance Director Keri Carnes, Assistant to the Manager/Deputy Budget Director Jen Della Valle,
Interim Town Clerk/Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey, Police Chief Duane Hampton,
Assistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and
Town Manager Eric Peterson
1. Opening of the work session
Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and confirmed the presence of a quorum. Interim
Town Clerk and Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey called the roll.
2. Agenda changes and approval
Commissioners Kathleen Ferguson and Mark Bell requested to remove items 4B and 4E, respectively, from the
consent agenda for discussion. The items were reassigned as items 5A and 5B.
Motion: Ferguson moved to accept the agenda as amended. Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Commissioners Bell, Robb English, Ferguson, and Evelyn Lloyd. Nays: 0. Absent:
Commissioner Matt Hughes.
Hughes joined meeting at 7:03 p.m.
3. Presentations
Quarterly Economic Development Update
Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell gave the quarterly report, noting COVID-19 economic
recovery strategies and strong events and activities in the last quarter of the year, including a bucket list of
ideas to celebrate the holidays in Hillsborough. She said the Find Your Calm campaign to visit Hillsborough is
continuing, with radio, print and social media ads. She noted countywide collaborations, including the Save
Our Restaurants pledge asking people to commit takeout one to two times per week.
4. Items for decision ― consent agenda
A. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
B. Amendment to Section 5-11a of the non-discrimination ordinance
C. Resolution to appoint Keri Carnes as finance officer
D. 2021 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar amendment
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 1 of 10
DRAFT
E. Delinquent food & beverage tax, penalties, and interest due from Samantha’s Pupusas
Motion: Ferguson moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. English seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
5. In-depth discussion and topics
A. Amendment to Section 5-11a of the non-discrimination ordinance
This item was moved from the consent agenda to allow discussion. The mayor noted Ferguson brought this
proposal forward to add natural hair and hairstyles as protected classes in the town’s recently adopted non-
discrimination ordinance. Weaver said the language comes from the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and
Open Workplace for Natural Hair), a law adopted first in California to prohibit discrimination based on
hairstyle and hair texture. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said he checked whether Orange County’s other
jurisdictions had added the language to their recently adopted non-discrimination ordinances. The county and
the Town of Chapel Hill had not, with Chapel Hill noting natural hair and hairstyles already were protected
through other classifications in the ordinance. Hornik said generally race, ethnicity and religion have a lot to
do with hairstyle. He said making the additions of natural hair and hairstyles could lead to an expansive list of
items that are distinguishing. When asked, he gave clothing styles, head pieces and tattoos as possible
examples.
There was discussion that there is a difference in what people choose to add to their bodies and what they
are born with; that existing anti-discrimination laws do not protect against hair-based discrimination as
evidenced by the CROWN Act movement and examples of hair-based discrimination in this country; and that
the U.S. military has updated grooming standards to reflect inclusive practices.
Police Chief Duane Hampton said his concern in adding the words “natural hair and hairstyles” to the
ordinance centers around what the town attorney had discussed. He said he is worried about unintended
consequences for organizations that have standards for appearance. He asked for clarification about what is
meant by “natural hair and hairstyles,” saying he inferred “hairstyles” as including color. There was discussion
that that is a misinterpretation and that the words refer to hair that is untreated or what some people might
refer to as kinky, curly or coarser hair. There was discussion on what limits, if any, there might be on what is
considered natural hair and hairstyles. Town Manager Eric Peterson suggested adding the word “natural” in
front of both “hair” and “hairstyles.”
Motion: Ferguson moved to approve the ordinance as amended with the word “natural” inserted before
“hairstyles.” Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
B. Delinquent food and beverage tax, penalties, and interest due from Samantha’s Pupusas
This item was moved from the consent agenda to allow discussion. There was discussion about how the
nonpayment of food and beverage taxes between November 2017 and December 2020 by the restaurant
Samantha’s Pupusas went unnoticed for so long and how to prevent future occurrences. The economic
development planner noted new businesses usually will apply for building permits to renovate a space to their
needs, which then would trigger notice to various town departments. She said communication between
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 2 of 10
DRAFT
departments has improved, and perhaps the issue is due to employee turnover. It was noted that it would be
easier to track businesses if local business privilege fees and taxes could be assessed still in North Carolina.
There was discussion about ensuring the same treatment for businesses delinquent in food and beverage tax
payment, with discussion on what the payment plan was for the cafeteria at the UNC Hospitals Hillsborough
Campus, which also had been delinquent in payments after opening. The payment plan arranged with UNC
Hospitals in 2017 required that the system pay the taxes due and half the penalties and interest due. The 18-
month payment plan arranged with Samantha’s Pupusas allows for one month of forgiveness of penalties and
interest for each on-time payment. If all payments were made on time, the restaurant could receive a 53%
reduction in what is owed, the town attorney noted.
There was discussion about the methodology for determining payment plans and the handling of penalties
and interest in the last year. The attorney said he did not recall any situation in the last year that did not
involve applying both penalties and interest. He said one proprietor adamantly refused to pay and the town
has obtained a judgment against the proprietor in Magistrate’s Court and plans to pursue it.
The economic development planner said delinquent food and beverage taxes happen mostly with new
businesses. Sometimes a pattern is seen with existing businesses of falling behind and then catching up with
remitting the taxes, Campbell said. With new businesses like the hospital cafeteria and Samantha’s Pupusas,
the remittance of the taxes may never get put into a business’s system as it is starting up. Campbell said she
thinks that is a different situation from a business which is still collecting the tax but not remitting it to the
town. It was determined it would be a good practice for staff to notify the town board when a business falls
three to six months behind in remitting taxes.
Motion: Bell moved to approve the payment plan as presented. Ferguson seconded.
Bell said he wanted to memorialize for future occurrences that the town is willing to enter discussions with
businesses which make this mistake and are cooperative; that businesses which knowingly violate the
ordinance probably will not see any reduction in penalties and interest; and that staff will create additional
processes to monitor more frequently for situations which might need to be brought to the board’s attention.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
C. Budget “Mini” Retreat – Strategic Plan Check-In
Assistant to the Manager and Deputy Budget Director Jen Della Valle thanked the mayor and board for their
flexibility on the handling of the budget process with a series of mini virtual retreats due to the pandemic. She
noted they would be continuing the strategic plan conversation tonight that was kicked off at the board’s
work session on Jan. 25.
The mayor led a discussion on the town’s values. In a slide presentation, she showed how these guiding
principles have changed since 2019, when they were listed on a strategy map tied to the town’s former
system for monitoring progress on goals. She reminded the board that the town’s management team had
proposed a redesign of the system then and that the board discussed town values at its budget retreat last
March, right before the town declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19. At that retreat, the mayor and
commissioners decided on the need for definitions for their six selected values. Since then, she and English
also refined and consolidated the values while defining them.
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 3 of 10
DRAFT
She presented the four draft values and definitions to the board for discussion. She noted that ideally the
definitions would be short enough to fit on the strategy map and that she and English could further reduce
the definitions if desired.
• Vibrancy ― A vibrant Hillsborough is one that is lively and active, and the activity is visible and
frequent. We see this manifest in cultural art events, recreation, and how people know each other
and are connected by physical and social networks. The people, physical environment, and business
community are core to this vibrant atmosphere.
• Equity and Inclusion ― Hillsborough is a place where every resident can thrive, where everyone who
lives and works here feels they belong. We will strive to support policies, plans, and actions that are
administered fairly to build a Hillsborough where people of all races, ethnicities, genders, sexes,
sexual orientations, abilities, and incomes want to live, can afford to live, and will be treated with
dignity and respect.
• Forward Thinking ― We think and make decisions that can persist over generations, acknowledging
that economic environmental and social issues are interrelated. This community has a unique sense of
place encapsulated by both Hillsborough's long and treasured history and where it meets change and
looks to the future. We have an obligation to be fiscally, environmentally, and culturally wise in order
to plan for the long term and be resilient to unforeseen events. We strive to foster a culture of
innovation and creativity in town operations.
• Public Service ― The Town of Hillsborough is here to serve. We are committed to good and ethical
governance. We are responsible stewards of community tax dollars put to use for the public good. We
strive to ensure each resident, visitor, business, and employee are safe as they live, work, and play in
Hillsborough, and this sense of safety should extend beyond the physical environment to foster a
community where the people are free from worry regarding whether who they are has bearing on
how they are treated.
Commissioners expressed approval of the values and definitions. Commissioner Mark Bell suggested a change
to the vibrancy definition to be inclusive of people who are less able. English suggested including the word
“sustainability” in the values. Ferguson noted the first sentence of the equity and inclusion definition is a
clearer definition of sustainability to her than the word itself.
Della Valle noted the strategic plan will continue to go through different iterations as language is refined and
different pieces of the plan are worked on. She reviewed that the board provided feedback on the five draft
focus areas and objectives for the strategic plan at its Jan. 25 work session. She reviewed changes staff
proposed in response and asked for feedback.
The board members expressed agreement with objectives added to the Service Excellence focus area to
integrate racial equity into the plan and to include community engagement. Ferguson asked that the word
“all” be added before “people” in the objective for the Community Safety focus area to make it inclusive.
There was discussion about two objectives proposed for removal from the Economic Vitality focus area, with
language revision suggested for the objective of minimizing the cost of government to clarify that the intent is
to provide quality, efficient services while being mindful of costs to the community. It was suggested also that
the objective regarding maintaining a healthy balance between residential and commercial tax bases be used
as a measure to gauge performance in achieving economic vitality.
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 4 of 10
DRAFT
Della Valle noted staff have been working to consolidate draft objectives and are being mindful to propose
objectives that staff can make progress toward. She said they will continue to refine the objectives and invited
specific examples of desired additions to the Community Safety focus area and other areas. There was no
additional feedback. Della Valle said staff will continue building the plan and will bring it back for discussion
before the board.
6. Other business
There was none.
7. Committee updates and reports
Board members gave updates on the committees and boards on which they serve.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 9.26 p.m. Bell seconded.
Kimrey called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Kimrey
Interim Town Clerk
Staff support to the Board of Commissioners
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 5 of 10
DRAFT
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 02/22/2021 TO 02/22/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
02/22/2021 250,000.00 -12,200.00To cover SmartFusion maintenance 20527 12,661.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4400-5300-453 C.S./HARRIS
02/22/2021 16,800.00 12,200.00To cover anticpated yr-end overage 20526 29,000.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6600-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
02/22/2021 15,000.00 -6,000.00To cover life rings 20531 9,000.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6600-5300-332 DEPT.SUPPLIES/OSHA
02/22/2021 34,400.00 6,000.00To cover life rings 20532 40,400.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5100-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
02/22/2021 10,050.00 -3,500.00To cover ammunition 20514 6,550.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5100-030 BONUS PAY
02/22/2021 2,100.00 1,800.00To cover training recruit officers 20530 6,586.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
02/22/2021 4,000.00 -3,300.00To cover ammunition 20515 700.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5300-330 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES
02/22/2021 15,500.00 6,800.00To cover ammunition 20516 29,329.16EBRADFORD
10-20-5120-5100-010 OVERTIME COMPENSATION
02/22/2021 8,000.00 -1,800.00To cover training recruit officers 20529 4,200.00EBRADFORD
30-80-7240-5300-572 ELECTRONIC PAYMENT FEES
02/22/2021 120,000.00 12,300.00To cover anticpated yr-end overage 20525 132,300.00EBRADFORD
30-80-8220-5300-458 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
02/22/2021 588.00 7.00Software & communication support for ga 20518 695.00JDELLAVALL
30-80-8220-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
02/22/2021 4,610.00 -7.00Software & communication support for ga 20517 4,603.00JDELLAVALL
30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
02/22/2021 300,000.00 -12,300.00To cover electronic payment processing fe 20528 227,638.00EBRADFORD
75-75-3870-3870-156 TRANS FR W/S US BUS 70 WTR PHASE I
02/22/2021 299,741.50 7,728.00To record Water SDFs 20519 561,205.50EBRADFORD
75-75-6900-5970-928 TRAN TO UTL CAP IMP-US 70 PHASE I
02/22/2021 299,741.50 7,728.00To record Water SDFs 20520 561,205.50EBRADFORD
76-76-3870-3870-155 TRAN FR W/S - COLLECT SYS REHAB
02/22/2021 1,008,106.50 6,486.00To record Sewer SDFs 20521 1,214,577.50EBRADFORD
02/22/2021 1,008,106.50 3,243.00To record Sewer SDFs 20523 1,217,820.50EBRADFORD
76-76-6900-5970-927 TRAN TO UTIL CAP IMP FD - COLL SYS
02/22/2021 1,008,106.50 6,486.00To record Sewer SDFs 20522 1,214,577.50EBRADFORD
02/22/2021 1,008,106.50 3,243.00To record Sewer SDFs 20524 1,217,820.50EBRADFORD
34,914.00
EBRADFORD 8:37:59PM02/16/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
GF -
Contingency
Accounting
Safety &
Risk Mgmt
Safety &
Risk Mgmt
Police-
Admin.
Police-
Patrol
Police -
Patrol
Police-
Patrol
Police-
I&CS
Billing &
Collections
WWTP
WWTP
WSF-
Contingency
Water
SDFs
Water
SDFs
Sewer
SDFs
Sewer
SDFs
APPROVED: 5/0
DATE: 2/22/21
VERIFIED: ___________________________________
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 6 of 10
DRAFT
RESOLUTION
To Appoint Keri Carnes as Finance Officer
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 159-24 states each local government
and public authority shall appoint a finance officer; and
WHEREAS, the finance officer is responsible for providing financial safeguards and
ensuring that all duties of the finance officer are adequately and efficiently covered; and
WHEREAS, Keri Carnes, interim finance director is qualified to serve in the position
of finance officer; and
WHEREAS, as internal controls are an integral part of the organization, this
appointment will improve the segregation of duties; and
WHEREAS, having a finance officer will help ensure that all duties of the finance
office are adequately and effectively covered;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners herby
appoints Keri Carnes as finance officer.
Approved this 22nd day of February 2021.
Seal
Jenn Weaver, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
Resolution #20210222-4.C
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 7 of 10
DRAFT
Interim Town Clerk and Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-296-9443 | sarah.kimrey@hillsboroughnc.gov
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Adopted Oct. 12, 2020
Amended Feb. 22, 2021
Meeting Calendar ― 2021
Board of Commissioners
All meetings start at 7 p.m. and are in the Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St., unless
otherwise noted. Times, dates and locations are subject to change.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the board may conduct remote meetings utilizing Zoom. The
public will be able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video on the town’s YouTube channel.
Regular meetings
Regular meetings typically occur the second Monday of the month.
Jan. 11 Remote
Feb. 8 Remote
March 8 Remote
April 12 Remote
May 10 Remote
June 14 Remote (with budget adoption)
Aug. 9 Remote
Sept. 13 Remote
Oct. 11 Remote
Nov. 8 Remote
Dec. 13 Remote
Work sessions
Work sessions typically occur the fourth Monday of the month.
Jan. 25 Remote
Feb. 22 Remote
March 22 Remote
April 26 Remote
May 24 Remote (with budget public hearing and workshop)
June 7 Remote (with budget workshop) – if needed
June 28 Remote
Aug. 23 Remote
Sept. 27 Remote
Oct. 25 Remote
Nov. 22 Remote
Joint public hearings
Joint public hearings with the Planning Board typically occur the third Thursday of a month.
Jan. 21 Remote
April 15 Remote
July 15 Remote
Oct. 21 Remote
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 8 of 10
DRAFT
ORDINANCE
Amending Town Code Section 5-11.a
It is hereby ordained by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners as follows:
Section 1. The following of Section 5-11.a of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended.
The phrase “natural hair or natural hairstyles” shall be inserted between the words “race” and
“creed” in subparagraphs 1(a), (2) and (3) of Section 5.11a to add them as protected classes.
1.Definitions
(a)“Discrimination” means any difference in treatment based on race, natural hair or
natural hairstyles, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, national origin or ancestry, marital or familial status, pregnancy, veteran
status, religious belief, age, or disability.
2.Discrimination in places of public accommodations prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any proprietor or his/her employer, keeper, or manager in a place
of public accommodation to deny any person, except for reasons applicable alike to all
persons, regardless of race, natural hair or hairstyles, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin or ancestry, marital or familial
status, pregnancy, veteran status, religious belief, age, or disability the full enjoyment
of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.
3.Discrimination in employment prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any employer, because of the race, natural hair or hairstyles,
creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin or
ancestry, marital or familial status, pregnancy, veteran status, religious belief, age or
disability or of any person to refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against him/her
with respect to hire, tenure, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter
directly or indirectly related to employment.
Section 2. Any provision contained in the Code of Ordinances that is inconsistent with Section
5-11.a is repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
Ordinance #20210222-5.A
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 9 of 10
DRAFT
The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2021.
Ayes: 5
Noes: 0
Absent or Excused: 0
___________________________________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Ordinance #20210222-5.A
Feb. 22, 2021
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 10 of 10
DRAFT
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Administration - Budget
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: __________________________
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bradford, Budget Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
Attachment(s):
1. Description and explanation for budget amendments and transfers
Brief Summary:
To adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures, where needed, due to changes that have occurred since budget
adoption.
Action Requested:
Consider approving budget amendments and transfers.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
N/A
Financial Impacts:
As indicated by each budget amendment.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
To approve the attached list of budget amendments.
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 03/08/2021 TO 03/08/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-10-4200-5300-338 SUPPLIES - DATA PROCESSING
03/08/2021 50.00 2,600.00To cover replacement camera 20540 2,650.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-458 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
03/08/2021 7,511.00 72.00To cover graphic design work 20555 7,583.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
03/08/2021 9,053.00 -2,600.00To cover replacement camera 20541 5,260.00EBRADFORD
03/08/2021 9,053.00 -72.00To cover graphic design work 20554 5,188.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4900-5100-020 SALARIES
03/08/2021 259,697.00 6,000.00To cover MPA intern 20534 265,697.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4900-5300-441 C.S./ENG REVIEW
03/08/2021 45,000.00 -12,000.00To fund temp staff 0 33,000.00EBRADFORD
03/08/2021 45,000.00 -6,000.00To cover MPA intern 20533 27,000.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4900-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
03/08/2021 2,500.00 12,000.00To fund temp staff 20535 43,700.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6300-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
03/08/2021 3,000.00 -1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20536 310.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6600-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
03/08/2021 15,000.00 -2,000.00To cover AED repairs 20552 7,000.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6600-5300-330 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES
03/08/2021 200.00 2,000.00To cover AED repairs 20553 2,200.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5100-5300-158 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT
03/08/2021 500.00 -300.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20544 200.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5100-5300-530 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
03/08/2021 200.00 50.00To cover membership renewals 20549 250.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5300-158 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT
03/08/2021 2,000.00 -500.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20545 1,500.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5110-5300-161 MAINTENANCE - VEHICLES
03/08/2021 150.00 1,100.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20547 1,250.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5120-5300-161 MAINTENANCE - VEHICLES
03/08/2021 500.00 -300.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20546 200.00EBRADFORD
10-20-5120-5300-530 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
03/08/2021 300.00 -50.00To cover membership renewals 20548 250.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5550-5300-163 POLICE VEHICLE REPAIR
03/08/2021 25,000.00 2,607.00To record insurance pymt 20551 27,607.00EBRADFORD
10-71-6300-5982-006 TRANSFER TO GEN CAP IMPROV FUND
03/08/2021 0.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20537 4,500.00EBRADFORD
10-80-3880-3887-000 INSURANCE PROCEEDS
03/08/2021 0.00 2,607.00To record insurance pymt 20550 2,607.00EBRADFORD
30-80-8140-5300-165 MAINTENANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE
03/08/2021 15,000.00 1,000.00Spare pump for Blair Dr. booster pump sta 20559 17,500.00JDELLAVALL
30-80-8140-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL
03/08/2021 100,000.00 -1,000.00Spare pump for Blair Dr. booster pump sta 20558 97,573.00JDELLAVALL
60-03-3870-3870-000 TRANSFER FROM GF-CONNECTIVITY
EBRADFORD 9:06:14PM03/02/2021
fl142r03
Page 1 of 2
Admin.
Admin.
Admin.
Planning
Planning
Planning
Public
Space
Safety &
Risk Mgmt
Safety &
Risk Mgmt
Police-
Admin
Police -
Admin
Police-
Patrol
Police-
Patrol
Police-
I&CS
Police-
I&CS
Fleet
Maint.
Public
Space
GF-
Revenue
Water
Distribution
Water
Distribution
GF- Cap.
Proj. Fund
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 03/08/2021 TO 03/08/2021
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
03/08/2021 40,000.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20538 44,500.00EBRADFORD
60-03-3870-3870-002 BELLEVUE MILLS CONTRIBUTION
03/08/2021 0.00 8,000.00To record Bellevue Mill contribution 20556 8,000.00EBRADFORD
60-03-6300-5700-729 CONNECTIVITY INFRASTRUCTURE
03/08/2021 40,000.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20539 44,500.00EBRADFORD
03/08/2021 40,000.00 8,000.00To record Bellevue Mill contribution 20557 52,500.00EBRADFORD
23,214.00
EBRADFORD 9:06:14PM03/02/2021
fl142r03
Page 2 of 2
GF-Cap.
Proj. Fund
GF-Cap.
Proj. Fund
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Public Works
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Dustin Hill, Interim Public Works Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Acceptance of new section of sidewalk at 153 W King St. (Colonial Inn)
Attachment(s):
1. As-built plans
2. Certification
Brief Summary:
An old rock walkway was replaced at 153 W. King St. with a new concrete sidewalk. The sidewalk is 210 linear feet
long and meets all requirements by the NCDOT and the town. A one-year warranty period will begin upon approval
by the town board. Colonial Inn owner Justin Fejfar will be responsible for maintenance until the end of the warranty
period.
Action Requested:
Consider acceptance of the new section of sidewalk at 153 W King St.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
None
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8. 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.D
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Information only – intent to use COVID Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funding to repair
Exchange Park Lane bridge
Attachment(s):
1. Funding announcement
2. Repair estimate
Brief Summary:
NCDOT inspects the Exchange Park Lane bridge every two years and reports needed repairs to the town for action.
The report was prepared in April 2020 and identified a few critical repairs and a number of other maintenance
concerns. The town had an engineer’s estimate prepared for budgeting purposes and was preparing to seek
construction bids on the project when the COVID Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funding
through the Metropolitan Planning Organization was announced. This project seems well suited to the program and
needs the funds available in the announcements. The town will still need to identify $50,000 - $75,000 for this project
and supervision of the repairs.
Action Requested:
None – information only
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
February 4, 2021
TO: DCHC MPO Technical Committee
FROM : Anne Phillips, DCHC MPO Lead Planning Agency
SUBJECT: STBGDA COVID Relief Funds Call for Projects
STBGDA Coronavirus Relief Funds
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO has received $2,340,706 of Surface Transportation Block
Grant – Direct Attributable (STBGDA) funds as a result of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act (CRRSAA).
STBGDA funds provide flexible funding that communities can use to improve or construct roadways, bridges,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and to implement transit capital projects. Though STBGDA funds
typically require a 20% local match, stipulations in the CRRSAA do not require a 20% local match. DCHC
has chosen to offer these funds with no required local match.
Because the availability of these zero-match funds may affect local jurisdictions’ applications for the STBGDA
and STBG Any Area funds included in the January 26 call for projects, the MPO is extending the deadline for
STBGDA, and STBG Any Area, and Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian applications to March 31, 2021. Please
note that the deadline for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) projects remains
February 10, 2021.
Funding distribution is guided by the attached Policy Framework for DCHC MPO Federal Funds.
A few things to keep in mind:
-The funds allocated through the CRRSAA must be obligated by September 30, 2024. Any amount that
is not obligated will lapse.
-In addition to being used for STBG eligible costs, these funds can be used for costs related to
preventive maintenance, routine maintenance, operations, personnel, including salaries of employees
(including those employees who have been placed on administrative leave) or contractors, debt service
payments, availability payments, and coverage for other revenue losses.
-While these funds may be flexed to transit, NCDOT is still trying to determine how this may affect the
local match requirement. Please keep in mind that local transit agencies have already received
CRRSAA funds.
-CRRSAA funds can be used to replace previously programmed STBG(DA) funds for Locally
Administered Projects (LAP), and the requisite local match, as long as the originally programmed funds
have not already been obligated.
2
Funding Available:
Jurisdiction Funding
City of Durham $ 1,442,230
Chapel Hill $ 429,255
Carrboro $ 206,343
Hillsborough $ 126,447
Durham County $ 57,908
Orange County $ 55,924
Chatham County $ 22,599
TOTAL $ 2,340,706
Application Procedure: STBGDA form (attached). The form has been updated so you can indicate the type
of STBG funds you are requesting.
Application and Approval Schedule
February 4: STBGDA COVID Funds Call for Projects Issued
February 10: CMAQ Applications Due
February 17: Recommended CMAQ projects submitted to TC review
February 24: TC review of CMAQ projects and recommendation
March 10: MPO Board approval of CMAQ projects
March 31: STBGDA, STBG Any Area, STBG COVID Relief, and Regional Bike-Ped Applications Due
April 21: Recommended STBG and Regional Bike-Ped projects submitted to TC for review
April 28: TC review of STBG and Regional Bike-Ped projects and recommendation
May 12: MPO Board Approval
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No.Hillsborough Bridge Final County:ORANGE
Route Exchange Park Lane over Eno River
BR.# 241 BRIDGE # 670241 CONSTR. COST
$169,900
Prepared By: G.W.DICKEY, Britt McCurry Date
Requested By: Dustin Hill Date
Revised By:Date
Line
Item Item Number
Sec
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount
8000000000-N 800 MOBILIZATION 1.00 LS 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
8664000000-E SP CONCRETE REPAIRS PAR items 4.80 CF 2,000.00$ 9,600.00$
Additional Repairs Traffic Control 2.00 Day 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Spalls/Delams Concrete Repairs - Additional Items 65.10 CF 2,000.00$ 130,200.00$
Lgth 0.404 Miles Contract Cost ………….…………………….. 153,800.00$
E. & C. ………….…………………….. 16,100.00$
Construction Cost ………….……………………..169,900.00$
2/4/2021
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 21, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.E
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 2.6 and 3 – Technical
Review Committee
Attachment(s):
1.Consistency statement
2. Ordinance
3.Planning Board minutes
Brief Summary:
These amendments were discussed at the January public hearing without public comment. The Planning Board
unanimously recommends approval, following a robust discussion on the pre-application process and gaining
understanding that this process is to help streamline the review process and keep projects from experiencing too
many surprises. The members felt the proposed language provides more flexibility for more entities to participate in
the TRC process than the previous statement allowing the manager to appoint additional members.
Action Requested:
Adopt the consistency statement and ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Staff emailed about 35 regular applicants to inform them of these pending changes at the end of February.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_planning staff_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows
(insert general description of proposed amendment):
Amend UDO Sections 2.6 and 3 – Technical Review Committee
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
This amendment streamlines the review process, makes pre-application meetings mandatory and
preserves the ability to appeal a denial to the Board of Adjustment.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021.
_____________ _________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 2.6.1, Powers and Duties, is hereby
amended to replace “authorized and directed to review and approve, conditionally
approve or deny applications for Site Plan Approval pursuant to Section 3.13, Site Plan
Review, of this Ordinance” with the phrase “an advisory group of Town staff members
and outside agencies (as necessary) who meet to review and comment on development
applications, discuss other matters related to the Town’s review and management of
development”
Section 2. Amend Section 2.6.2, Membership, to read as follows:
The Technical Review Committee shall consist of at least three (3) members – the Planning
Director, the Utilities Director, the Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager, and the Public
Works Director or their designees. Representatives from other Town, Orange County and State
departments, as well as local service providers (e.g., Duke Energy), may be asked to participate in
meetings.
Section 3. Amend Section 2.6.3, Rules of Procedure, to be titled “Meetings” and replace the
language to read as follows:
The Technical Review Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule meeting frequently enough
to act as expeditiously as practicable on matters before it. The Planning Director may adjourn a regular
meeting on determining there are no agenda items for consideration and may call emergency or special
meetings as necessary.
Applicants may be invited to attend meetings as necessary to answer questions from, or provide
clarifications requested by, Technical Review Committee members.
Written comments of Committee members shall be filed with the Planning Department and delivered to
applicants with projects under review.
Section 4. Delete Section 2.6.4, Appeals.
Section 5. Amend Section 3.5.4 to replace “Planning Director shall refer the request to the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) for final review and approval” with “subdivision shall be
reviewed as a Conditional Subdivision. The Planning Director has the authority to refer
any minor subdivision request involving a new or existing private road to the Technical
Review Committee.”
Section 6. Amend Section 3.8.7, Pre-application and Section 3.9.5.2, Pre-application, to read to
replace “are encouraged to” with “shall” and “Planning Director” with “the technical
Review Committee.”
Section 7. Amend Section 3.11.2, Applicability to change the general statute reference to 160D-
1402, delete reference to the Technical Review Committee, and delete unnecessary
commas.
Section 8. Amend Section 3.11.4.4 to delete reference to the Technical Review Committee and
delete unnecessary commas.
Section 9. Replace the language in Section 3.13.2, Applicability, to read as follows:
Site Plan Review is the general term used to describe review of projects other than (a) the construction of
or addition to single family dwellings on lots zoned for single family uses and (b) uses requiring a Special
Use or Conditional Use Permit, as Site Plan Review is built into the Special and Conditional Use Permit
review processes.
The Site Plan Review process is applicable only to proposed development involving:
(a) The disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more of land and/or
i. the construction of new structures consisting of more than 5,000 square feet of gross
floor area, or
ii. additions to existing structures consisting of more than 2,500 square feet of gross floor
area
in any general purpose residential or non-residential zoning district.
Any development exceeding this threshold in a general-purpose residential district is required to pursue a
Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the standards and provisions established by Section 3.9,
Conditional Use Permit, of this Ordinance; and
(b) the construction of attached dwelling units in any general-purpose zoning district that
does not otherwise exceed a threshold above.
Section 10. Amend Section 3.13.4.2, Pre-application Conference, by replacing “should” with “shall,”
“Planning Director” with “Technical Review Committee,” inserting “concept” before
“plan,” adding a comma after plan, and adding “and other Town Requirements” to end
the sentence.
Section 11. Amend Section 3.13.6.1 to delete “of” after the word “all” and replace “where (a) less
than 1 acre of land will be disturbed by the proposed development, (b) no new structure
consists of more than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, and/or (c) no addition to an
existing structure consists of more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area” with “in any
general-purpose zoning district. Approval or denial of the Site Plan shall be made within
30 days of the receipt of a complete application.”
Section 13. Insert Section 3.13.6.2, Completeness review, to read as follows:
Upon receipt of a Site Plan Review application, the Planning Director shall first determine whether the
application is complete, including the payment of all required application fees. The Planning Director shall
have five working days in which to determine application completeness. If the Planning Director
determines the application is not complete, he shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for such
determination.
Section 14. Amend Section 3.13.6.3, Technical Review Committee, to read as follows:
Upon determination that a complete application has been filed, the Planning Director shall refer the site
plan to the Technical Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee shall review the plan at its next
regularly scheduled meeting. Written Committee review comments shall then be forwarded to the
applicant.
Section 15. Delete Section 3.13.6.4, Section 3.13.6.5, Section 3.13.6.6, and Section 3.13.6.7.
Section 16. Amend Section 3.13.7, Decisions on Site Plan Applications, have it read as a single
sentence as follows:
The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve site plans, or to deny site plan approval on the
grounds that the site plan submitted fails to comply with any specific requirements of this Ordinance.
Section 17. Amend Section 3.13.8.1 to remove reference to the Technical Review Committee and add
“consistent with North Carolina General Statues Section 160D-405 at the end of the first
sentence.
Section 18. Amend Section 3.13.8.2 by deleting the second sentence.
Section 19. Amend Section 3.13.8.4 by deleting the reference to the Technical Review Committee in
the last sentence.
Section 20. Delete Section 3.13.3 and renumber subsequent sections. References above are prior to
the renumbering.
Section 21. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 22. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 8th day of March, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Planning Board Minutes | 3 of 7
B. Unified Development Ordinance: Amendments to sections 2.6 and 3 — To redefine the role of the Technical
Review Committee
Johnston introduced Item 5B. Hauth summarized the staff report, reminding the board that this proposed text
amendment was discussed at the Jan. 21, 2021, public hearing. The proposed changes would remove the
Technical Review Committee’s voting capacity and invest responsibility with planning staff for approving
development site plans. She noted Commissioner Matt Hughes’ request at the public hearing that the town
manager retain the ability to add members to the Technical Review Committee; Hauth said staff is fine with
adding that section back into the ordinance.
Hillsborough Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell arrived.
Johnston asked Hauth how the Technical Review Committee members feel about no longer having voting
capacity. Hauth said the committee members feel fine about the change because currently they are being
asked to vote on issues outside of their expertise, such as when members from county departments or the
state department of transportation are asked to vote on compliance with the town’s planning ordinance. She
said it is very common for technical review committees not to vote but to serve as a communication
mechanism between all involved departments and an applicant.
Campbell added the ordinance’s current text seems to imply the Technical Review Committee should vote on
projects that may not be fully compliant, leaving it to the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners to figure
out compliance details. She said staff has improved processes and plans should not come to the Planning
Board in the future until they are ready.
Sykes noted the proposed changes would also remove the mandatory attendance requirement for Technical
Review Committee members who may not need to be involved in every meeting. Hauth added that pre-
application meetings would become mandatory, ensuring applicants talk with planning staff while a project is
still in the design phase. She said staff hopes the changes will make the process smoother and faster.
When asked, Campbell said staff is not concerned that more applicants might not get past a certain stage. She
said the pre-application meeting generally helps projects go faster and stay more within their budgets. She
briefly described a pre-application meeting.
Sykes said she thinks Hughes’ concern that the town manager be able to appoint people to the Technical
Review Committee is addressed sufficiently by the proposed additions, specifically the line, “Representatives
from other Town, Orange County and State departments, as well as local service providers (e.g., Duke Energy),
may be asked to participate in meetings.” Johnston noted that the removed language does not require the
town manager to appoint people but rather gives the flexibility to do so. Sykes thinks the added language is
broader, allowing other staff to suggest additional members.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of the text amendments as presented at the Jan. 21,
2021, public hearing. Casadonte seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark.
Nays: None.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 21, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.F
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 3.8 and 3.9 – Waivers and
minor changes
Attachment(s):
1.Consistency statement
2. Ordinance
3.Planning Board minutes
Brief Summary:
This amendment clarifies the difference between waivers and minor changes. It was discussed at the January public
hearing without public comment. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the amendment.
Action Requested:
Adopt the consistency statement and ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_planning staff_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows
(insert general description of proposed amendment):
Amend UDO Sections 3.8 and 3.9 – Waivers and minor changes
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
This amendment clarifies an important distinction in the review process while introducing a
small degree of defined flexibility that staff can administer when needed.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021.
_____________ _________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.8.4.4 is hereby amended to delete 5
phrases reading “or modification(s)” in the paragraph.
Section 2. Section 3.9.4.3 is amended to delete 5 phrases reading “or modification(s)” in the
paragraph.
Section 3. Section 3.8.22, Applying Criteria, is added to read as follows:
Minor changes and modifications are reviewed only after a permit has been approved. The criteria shall
be applied as follows:
a) When the requested change creates a situation of non-compliance with a quantified
standard in the ordinance but does not qualify as a modification under 3.8.21, staff may
approve the request as a minor change without triggering a waiver.
b) When the requested change modifies a feature or required standard with an approved
waiver, the relief granted in the waiver is fixed and not subject to flexibility in 3.8.21.
c) When the requested change is for relief similar to that in an approved waiver, but in a
different location, that approved waiver cannot be applied to a different location. Staff
may review the requested change independently and determine if it is a minor change.
d) If the requested change qualifies as a modification under 3.8.21 and creates a non-
complaint situation, it must be treated as a waiver and a modification.
Section 4. Section 3.9.14, Applying Criteria, is added to read as follows:
Minor changes and modifications are reviewed only after a permit has been approved. The criteria shall
be applied as follows:
a) When the requested change creates a situation of non-compliance with a quantified
standard in the ordinance but does not qualify as a modification under 3.9.13, staff may
approve the request as a minor change without triggering a waiver.
b) When the requested change modifies a feature or required standard with an approved
waiver, the relief granted in the waiver is fixed and not subject to flexibility in 3.9.13.
c) When the requested change is for relief similar to that in an approved waiver, but in a
different location, that approved waiver cannot be applied to a different location. Staff
may review the requested change independently and determine if it is a minor change.
d) If the requested change qualifies as a modification under 3.9.13 and creates a non-
complaint situation, it must be treated as a waiver and a modification.
Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 8th day of March, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Planning Board Minutes | 4 of 7
C.Unified Development Ordinance: Amendments to sections 3.8 and 3.9 — To clarify differences among
waivers, minor changes and modifications to Special Use and Conditional Use Permits
Johnston introduced Item 5C, which was previously discussed at the Jan. 21, 2021, public hearing. Hauth
noted that sections 3.8 and 3.9 mirror each another, as one covers special use permits and the other covers
conditional use permits. She noted the amendment would change references to “waivers and modifications”
in sections 3.8.4.4 and 3.9.4.3 to refer only to “waivers.” The amendment would also add sections 3.8.22 and
3.9.14 to clarify how criteria are applied. Hauth noted the word “review” was missing from proposed Section
3.8.22, and the last sentence of Part C in that section should read, “Staff may review the requested change
independently and determine if it is a minor change.”
Johnston asked Hauth if such minor changes to projects would have come to the Planning Board or to
planning staff without the proposed amendment. Hauth clarified that staff has always had authority to
approve minor changes and to review changes made after the board approves a special use or conditional use
permit to determine whether a change is a minor change or a modification. She said staff is looking to limit
projects with truly minor deviations from returning to the board for modifications after the project is
constructed, avoiding the need for additional waivers and public hearings. She noted how such additional
board review of projects already under construction could place board members in a difficult situation.
Johnston said the amended text still allows staff to bring any issues they are uncomfortable with to the board
for review.
Polly said she thinks the changes to add flexibility for staff make good sense. Sykes agreed that staff can
handle minor changes.
Johnston asked Hauth to estimate how many past items may have been handled more easily by staff. Hauth
was unsure of a number. She recalled a very small change that occurred with Healing Paws Veterinary
Hospital, which she decided not to bring back to the Planning Board. She noted the town attorney said she
could take that action as long as she brought forward the text amendment. She recalled two or three projects
in the past few years that had to be reprocessed as new waivers which could have been processed more easily
if she had had the flexibility.
Sykes said in her five or six years on the Planning Board about half of such cases seemed to be genuine minor
mistakes.
Vandemark asked whether staff would have to tell the board about such changes. Hauth said that change
could be added to the ordinance. Vandemark said it would be nice to know about such details that staff takes
care of for the board. Sykes agreed, saying it could help indicate which applications are having problems.
Hauth asked whether that change should be written into the ordinance or handled as standard operating
procedure. Sykes preferred handling the change as standard operating procedure, adding that updates about
minor changes which staff approved could be reported during staff updates.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of the text amendments with discussed edits. Frazier
seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark.
Nays: None.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 21, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.G
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance amendment to Section 6.7 –
Design Requirements
Attachment(s):
1.Consistency statement
2. Ordinance
3.Planning Board minutes
Brief Summary:
These amendments streamline the design requirements for new non-residential construction and expand their
applicability to multi-family dwellings and were discussed at the January public hearing without public comment. A
few amendments in Section 5.2 and 6.16 are needed to keep the ordinance internally consistent. The Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval, including the cross-reference corrections.
Action Requested:
Adopt the consistency statement and ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Staff emailed about 35 regular applicants to inform them of these pending changes at the end of February.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_planning staff_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows
(insert general description of proposed amendment):
Amend UDO Section 6.7 – Design Requirements
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
This amendment streamlines the design requirements to eliminate duplication and focus on the
most important aspects of site and building design that reinforce the vibrant public space and
human scale deserved in Hillsborough. Extending the applicability of the standards to multi-
family dwellings improves the integration of these units into the broader community. Providing
flexibility to large scale commercial projects that are auto-dependent allows for this desired land
use as well.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021.
_____________ _________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.7, Design Requirements For All New Non‐
Residential Buildings, is amended to be titled 6.7, Design Requirements For New Non‐
Residential And Multi‐Family Buildings.
Section 2. Section 6.7 is wholly replaced to ready as follows:
6.7.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the intent of this section to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by
regulating the appearance of non‐residential construction in order to protect and preserve the
appearance, character, and value of adjacent properties. These requirements help create a pedestrian
scale environment to encourage walkability and connect people to the built environment.
6.7.2 APPLICABILITY
The following principles will apply to all new non‐residential buildings and multi‐family buildings
containing 5 or more dwelling units. Some of the standards dependent on the building gross square
footage. When a numbered standard contains a phrase “On buildings with at least one tenant space
30,000 sf or larger,” only the language that follows this phrase applies to larger buildings for that
numbered standard. If there is no language regarding building size, the numbered standard applies in all
circumstances. Section 6.7.11, Parking and Circulation, Site Layout, applies only to buildings without a
tenant space 30,000 sf or larger and multi‐family buildings containing 5 or more dwelling units.
These requirements are applied during development review. If renovation occurs that is non‐compliant
with these standards and such renovation did not require a zoning compliance permit, the town may issue
a stop work order or notice of violation to bring the building back into compliance. Subdivision or changes
to parcel lines that impact compliance with these requirements but trigger no development will not create
an illegal non‐conformity and is not sufficient reason to deny a subdivision application.
6.7.3 ARTICULATION
6.7.3.1. The facade shall be articulated with bays, recesses and projections, door and window rhythm,
columns, piers, and/or varied rooflines to divide the building mass.
6.7.3.2. Design elements such as bays, recesses and projections, door and window rhythm, columns,
piers, and/or varied rooflines shall be kept consistent along the front façade.
6.7.4 DRIVE‐UP WINDOWS, CANOPIES, AND PORTE COCHERES
6.7.4.1. Drive‐up windows, canopies, and porte cocheres shall be located on the side or rear of the
building.
6.7.4.2. Drive‐up windows, canopies, and porte cocheres shall feature architectural materials and design
elements that match the primary building.
6.7.5 FENESTRATION
6.7.5.1. Buildings shall not have a blank wall oriented to a street.
6.7.5.2. Openings such as windows and doors shall account for a minimum 50% on the ground floor of
the façade and 30% of the upper floors of the facade. On buildings with at least one tenant space
30,000 sf or larger, openings such as windows and doors shall account for a minimum of 30% of
the front façade.
6.7.5.3. Street level glazing shall be visually transparent, although UV coatings are permitted. Mirrored
glass is prohibited.
6.7.5.4. Windows shall have a vertical‐to‐horizontal ratio of 1:2 except where storefront glass is
employed. Two or more vertically oriented windows may be grouped together provided windows
grouped are the same size. This does not apply to buildings with at least one tenant space 30,000
sf or larger.
6.7.5.5. Design treatments intended to simulate windows that have been covered or filled in are
prohibited.
6.7.6 MATERIALS
6.7.6.1. Changes of building materials shall occur at a change of plane, such as a recess, projection.
6.7.6.2. Buildings shall not have material changes at their outside corners.
6.7.6.3. Dominant building materials shall consist of wood, brick, stone, fiber cement, pre‐cast concrete,
ceramic tile, or glass. Concrete block, stucco, EIFS, plywood, metal and vinyl siding are prohibited
as exterior finishes. Architectural metal may be used as a secondary building material to accent
or complement the dominant building material.
6.7.7 MULTISTORY BUILDINGS
6.7.7.1 The first floor shall be architecturally differentiated from upper floors using porches, colonnades,
canopies, awnings, storefronts, or other design features.
6.7.7.2 The front façade shall be integrated with the overall building architecture. False facades are
prohibited.
6.7.8 ORIENTATION AND BUILDING ACCESS
6.7.8.1. The primary building access for non‐residential and mixed‐use buildings shall be oriented toward
and clearly identifiable from the street or if located on a corner lot may be oriented toward the
corner that is nearest the street intersection. When there is more than one street in the vicinity,
staff shall determine which street is applicable to meet the purpose and intent of this standard.
6.7.8.2. The primary building access for residential buildings shall be oriented toward and clearly
identifiable from the street and the intended residential parking area.
6.7.8.3. ADA compliant sidewalks shall be provided between building entrances and public sidewalks.
6.7.8.4. ADA compliant handicap ramps shall be provided where sidewalks intersect streets or parking
areas.
6.7.8.5. Crosswalks shall be provided where sidewalks intersect streets or parking areas.
6.7.9. POSTS AND COLUMNS
6.7.9.1 The proportion of structural elements such as posts, piers and columns shall be appropriately
scaled to the weight they appear to be carrying.
6.7.10. ROOF PITCH
6.7.10.1. Flat roofs shall be capped by a parapet wall.
6.7.10.2. Sloped roof structures must maintain a pitch of at least 5:12, not including awning, canopy,
entrance, or porch roofs.
6.7.10.3. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view when standing at ground level 20 feet from the
structure.
6.7.11 PARKING AND CIRCULATION, SITE LAYOUT
6.7.11.1 Applicability
This section applies to all buildings unless at least one tenant space within a building is 30,000
sf or larger. A building size equal to or exceeding 30,000 sf but divided into smaller tenant spaces,
the presence of multiple buildings, multiple primary buildings, or buildings oriented in different
directions does not affect applicability. If multiple buildings are considered primary, the
requirements will be applied to each building to the extent that such application does not create
a clear violation of these requirements for the site overall.
6.7.11.2 The preferred location for parking areas is behind a line projected from the building façade.
However, if needed, one row of parking and a two‐lane drive aisle for vehicular circulation may
be located between the primary building and the right‐of‐way. Parking areas shall be placed to
the side or rear and behind the front façade of the primary building(s).
6.7.11.3 Primary buildings shall be placed along the right‐of‐way at the front of lot or immediately behind
any allowed parking or circulation areas, sidewalks, and landscape areas.
6.7.11.4 On corner lots, primary buildings shall be placed along the right‐of‐way at front or front corner
of the lot or immediately behind any allowed parking or circulation areas, sidewalks, and
landscape areas.
6.7.12 SERVICE AREAS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
6.7.12.1 Delivery areas shall be located to the side or rear of the building.
6.7.12.2 Service bay and garage doors shall be located to the side or rear of the building.
6.7.12.3 Solid waste areas shall be constructed primarily of masonry.
6.7.12.4 Accessory buildings shall not be located between the front façade of the primary building and
the street.
6.7.12.5 Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building.
Section 3. Section 5.2.2.1.d and 5.2.38.1.d are amended to read “Drive‐up windows shall be located
on the side or rear of the building.”
Section 4. Section 5.2.40.1.c is amended to read
Section 5. Section 5.2.40.1.d is amended to read “Drive‐up windows shall be located on the side or
rear of the building.”
Section 6. Section 5.2.44.1.d is amended to read “Drive‐up windows and their menu boards shall be
located on the side or rear of the building.”
Section 7. Section 6.16.3.2.c is amended to read “Air handling units, condensers, satellite dishes and
other equipment that is placed on the roof shall be screened from view when standing at
ground level 20 feet from the structure.”
Section 8. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 9. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 8th day of March, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Planning Board Minutes | 5 of 7
D. Unified Development Ordinance: Amendments to Section 6.7 — To consolidate and change applicability of
design requirements, including expanding applicability to multi-family buildings
Johnston introduced Item 5D, previously discussed at the Jan. 21, 2021, public hearing, which deals with
streamlining the town’s design standards and expanding their applicability to include multi-family buildings.
Hauth noted a typo, saying the ordinance heading should read, “Design Requirements for New Non‐
Residential and Multi-Family Buildings.” She outlined several of the proposed changes that would improve
language consistency. She noted staff would like to avoid the terms “drive-through” or “drive-thru,”
preferring instead “drive-up window.” She added that in Section 6.16, which deals with rooftop items needing
to be screened, the proposed changes establish more clarity. She said staff would like to copy that language
into Section 6.16.3.2 to ensure the sections are consistent.
Sykes expressed concern over the difference between theoretical application of the design standards and
their application in practice, noting that some of the changes allow developers more flexibility. She
understands that broader standards may inspire more creativity, but she worries that every new building may
look the same. She wondered whether the town could reach out to architects to get more insights and draw
new views into town, but she doubted the problem could be fully resolved. She suggested that adding more
graphics to the design standards could help inspire more creative designs.
Hauth confirmed that graphics would be added in the future. She said the design standards could always be
amended again if development designs become too generic. Regarding advertising to architects, she noted
that the town has no say over who gets hired for private developments. Sykes confirmed she meant getting
the word out to architects that Hillsborough exists. Hauth said the development community is very aware that
Hillsborough exists. Sykes reiterated she does not want every new building in town to look the same. Hauth
said new construction projects tend to look similar when they are built close together in proximity and in
time, with a new “look” coming out every couple of years.
Scott said developers’ decisions are often driven by cost and many do not want to do anything extra. He said
the design standards contain great information and he is interested to see what happens.
Sykes, Scott, and Johnston discussed the design standards’ prohibition of cheaper materials as exterior
finishes. Sykes said adding graphics would help flesh out the standards and could help inspire different design
ideas. Scott said the prohibition of metal siding seems vague and wondered whether it refers to corrugated
metal. Hauth said an architectural metal can be used as a secondary material, clarifying that the town does
not want all-metal buildings.
Taylor said he was curious what designs Hillsborough hoped to achieve with the design standards. He noted
other members’ comments about not wanting the town to look like Cary or Durham, and he wondered if
there is something members and staff do want the town to look like. Hauth said no regarding a desired look
and added that the design standards are not trying to regulate style but to try ensuring entrances are
pedestrian-scale and easy to find. She said the standards aim for quality of style and design regardless of the
chosen style.
Polly agreed that having standards is important to ensuring quality design. She agreed with Sykes that adding
graphics to the design standards would help ensure all new buildings do not look the same. Overall, she thinks
the proposed changes are good.
Planning Board Minutes | 6 of 7
Sykes noted a recent Washington Post article highlighting Mount Pleasant, a diverse Washington, D.C.,
neighborhood with pedestrian-scale design and a variety of design types. She said the article has many
photographs illustrating the variety of walkable designs.
Motion: Vandemark moved to recommend approval of the text amendments with the discussed cross
reference and consistency changes. Polly seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark.
Nays: None.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 21, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.G
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance amendment to Section 6.7 –
Design Requirements
Attachment(s):
1.Consistency statement
2. Ordinance
3.Planning Board minutes
Brief Summary:
These amendments streamline the design requirements for new non-residential construction and expand their
applicability to multi-family dwellings and were discussed at the January public hearing without public comment. A
few amendments in Section 5.2 and 6.16 are needed to keep the ordinance internally consistent. The Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval, including the cross-reference corrections.
Action Requested:
Adopt the consistency statement and ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Staff emailed about 35 regular applicants to inform them of these pending changes at the end of February.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_planning staff_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows
(insert general description of proposed amendment):
Amend UDO Section 6.21 - Streets
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
This amendment provides an important cross-reference for safety that might not otherwise be
found by applicants until the end of the design process.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021.
_____________ _________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.21.3.8 is amended to replace “Appendix
D of the Fire Code” with “North Carolina Fire Prevention Code” for clarity and
consistency.
Section 2. Section 6.21.4.2 is amended read as follows:
Any private road within a minor residential subdivision must be designed in compliance with the North
Carolina Fire Prevention Code, which generally requires a twenty-foot wide improved travel way.
Associated drainage facilities must be located in the right of way. Underground utilities may be located
within the road right of way or in a separate utility easement. Factors such as the length and alignment
of the road and the use of sprinklers in individual buildings may impact the travel way or right of way
required by the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code.
Section 3. Section 6.21.4.3 is amended by deleting the last sentence.
Section 4. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 8th day of March, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Planning Board Minutes | 7 of 7
E. Unified Development Ordinance: Amendments to Section 6.21 — To reference Appendix D of the Fire Code as
applicable to street design
Johnston introduced Item 5E, previously discussed at the Jan. 21, 2021, public hearing, which deals with
clarifying standards for street design in reference to the state fire code. Hauth said the state has been
amending the fire code and the proper reference is now the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code, without
reference to Appendix D. She said if the board recommends approval of the changes it should direct staff to
ensure consistent reference to the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code.
Sykes asked whether the proposed changes were required by law. Hauth said no; the Fire Code would apply
regardless. She said this is another case where planning staff is trying to give applicants advance notice of the
requirements during their project’s design phase.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of the text amendments to refer to the North Carolina
Fire Prevention Code. Casadonte seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark. Nays:
None.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: March 8, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Ordinance to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street
Attachment(s):
1. Draft ordinance
Brief Summary:
The town received a petition from residents using Thomas Ruffin Street as their home address to change the street
name. The public hearing was conducted earlier in the meeting. Staff recommends a 60-day delay in the effective
date to allow for new signs to be ordered and installed.
Action Requested:
Consider adopting ordinance renaming the street.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The residents have advised staff that the requested name may be changed. The selected name needs to be
identified in the ordinance.
Financial Impacts:
Approximately $3,000 for new signs, notification, and staff time.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING A STREET NAME
IN HILLSBOROUGH CITY LIMITS
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Whereas a petition has been made to change the name of an existing public street in the Hillsborough
city limits; and
Whereas the petition meets the standards in Town Code Section 7-37; and
Whereas the Town Board called a public hearing on the request and notice was provided are required
in Town Code Section 7-37; and
Whereas the Town Board has considered all testimony from that public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained as follows:
Section 1. The street known as Thomas Ruffin Street shall be renamed and known as
on the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 2. The town shall notify each affected property owner and the notification list for address
assignments of this action as soon as practicable.
Section 3. All Town Code references to Thomas Ruffin Street shall be updated to reflect the name
change.
Section 3. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective on May 7, 2021 to allow time for new street sign
installation and other activities to ease the transition.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was
duly ADOPTED/DENIED this 8th day of March, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8. 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 21, 2021
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending the Zoning Map at 618 and 700 NC Hwy 86 North
Attachment(s):
1. Staff Report
2. Application
3. Comments related to utility availability
4. Orange County Courtesy Review comments
5. Written neighbor comments
6. Use comparison
7. Planning Board minutes
8. Consistency Statement
9. Ordinance
Brief Summary:
This rezoning request of 5.68 acres on the west side of NC 86 N from Residential-40 to Light Industrial was heard at
the January public hearing. A neighbor spoke with concerns. The applicant spoke in support. The planning Board
discussed the request and unanimously recommended approval at their February meeting.
Action Requested:
Consideration of consistency statement and amending ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The list of considerations for rezoning is attached to the staff report.
Financial Impacts:
None – this parcel is in the ETJ.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Staff is concerned about the approval of this request when utilities are not available to the site.
March 2021 Town Board meeting
Item Cover Sheet/Staff Report
Agenda Item #:
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Application materials
2 – Email regarding water & sewer access
3 – Courtesy review comments from Orange County
4 – Written comments received from neighbors prior to packet distribution
5 – List of Permitted Uses for Residential-40 and Light Industrial
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Project Title: 618 and 700 NC 86 N
Requested Action: Rezone 5.68 acres from Residential-40 to Light Industrial
Background:
The applicant parcels are currently owned by Map NC86 N, LLC, based in Chapel Hill. The company
acquired the property in August 2020. The property has a dwelling and outbuildings on it. The parcel
immediately north is owned by the town and houses our Fleet Maintenance Department and parking for
a portion of our vehicle fleet. The western portion of the town property is a former “stump dump”
where yard waste collections and storm debris were previously stored before mulching. That portion of
the town’s property is no longer in active use. The parcels to the south are owned by Orange County and
house their public works, fleet and transportation departments. The driveway into the county facility
was moved south to align with the traffic signal at NC 57 in the mid- to late 1990s.
The proximity of this property to two fleet operations was a significant factor in the land being
designated Light Industrial in the town’s Future Land Use Plan.
The intent and criteria for the Light Industrial district are listed below, along with topics the boards
should consider with any rezoning request. Excerpts of the Zoning and Future Land Use maps are also
included in the report, along with the listed of permitted, Conditional, and Special Uses in the Light
Industrial district.
The Application Materials:
The requested zoning district is a general-purpose zone – meaning a range of uses are permitted by right
and some require additional review. This is a legislative decision for the boards – meaning the members
can take a wide range of information into consideration and testimony may be in writing and does not
need to be sworn. The boards have broad discretion in determining whether to approve this request. No
statements by the applicant as to potential use of the property are binding on the applicant or the town.
For this reason, the town requests no development plans from applicants seeking rezoning to a general-
purpose district. No conditions can be placed if the application is approved. The application is complete.
4.2.8 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (LI)
4.2.8.1 Intent
The purpose of the LI district is to accommodate light manufacturing, research and
development, and other small-scale uses that have minimal exterior movement of vehicles,
materials, and goods, as well as minimal environmental and visual impacts.
4.2.8.2Application Criteria
This district will generally be applied where the following conditions exist:
(a) Water and sewer lines exist at the site or are to be made available as a part of the
development process.
(b) Direct vehicular access is to a public street with immediate and convenient access to a street
classified as an arterial. Immediate and convenient shall in this case mean traffic would not
travel through or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood to get from the site to the
arterial road.
3.6.2 GENERAL STANDARDS/FINDINGS OF FACT
Before amending this Ordinance or the Official Zoning Map, the Town Board must find, after
conducting the process below, that the request is not inconsistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Hillsborough.
Amending the Official Zoning Map (Rezoning) is a matter committed to the legislative discretion
of the Town Board. In determining whether to adopt a proposed amendment, the Town Board
shall consider and weigh the relevance of the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable Town-
adopted plans;
(b) The extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment;
(c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need;
(d) The extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zoning district for the land;
(e) The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, or deviate from logical and orderly development patterns;
(f) The extent to which the proposed amendment would encourage premature development;
(g) The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in strip or ribbon commercial
development;
(h) The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in the creation of an isolated
zoning district unrelated to or incompatible with adjacent and surrounding zoning districts;
(i) The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts
on the property values of surrounding lands; and
(j) The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
environmental impacts, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater
management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and the natural functioning of the
environment.
Light Industrial. The Industrial classification is applied to areas that currently support industrial uses or
lands that could accommodate a variety of industrial establishments which employ high environmental
quality standards and have minimal impacts on adjacent uses. These areas incorporate larger tracts of
land because of their nature and function. Industrial developments should provide shared access and have
a coordinated design and a planned layout. Zoning Districts: High Intensity Commercial; Business
Park; Economic Development District; Light Industrial, General Industrial
Public Hearing:
The applicant discussed their intent to develop the site using septic since sewer “was not available.”
Septic will constrain the uses allowed on the property. (This site sits lower and slopes away from the
nearest sewer which serve Willowbend Lane across NC 86. That makes gravity service not possible).
Jeanette Vega at 705 NC 86 N spoke in opposition. She noted the non-specific nature of the request and
concerns about environmental impact with uses in the Light industrial district. She also mentioned the
continuing urbanization of the town in general and traffic growth on NC 86.
The email from the Kleinbrahms in Willowbend was also provided to members. These residents did not
speak at or attend the hearing.
Staff commentary:
The town has not received many general-purpose zoning requests in the last 10 years, so it is
understandable if board members struggle with this review.
Things to consider:
1) Section 4 of the ordinance provides some criteria to guide the board in reviewing general
purpose rezoning requests. Each district had criteria to be considered (included in this report).
While every site doesn’t always meet all criteria, these criteria should be considered to establish
consistency.
2) Section 3 of the ordinance provides a list of considerations to guide the board for rezoning
(included in this report). Again, an application doesn’t need to meet each factor in a positive
manner, but the factors should be considered to establish consistency.
3) The Future Land Use Plan does support this rezoning, but the key word is “future.” The board
has discretion in timing.
From:Julie Laws
To:Mark Poteat
Cc:Margaret Hauth; Tom King; Marie Strandwitz
Subject:RE: 618 & 700 NC Hwy 86 N
Date:Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:00:00 AM
I’m forwarding this to our planning department to answer your questions. They are copied on this
email.
Julie
From: Mark Poteat <markapoteat@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:58 AM
To: Julie Laws <Julie.Laws@hillsboroughnc.gov>
Subject: Re: 618 & 700 NC Hwy 86 N
That’s exactly what I thought - who would I need to talk to if to see if I can have my landscape
business there ? No retail just office etc and grow plants There is a business right next door
Thank you - Mark Poteat
On Aug 6, 2020, at 8:54 AM, Julie Laws <Julie.Laws@hillsboroughnc.gov> wrote:
Mr. Poteat,
I am responding to your inquiry about the above-referenced properties. Currently, I
believe this property is zoned residential, and to change this you would need to begin
by talking with someone in our planning department. With regard to utilities, there is a
water line on Hwy 86, but there is no sewer available. This water line would likely not
support a housing development, but I cannot speak for the town board. There is a
nearby neighborhood on Hwy 57 (Willowbend) that is served by sewer from the east,
but I am not sure if extending that line across to Hwy 86 is even an option. The town
board would likely need to approve extending the sewer lines, and the planning
department would need to consider rezoning.
Julie Laws
Utilities Analyst
Town of Hillsborough
P.O. Box 429
105 E Corbin St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-296-9630
From:Michael Harvey
To:Margaret Hauth; Craig Benedict
Subject:RE: Courtesy Review - NC 86 N
Date:Monday, January 4, 2021 1:52:51 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Margaret: Thank you for the email and opportunity.
My review of the matter leads me to make the following comment(s):
1. The parcel is located within the Town’s extraterritorial jurisdictional (ETJ) boundary:
2. The parcel is not subject to County land use regulation(s) of land use policies;
3. Development would be consistent with Town standards;
4. The attached document leads me to believe ‘future’ development would be consistent with Town policies/standards.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. My review leads me to believe the County has no concern(s) over the proposed annexation.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 West Margaret Lane
Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2597
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!! Click here to access our portal
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Kelly Kleinbrahm
To:Margaret Hauth
Cc:Mark Kleinbrahm
Subject:Light Industrial District Rezone
Date:Monday, January 11, 2021 6:15:11 PM
Hi there,
We received the letter from the town in regards to the acreage on the west side of NC 86N. We live at 203
Willowbend and our property backs up to this area. We feel the proposed change may impact our property value and
increase noise/light pollution. The abundance of simultaneous growth in the surrounding area is also very invasive
to the small town feel of Hillsborough.
While we don’t oppose smart growth for the town we are not sure what businesses and industries the town is
targeting to utilize this space since the list is very vague that was provided of possibilities.
The increased traffic and noise of any industrial business would nonetheless impact our quality of living. We would
ask that a sound barrier be added to any development plans along the proposed/outlined area on the east side of 86N
at a minimum. This would at least aid in protecting the natural area and residents located along this corridor who
will be impacted from the rise in noise pollution along the roadway.
Let us know the process and hearing timeline and any information you can. Thank you.
Kelly & Mark Kleinbrahm
203 Willowbend Ln
Hillsborough Zoning District Intent and Use List
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (LI) The purpose of the LI district is to accommodate light
manufacturing, research and development, and other small-scale uses that have minimal
exterior movement of vehicles, materials, and goods, as well as minimal environmental and
visual impacts.
By-right:
Artisan Studio
Building/Trade Contractor’s Office Child
Farmer’s Market
Flex Space
Food Preparation Business
Greenhouses/Nursery
Manufacturing Complex
Motor Vehicle Repair
Offices operations
Order Fulfillment Center
Outlet Sales
Park and Ride Facility
CUP:
Kennels, Boarding
School: Vocational
Telecomm Tower, Less Than 200’ Tall
Postal and Parcel Delivery Services
Public Safety Services
Recycling Materials Collections Center
Research Facility
Retail Sales or Rentals
w/outside display/storage
School: Dance, Martial Arts
Storage & Warehousing: Inside, excluding
explosives and hazardous wastes
Storage & Warehousing: Outside
Storage & Warehousing: Self
Wholesale Sales, Indoor
Wholesale Sales, w/outdoor display/storage
SUP:
Government Maintenance Yard
Public Utilities Research Facility, Intense
Telecomm Tower, 200’ Or Taller
Transmission Lines
RESIDENTIAL-40 DISTRICT (R-40) The purpose of the Residential-40 (R-40) District is to provide
locations for lower-density, traditional neighborhood living in the edge areas of the community.
Residential uses include primarily single-family detached dwelling units.
By-Right:
Dwelling: Accessory
Community Center
Dwelling: Mobile Home A
Dwelling: Single-Family
Family Care Home
Family Child Care Home
Farm, Bona Fide (R-40 only)
Farmer's Market (R-40 only)
Park, Cultural or Natural
Park, Neighborhood
Public Safety Services
Temporary Family Heath Care Structure
CUP:
Bed & Breakfast Facility
Child Day Care
Church, Place of Worship
Group Care Facility
Park, Athletic Or Community
School: Elementary, Middle & Secondary
Telecomm Tower, Less Than 200’ Tall
SUP:
Cemetery
Extended Care Facility
Homeless Shelter
Public Utilities
Telecomm Tower, 200’ Or Taller
Transmission Lines
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Planning Board Minutes | 1 of 7
Minutes
Planning Board
Remote regular meeting
7 p.m. Feb. 18, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTubeLive
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Chris Johnston, Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Frank Casadonte, Lisa Frazier, Alyse Polly, Hooper
Schultz, Jeff Scott, Scott Taylor, and Toby Vandemark
Absent: Christopher Austin
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Chair Chris Johnston called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth confirmed the
presence of a quorum. Applicant David Morgan arrived at 7:01 p.m.
2. Agenda changes and approval
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented.
3. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on Dec. 17, 2020, and joint public hearing on Jan. 21, 2021
Motion: Member Jenn Sykes moved to approve the minutes as presented. Member Toby Vandemark
seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Members Frank Casadonte, Lisa Frazier, Johnston, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz, Jeff
Scott, Sykes, Scott Taylor and Vandemark. Nays: None.
4. Welcome new member
Johnston welcomed new in-town member Hooper Schultz.
5. Recommendations to town board of public hearing items
A. Rezoning Request: 618 and 700 N.C. 86 N. — 5.68 acres on the west side of N.C. 86 North from Residential-40
to Light Industrial
Johnston introduced Item 5A. Hauth summarized the staff report, noting that the Planning Board discussed
and heard public comment about this rezoning request at the Jan. 21, 2021, public hearing. She said although
the public hearing is closed, both the applicant and property owner are at tonight’s meeting and available to
answer follow-up questions. Staff did not receive any further written public comments after the public
hearing. She noted that no one from the public asked to participate in tonight’s meeting.
Planning Board Minutes | 2 of 7
Johnston reminded the board that the issue is whether to rezone the parcels to Light Industrial. He noted the
applicant may discuss potential uses but is not bound to any particular use of the property.
Sykes said that because the property would need a septic field, not all the uses allowed by right in Light
Industrial zoning are feasible, such as a research facility or greenhouse. She asked if it would be up to the
Utilities Department to restrict such uses. Hauth said it would come down to what the Orange County
Environmental Health Division would allow with a septic system. She added that the applicant’s other option
would be to petition the town for annexation and then request a sewer connection. Sykes and Hauth
discussed how connecting the property to the town’s sewer system probably is not physically possible without
the applicant paying a significant amount to extend the town’s system.
Frazier said that although use of the property currently is limited by the need for a septic system, the uses
could be larger and more intense than the board currently envisions if the site is connected to sewer in the
future.
Sykes provided insight from her time on the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee. She said the advisory
board does not want to install a pump station in that area unless the applicant pays for it, which is a
significant amount of money. She noted the property will need a large septic field.
Morgan, the applicant, confirmed that he had investigated connecting the property to the sewer system and
found it is currently physically impossible and economically infeasible. He said the property owner does not
want to use the site for anything that would warrant a sewer connection.
Scott noted the presence of a stream and stream buffer on the property in addition to the septic field. He said
the proposed rezoning seems consistent with zoning designations surrounding the site, but he wondered if
the site is too limited to put a usable development there.
Morgan confirmed that the property’s northwest corner would be used for stream buffer and septic field,
while the northeast corner would be used for a repair field, leaving the lower two-thirds of the 6 acres to be
developed. He said the developable portion is still large enough for the owner to build a small development
such as flex space or a self-storage facility. He said such a development would not be very intense and would
have a low impact on traffic.
Hearing no other questions, Johnston asked whether the board felt comfortable moving forward.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the town board. Schultz
seconded.
Hauth called the roll for voting.
Vote: 9-0. Ayes: Casadonte, Frazier, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Scott, Sykes, Taylor and Vandemark.
Nays: None.
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of _David
Morgan on behalf of the owner_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development
Ordinance as follows (insert general description of proposed amendment):
To rezone 618 and 700 NC 86 N - 5.68 acres on the west side –from Residential 40 to Light Industrial (part
of OC PIN 9865-83-2863 and 9865-83-4707)
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
If approval:
The area is designated Light Industry on the Future Land Use Plan.
Despite the lack of water and sewer facilities in the vicinity, the zoning is consistent with uses to
the north and south.
The lack of sewer availability to the site will limit the development potential.
If denial:
The area is designated Light Industry on the Future Land Use Plan, however the lack of public
water and sewer to the site make rezoning to an intense district inconsistent with current
development. The surrounding sites developed as industrial uses are served with sewer. This
application seems to encourage premature development and put pressure to extend utility service
to an area not prepared for development. Development consistent with the requested zoning, but
without sewer, would not maximize the capacity of this property.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021.
_____________ _________
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Whereas an application has been made for the rezoning of the property herein; and
Whereas the application has been referred to the Town Planning Board for its
recommendation and the Planning Board has provided the Town Board with a written
recommendation addressing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the Town’s
comprehensive plan and such other matters as the Planning Board deemed appropriate; and
Whereas the Town Board has, prior to acting on the application, adopted a statement
describing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the Town’s comprehensive plan
and explaining why the action contemplated by the Town Board as reflected herein is
reasonable and in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained as follows:
Section 1. The Zoning Map of the Town of Hillsborough is hereby amended to rezone 5.68
acres at 618 and 700 NC 86 N from Residnetial-40 to Light Industrial (OC PINs
9865-83-2863 and 9865-83-4707).
Section 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and
was duly ADOPTED/DENIED this 8th day of March 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager &
Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Update on train station planning
Attachment(s):
None
Brief Summary:
The funding agreement for the station design and construction has been released, so work may proceed.
Action Requested:
Receive update, discussion, general direction regarding legal consultant.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The town has received the funding agreement from NCDOT which allows us to initiate the design process. The town
has seven years to complete construction of the building and have it ready for service. Our performance date is Feb.
23, 2028. The work does not include any work in the active rail corridor, so this does not include a commitment for
train service to begin by that date.
What’s next:
The town must now move forward to design the actual building. A very preliminary schedule would be to prepare the
design Request for Qualifications announcement, possibly ready for release in July 2021. We could be ready to
select the design team in October. We do not expect to be ready to begin construction for 2-2 ½ years.
What’s needed:
•Staff would like to continue to work with our contract attorney to develop the RFQ and work through
contracting. We consider this an “insurance policy” for the town to protect our interests and ensure the RFQ
and contract help ensure delivery of the project the community wants and needs. This additional assistance
will help preserve our flexibility for developing the remainder of the parcel in the future. A ballpark for this fee
is about $15,000, which would be in addition to the town’s commitment to the project of $34,000. If the board
supports this in concept, we will take the next steps and bring contracts and budget amendments back for
approval.
•The board needs to have a detailed discussion about the intended use of the building and be willing to
commit to the intended uses before we release the RFQ. If we don’t know what sort of uses go in the
building, we cannot recruit and select the best design team for our project. We will need to find room on
upcoming workshop agendas to have this discussion before the RFQ is released.
• The parcel is still not in the city limits and is zoned Agricultural Residential. It is unlikely any current zoning
classification we have will work for this site. After we have some conceptual designs, the town should
develop an appropriate zoning classification for the property and go through the local zoning and annexation
processes.
Financial Impacts:
The town’s $34,000 commitment to the project is in the current budget. About $1,600 remains from the previous legal
contract as well.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.D
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Discussion of potential contract with Orange County for all fire inspections
Attachment(s):
1. Staff list of positive and negative aspects of contracting for this service and funding details
Brief Summary:
With the retirement of the Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator in September 2020, the town began
contracting with Orange County for some Level 2 and Level 3 inspection services to support the interim Fire Marshal
David L. Cates as he continued his training. As part of the budget process, staff have asked the county for a quote to
take over all inspection services within the town and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Action Requested:
Discussion and direction - Is this a service we want to retain, or do we prefer to contract?
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The draft agreement for services is based on our building inspection agreement with two significant differences. The
town would pay the county for this service while building inspections does not carry a fee. Orange County preferred
to have enforcement responsibility for this contract while they do not have enforcement responsibility if something
begins to involve attorneys for building inspections.
The County indicated they could provide this service for roughly $74,000. This would allow them to hire one full-time
inspector at the midpoint of their position classification and cover benefits. Our program currently generates about
$12,000 of revenue in inspection and permit fees. The current proposal is to allow the county to retain those fees and
NOT subtract them from the fee charged. In the first year, the county would need an additional $60,000 to cover the
one-time purchases of a vehicles, technology, and safety equipment. No agreement has been reached on whether
there would be a continuing payment to address replacement of these larger items.
This contract is for fire inspections only and does not include any emergency management responsibilities. Staff
currently sees that these responsibilities will be distributed among current staff and no new position would be hired.
The budget for the combined positions was $172,000 in FY20 and $184,000 in FY21. These figures did not envision
the fire marshal’s retirement. The OC Alerts costs and other emergency support costs are billed to this division.
There are many fine points and transition details that have not been resolved. At this point, staff is asking for a first
reaction form the board. Is this a service we want to retain, or do we prefer to contract? Staff doesn’t want to pursue a
contract if the board wants to retain this service. If this is a desired service, we want to move quickly so the county
has adequate time to prepare for the additional responsibility as soon after July 1 as reasonable.
Please refer to the attached list staff developed detailing positive and negative considerations. Some considerations
can be seen as both positive and negative.
If a contract is preferred, staff have some follow-up questions about finer points of the agreement that can be shared
at the meeting.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
The town manager’s recommendation is to pursue contracting out this service. It offers significant cost savings as
well as indirect cost savings through fewer staff to supervise and less building space needed. While partnering,
contracting out, and interlocal agreements all have some drawbacks, this is a rare opportunity to streamline town
operations and redirect funds to pay for significant unfunded priorities. It’s a valid point to consider that some
personalized attention and service may be lost by partnering with Orange County on this service, but being a larger
organization they have more inspectors that in some situations may bring different levels of expertise and service
than Hillsborough could offer. As the thorough list of pros and cons shows, there are clearly trade-offs. Ultimately, if
the town continues to provide fire inspection service, I believe it means we lose out being able to address other
organizational priorities.
Fire Inspection Contracting
Pros of contracting
• The town will save the costs of operating a small department, although emergency management
responsibilities will be distributed across existing staff. Much like the fire protection contract
with Orange Rural, this will become a one or two-line budget. This will be an on-going savings,
not one time, that can be used to pay for unfunded priorities. Savings opportunities at this level
and for an on-going period rarely present themselves.
• The town frees up the office space currently occupied to facilitate the intended renovation of
the NC 86 facility for use by public works. If the current one-person operation was maintained, it
would be easier to relocate one person to a new location.
• Town staff will have no role in managing concerns about inspections raised by business owners.
The agreement has the county accepting all responsibility at their preference.
• With the county having more staff available, the town may see more full participation in its
technical plan review process. This process identifies regulatory issues during design rather than
at permitting so applicants are not surprised. (This may also be achieved by clearer direction to
town staff if retained in house)
• With the county having more staff inspecting businesses, it is more likely that safety issues will
not be missed during inspections. Different inspectors often have different focus areas and look
for different things during inspections. Overlapping staff should yield more robust inspections.
Cons of contracting
• The town loses all control over fees and how inspections are done. In all enforcement activities
there is some discretion about frequency, how fees are charged, whether something is “close
enough,” and so on. We can’t ask the county to function one way in town & differently in the
county. There has been no communication of this potential change with the business
community.
• The town will need to align with the county on any flexibility or special local provisions enacted.
For example, we currently require sprinklers to be installed in any business occupancy of 3,600
sf or more. The state code on this is 10,000 sf. Current staff feel the state code limit is more
appropriate and have an amendment on the agenda to change this, with the county’s support.
The former fire marshal had also approached the board about limits on the use of pine straw
and certain types of energy efficient glass. While the town did not take action on these items,
under a contract with the county, the town could only pursue local standards like this with the
county’s concurrence. Likewise, if the county requested a special requirement, the town would
likely have to accept that within the town’s jurisdiction (although staff wrote the agreement to
say the town would “consider” such requests).
• Many, but not all, businesses will see higher inspection and permit fees. Businesses over 37,501
sf will likely see reduced fees for inspections (applies to about 20 businesses not operated by
Orange County) but will see new fees for their sprinkler system. The county also has fees for
Fire Inspection Contracting
violations (non-functional emergency lights and fire doors, etc.) and renews permit fees for
special occupancies with each inspection. Orange County is updating its fee schedule during
their budget discussions this year.
• Since the county fire marshal is located in the Emergency Service department, during
emergencies, the staff are reassigned to emergency service provision, not fire inspections.
• Orange County will be inspecting their own facilities.
• The county will begin inspecting town facilities. We need to budget for these costs. Town staff
will also have to learn how to check their facilities for fire code compliance. This was mostly
handled by the fire marshal previously. If the facility position is funded, this task may go to that
position. Regardless, it is a new responsibility and carried annual fees. Some facilities may also
require quarterly inspections by third parties.
• The contract calls for the town to make a contribution equivalent to one FTE to Orange County.
That does not mean that they will dedicate a single staff person to conduct inspections in town.
The intent is all inspectors will inspect all facilities and all inspectors will work in town over time.
This contract roughly doubles the inspection workload for Orange County (i.e. there are roughly
the same number of businesses in town as in the unincorporated area).
o Businesses may not receive as much personalized attention. Inspectors may not be as
familiar with local businesses.
o The town has more unique and intense development than the county as a whole. This
may be one reason the county’s fee schedule stops at 37,501 sf of building size while
the town’s continues to over 100,000 sf. The county fire marsh is asking for a wholly
revised fee schedule in the county’s budget to address this potential and proposed
development in the county. Downtown is attached construction with significant age and
some risky uses. We have two former mills that are being repurposed. We have a robust
distribution economy with a lot of storage and warehouse space. We have expressed
interest in research and other unique occupancies.
• The future is uncertain. Since most intense development happens in town to access utilities, the
cost of this contract may escalate quickly. Staff has proposed a 5% cap, but also suggests looking
at revenue changes over time. If the county is seeing large revenue benefits, there is no need for
the contract to increase.
• Loss of expertise on the town team. A fire marshal has significant technical training that can
support and assist many town departments. Our two plants have special safety concerns that
the former fire marshal helped with. These items will be contracted out in the future, at an
additional cost to the utility budget.
Fire Inspection Contracting
Comparison
FY20 Streamlined – 1-person County Contract
Staffing 1.8 FTE (FT marshal, PT
inspector, & PT admin)
1 FTE 0 FTE
$74,000 in year 1 of
contract
Vehicle Small truck –
replacement was due in
FY20 but deferred
$28,000 approx.
Small truck – current
vehicle has limited life
and was due to be
replaced in FY20 – Fleet
is comfortable with 1
more year of local use
$45,000 in year 1 of
contract
IT/Equipment 3 computers 1 computer – have
1 tablet -like, don’t have
Uniforms-have
Other equip not needed
$15,000 in year 1 of
contract – include
uniforms, PPE, and
SCBA
Office Approx. 700 sf shared 200 sf or less, plus
storage
Not needed
FY20 – budget figures from Fy20 budget when department was fully staff and included emergency
management responsibilities.
Streamlined – staff conceived concept of what keeping this service in house could look like with
emergency management responsibilities distributed across all departments. If the position is kept,
relocating to Town Hall or the Town Hall Annex would improve cross-department communication and
support, allow for shared storage of shared files, more efficient space use and still allow the upper floor
on NC 86 to become available for renovation for Public Works.
County Contract – provides breakdown of costs county provided to generate first contract estimate.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Administration
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Interim HR Director Haley Bizzell & Town Manager Eric Peterson
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Budget Proposal – option to lower dependent health insurance premium costs
Attachment(s):
1. Employee Dependent Health Insurance Proposal for the FY22-24 Budget
2. Police Department Staffing Presentation – October 2020
3. Area Government Dependent Health Insurance Survey
Brief Summary:
The budget proposal is to accept a lower cost option for employees to add dependents to health insurance coverage.
This budget decision needs to be made quickly. We have taken much time to analyze options to ensure that we
address this critical issue. A decision on the health insurance rate structure must be made by March 12, 2021 to
ensure that BlueCross BlueShield and the benefits system, BenefitSolver, will be set up in time for open enrollment
which is typically held in early May. The town is a member of the North Carolina Health Insurance Pool (NCHIP) and
we have the option to use a portion ($28,000) of our NCHIP reserve funds to lower the costs for adding dependents
for FY22. This option does not have an immediate impact to the current budget. This option also reduces the gap of
premium costs compared to other Orange County jurisdictions. However, to lessen the gap more, it’s proposed that
the board approves the rate structure using the $28,000 of NCHIP reserve and to adopt a $25 increment supplement
for dependent coverage. This increment supplement would consist of the town contributing an additional $25 for
spouse coverage, $50 for child(ren) coverage and $75 for family coverage each month.
Action Requested:
Approve the health insurance rate structure using the reserve funds from NCHIP for the FY22 budget year. Also
approve the adoption of a $25 increment supplement for dependent coverage for FY22.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Unlike many surrounding local governments, the Town of Hillsborough has not subsidized the cost of employee
dependent health insurance for at least 25 years. Employees must pay 100% of the cost if they want health insurance
coverage for child(ren), spouse, or family. While this has been a cost savings to the budget, it has put the town at a
significant disadvantage in employee recruitment and retention when compared to neighboring local governments.
This is not a new issue as the town has lost employees in departments over the years. It’s not uncommon for
applicants to turn down job offers from the town once they see the cost of dependent health coverage. The current
out-of-pocket cost to employees is exceptionally high if they chose dependent coverage.
Financial Impacts:
Current impact is an estimated increase of $18,000 for FY22 with the $25 increment supplement approval. There
may be a higher financial impact for future fiscal years depending on the town’s NCHIP reserve balance.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Approve the health insurance rate structure with lower dependent premiums which makes coverage for families more
affordable and will help the town attract and retain employees.
Employee Dependent Health Insurance Proposal for the FY22-24 Budget
Summary of Problem
Unlike many surrounding local governments, the Town of Hillsborough has not subsidized the cost of employee
dependent health insurance for at least 25 years. Employees must pay 100% of the cost if they want health insurance
coverage for child(ren), spouse, or family. While this has been a cost savings to the budget, it has put the town at a
significant disadvantage in employee recruitment and retention when compared to neighboring local governments such
as Carrboro, Chapel Hill, City of Durham, Durham County, Orange County, OWASA, as well as the State of North Carolina
departments. This issue was raised again during Police Chief Duane Hampton’s presentation to the Town Board at their
October 26, 2020 workshop regarding police staffing and shortages. A copy of Chief Hampton’s presentation is attached
with references related to health insurance are highlighted in yellow. In short, the cost of dependent health care
compared to our competitors in the market is making it difficult to hire and retain officers.
This is not a new issue as the town has lost employees in departments over the years. It’s not uncommon for applicants
to turn down job offers from the town once they see the cost of dependent health coverage. The out-of-pocket cost to
employees is exceptionally high if they chose dependent coverage, especially under the traditional PPO plan or even
under the more popular yet slightly less expensive high deductible plan (HDHP – high). As a result, few employees (about
10%) carry dependent coverage. This fiscal year (FY21) a new lower cost option (a high deductible health plan with a
much higher out of pocket maximum, HDHP low) was made available to employees in an effort to address this concern,
but only two employees signed up for the coverage as the cost drop was not significant enough. Really, only one
intended to have this coverage as the second mistakenly signed up for it. A survey of local and state government
dependent health insurance costs/charges to employees is also attached. The survey has a second table showing the cost
difference between all the other government’s coverage options compared to Hillsborough’s higher value HDHP plan
(high) that approximately 66% of employees have selected as their coverage.
Comparisons to Area Governments & Options
Chief Hampton’s presentation raised concern amongst the town board. The town manager concurred this has been a
long-term problem and that he would work with the interim HR director to develop options for consideration in the
FY22 budget to improve the situation. Interim HR Director Haley Bizzell shared the situation with the town’s benefit’s
consultant (Gallagher) and asked them to create options for the consideration. The staff at Gallagher determined if the
town contributed approximately $28,000 towards insurance coverage in FY22 the cost of the least expensive and lower
actuarial value of the town’s plans (the HDHP – low) for dependent coverage could be decreased significantly. The two
tables below compare Hillsborough to its Orange County local government neighbors, as well as the average from the
broader survey referenced above. It also provides comparisons to three options to make Hillsborough’s coverage more
competitive via the proposed HDHP base plan.
The proposed HDHP base plan is identical to the current HDHP (low) option but is made much more affordable due to
the $28,000 annual contribution. Many local governments and businesses contribute to dependent health coverage to
make it more affordable for their employees and consider it a recruitment and retention benefit. The proposed HDHP
base option would make monthly dependent care costs much more competitive with governments in the region and
most importantly compared to local governments within the county (e.g., Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Orange County, and
OWASA). Costs would still be notably higher than Orange County’s HDHP plan, OWASA, Durham County, the City of
Durham, and the State of North Carolina Health Plan for teachers and all other departments, but it closes the gap
significantly.
Good news – Minimal Cost for FY22 if Implemented
The town participates in a small local government insurance pool with other municipalities and counties called the North
Carolina Health Insurance Pool (NCHIP). The pool was started a few years ago in 2018 and Hillsborough was an initial
member. There will be no health insurance rate increase for FY22. In addition, the town has built up enough of an
operating reserve in the NCHIP fund that it can easily afford to pay for the $28,000 subsidy in FY22 with no charge to the
budget. The $28,000 represents about 1/6 of the reserve amount in the insurance fund, so there is still substantive
reserve to help address future issues and/or delay rate increases. If the fund performs well again it’s possible the FY23
cost could also be paid for by the NCHIP reserve but it’s best to not count on that. To be safe it’s best to budget for this
in FY23 and FY24. Still, $28,000, split amongst the town’s three operating funds, to address and improve a significant
issue (employee recruitment and turnover) is a good investment.
Shortfalls & More Details on Options
While offering this plan is a major help, it still leaves the cost of dependent health care more costly than much of our
nearby competition. Also, several other surrounding governments offer dramatically better retiree health insurance
coverage. We lost an employee in February due to retiree health insurance. Another option suggested by the benefits
consultant to help narrow the gap is to consider a monthly contribution for employees that have dependent health
coverage.
There are three options presented: 1) only offer the proposed HDHP base plan with lowered costs via provision of the
NCHIP fund reserve, starting with $28,000 in FY22, 2) provide an individual supplement to employees who elect to pay
for dependent coverage at the $25 increment level ($50 child(ren)/$25 spouse/$75 family), and 3) the approximate $33
increment level ($67 child(ren)/$33 spouse/$100 family).
The three tables below show how much less dependent coverage would cost employees if they selected the FY22
proposed HDHP base plan compared to three existing offerings depending on which version of the proposed HDHP base
coverage is adopted (e.g., just the plan, with $25 increment supplement, or $33 increment supplement). While
benchmarking against other governments is helpful to compare against peer organizations, these tables show
employees how much the proposed HDHP base plan “moves the needle” (i.e., makes dependent health care more
affordable for their individual situations). It’s important to note that the proposed base plan HDHP was selected as the
best way to make dependent health care more affordable for several reasons:
• With an actuarial value (AV) of about 85% it’s still considered a strong plan (Gold level).
• At about a 7-8% lower AV than the other two plans (HDHP high and PPO) that cost savings can be applied to
lower dependent coverage costs.
• The base HDHP plan has a high deductible at $5,000 for dependent coverage and other key thresholds of
an$11,000 out of pocket maximum, many of the employees selecting this plan are younger and thus less likely
to actually use the coverage.
• Employees on the base HDHP plan are still provided the same monthly contribution to their Health Savings
Account as those on the HDHP – high plan of $131.08/month or $1,573/year. Thus, even when expenses arise,
they should have funds in their HSA’s to cover some or all the costs.
Estimated Cost of the $25 & $33 Increment Options
It’s hard to project how many more employees would elect to pay for dependent health coverage. Staff had discussed a
survey but were unsure whether this would provide an accurate estimate. Given about 10 employees currently carry
coverage it’s safe to assume the number will be greater. Many employees have no need for dependent coverage due to
spouse/partner working with employer-provided coverage, spouse/partner’s dependent coverage is still superior and/or
less expensive than the proposed HDHP base plan, children are older and no need for coverage, etc. To generate
numbers as a starting point for discussion and budgetary projections the following assumptions are made: 1) 30
employees would choose coverage, and 2) the average cost being the child(ren) coverage, which is the middle of each
option ($50 for the $25 increment and $66 for the $33 options). Note: the costs below are in addition to the $28,000
annual contribution that is subject to annual increases and may/may not be absorbed by available NCHIP reserves. The
costs below would come out of the town’s three operational funds (General, Water/Sewer, and Stormwater) and likley
costed depending which departments/funds employees are assigned.
• $25 Increment Option: 30 employees X $50 average X 12 months = $18,000/year
• $33 Increment Option: 30 employees X $66 average X 12 months = $23,760/year
Points to Consider and Recommendations
Comparing one health insurance policy to another can be challenging and confusing for anyone, such as a high
deductable to a traditional PPO plan. Therefore, comparing coverages, differences, and actuarial values between all the
surveyed governments would be a significant, time intensive, and highly confusing undertaking as developing an “apples
to apples” comparsion is not practical. This analysis and proposal intentionally focused on the bottom line – out of
pocket expenses to employees for dependent health care. Many of the coverages provided by peer organizations are
more highly rated than the proposed base HPHP plan for FY22, but that plan is also superior to many other plans based
on some review we’ve done. The bottom line is that this plan has an 85.5% AV which, along with the montly HSA
contributions is solid coverage.
The town manager recommends approving the proposed HDHP base plan with the $28,000 contribution, funded with
insurance reserves for FY22. The value and benefit of this option seems significant. The manager also recommends
adopting the $25 increment supplement option. This not only makes the town’s dependent health insurance more
competitive, it’s a benefit employees can also see in each pay cycle, and demonstrates that the “take care of what we
have” motto applies to personnel as well as equipment/infrastructure/systems. Overall, this should address a serious
gap the town has experienced for decades regarding employee retention and recruitment. Going with the lesser cost
option minimizes risk going forward. It would also be reasonable if the board chose to take a two-step approach to
implementation: 1) approve the base plan, 2) monitor cost impacts over the next year, including the number of
employees enrolling, then 3) re-evaluate the situaton for FY23 and/or FY24.
Hillsborough Police
Staffing Update
10-26-20
Current Staffing Status
Progress since August:
•Hired 2 diverse Spanish speaking laterals (2-3 years of experience with larger agency)
•1 just completed field training this past weekend
•The other starts Nov 9th, anticipated release from training Dec 21.
•Hired 1 BLET Certified officer –just starting field training, anticipated completion around 1st
week of January.
Pending
Retirements
Lieutenant (W/M) can retire any time
Corporal (W/M) anticipated to retire 2/21
Corporal (B/F) eligible to retire 3/22
Corporal (B/M) eligible to retire 5/22
Diversity
Hiring since
2019
10 Hires
WM 4
WF 2
BM 2
HM 2
Staffing losses since 2019 (12)
•Impact of anti-police movement
•High Standards
•Retirements
•Competition for talent
➢Limited Opportunities
➢Better Schedule
➢High Cost of family Benefits
Issues/Drivers for personnel losses
What we have done so far…
•Working to strengthen our sense of connection and family (work in progress)
•More visibility from commanders and more coaching and mentoring
•More interactions in non-work situations
•Soliciting employee input and Involving employees in decision making
•Changed Career Progression and established Corporal of a formal
promotional position (Creates more advancement opportunities)
•Designed a new schedule that provides 3 shift options and allows us to
try permanent shifts. (Provides potential for better schedules)
•Re -tasking Fairview space as a fitness area. (positively received by employees)
Dependent Benefits –Significant Issue
•Employee only health coverage has no cost to the employee. Family
coverage is $1212/month.
•The high cost of dependent coverage has come up repeatedly as a
problem and concern for employees.
•It has been a significant factor in some folks choosing not to accept
offers –even when the offer is a salary increase for them.
•Other agencies are able to offer our employees more total value even
when offering less salary
•Example: Entry level officer
Salary Offer Medical Costs Net Salary
Single Employee $43,914 0 $43,914
Employee w/Family $43,914 $14,544 $29,370
Survey of 20 Peer Agencies
•Alamance Co
•Apex
•Burlington
•Carrboro
•Cary
•Chapel Hill
•Durham
•Durham County SO
•Fuquay Varina
•Garner
•Graham
•Hillsborough
•Holly Springs
•Mebane
•Morrisville
•Orange County SO
•Oxford
•Pittsboro
•Roxboro
•Wake Forest
Findings
•Hillsborough had the 7th highest starting salary
•In FY17 we had the highest in our area and were higher than many Wake
county agencies.
•Agencies with higher salaries were all in Wake County
•Hillsborough at least $1500 above our Orange/Durham/Alamance peers
•Hillsborough had the 5th highest family insurance cost
•Only lower than Pittsboro, Oxford, Roxboro and Graham
•Almost 2x the cost compared to Chapel Hill, Carrboro or OCSO
•When insurance costs is factored in, Hillsborough drops to 14th in net
salary, behind all of our local peers.
•This means that other agencies can offer our employees a lower salary, but
higher overall take-home pay in the end.
Findings
Examples: Agencies with lower starting salary that Hillsborough, but
higher net as a result of lower health care costs.
Action Items
❑Find ways to offset high family insurance costs
•Research our options to see if there are ways to off-set costs.
•Increase salaries?
•Subsidy?
•Alternate plans/vendors?
❑Establish higher pay for personnel working overnight. (shift differential)
•This would be seen as a benefit for employees and would be a recruiting tool
•Would encourage folks to work nights, help ensure permanent shifts and new
schedule structure would work.
•Examples: Bonus of $5/hr for hours after midnight or bonus of $7/hr for hours
worked between 2am and 7am.
•Total cost would be ~$30,000/yr (approximately $20,000 for the remaining FY)
Action Items
❑Create additional opportunities
•Reorganize staff to create other opportunities such as Traffic, Problem Solving
or Narcotics positions
•Would be accomplished without increasing allotted staffing by changing shift
structure and how personnel are allocated
❑Create/Offer Other Incentives
•Start doing annual bonus for POPAT. Proposal: $1000 annual bonus available.
(Could test 2x a year and employees could get $500 each time)
•Increase Language incentive (currently $1500)
•Increase our educational incentive (currently 2% for AA, 4% for BA)
•Offer incentive for officers who get intermediate or advanced certifications
•Incentive for folks who live in town (or on the water system)
•Incentive for successfully recruiting someone to join HPD
Direction
❑Explore ways to offset high family insurance
costs
❑Allow for creation of shift differential
❑Restructure to create opportunities
❑Build an enhanced incentives package
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: Administration
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: ________________
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.F
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Peterson, Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Hot topics for work session March 22, 2021
Attachment(s):
None
Brief Summary:
The March workshop has been primarily reserved as time to conduct the second Mini-Budget Retreat for FY’s 22-24.
The budget team met last week to reassess where we are at after the Feb. 22 mini-retreat. Review meetings between
departments and the budget team will not occur until just before the March 22 work session. Also, key revenue
projections are not due out from the North Carolina League of Municipalities until late March or early June. Therefore,
some minor financial updates may be available, but there will be insufficient information by March 22 to deliberate on
major policy alternatives. Staff recommends time at the upcoming retreat focus on:
1. Water & Wastewater system. Updates from Utilities Director Marie Strandwitz on results from recent studies that
are nearing completion on priorities for the wastewater collection and water distribution systems. This will include
information on specific needs, problems, opportunities, and cost estimates on the related projects. There will be
dedicated Q&A time for the board to pose questions and request additional information. This will be critical to
help the board become familiar with these issues, priorities, options, and possible costs when the proposed
budget is presented in May.
2. Core Services Discussion. The management team recently spent part of a meeting discussing what is meant by
core services, additional work that’s taken on, and how to balance time demands on top priorities v. other issues
that arise throughout the year. Time allocated to exchanging views, ideas, and priority management would likely
be helpful to the manager, management team, and town board.
Since the utilities section is primary updates on the studies, along with the Q&A session, and the core services topic
is just a general discussion with no priority setting, there does not appear to be a need for a facilitator at this session.
It is likely a third mini-retreat will be needed at the April 26 workshop to complete work on the values and other parts
of the strategy map, review the first draft action plan for the service excellence focus area, provide more detailed
updates on budget progress, and receive guidance on decision points where/if necessary. Staff is working on the
focus area action plans one at a time to make the task more manageable and help apply lessons learned to the other
plans.
Action Requested:
Discuss and provide direction.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
N/A
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
N/A
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Department: All
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
8.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Department Heads
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Departmental Reports
Attachment(s):
Monthly departmental reports
Brief Summary:
n/a
Action Requested:
Accept reports
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
n/a
Financial Impacts:
n/a
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
n/a
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
Human Resources/Town Clerk Report: February 2021
Meetings and events
• Board of Commissioners regular meeting (remote) (2/8/21)
• Board of Commissioners work session (remote) (2/22/21)
• NCHIP Board meeting (2/24/21)
• Weekly human resources team meeting
• Weekly GARE Countywide Racial Equity Plan Co-Leads meeting
• Weekly OpenGov budget software implementation meeting
• Monthly Triangle J Council of Government HR Roundtable conference calls
• Monthly management team meeting
Employee Events and Training
• None
Recruitment and Selection (* = filled)
• Police Officer
o Recruitment opened (2/19/20)
o Continuous recruitment (174 applicants to date)
o Start date (trainee): 3/2/2020
o Start date: 9/14/2020
o Start date: 10/12/2020
o Start date: 11/09/2020
o Start date: 01/04/2021
• Water Treatment Plant Superintendent
o Recruitment open (1/19/2021)
o Recruitment closed (2/18/2021)
o Applications under review (20 applicants)
• Finance Director
o Recruitment open (2/12/2021)
o Continuous recruitment (12 applicants to date)
• Hiring freeze in place due to COVID-19
Pay and Benefits
• Biweekly payroll (2)
• FMLA – 1 Notice of Eligibility and Rights & Responsibilities sent (2021)
Wellness
• Weekly onsite nutrition counseling (offered remotely)
• Wellness mini-grant program
Performance Evaluation
• Maintained NEOGOV PE system
Professional Development
• MCCi – Laserfiche Basics (Sarah) (2/11/21)
Miscellaneous
• None
Public Information Office Report: February 2021
News Releases/Minutes
• Issued 19 news releases and 1 bid postings.
• Completed minutes for 2 town board and 2 advisory board meetings.
EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS (as of Feb. 28)
List Subscribers Change
Total 1,399 ↑ 2
News releases 1,125 ↓ 5
Meeting notices 700 ↓ 4
Bid postings 583 ↑ 1
Community newsletter 1,274 ↓ 2
TOP 10 MOST-VIEWED NEWS RELEASES: WEBSITE
Headline Views
Shooting Suspect Charged 478
Be Prepared for Freezing Temperatures and Ice Buildup 299
Take Survey to Help Update Historic District Design Guidelines 149
Tree Board Advises on English Ivy Removal 129
Orange County to Begin On-Demand Ride Service Pilot Program 128
Orange County Health Department Shares Information to Speed Vaccine Effort
(January release)
112
Frontline Essential Workers to Become Eligible Soon and Other COVID-19 Vaccine
Updates
102
Winter Weather Operations Update — Feb. 18 71
Finance Director Departing, Town Names Interim 66
Hillsborough Disinfecting Water with Chlorine, Flushing Lines in March 59
TOP 10 MOST-VIEWED NEWS RELEASES: EMAILS
Headline Views
Shooting Suspect Charged 685
Be Prepared for Freezing Temperatures and Ice Buildup 552
Winter Weather Operations Update — Feb. 18 501
North Carolina Eases COVID-19 Restrictions 500
Hillsborough Resident Needed to Serve on Climate Council 482
Frontline Essential Workers to Become Eligible Soon and Other COVID-19 Vaccine
Updates
476
Hillsborough Disinfecting Water with Chlorine, Flushing Lines in March 470
Volunteers Needed to Serve on Appointed Boards 463
Finance Director Departing, Town Names Interim 450
Tree Board Advises on English Ivy Removal 442
Social Media
FACEBOOK STATISTICS (as of Feb. 28)
53 posts 1 response to comments
Follows Change
4,298 likes ↑ 13
4,465 follows ↑ 21
TOP 5 POSTS
Post People reached Link clicks
County remains under winter weather advisory, downed tree 3,795 7
Downed tree removed from West Margaret Lane 1,253 No link
Home caregivers are now eligible for vaccine under Group 1 1,039 33
Downed tree at Homemont Avenue and how to report downed trees 921 2
County to pilot Uber-style transportation 843 14
TWITTER STATISTICS (as of Feb. 28)
46 tweets 2 responses to tweets
Follows Change
2,575 ↑ 20
TOP 5 TWEETS
Tweet Impressions Link clicks
Downed tree at Homemont Avenue and how to report downed trees 1,376 3
Winter Weather Operations Update — Feb. 18 1,323 2
Black History Month and Burwell School study share 1,175 3
Pet waste one of big 6 stormwater pollutants 906 No link
Contest reminder to vote on most COVID-safe businesses 855 3
NEXTDOOR STATISTICS (as of Feb. 28)
5 posts 0 direct message
Members Change
5,989
47% of 8,129 households
POSTS
Post Impressions
Frontline Essential Workers to Become Eligible Soon and Other COVID-19 Vaccine
Updates
2,245
Winter Weather Operations Update — Feb. 18 1,066
Vote for Orange County Local Businesses Keeping Everyone Safe 834
Hillsborough Disinfecting Water with Chlorine, Flushing Lines in March 629
Videos
• Updated finance director recruitment video.
• Added title slide, names and credits to Tree Board’s English Ivy Removal video.
• Researched and procured new camcorders.
YOUTUBE STATISTICS (as of Feb. 28)
Subscribers Change
2,853 ↑ 5
NEW VIDEOS
Video YouTube
Views
Facebook
Reach
Posted
Tourism Board 48 N/A Feb. 1
Historic District Commission 52 N/A Feb. 3
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting 66 N/A Feb. 8
Water Sewer Advisory Committee 11 N/A Feb. 9
Board of Adjustment 12 N/A Feb. 11
Mayor’s Task Force for Re-imagining Public Safety 43 N/A Feb. 11
Finance Director Recruitment Video 56 N/A Feb. 11
Tree Board 17 N/A Feb. 17
Tourism Development Authority 11 N/A Feb. 17
Planning Board 25 N/A Feb. 18
Board of Commissioners Work Session 38 N/A Feb. 22
English Ivy Removal 450 N/A Feb. 23
TOP 5 VIDEOS
Video Current Views Overall Views Posted
Position Your Solid Waste and Recycling Properly 1,986 2,125,211 Oct. 2015
English Ivy Removal 438 450 Feb. 2021
Hillsborough, NC: Among America’s Coolest Small Towns 132 10,303 Jan. 2015
Do Not Tamper with Water Meters 74 4,602 July 2015
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting: Feb. 8, 2021 66 66 Feb. 2021
Website/Employee Section
• Started reviewing all website pages for updates.
• Reviewed other municipal websites for features to be used in a future redesign of the town website.
• Updated COVID-19 pages and various pages for town website.
• Continued the transition to a new, more easily managed forms system for the town website with
migration of three forms needing PDF output for staff use along with their associated database
records and files.
JANUARY WEBSITE STATISTICS
Unique visitors 7,578
Number of visits 10,068
Page views 18,973
Visits per visitor 1.33
Pages viewed per visit 1.88
Take Survey to Help Update Historic District Design Guidelines 555
TOP 10 MOST-VIEWED PAGES
Page title Views
Home 3,291
Water and Sewer Billing and Collections 1,153
Employment Opportunities 813
Riverwalk 656
Police 601
News release: Shooting Suspect Charged 478
News release: Be Prepared for Freezing Temperatures and Ice Buildup 299
Planning 288
Bid Postings 281
About Hillsborough 276
Other Work
• Completed work related to COVID-19, including:
◦ News releases and updates to COVID-19 pages and materials, including raising awareness on
vaccine process changes, governor’s COVID-19 restrictions changes, and Orange County Health
Department’s messaging.
◦ Sign for use on Riverwalk with safety information on one side and vaccine information on the
other.
◦ Social media posts, shares and monitoring.
◦ Communication with community liaisons and contacts for help in sharing information.
◦ Response to media and community members.
• Performed work related to meetings:
◦ Coordinated minutes with new contracted minutes preparer and board support staff, overseeing
review.
◦ Adjusted minutes templates for in-person meetings and proclamation and resolution templates
with wayfinding logo.
◦ Assisted staff with livestreaming to YouTube.
• Worked on various templates and style guide for new logo and seal.
• Created March print newsletter for insertion in utility bills.
• Reviewed various town materials, including proclamation, ordinance amendment, finance director
brochure, Historic District design guidelines survey questions.
• Set up and managed design guidelines survey in Polco.
• Completed initial budget requests for Fiscal Year 2022.
Meetings/Events/Training
MEETINGS, EVENTS and TRAINING
Officer February Racial Equity: Community Engagement Subcommittee meetings on
Feb. 17 and 22
Feb. 2 COVID-19 policy group meeting
Feb. 12 IT assets meeting
Feb. 16 COVID-19 recovery plan meeting
Feb. 17 Town board work session (mini budget retreat)
Feb. 24 Management team meeting
Feb. 25 Town branding/logo meeting
Specialist February Town board and advisory board meetings via YouTube
Staff February COVID-19 communicators conference calls on Thursdays, Feb. 11
and 25
Staff meetings on Feb. 16 and 23
Feb. 1 Joint Information Center planning meeting
Feb. 4 Comprehensive Sustainability Plan meeting
Safety and Risk Manager Report: February 2021
Meetings Attended/Conducted
• Departmental meetings X 2
• HR Team meetings X 4
• Water/Wastewater safety training
• Process Hazard Analysis – Risk Management Program (Water Treatment Plant)
• Carolina Star (NCDOL) monthly meeting
• Fast Med meeting regarding Hepatitis screenings
Site Inspections
• On target for quarterly random FMCA drug screens
• Water Treatment Plant – NCDOL/OSHA Safety Audit follow-up
• Wastewater Treatment Plant – NCDOL/OSHA Safety Audit follow-up
• NC 86 Facility – NCDOL/OSHA Safety Audit follow-up
• Gold Park
• Turnip Patch Park X 2
• Murray Street Park
• Hillsborough Heights Park
• Cates Creek Park
Miscellaneous
• On target for 1st quarter drug screens
• Working on pandemic related items i.e. safety recommendations, PPE, Back to Work Policy
• Worked on employee training schedule
• Working on workers comp. claims
• Working on completion of incident reviews (safety committee)
• Stocked/distributed/ordered safety gear
• Working on inspection requirements with safety committee members
• Distributed updated safety wear
• General duties concerning new facility at Hwy 86 North
• Forwarded safety inspection results to departments
• Collecting fire extinguisher monthly check sheets
• Forwarded recommendations (work orders) generated from park and facility inspections
FINANCE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
Daily Collections 859,899.95$
Tax & Vehicle License 146,945.27$
Stormwater Fees:9,001.94$
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 1,502.42$
Beer & Wine Receipt -$
Franchise Tax -$
Powell Bill -$
Sales & Use Tax 152,920.77$
1,170,270.35$
Expenditures: General Fund/Water Fund 1,641,507.85$
FINANCE:
•Compiled and submitted all monthly reports.
•Issued 87 purchase orders.
•Processed 329 vendor invoices, issued 152 accounts payable checks.
•Collected and processed 63 payments for food and beverage tax.
•Collected and processed 6 payments for fire inspection fees and permits.
•Prepared and mailed 5 delinquent occupancy tax letters.
•Prepared and processed 2 payrolls.
•Issued no new special event permits.
METER READING:
•Terminated 51 services and connected upon request.
•Rechecked 221 meter readings, responded to no call backs.
•Installed 5 new meters, changed no old meters, performed no pressure tests.
•Identified no hydrant tamperings and 2 meter tamperings.
•Changed 17 meter registers.
BILLING & COLLECTION:
•Corrected 62 bills that were rechecked before the 03-01-21 billing.
•Bills adjusted after 02-01-21: 17 leaks; 8 late fees; no pools; .
•Prepared 6,567 water bills; processed .
•no services, reconnected 8.
•Prepared 6,567 water bills; processed .
•Processed 921 utility bank drafts.
•Processed 0 debt set-off letters.
FINANCE DIRECTOR
•Management Team Meeting - February 24
•Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting - February 22
•Finance Director Transition - February 19
FINANCIAL BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2021
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Current & Prior Year Property Taxes 6,849,000.00 6,864,826.00 1,172,087.88 7,448,493.43 - (583,667.43) -8.50%
Local Option Sales Tax 1,448,000.00 1,448,010.00 169,353.21 672,021.42 - 775,988.58 53.59%
Licenses, Permits and Fees 112,900.00 113,317.00 8,837.64 72,281.52 - 41,035.48 36.21%
Unrestricted Intergovernmental Revenue 862,000.00 867,629.00 36,197.06 383,824.40 - 483,804.60 55.76%
Restricted Intergovernmental Revenue 151,000.00 237,449.00 (24,265.97) 260,144.59 - (22,695.59) -9.56%
Other 25,500.00 34,889.00 30,634.49 64,282.58 - (29,393.58) -84.25%
Investment Earnings 24,000.00 2,940.00 - 2,389.68 - 550.32 18.72%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Debt Issuance Proceeds 310,000.00 297,388.00 - - - 297,388.00 -
Fund Balance Appropriation 749,550.00 994,307.89 - - - 994,307.89 100.00%
Total Revenue 10,531,950.00 10,860,755.89 1,392,844.31 8,903,437.62 - 1,957,318.27 18.02%
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Governing Body 133,393.00 171,748.00 11,538.89 102,620.61 83,875.64 (14,748.25) (0.09)
Administration 762,335.00 794,908.00 77,966.72 600,692.95 181,433.87 12,781.18 1.61%
Accounting 260,409.00 274,537.80 64,247.89 185,073.60 21,885.32 67,578.88 24.62%
Planning 437,673.00 475,873.00 29,045.39 197,009.20 90,360.26 188,503.54 39.61%
Town Hall Campus 175,819.00 178,620.00 4,690.52 152,898.81 21,064.27 4,656.92 2.61%
Public Space 728,207.00 738,593.00 115,196.98 446,405.19 129,404.79 162,783.02 22.04%
Safety & Risk Management 89,365.00 108,962.00 9,324.37 57,568.90 47,546.28 3,846.82 3.53%
Information Services 260,406.00 279,418.73 36,936.57 173,511.41 145,919.31 (40,011.99) -14.32%
Police 3,212,429.00 3,224,907.16 223,666.65 1,711,917.26 91,367.85 1,421,622.05 44.08%
Fire Marshal & Emergency Management 183,765.00 184,151.00 5,146.93 69,415.91 5,799.85 108,935.24 59.16%
Fire Protection 1,270,488.00 1,480,488.00 302,339.37 959,230.76 301,576.25 219,680.99 14.84%
Fleet Maintenance 350,202.00 358,488.00 74,889.23 201,723.86 107,032.24 49,731.90 13.87%
Streets/Powell Bill 996,879.00 1,040,396.20 45,020.12 296,821.08 69,887.25 673,687.87 64.75%
Solid Waste 736,002.00 722,804.00 32,066.71 232,817.18 373,715.51 116,271.31 16.09%
Cemetery 7,350.00 7,350.00 24.82 2,144.34 - 5,205.66 70.83%
Economic Development 370,879.00 370,879.00 38,024.60 130,802.25 470.00 239,606.75 64.61%
Special Appropriations 258,474.00 353,645.00 26,831.85 188,872.08 80,320.77 84,452.15 23.88%
Disaster Relief 47,875.00 29,688.00 - 16,078.82 7,592.81 6,016.37 -
Contingency 250,000.00 65,985.00 - - - 65,985.00 0.00%
Total Expenditures 10,531,950.00 10,861,441.89 1,096,957.61 5,725,604.20 1,759,252.27 3,376,585.42 31.09%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
FINANCIAL BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2021
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Licenses, Permits and Fees 9,432,502.00 9,798,570.00 877,110.54 6,046,921.71 - 3,751,648.29 38.29%
Other 15,000.00 27,000.00 16,672.11 80,609.60 - (53,609.60) -198.55%
Investment Earnings 10,300.00 10,300.00 0.67 352.66 - 9,947.34 96.58%
Transfers 1,099,404.00 1,099,404.00 - - - 1,099,404.00 100.00%
Retained Earnings Appropriated 547,312.00 819,537.87 - - - 819,537.87 100.00%
Unrestricted Intergovernmental - - (15,537.91) (15,537.91) - 15,537.91 -
Total Revenue 11,104,518.00 11,754,811.87 878,245.41 6,112,346.06 - 5,642,465.81 48.00%
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Administration of Enterprise 1,888,142.00 2,267,403.41 20,713.33 968,903.78 24,151.15 1,274,348.48 56.20%
Utilities Administration 598,867.00 651,418.75 28,521.45 271,306.76 89,806.94 290,305.05 44.57%
Billing & Collections 765,923.00 767,230.00 72,749.87 382,846.44 170,925.47 213,458.09 27.82%
Water Treatment Plant 1,098,734.00 1,239,677.38 78,999.47 554,583.47 210,245.91 474,848.00 38.30%
West Fork Eno Reservoir 882,985.00 885,835.00 46.53 322,931.94 8,600.06 554,303.00 62.57%
Water Distribution 1,637,243.00 1,661,853.50 73,701.86 436,343.51 87,156.55 1,138,353.44 68.50%
Wastewater Collection 1,600,740.00 1,665,111.83 60,436.90 420,417.27 84,755.61 1,159,938.95 69.66%
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2,299,975.00 2,353,600.00 68,151.23 652,606.47 108,486.65 1,592,506.88 67.66%
Disaster Relief 31,909.00 22,744.00 - 5,217.22 8,579.04 8,947.74 0.39
Contingency 300,000.00 239,938.00 - - - 239,938.00 100.00%
Total Expenditures 11,104,518.00 11,754,811.87 403,320.64 4,015,156.86 792,707.38 6,946,947.63 59.10%
WATER & SEWER FUND REVENUE
WATER & SEWER FUND EXPENDITURES
FINANCIAL BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2021
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Licenses, Permits and Fees 617,500.00 617,500.00 95,549.52 682,155.35 - (64,655.35) -10.47%
Retained Earnings Appropriated 40,798.00 40,798.00
- - - 40,798.00 100.00%
Total Revenue 658,298.00 658,298.00 95,549.52 682,155.35 - (23,857.35) -3.62%
Budget Unit Original Budget Current Budget
Period
Activity
Year to Date
Activity Encumbrances Variance % Remaining
Disaster Relief 1,755.00 1,158.00 0.00 205.64 283.17 669.19 57.79%
Stormwater 656,543.00 657,140.00 39,345.22 300,163.92 38,437.35 318,538.73 48.47%
Total Expenditures 658,298.00 658,298.00 39,345.22 300,369.56 38,720.52 319,207.92
48.49%
STORMWATER FUND REVENUE
STORMWATER FUND EXPENDITURES
10,861,442
11,754,812
658,298
8,903,438
6,112,346
682,155
5,725,604
4,015,157
300,164
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
General Fund Water & Sewer Fund Stormwater Fund
Town of Hillsborough Fiscal YTD Revenues & Expenditures
As of January 31, 2021
Budget Revenue Expenditures
Planning Department Report
February 2021
Revenues Collected February 2021 FY Year to Date
Development Review fees $ 0.00 $ 1,900.00
Zoning Permits & HDC reviews $ 4,755.59 $45,411.81
Planning Total $ 4,755.59 $47,311.81 - 95% of budget projection ($50,000)
Affordable housing payment in lieu $ 3,000
Data is through February 28, 2021 for both permits and Certificates of Occupancy. Data for completed
developments has been removed but totals still reflect all previous activity.
Project name Approved units Permitted Completed
Approved but
not complete
permits
remaining
Under
construction
Collins Ridge (Phase 1A-1) sfd 59 46 0 59 13 46
Collins Ridge (Phase 1A-2) townhome 89 41 0 89 48 41
Fiori Hill 46 42 35 11 4 7
Forest Ridge 235 232 203 32 3 29
Total 1493 1424 1301 192 69 123
Misc. infill lots na 128 95 na 33
Grand Total 1552 1396
Approved & Under Construction
59
89
46
235
46
41
42
232
0
0
35
203
Collins Ridge (Phase 1A-1) sfd
Collins Ridge (Phase 1A-2) townhome
Fiori Hill
Forest Ridge
Development Build-out Status
Completed Permitted Approved units
Hillsborough Police Department Monthly Report February 2021
NOTE: We had a reporting system issue from 2/26/21 until 3/1/21. It is being addressed, but some reports are still stuck in the system
may not be available at the time of this report.
REPORTED OFFENSES - UCR
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021 2020 2019
Part I Offenses
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 0 0 0 2 2
Robbery 0 0 0 6 5
Aggravated Assault 1 1 2 17 14
Burglary 2 3 5 20 26
Larceny/Theft 27 12 39 326 297
Motor Vehicle Theft 0 0 0 18 12
Total Part I 30 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 389 361
Other Offenses 2021 2020 2019
Simple Assault 7 3 10 109 77
Fraud/Forgery 4 0 4 24 21
Stolen Property 2 0 2 19 7
Damage to Property 10 9 19 97 59
Weapons Violations 2 4 6 26 5
Sex Offences 0 0 0 2 3
Drug Violations 11 9 20 125 85
Driving While Impaired 4 2 6 40 34
Liquor Law Violations 1 0 1 11 13
Trespassing 1 0 1 31 20
Domestic Related 7 7 14 133 119
Missing Persons 0 0 0 6 1
Summary of Select Offenses:
On 02/02/2021, a Breaking and Entering was reported at 100 Lakeside Dr., Gateway Village Apartments. The
victim advised that a male party broke into their residence and slept in their bed and was no longer on scene.
When Officers attempted to complete a report, the victim changed their mind and asked officers to leave and
refused charges.
On 02/05/2021, a Breaking and Entering and Larceny were reported to an unoccupied residence in the 300-
block of Cornelius St. The victim advised that a male was seen inside the home. A $100.00 chair was missing and
a $500.00 saddle. Officers made contact with the suspect and recovered the chair. Officers charged Gary
Christopher Wells, (W/M, 52, of Rougemont) with Felony Breaking and Entering.
On 02/08/2021, a Domestic Assault in Progress was reported at 120 Old Dogwood St., Microtel. Officers arrived
and found a female with injuries outside. A domestic argument turned physical, and the male would not allow
the female party to leave. When Officers made contact with the male party a short foot chase and tussle
ensued. Officers charged Calvin Bernard Bragg, (B/M, 52, of Old Dogwood St.) with Felony Kidnapping, Assault
on Female, and Resist Delay Obstruct. He was put on a Domestic Hold.
Hillsborough Police Department Monthly Report February 2021
On 02/09/2021, an Aggravated Assault was reported at 500 Lakeside Dr., Gateway Village Apartments. Two
females were arguing on social media about juveniles. Later they ran into each other at the above location. One
female brought out a knife and the victim received lacerations to their face, lip, chest, and hand. After an
investigation, officers charged Shaquanna Nicole White, (B/F, 24, of Durham) with Felony Assault with Deadly
Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury. She was given a Written Promise to Appear.
On 2/22/2021, a Breaking and Entering, Larceny, and Injury to Property were reported at 200 Lakeside Dr.,
Gateway Village Apartments, to an unoccupied apartment. The victim advised that their home had been broken
into their apartment, possibly through a window that had about $200.00 in damages. The victim advised that a
$458.00 television, $130.00 men’s cologne, and about $300.00 in men’s clothing were taken.
12 Larcenies were reported at various locations including:
• 3 larcenies were shoplifting related incidents at Hampton Pointe- Walmart.
• 2 larcenies from business were reported–2 in the 200-block of Garden Heights Ln. where a total of
$9,654.14 in building materials were taken from two separate constructions sites.
• 4 Larcenies from Motor Vehicles were reported–4 catalytic converters were taken. 1 at 230 Orange
Grove St., $500.00. 1 in the 200-block of Rubrum Dr., $800.00. 1 in the 400-block of W. Queen St.,
$800.00. 1 in the 100-block of Murdock Rd., $1,200.00.
Narcotics/weapons related incidents:
• During the month of February, Officers recovered small amounts of marijuana, paraphernalia, cocaine,
and four handguns.
Hillsborough Public Works
February 2021 Monthly Report
Work Orders: 10 completed within two days
Public Spaces: 67 staff hours
Stormwater Maintenance: 48 staff hours, 78 linear ft
Cemetery: 2 graves marked
Ice events: 90 staff hours
Training: 2 staff attended ITRE Confined Space Entry classes
March 2021 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH UTILITIES STATUS REPORT
Prepared by Marie Strandwitz 3/2/21 Page 1
PROJECT STATUS
West Fork of the Eno Reservoir The reservoir is 2 feet above Phase 1 normal pool, at 45 feet. All upper gates are open releasing over 20 cfs of water to try to keep the level down and have been for several weeks. The February
releases met or exceeded the minimum release of 3.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). Both Lake Orange and Lake Ben Johnson are spilling. March minimum release is also 3.5 cfs.
WFER Phase 2 Construction Project Rain has delayed the contractors work due to mud and increased reservoir level. They are approximately 2-3 weeks behind schedule. There is a second change order coming due to problems with
driving the bridge piles and needing some additional drainage features. We are working with the state to make sure authoriziation to start raising the level will be granted when ready. There is a deed
restriction required for mitigation that the state has had under review for eight+ months. This deed restriction, once approved, will put the town owned land around the reservoir into conservation with
only maintenance of existing access roads allowed. We will also be transfering easements for the road project to NCDOT.
Water Treatment The town received two Notices of Violation due to a sampling error at our outside laboratory. Samples were collected by town staff and sent to the outside lab within the appropriate deadline. However,
the local lab sent the samples to another state for processing who was unfamiliar with NC standards. This lab analyzed the samples using the wrong standards and then did not have enough sample left
to perform the tests using the correct standards. By this time, the deadline for pulling the samples by the end of the year had passed. The state classified this as a monitoring and reporting violation
because even though we pulled and sent the samples off by the deadline, they results could not be presented or reported. We have no grounds to appeal. We must notice these violations in our next
annual Consumer Confidence Report. We immediately took more samples to confirm there are no issues and avoid this situation in the future. These samples will count towards 2021 requirements.
The lab has indicated they would pay any fines received and are supposed to be providing a letter of explanation and corrective action on their end to avoid this problem. Also from last year, we will be
including a notice in April bills for a reporting only violation for missing reporting a sample on the state report. There are no water quality issues.
Wastewater Treatment February was a wet month. The wastewater plant saw a record increased average day flow of 1.831 MGD. This is 61% of the plant capacity. If average day flows reach 80% as averaged over the past
12 months, the state will require us to begin design for upgrading the plant. Thinking about rehabilitation and replacement of sewers is top priority in the upcoming budget.
Water Restrictions There are currently no water withdraw restrictions. Our monthly water production average is currently 1.415 MGD (note this difference from the average wastewater treated for February of 1.81 MGD.
This means extraneous water is getting into the system).
"Unaccounted-for" Water We had no water main breaks in February. There were approximately 6 water service leaks repaired. Miscellaneous repairs have been proceeding as needed.
Miscellaneous Projects We are expecting bids on the 16" water main interconnects project soon. This project will make more cross connections between water mains along S. Churton Street/Old Hwy 86 to provide system
redundancy and more turnover in the 16" main the town acquired from OWASA. A portion of the 16" water main should be rehabilitated due to several main breaks. After the interconect project is
underway, we will investigate this further.
New Regulations A new lead and copper rule was put into effect recently that will require the town to coordinate with schools and daycares about lead and copper sampling. It will also require the town to better inventory
lead service lines, that are public AND private. Budgetary impacts will be reflected in the FY22-24 budget. Staff is still evaluating the entire rule language.
Staffing Nathan and Jeff are doing an excellent job at the Water Treatment Plant as we seek a new Superintendent. A good applicant pool was received and interviews are being scheduled. The Chief
Operator/Operator in Responsible Charge has resigned and his last day was February 26. Sam Dunevant has been named Operator in Responsible Charge. The Chief Operator position will be posted
after a new Superintendent is selected. We just learned that one of our field crew lost his home to fire on February 27. No injuries but a total loss. Ways to donate will be routed soon. And also, our
beloved Julie Laws has announced her retirement at the end of May. She is working to ensure her duties are well documented. Ideas for her position are being discussed. Everyone is currently healthy
and working.
Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (WSAC) Activities WSAC in-person meetings have been cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. A virtual meeting was held in February 2021 and the next virtual meeting will now be held in May 2021.