Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20081201 APPROVED 1/22/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING December 1, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs went through the items at County Commissioners' places: White sheet- PowerPoint handout for item 3-d, Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment Purple sheet- revised item 4-f, RFP Award: Graphic Design, Cartography and Production of a Map of Bicycle Routes in Orange County Second purple sheet- copy of the Volunteer Resolution in reference to item 10-b, Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau — New Appointment Blue sheet- revised item 10-d, the Hillsborough Area Rail Station Task Force Appointment Chair Jacobs said that at the conclusion of this meeting, the Board would continue this meeting until Thursday, December 11th at 6:30pm at the Southern Human Services Center because item 3-c would be deferred due to the presenter being ill. This item is Joint UNC/Orange County Landfill Gas Recovery Project Update. Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr. Commissioner Foushee read the resolution. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER MOSES CAREY, JR. WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Moses Carey, Jr., to the Board of County Commissioners in 1984 and re-elected him in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004; and, WHEREAS, Moses Carey, Jr., was elected Chair of the Board of Commissioners by his peers in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2005, and 2007; and, WHEREAS, Moses has proven himself to be a dedicated and effective public servant who has gained the admiration and respect of all who have known him in both the public and private sectors; and WHEREAS, Moses was involved in many decisions affecting the character of the community, each time exhibiting sound judgment, patience, and concern for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Orange County in his decision-making process; and WHEREAS, during his tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Moses Carey, Jr., has shared his talent for leadership and public service through his work on numerous committees, boards, and task forces including the Mental Health Board (OPC), the Board of Health, JOCCA (Joint Orange Chatham Community Action Agency), Orange- Chatham Justice Partnership Board, NCACC President in 1993-94 and active in both NCACC and NACo committees, Animal Services Advisory Board, design committee for the Animal Shelter, the Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees, and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness Executive Committee, among others; and WHEREAS, through his tireless service he demonstrated leadership, wisdom, creativity, and community spirit— all tempered with common sense, good humor, and an approachable and open demeanor —thus enhancing County services and improving Orange County's unique quality of life; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners desire, on behalf of themselves, other County officials and employees, and the residents of Orange County, to express to Moses Carey, Jr., their deep appreciation and gratitude for the services rendered by him to the County over the past 24 years. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners offers Moses our very best wishes for success, happiness, prosperity and good health in his future endeavors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented to Mr. Carey, with a copy sent to the press, and that the Resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting. This the first day of December 2008. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adopt this resolution. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Oaths of Office for Board Members Judge Scarlett administered oath of office to Commissioner Foushee. Judge Buckner administered oath of office to Pam Hemminger, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz. Commissioner Gordon said that this is the first time that there have been seven County Commissioners, and the first time that the women are in the majority. Board Organization The Clerk distributed ballots for Chair and Vice-Chair. a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Chair—Valerie Foushee Vice-Chair— Mike Nelson b. Designation of Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2008-2009 A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to elect Chair Foushee as the voting delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2008-2009. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Appointments a. Manager A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to reappoint Laura Blackmon as County Manager. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Clerk to the Board A motion was made by Chair Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to reappoint Donna S. Baker as Clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Laura Blackmon said that item 3-c would need to be postponed until December 11th since the attorney the County hired is ill. Commissioner Gordon said that the Clerk, Donna S. Baker, has asked that the Board pull item 10-c and the Clerk said that is because new applicant information and reorganization information came in late this afternoon and the staff has not had time to revise/update the abstract. The Board agreed. Public Charge The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Introduction of First Piedmont Laureate The Board recognized the first Piedmont Laureate, Jaki Shelton Green, who read a poem to welcome the new members of the Board. Martha Shannon introduced Jaki Shelton Green. This is the first program co-sponsored by the Orange County Arts Commission, the City of Raleigh Arts Commission, the Durham Arts Council, and United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners for allocating the funds for this program. The Piedmont Laureate program is a good example of how a small investment can produce a huge dividend for the community. Throughout the year, Jaki Shelton Green will present public readings and workshops in Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties to expand the appreciation of literature in the Triangle area. She has received many awards for her literature and her literature has appeared in many publications. Jaki Shelton Green read a poem for the Board of County Commissioners —The Girl Who Lost Her Head. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners are proud that Jaki Shelton Green is a native of Orange County. b. Proclamation for Human Relations Commission's Celebration of Bill of Rights Day, Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week The Board considered a proclamation recognizing Bill of Rights Day, Human Rights Day, and Human Rights Week and authorizing the Chair to sign. Human Rights and Relations Director Shoshannah Smith introduced the proclamation. Commissioner Gordon read the proclamation. A motion was made by Pam Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve a proclamation recognizing Bill of Rights Day, Human Rights Day, and Human Rights Week and authorize the Chair to sign. HUMAN RIGHTS PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, on December 10, 1948, the member States of the United Nations signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and countries of different political, economic and social systems agreeing on the fundamental rights that all people share solely on the basis of their common humanity; and WHEREAS, Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week were adopted by the United Nations in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights Day was first declared in 1941 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to commemorate the 1791 Ratification of the Bill of Rights; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights guarantees, among other basic liberties, freedom of speech and of the press as well as freedom of religion and association; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and establishes fundamental rules of fairness in judicial proceedings, including the right to trial by jury; and WHEREAS, the primary responsibility to promote respect for these rights and freedoms lies with each individual in Orange County, and each of us can play a major role in enhancing human rights; and WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County support Human Rights and recognize that the "inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace;" NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim December 10 — 16, 2008 to be HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK and December 10, 2008 as HUMAN RIGHTS DAY and December 15, 2008 as BILL OF RIGHTS DAY in Orange County and challenge our residents to study and promote the ideas contained in these documents to the end that freedom, justice, and equality shall not perish but will flourish and be made available to all. THIS THE 1st DAY OF December, 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Joint UNC/Orange County Landfill Gas Recovery Project Update The Board was to consider receiving a status report of the progress of negotiations and a draft agreement between Orange County and UNC-Chapel Hill regarding development of joint landfill gas recovery project. This item was postponed until December 111h d. Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment The Board received an assessment report of solid waste processing technologies as possible alternatives to landfilling as a primary means of waste disposal. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson introduced Harvey Gershman, President of Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Inc. Mr. Gershman prepared the assessment. Harvey Gershman made a PowerPoint presentation. Status of Waste Processing Technologies Harvey Gershman Gershman, Brickner& Bratton, Inc. December 1, 2008 Waste Processing Technology (WPT) —Introduction —Orange County Future Needs —Proven WPT •Mass burn •Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) •Modular or Small-Scale WTE —Other WPT —Summary —Conclusions 1. Waste Processing Introduction •Most wastes are biogenic carbon, i.e., they are of plant origin •WTE essentially carbon neutral since green house gas reduction calculated on a lifecycle basis •WTE energy was designated as renewable energy by the EPA in 2005 •Displaces energy from fossil fuels •Metals recycled pre- and post-burn •From 89 facilities in U.S. now, approx. 2,300 MWs electrical generation capacity in place •Potential for triple that amount from waste currently being landfilled, assuming recycling at current levels 2. Orange County •Generated 116,000 tons of waste in 2007 or 318 tons per day •Of that 16,500 tons were diverted and recovered or 42 TPD •25,200 tons of C&D material went to C&D landfills in and out of County •62,900 tons were disposed at the County landfill or 172 TPD •Market transfer and disposal costs estimated to be in the $40-49 per ton •The Orange County landfill is scheduled to close in 2011 3. Proven WPT •Referred to by U.S. EPA as Municipal Waste Combustors •Waste-to-Energy (WTE) often referred to by opponents as `Incinerators' •Three types will be reviewed —Mass burn —Refuse derived fuel —Small scale WTE also called modular incineration WTE is Accepted Worldwide (table) Waste-to-Energy: $14 Billion of Productive Assets Servicing the U.S. New Hanover County, NC WASTEC - Publicly owned - 500 TPD - Mass burn technology - Produces marketable steam and sells electricity - Started operations in 1984; 24 years old now - Availability increased recently to 84% U.S. WTE Plants by Technology (table) 4. Other WPT •Biological -Aerobic Composting -Anaerobic Digestion/ Codigestion -Biodiesel -Bioethanol -Biological Pretreatment -Vermicomposting 5. Summary Risks, Financing and Implementation Considerations Financing Facilities: Public Finance •Municipal or authority owner •Revenue bond financing -100% debt -Construction and long-term •Design-build-operate contractor •Security: services agreement •Access to long-term residue disposal When Implementing WTE, Keep in Mind... •The public will ask for more recycling -Opportunity for more diversion: •Make residential collection more efficient •Single-stream recycling for both residential and commercial sectors •Controlling commercial waste stream •Environmental concerns will be significant •Site selection critical •Key cost determinants: -Size: larger cost less per ton, economy of scale -Value of electricity -Location and cost of residue disposal -Term of bonds: longer cost less -Ownership: publicly owned cost less 6. Conclusions DOrange County has a limited post diversion waste supply— 180 TPD DCurrent disposal cost environment is low ($50 per ton) as compared to implementing new proven waste-to-energy ($100 per ton) DFacility with 300 tons per day capacity would be required to achieve the $100 per ton cost DApprox. $50-70 million in capital to develop/design/construct/start-up DDisposal Landfill for residue/ash and by-pass would be required DWPT Contractor would be required as holder of the technology DCounty sponsorship would be required to insure capital, flow control, and financeability DBeware of vendors offering unproven technologies with attractive economics and promises DOpportunities for higher level of recycling to increase diversion from disposal Thank you!! hgershman @gbbinc.corn 1-800-573-5801 www.gbbinc.corn Commissioner Gordon asked about the cost and Harvey Gershman said that it would be in the $50 million range for a 300 ton a day plant. A mass burn construction would cost even more. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was any technology that would allow solid waste to be mixed in with other fuels to be burned in a facility. Harvey Gershman said that there are coal-firing plants, but the process is extensive to get it clean enough. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there were any good working models where more than one government is involved. Harvey Gershman said that Baltimore, Maryland and Springfield, Massachusetts have them. Also, Connecticut is filled with regional WTE plants. He suggested Orange County tagging onto a neighboring county that is considering WTE, because Orange County has a small amount of waste to support one of these facilities. It also takes a long time for a WTE plant and is very complicated. The development period could take as long as six years. PUBLIC COMMENT: Virginia Leslie said that she appreciated that the Board of County Commissioners responded to the request to look at WTE. She said that several community groups have been looking at this and time is of the essence. She said that the community groups would like to have time before the County Commissioners' next meeting on December 11th to provide the Board with their findings and they are willing to provide site tours and research. She said that they believe that the citizens of Orange County can offer new insights, innovations, and options on site selection, waste options, interim solutions, and rail use that will save time and money. Robert Campbell said that he is not an expert on the technology of WTE, but Orange County must still have a landfill to get rid of residue. There is also the component of the health effect that is generated in the WTE plant. It builds up an in-house gas and workers of these facilities have had health problems. He encouraged the County Commissioners to look at this option very carefully. Bonnie Hauser asked some questions of the consultant on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that they heard that ash coming out of the facility could be recycled and Harvey Gershman said that it could be but has not been recycled much. It is something in the future that he would like to see happen in the industry. All of the metals are recyclable. She asked if the coal fire plant at UNC could be redesigned to a WTE facility and Harvey Gershman said no. She asked about the experience of using rail to haul waste and Harvey Gershman said that there is some waste being hauled by rail, but it is expensive and only used if a landfill is far away, such as several hundred miles. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that the Board considered looking at alternative ways of disposal while looking at a transfer station, and it was a year ago that the SWAB was tasked with coming up with an RFP that was knowledgeable in these matters and prepared a report. He said that the Board has been thinking along these same lines and what options are available. Geof Gledhill asked if the consultant had a response to Robert Campbell's comments about the health issues. Harvey Gershman said that he has not seen any problems with air quality for the workers in WTE facilities. The air is taken in through the tipping floor and used in the furnaces to combust the waste and there is no stale air. Tony Blake (member of the audience) asked about having a transfer station on the grid where WTE would be easier to implement later. He also asked about the cost to haul waste to Virginia. Harvey Gershman said that it would be $50/ton to dispose of ash. In terms of siting a WTE, it would be best to be close to a grid that would make it less expensive to interconnect to the grid. e. Final Report for Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. The Board received a report updating the status of the Orange County Rescue Squad and the decision to return the Rescue Squad to service within specific parameters. Laura Blackmon gave background information on this item. On June 271h, Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca issued a stand down for the Orange County Rescue Squad because of some concerns with safety and operational issues. Staff has been working with Orange County Rescue Squad for the last six months and Colonel Montes de Oca gave his final report. Frank Montes de Oca said that the last few months have been frustrating, educational, and informative; but ultimately positive. He said that staff has been working collaboratively with OCRS. He said that his concerns were from personal observations and written documentation, but he believes that both sides have agreed to move beyond this and have looked at how to refocus efforts to become the traditional asset to the community. The staff examined all documents available, and OCRS was brought back into compliance as it relates to EMS. He will be putting OCRS back online, with some very specific stipulations, effective this week. Staff will be coming back to the Board with some language changes for the franchise ordinance so that it is more specific in how franchises are monitored. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from October 7, 28 and November 6, 13, 18 (5:30 p.m.), 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments (1) Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau — Reappointments The Board reappointed Robert Ward and Dave Gephart to full terms expiring December 31, 2011 to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau. c. Proposed Fee Structure for a Senior Center SportsPlex Membership and Fee Increase for the Fitness Studio at Seymour Center The Board approved a new Sportsplex Central Orange Senior participant rate and the new Seymour Center Fitness Studio fee and operation hours, effective January 1, 2009. d. Examination of Bonds The Board maintained the bonds at their present level for officials pursuant to G.S. 58-72- 20. e. Authorization to Submit Grant Application to N.C. Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund — Breeze Farm Conservation Easement The Board authorized staff to submit the application for a grant from the North Carolina Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund for a Breeze Farm Conservation Easement by the December 5 deadline. f. RFP Award: Graphic Design, Cartography and Production of a Map of Bicycle Routes in Orange County The Board awarded RFP 5147 to R+M, Inc. of Cary, NC at a total cost of $42,000 to design and produce 20,000 maps; awarded RFP 5146 to Simpson Maps of Concord, NC for a total of $8,000 for the cartography associated with the map; and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. Cabe Crossing Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Modification and Re-approval The Board approved the Preliminary Plat for Cabe Crossing Subdivision in accordance with the parkland dedication and plat size modifications noted and the attached Resolution of Approval, subject to the $9,100 payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fee. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Educational Facilities Impact Fee — Public Hearing The Board considered conducting a public hearing on the draft reports prepared by TischlerBise, Inc., which calculate the maximum supportable impact fee for new residential units in each of the two school districts and direct staff to bring back amendments to and effective date of the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance for adoption/consideration at the December 11, 2008 regular Board meeting. Perdita Holtz from the Planning Department introduced this item. She said that last year the County entered into a contract with TischlerBise to update the Educational Facilities Impact Fee. This has come before the Board and the school boards a few times. She introduced Julie Herlens of TischlerBise. Julie Herlens made a PowerPoint presentation. Educational Facilities Impact Fees Orange County Schools Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Orange County, North Carolina Presentation Overview •Introduction •Overview I' -Impact Fees -Process for the Studies •Impact Fee Results (by System) -Methodologies -Levels of Service & Costs -Maximum Supportable Amounts •Q &A TischlerBise, Inc. - National Practice - Impact Fees (700+) - Fiscal Impact Evaluations (600+) - Infrastructure Needs and Revenue Strategies - Public and Private Sector Experience Impact Fees The purpose is to: ". . . Help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new development that takes place within the County." Impact Fees •Represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facility needs •Used for capacity expansions •Not a revenue raising mechanism but a way to provide growth-related infrastructure •Three requirements must be met: -Impact: Growth is generating need for infrastructure -Benefit: Timing of improvements; Accounting and expenditure controls -Proportionality: Fair share of cost Process for Study *Interview key staff •Analyze demographic data •Consider methodologies and determine levels of service •Determine capital costs •Evaluate inclusion of credits •Determine maximum supportable fee amounts for each School System •Staff review •Presentations to the Public •Decision by elected officials Methodologies •Cost Recovery (past) -Oversized and unique facilities •Incremental Expansion (present) -Formula-based approach documents level-of-service with both quantitative and qualitative measures; common for schools •Plan-Based (future) -Common for utilities but can also be used for other public facilities with non-impact fee funding (e.g., roads) Impact Fee Formula Overview Demand Units per Development Unit X Infrastructure Units per Demand Unit X Dollars per Infrastructure Unit OCS Student Generation Rates (table) - Demand generator is Student Generation Rate OCS Cost Per Student Summary Elementary Middle High Total Gross Capital Cost Per Student $26,691 $33,050 $31,669 Local Share of Capacity Cost 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% Total Gross Local Capital Cost Per $26,424 $32,719 $31,352 Student Principal Payment Credit Per Student ($5,108) ($5,108) ($5,108) Total Net Local Capital Cost Per $21,316 $27,611 $26,244 Student OCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Impact Fee Per Elementary Middle High TOTAL Housing Unit Single Family $3,581 $2,485 $3,306 $9,372 Detached Single Family $1,406 $607 $892 $2,905 Attd/Multifamily Manufactured $2,046 $1,132 $1,285 $4,463 Homes CHCCS Student Generation Rates (table) CHCCS Cost Per Student Summary Total Gross Capital $33,453 $40,164 $42,761 Cost Per Student Local Share of 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% Capacity Cost Total Gross Local $33,119 $39,762 $42,333 Capital Cost Per Student Principal Payment ($6,127) ($6,127) ($6,127) Credit Per Student Total Net Local $26,992 $33,635 $36,206 Capital Cost Per Student CHCCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Impact Fee Per Elementary Middle High TOTAL Housing Unit Single Family $7,098 $4,809 $7,132 $19,039 Detached Single Family $4,264 $2,589 $4,163 $11,016 Attached Multifamily $1,025 $504 $615 $2,144 Manufactured $3,805 $2,219 $2,208 $8,232 Homes Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the student generation rates. Julie Herlens said that it is a weighted average, and within the CHCCS with the significant number of multifamily units, it pulls the weighted average of all housing types down. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is such a big jump in numbers and she does not know if the community can support this. She is interested in what neighboring counties are doing. She understands that the rates need to be raised, but this is too high. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was any way to measure the affect of multifamily built within the last ten years to see if new multifamily was generating students at a higher rate than the existing multifamily stock. Julie Herlens said yes, however, with student generation rates and the use of them for impact fees, it is over the life of the unit. Impact fees are only paid once. Laura Blackmon pointed out that these impact fees are for new construction only. Commissioner Pelissier said that when you wait this long to make increases, then it is a shock to the community and the Board should discuss doing this more frequently. Commissioner Gordon asked how long this report's results last. Geof Gledhill said that the report could be used to set impact fees as long as the data does not reverse. He said the impact fee ordinance has an expectation that this information will be provided on a frequent basis. Discussion ensued on the student generation rate. Geof Gledhill said that the staff should review impact fees every year, but the Board could review the data every 3-5 years. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the impact fee increase could be phased in and Geof Gledhill said yes. Discussion ensued about phasing in and having an index for impact fees. PUBLIC COMMENT: Rick Perry with Perry Construction Corporation (handicapped and in wheelchair) said that his company was experiencing one of the worst housing slumps they have ever experienced since beginning in 1976. He said that people are comparing their houses to counties that do not have impact fees and it is a terrible time to raise the cost of building. He said that this would kill the selling of homes now and he has dropped the price of one of his homes by $10,000, even before a home is finished. He said that no one is even coming to look at the houses. He said that it was not fair to go by the cost of the home because someone should not pay more for an impact fee just because their house costs more. He pointed out that Chapel Hill's homes average $800,000 and Orange County's homes average $300,000. He said that it appears to be a problem that Chapel Hill and Carrboro should solve, since their home prices are so high. Frank Thomas yielded his time to Rick Williams. Rick Williams of Williams Construction Company asked the County Commissioners not to increase the impact fees to the amount that has been discussed. He said that people are not buying his houses. He said that, at this point in time, with the economy, to double the impact fee is not right. He said that it cannot all be laid on the builder or the homeowner. Eric Chupp is a builder in Orange County and said that he is struggling and has been for the last year. He echoed Mr. Perry's thoughts. He said that the builders will not always be able to subsidize these costs. Keith Dixon said that most of what he wanted to say has been said. The housing permits for this area are down and he requested that the County Commissioners think of the economic times before they make a decision and to not raise the impact fee. Greg Andrews is with THD Construction and he works in Orange County and other counties. He said that he has houses in Alamance County that are less and are selling, but his houses are not selling in Orange County. He asked the County Commissioners to not raise the impact fees because it is bad timing. Frank Thomas said that he represents the Homeowner's Association of Durham, Orange, and Chatham Counties. He said that they renew their objection to impact fees on the philosophical grounds that they are inconsistent with and destructive to the sense of community that should prevail. He said that the timing was ill-advised. He said that single- family detached permits are off over 50% since 2001. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have not produced 100 new housing starts since 2005. He questioned the statistics concerning student generation rates for new housing. He said that there would be no meaningful revenue from this source to build schools because there are not many houses being built. He said that impact fees are the wrong answer, at the wrong time, and for the wrong question. Joe Phelps welcomed the new County Commissioners and congratulated them. He said he has been an active real estate agent for 20 years and he opposes the raising of the impact fee. He said that people are concerned about the costs of housing now with the high taxes they have now versus what they had several years ago. He said that people cannot afford to live and work in Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pellisier to direct the consultant to finalize the reports; close the public hearing; and (changed language from recommendation) direct staff to bring back amendments to and effective date of the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance, including student generation rates, for adoption and consideration at the December 11, 2008 regular Board meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Budget Process FY09-10: Outside Agency Grant Funding The Board reviewed the Outside Agency Grant allocation process used in preparing the current fiscal year operating budget and considered approving changes for the upcoming fiscal year. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey provided a brief overview. This item has been deferred on several occasions. She pointed out the review of changes in the abstract, which were authorized by the Board during the budget process for outside agencies in 2008-09. The changes include an earlier application period and a target percentage, which was agreed to be 1.2%, which is the equivalent of $1.8 million available for decision and distribution to all outside agencies. Due to fiscal constraints during budget deliberations late last spring, this target percentage was rolled back and 43 agencies were funded at an amount of $1.4 million. The Board also granted additional authority to the Human Services Advisory Commission to use an evaluation format and prepare recommendations to the Board for outside agencies. The HSAC provided its recommendations to the Board in the spring. Changes Proposed for FY09-10: County Management and Budget have discussed and present the following proposals to further refine the process for the next fiscal year. HSAC has also been informed and involved in setting the strategic direction. 1. Approve Draft Orange County Allocation Categories of outside agency expenditures to create target allocation amounts for FY09-10. The target allocation amount by category, if approved by the BOCC, would replace the percentage of General Fund goal. The Draft Orange County Allocation Categories are modeled on the Triangle United Way (TUW) Allocation Categories for 2009. The TUW categories emerged from a year-long review of local research and analysis (i.e., the Orange County Community Needs Assessment, the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, and the Master Aging Plan Update), later confirmed by a cross-section of community stakeholders representing issue expertise that included Orange County administrators, non-profit agency executives, and public advocates. The majority of outside agencies funded by the County also receive funding from TUW. The move to broad service categories should sharpen the focus on results and emphasize highest/best use of every dollar within every service category. It should also help respond to criticism and complaints, such as: "No new agencies are ever funded", "Each year is status quo", and "Performance and results don't count". Attachments: A, B, and C depict the draft allocation categories. Attachment D is a description of all outside agencies currently funded by Orange County. 2. Adopt a policy position whereby a conscious effort is made to not duplicate core County services. If a County Department operates the same or similar service, it should not be repeated or contracted out to a private non-profit, except or unless by mutual agreement and priority planning between the entities. This would strengthen and streamline service delivery and enhance overall public benefit. Example: Both Social Services and Child Care Services Association administer child care subsidy programs. The BOCC will recall that both the BOCC and Social Services Board supported DSS in their bid last spring to administer the Smart Start child care subsidy program as a step in eliminating the dual system in Orange County. 3. Assign Community Housing and Land Trust a "line item appropriation" status, separate from the HSAC outside agency process, since the Land Trust is a joint creation of the County and Towns. Their annual grant application would still undergo rigorous review by Budget in conjunction with Housing and Community Development, and final determination by the BOCC in the adopted budget. Note: There may be other agencies the BOCC would like County Management to address in the same or similar matter, but the Land Trust seems the most obvious example. 4. Agencies collaborating with a County department and receiving a County match would only apply for outside agency funding above the amount of the match. The department, facilitating the program with the outside agency, bears the responsibility for budgeting the County match within its operating budget. Note: In 2008-09, these agencies were the Dispute Settlement Center and Volunteers for Youth. 5. Reconsider HSAC recommendations from the March 2008 work session regarding the referral of certain outside agency applications to different community advisory boards and staff: a. Refer animal and wildlife related agency applications; such as AnimalKind, Inc. and Piedmont Wildlife, to the Animal Services Board/Animal Services Department for their review and recommendation to the BOCC. b. Because of unique challenges and costs, refer mental health reform related agency applications; such as KidSCope and Club Nova, Inc. to OPC Board/OPC Area Authority for their review and recommendation to the BOCC. c. Refer athletic/recreation related agency applications; such as Hillsborough Athletic Association (HYAA) and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission/Parks and Recreation Department for their review and recommendations to the BOCC. d. Refer arts and cultural related agency applications; such as the Historical Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange County, Historic Hillsborough Commission, and the ArtsCenter to the Arts Commission/Economic Development Department for their review and recommendations to the BOCC. Commissioner Pelissier asked about need versus results. Gwen Harvey said that the goal is to direct County funds to the agency that will create the best result. Laura Blackmon said that the Board could specify results that it wants and give money to those agencies that could provide those results. The categories could be adjusted. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a lot of improvement in this process. He said that last year there were two agencies that were deemed to have insufficiently justified the monies that were given to them, and they were going to be counseled on how to address this. He does not recall seeing any results from this. He wants to close the loop on last year's process before having this conversation. Gwen Harvey said that the two agencies were Piedmont Wildlife Center and Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association. Based on the comment received from the Board during the budget work sessions, the staff revised the language in the performance agreements that were issued and executed. In terms of ongoing expectations for Piedmont Wildlife Center, it should diversify the revenue basis to be less dependent upon Orange County as a funder. For HYAA, the interests surround the continuing engagement of diverse community as far as participation. This language was drafted as part of the existing performance agreements. She apologized for not providing copies of the agreements to the Board. Commissioner Jacobs said that people were supposed to sit down with these agencies and talk to the leadership and work with them on these changes. He said that this is just a rewrite of the complaints from the Board and nothing has been done. Commissioner Jacobs said that numbers 2, 3, and 4 make a lot of sense. He said that there is a basic flaw in the process for him and especially this fiscal year. He said that the Board learned last year that the HSAC felt that the Board of County Commissioners should act on the recommendations and were bound by the recommendations, and the proposal is to add more advisory boards to the process. He thinks that this is a really bad idea. He thinks that it is the County Commissioners' responsibility and not the advisory boards'. He suggested asking the advisory boards to give priority order in terms of funding and then leave it to the County Commissioners or the Management staff. Finally, he said that this is not the year to set a target amount. He suggested not giving any expectations or promises. Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Jacobs on 2, 3, and 4. She would also like to understand more what the core services are for the categories. She also agreed about not adding a lot of new boards to the process. She said that it is the Board of County Commissioners' responsibility for funding. She suggested not doing proposal 1 or proposal 5. Chair Foushee said that it appears that the Board of County Commissioners is in favor of items 3 and 4 and item 2 as written, but with the staff bringing back to the Board of County Commissioners more goal-oriented information. The Board would like to strike items 1 and 5 in total. Commissioner Jacobs suggested not assigning funding amounts and Laura Blackmon said that she was trying to get away from that completely. Commissioner Jacobs also wants to be sure to counsel those two entities discussed previously. This item will return to the Board in February. b. Resolution Submitting Comments Regarding Options for the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's Draft 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan The Board considered a resolution submitting comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding transportation systems proposed for the Preferred Option for the Long Range Transportation Plan. Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln introduced this item. The Board is considering four options, which are described in the abstract— Bus Transit, Commuter Rail, STAC-DMU, and STAC-Electric. The Orange Unified Transportation Board reviewed this material in November and made comments. The recommendations were incorporated in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jacobs asked for an explanation on the second bullet on page 3. He asked what this had to do with University Station. This is confusing. Karen Lincoln said that she would work on the wording. Commissioner Gordon suggested saying "spur coming from University Station". Also, on the first "Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved", the fourth line, she suggested changing the language to "avoid adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites." Commissioner Yuhasz suggested taking out language about power grids. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve a resolution, as revised, submitting comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding transportation systems proposed for the Preferred Option for the Long Range Transportation Plan. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING THE DRAFT 2035 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in regional transportation planning as a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing a Long-Range Transportation Plan, and has released the Options for developing the Preferred Option for the Draft DCHC 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for public comment; and WHEREAS, Orange County seeks ample opportunities to review and comment on regional transportation plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Orange Unified Transportation Board has submitted comments regarding the Preferred Option for the Draft 2035 LRTP; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has submitted comments regarding the Alternatives Analysis for the 2035 LRTP and has reviewed the Options for the Preferred Option for the Draft 2035 LRTP; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends to the Transportation Advisory Committee that the 2035 Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan give priority to projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, avoid adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and foster economic development in designated economic development districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends that the following approaches be considered in the Draft 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan: • Support rail transportation including commuter rail service between Burlington and Raleigh that would serve Orange County, as well as light rail to serve the Triangle area; • Consider extending light rail proposed from Durham to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill westerly to Carrboro to connect to potential north-south commuter rail that would extend northeast from Carrboro to University Station along the rail spur that intersects (at University Station) potential regional east-west commuter rail; • Support enhanced local bus and express bus service with shorter delays; • Ensure good connectivity of services that feed larger transit systems; • Include private transportation providers in the process, especially with respect to provision of services to transportation terminals and areas on fringe of service routes; • Concentrate limited resources for multi-modal facilities and not just expanding highway capacity; and • Invest in engineering solutions for roadway "hotspots" and intersection improvements instead of overall roadway widening. VOTE UNANIMOUS c. Review of Floor Plan: Hillsborough Commons DSS Space The Board reviewed and commented on the floor plan for the Department of Social Services to be housed in the renovated Hillsborough Commons Facility. Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones went over the steps that the staff has taken since this was last seen by the Board on November 61h. The Board approved the Construction Manager at Risk to be Resolute Building Company of Chapel Hill. Since that time, a floor plan has been developed for the Social Services staff. After this, the Board will address this on the December 11th agenda with a guaranteed maximum price for Phase I. David Taylor of Corley Redfoot Zack made a PowerPoint presentation. Department of Social Services Hillsborough Commons Upfit Board of County Commission Meeting December 1, 2008 KEY DESIGN ISSUES Environmentally Friendly Facility • adaptive reuse of existing facility • maximize daylight penetration into the big box structure • specify low or no-VOC materials • promote alternative modes of transportation Operationally Efficient Planning • accommodate current needs and flexible to meet future needs • relationships between units • shared common spaces and amenities • secure vs. non-secure spaces Cost Effective Facility • multi-functional spaces • low maintenance systems He showed a slide of the floor plan and a drawing of the skylit common area. Commissioner Gordon asked why such big areas were needed for the common areas and the meeting room and David Taylor said that DSS wanted to have a space that could accommodate all DSS employees, with growth expected. In terms of the common areas, it came down to utilizing the existing structure. Pam Jones said that there was a need to have a public waiting area and a place for children. The DSS staff expressed a desire to have this space. Commissioner Gordon verified that this plan accommodates everyone plus growth. Clarifying questions on the building were asked by the County Commissioners and answered by David Taylor and Pam Jones. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is afraid that the County will regret not having green roofs in all of the new buildings. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the completion date and Pam Jones said shortly after July 1, 2009. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a really good way to use this building and he likes the skylit open area. He also congratulated Pam Jones, Jeff Thompson, and the architects on the court facility expansion. d. Second Reading: Third Party Presence in the Employee Disciplinary Process The Board was to consider a second reading of an amendment to the Orange County Personnel Ordinance Article IX, section 4d(1) which provides a third party presence at pre- disciplinary conference prior to demotion, suspension or termination of an employee and a request fro the Board to delay voting on the amendment until its first meeting in January 2009 and at that time consider a revision to the amendment voted on at its November 18th meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to table this item to December 11, 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Review of Proposed Chatham/Orange Joint Planning Task Force The Board was to consider reviewing potential processes, including proposed charge and composition, to establish one new Chatham/Orange Joint Planning Task Force with internal workgroups and, following any revisions, authorize staff to forward the task force proposal to the other jurisdictions for approval and respective appointments. DEFERRED 7. Reports a. Report on FY 2009-19 Recommended County Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Follow-Up Items The Board was to consider receiving a report on previously discussed FY 2009-19 recommended County Capital Investment Plan items. DEFERRED 8. Board Comments 9. County Manager's Report 10. Appointments ALL DEFERRED a. Affordable Housing Advisory Board — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. b. Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau. c. Commission for the Environment— New Appointments & Reassignments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Commission for the Environment. d. Hillsborough Area Rail Station Task Force Appointment The Board was to consider making an appointment to the Rail Station Task Force. e. Orange County Planning Board — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. 11. Information Items • Assistance for Low-Income Efland Sewer Customers 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to suspend this meeting to December 11, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board Orange County water supply reservoir water levels Available information as of 2:30 PM, Wednesday, November 26, 2008 Lake Orange • Water level is 9" below spilling. • Water storage capacity is at 91.5% (432.9 million gallons) • Approximately 134 days of water supply remaining (at Capacity Use specified release rate). • The Hillsborough USGS stream gage indicates that the latest Eno River flows are at approximately 4.7 cfs (3.1 mgd). This flow represents a level that is approximately on- fourth of the historical median flow level for this day of the year. The Eno River Capacity Use Restrictions are currently in place. • Orange-Alamance continues to operate its water plant five days a week (Monday- Friday) with average withdrawals of 300,000 gallons per day. West Fork Reservoir (as of 11/17/2008 [last available update)) • Water level is full • Water storage capacity remaining is 100% • Approximately 368 days of water supply remaining (assuming Town's current 30 day average water consumption rate (1.15 mgd). • The Town of Hillsborough Town Board currently has no water use restrictions on its customers in effect. OWASA Reservoirs • Water level at Cane Creek Reservoir is 3 feet 4.75" below full • Water level at University Lake is 1.5" below full • Total remaining water storage capacity is approximately 85.4 % • Approximately 389 days of water supply remain with no additional rainfall (at the current 30-day average daily demand [7.82 million gallons per day]) • OWASA's year-round water conservation requirements are in effect National Weather Service/NOAA Regional Precipitation data (through 11/25/2008) (inches above [+] or below [-] normal) RDU Piedmont-Triad +3.55" since September 1, 2008 -2.01" since September 1, 2008 +6.90" since January 1, 2008 -5.08" since January 1, 2008 Miscellaneous notes The NC Drought Management Advisory Council drought map, last updated November 25, 2008, indicates that all of Orange County lies within the area characterized as experiencing normal precipitation conditions, i.e. no drought conditions.