Approved Minutes of October 29, 2025

Browse Search

MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH October 29, 2025 • Dr. Rodgers applauded the study and said that she has previously conducted research on social isolation and loneliness among minority students on white campuses and found that Black students are more likely to report isolation and loneliness on majority- white campuses. She said that this can be addressed in part by building community and programming to help connect Black students to community. She noted that this is an ongoing problem even many years after her initial study and that there may be fewer third spaces for Black and minority populations due to systemic barriers. • In response to Dr. Crandell's question about why there wasn't an increased effect for older adults, Mr. Bruster said that he wasn't certain but that his instinct is that it was in part because Orange County is very well resourced, especially in support of older adults. He added that education and financial status can serve as protective factors against loneliness and social isolation. • Mr. Bruster recommended the book Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life by Eric Klinenberg in response to Dr. Stuebe's question about ways to build on existing public places to help create new third spaces. IX. Actions Items A. Orange County Groundwater Protection Rules Thomas Privott, Environmental Health Supervisor, presented a selection of options to move forward with the Orange County Groundwater Protection Rules after the results of the recent adjudication appeal. Some highlights of his presentation are below: • Mr. Privott provided a brief recap of the history of the Gurlitz appeal, the decision, and the basis of the decision. He reminded the Board that the main point of contention for the appeal was the phrase "subject to termite treatment," particularly that there was a lack of meaning attributed to this phrase. • Based on this context, there are many potential policy options for the Orange County Groundwater Protection rules moving forward, including but not limited to: o Implementing case-by-case enforcement, which would be administratively enforced by Environmental Health staff. ■ This would not change the existing rules but would require either an administrative policy in the department or a position statement from the Board of Health defining what "subject to termite treatment" means. ■ There is precedent for this kind of enforcement; the Environmental Health Division of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS) implements a similar system after a change in law. ■ In response to Mr. Whitaker's question, Mr. Privott affirmed that this would be an administrative change rather than a rule change and that it would need a specific definition of what would be considered subject to termite treatment and what would not. ■ Mr. Privott shared that this is what Environmental Health Staff are currently doing for well applications near buildings with foundations subject to termite treatment given that the court decision invalidated the well rule related to the setback requirement. o Keep the existing rules but clarify/define the phrase "subject to termite treatment." S:\Managers Working Files\BOH\Agendas &Abstracts\2025 Agenda and Abstracts\ October Page 5