Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090421 APPROVED 5/19/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2009 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 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. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Commissioner Foushee added a closed session to the end of the agenda, as follows: ADD: Closed session - "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board, in the case of Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. vs. County of Orange and Colonel F. Rojas Montes de Oca, Jr., Orange County Emergency Services Director." Chair Foushee said that this would be the last official meeting for County Attorney Geof Gledhill as the County Attorney. She told him that the County Commissioners have been most appreciative for the work that he has done for the County for over 30 years and there are big shoes to be filled. She wished him well. All County Commissioners thanked Geof Gledhill for his service to the County. Geof Gledhill said that he has been planning to do more farming and less "lawyering". It has been a great ride for him over 30 years and it has been a privilege and honor to work with the present and past Commissioners. He said that he knows they will take care of him as his County Commissioners. He said that representing Orange County has been as fine an opportunity professionally that he could imagine. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Carrboro Alderperson Joal Hall Broun said that she is here to ask the County Commissioners to keep all of the libraries open, especially the McDougle Library and the Cybrary. She said that libraries are a place to increase literacy, and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen will be coming back to the County Commissioners with a letter in support of keeping this library open. Commissioner Hemminger arrived at 7:09 PM. Martha Tyson read a prepared statement. "I am a member of The Friends of the Carrboro Branch Library. We are here tonight to protest the recommendation made to you last Thursday by the County Manager that the Carrboro Branch Library, at a savings of $37,000 and the Cedar Grove Branch Library, at a savings of $17,243 be closed as a means of saving money. Do you mean to say that closing two libraries which have served over two entirely separate communities, one having done so for 14 years, for a total of less than $55,000 is a savings? How does that continue to help people enrich their lives, to educate them? As I look at you I see only three members who are informed as to our past years of work. Over the past two decades, (actually 23 years next September) we have diligently worked toward procuring a centrally located, full service library in downtown Carrboro. Our aim was to better serve those persons living in the southwestern part of the County. Sometimes a single picture can illustrate something better than a thousand words. I would hope you are already familiar with the map of Orange County's population prepared by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. The dense area in the center of the map shows Hillsborough where the main County library is located. By all rights it should be located in the County seat. The area in the southwestern part of the map including some of the densest area in the lower right hand corner are the people we can only serve 26 hours a week because of our location in a school. To get even this much service has required heroic work on the part of the people present here tonight and others who could not make it. Last Wednesday night, if you had completed filing your income taxes, you might have seen the outstanding report on libraries presented by North Carolina Now, the Public TV Station program. I have ordered a copy of that segment and anyone wishing to see it I will be glad to share it with them. In essence, it was a discussion of the important role libraries play in the lives of all people during economic hard times. It is a quiet place to which to retreat, a repository of stories which can improve and enrich our lives and our own personal stories, it costs nothing, it's free, as is the use of the computers, the surroundings are attractive, neat and orderly, the art show on display educational. Merely by asking at the library circulation desk, a library card costing nothing is issued in your name. it is the most valuable card you will ever carry in your wallet or purse. The library is indeed the heart and soul of a community. Let us be wise enough to preserve what we have accomplished and to one day have a full heart and soul for Carrboro and Cedar Grove." Nerys Levy read a prepared statement. "My name is Nerys Levy. I am a member of the 2000, 2004, and 2007 County Library Task Forces. I am also a Friend of the Carrboro Branch Library and, as a working artist, run the Library Arts Program there. I am here to protest the proposed closing of the Carrboro Branch Library and the reallocation of its staff and resources to Hillsborough. The wording of the draft copy which appears on the BOCC website listing the service impact of the proposed closure understates the value of the Carrboro Branch library to the 35,000 people living within its catchment area. Only open 26 hours a week does not take into account all the families and public patrons who use that facility on a nightly and weekend basis to take care of their lives. For example, during a 14-day period over the Christmas break, the facility witnessed 2,000 checkouts. Over the recent eight day school vacation, there were close to 1,000 checkouts while during the month of March — a regular month —there were close to 5,000 checkouts at the facility. If this is an underused facility and a community deserving the loss of its branch library of 16 computers and 22,000 books, please tell me why there is a proposed southwest Orange regional branch included in the CIP with a price tag of 3 million dollars which would, in essence, replace the Carrboro Branch Library and Cybrary. In closing, I would like to know what is the County Manager's rationale for closing the Carrboro Branch Library with its huge population base and moving all the resources to the center of the County where there are fewer people. If we are doing it simply to meet State Library requirements, that is not a good enough answer for denying southwest Orange citizens an ongoing and comprehensive library service which they are paying for heavily with their taxes. Thank you." Dale Morgan said that she is a working artist in Chapel Hill and she has shown at the Carrboro Library at least once a year for art shows for the last four years. She hopes that the library will stay there for the citizens. 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 - NONE 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. b. Appointments (1) Arts Commission — Reappointments The Board reappointed Robert Kintz, Lauri Alexander, Wendy Gellert, Leah Rade, Shannon Jackson, Rachel Lillis, Geoffrey Hathaway, and Charles Hochman to terms expiring March 31, 2012 to the Arts Commission. (2) Transportation Services Board — Reappointments The Board reappointed Amelia Strope, Karen Lincoln, Jerry Passmore, Nancy Coston, Ardra Webster, and Donna Musson to terms expiring March 31, 2011 to the Transportation Services Board. c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 67 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. d. Property Tax Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to three requests for property tax refunds in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. e. Property Tax Releases The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to thirteen requests for property tax release in accordance the N.C. General Statute 105- 381. f. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved nine untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2008 tax year. Fair Housing Month The Board approved a proclamation, which is incorporated by reference, recognizing Fair Housing Month and authorized the Chair to sign. h. Drug Court Month The Board approved a proclamation, which is incorporated by reference, declaring May 2009 as "Drug Court Month" and authorized the Chair to sign. i. 2009 Audit Contract The Board approved the contract with McGladrey and Pullen to perform the annual County audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 and authorized the Chair to sign. L Contract for Preparation of the Schedule of State and Federal Financial Assistance The Board awarded the contract with Cherry Bekeart & Holland for preparation of the Schedule of State and Federal Financial Assistance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 and authorized the Manager to sign. k. Agreement Between Orange County and Figure 8 Films The Board approved an agreement between Orange County and Figure 8 Films for the production of a program entitled "Pick of the Litter," that would involve puppies placed from Orange County Animal Services and authorized the Chair to sign subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. I. Amendment to Approved Conservation Easement for the Future Northeast District Park (former Kirby property) The Board approved the proposed amendment to the conservation easement that was approved previously by the Board for the future Northeast District Park (former Kirby property), subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. m. Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Amendment # 7 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for FY 2008-09 for Emergency Services Department, Housing and Community Development, Parks and Recreation, Department on Aging, Social Services, Juvenile Crime Prevention Council, Visitors Bureau, and Health Department. n. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") Red Flags Rules The Board adopted an Identity Theft Prevention Program Policy to comply with the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") Red Flags Rules. o. Smartcard and Camera Security System for Office Building and Library The Board authorized the purchase of Smartcard and camera security systems for the new office building and Library from ProNet Systems, Inc., Raleigh, NC in the amount of $73,896.81 and authorized the Director of Purchasing to execute the paperwork. Bid Award: Re-plastering Pools and Replacement Drains at Triangle Sportsplex The Board awarded a bid to Paddock Construction Co., Inc. of Rock Hill, South Carolina in the amount of $108,151 to re-plaster and install new drains in the pools at the Triangle Sportsplex and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the paperwork. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — May 18, 2009 The Board approved the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for May 18, 2009. r. Contract Amendment: Construction Manager at Risk Services, Hillsborough Commons Upfit for Social Services This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. s. Unobligated 2006-2012 Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds The Board released Orange County's $33,558 unused portion of 2006 —2012 CMAQ funds from the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization for use by Chatham County. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: r. Contract Amendment: Construction Manager at Risk Services, Hillsborough Commons Upfit for Social Services The Board considered approving a contract amendment in the amount of $2,781,457 with Resolute Building Company, the Construction Manager at Risk for the upfit of space leased at Hillsborough Commons as offices for the Department of Social Services and authorizing the Chair to sign subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney. Commissioner Gordon said that the DSS needs to relocated. Her question has to do with the cost, which has increased. She said that the overall cost, as proposed in the CIP, has increased to $3.79 million. She looked back at the original cost as approved by the commissioners in Option A and that was $2.6 million and now this cost has gone up again to over $2.78 million. She is concerned about the increase in construction costs. Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that it has increased and all along with the construction the staff has talked about day lighting and potential HVAC needs. These things are contained in this amount. This is $81,000 more than what was in the budget before, but it incorporates the windows to the east and the façade. Commissioner Gordon said that she would argue that the County cannot afford these types of increases and she cannot go for the additional $81,000. Pam Jones said that this will not exceed the amount allocated in the CIP. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Foushee to approve a contract amendment in the amount of $2,781,457 with Resolute Building Company, the Construction Manager at Risk for the upfit of space leased at Hillsborough Commons as offices for the Department of Social Services and authorize the Chair to sign subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon - because of the cost) Commissioner Nelson had not arrived yet. 5. Public Hearings a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Clarify Procedures and Notification Requirements for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The Board received the Planning Board recommendation and considered approval of proposed amendments to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the language and clearly articulate the procedures for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Special Projects Planner Shannon Berry introduced this item. It was presented to the Board at the Quarterly Public Hearing in February. Zoning Ordinance Amendments —Article 2 Clarification of procedures and notification requirements for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Presented at the Quarterly Public Hearing February 23, 2009 Comprehensive Plan —Text Amendments —Land Use Plan (Map) Amendments Zoning Ordinance —Text Amendments —Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments Proposed Amendments to Article 2 — Basis for Staff's Recommendations *Clarity vs. Confusion —Currently, processes for Comprehensive Plan amendments are not specific and therefore open for interpretation —If in compliance with BOCC approved small area plans, then simultaneously processing the Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) and Zoning Ordinance amendment(s) will be less confusing for property owners —NOTE: This will not require concurrent amendments but will allow for this option •Time —Development and adoption of small area plans already a lengthy process —Separately processing the Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments necessary for the implementation of an adopted plan can potentially add years to the realization of the adopted small area plan •Budget Impacts —Large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments can cost thousands of dollars in advertising and mail-out costs —The advertising and mail-outs for the subsequent Zoning Ordinance amendments will, at a minimum, double those costs —Processing the Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments at the same public hearing will save on advertising and mail-out costs Key Points •Procedures and requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments clearly articulated in Article 2 — references to Article 20 removed •County and Non-County initiated amendments treated identically •A rezoning for the same property may be considered at the same public hearing only if consistent with an adopted Small Area Plan Recommendation •Receive the Planning Board recommendation for approval (Vote: 8 - 1) *Close the public hearing •Approve the proposed amendments to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the language and clearly articulate the procedures for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about notifications for property owners, which were answered by staff. Commissioner Gordon said that the three-meeting notice could be addressed by changing the language and giving the County Commissioners the chance to change the procedure. She made reference to 2.2.14.6 regarding the date of a recommendation and the second paragraph, and suggested the following change: "If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, unless the Board of County Commissioners grants an extension to a new date certain." Her opinion is to do the Comprehensive Plan and then do rezoning separately. She said that you have to be careful when rezoning is being done the same time as a Comprehensive Plan so that people are not taken unawares. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with the option of additional time as suggested by Commissioner Gordon, and the other commissioners agreed. Commissioner Jacobs thinks that the compromise of bringing forward the small area plans in a different way than zoning with major Comprehensive Plan amendments is okay. He asked if there was some place in the article where "affected property owner" is defined. Shannon Berry said that it is defined, but it could be clarified. Geof Gledhill said that affected means property that is going to be changed by the Comprehensive Plan with the land use map change. That language can be added without bringing it back. He suggested the following language, "the property affected, the property that is subject to the land use plan map amendment." Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 9, the last paragraph and asked if it was the applicant's, the Board of County Commissioners', or the staff's choice about whether the amendment can be considered in conjunction with the zoning. Shannon Berry said that it would be the applicant's choice whether to apply simultaneously. Laura Blackmon said that the County Commissioners could act on one and not the other. Geof Gledhill proposed some different language from above: "affected means the site proposed for the land use change." Discussion ensued about the difference between a withdrawal of an application and a denial. Commissioner Yuhasz said that there should be a difference if an applicant responds to what is heard at a public hearing and wants to revise. He thinks that this should be rewarded and not punished. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the notifications and Shannon Berry said, for Comprehensive Plan amendments, only those affected property owners will be notified. Commissioner Gordon feels uncomfortable about this and thinks that adjacent property owners within 500 feet should also be notified. Shannon Berry said that the property will be posted and there will be signs, but the adjacent owners will not receive a mailing. PUBLIC COMMENT: Reverend Robert Campbell said that he has asked to be notified of issues that affect the entire community. He thinks that everyone should be notified if something affects the whole community. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:59 pm. Susan Walser said that she lives in the County on 20 acres and the people that border her have a lot of acreage. If there was something going on with her property, only one or two people would be notified, and she does not think that this is sufficient. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to clarify the language in the case of amendments to the land use plan map, that written notice of the application will be sent by first class mail to all property owners as listed in the Orange County tax records whose property is affected, which means that the site is proposed for the land use change; and also sent to those who are within 500 feet of the affected property. Commissioner Jacobs said that the public asked the County Commissioners to extend the notification beyond 500 feet. He asked for direction from staff on this. Laura Blackmon said that for large tracts of land the notifications could be for contiguous properties. Craig Benedict said that there is a challenge explaining to people greater than 500 feet that really were not being affected by anything. If the notification is 1,000 feet for Comprehensive Plan amendments and 500 feet for zoning, the letter of clarity will be a challenge. He suggested keeping it 500 feet so that the letter will be simpler. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said that at the last work session the Board talked about communicating better with the public. When this came up at the Quarterly Public Hearing on February 23rd, this came up about trying to limit Planning-ese when running advertisements. He said that this is some of the most forbidding language that could be put in a newspaper. He said that the American Planning Association must have a listsery and there might be more creative ways to draw people's attention to advertisements. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Foushee to close the public hearing and approve the proposed amendments, with the changes by the Commissioners, to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the language and clearly articulate the procedures for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, and Atlas Amendments to Create a New Zoning Ordinance Overlay District and Incorporate Flood Protection Standards The Board considered recommendations from the Planning Board on proposed amendments to Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this public hearing was left open until tonight for any additional information and comments. It has been asked of the County to incorporate the flood ordinance into the zoning code and subdivision ordinance where it applies. FEMA has recommended that the County make changes within the original ordinance and put it in the place in order to stay eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. This would create a new zoning overlay district, which would map the flood plains and put it on the zoning maps. He made a PowerPoint presentation. Board of County Commissioners April 21, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: 5B PUBLIC HEARING Flood Protection Standards as • Text Changes to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance, and • Atlas Amendments to create a new Zoning Ordinance Overlay District. Orange County Planning Staff Presently: Freestanding Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Proposed: Incorporate Flood Damage Prevention standards into Zoning Ordinance & Subdivision Regulations at Suggested by: State Attorney General's Office and the County Attorney Further, FEMA and North Carolina Emergency Management has recommended several text and map amendments to address various necessary changes in order for the County to continue to remain eligible for participation within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Proposal Includes: 1. FDPO text into Zoning Ord. 2. Creating a new zoning overlay district reflecting the adopted February 2, 2007 FIRM, 3. Reaffirming all FIRM amendments (LOMA, LOMR, & SOMA) since 2007, 4. FDPO text into Subdivision Regulations Typical Existing Flood Plain Data Planning Board Recommendation At their March 4, 2009 meeting, the Board voted eight (8) to two (2) to recommend approval of staff's proposal regarding: •Incorporating the amended FDPO text into the Zoning Ordinance text; •Creating a new Zoning Overlay District— Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA); •Affirming the various amendments to the FIRM Map; and •Correcting definitions and references in the text of the Subdivision Regulations to reflect FDPO terminology. Administration Recommendation: •Receive the Planning Board recommendation, Close the public hearing, and •Adopt the resolution (Attachment One (1)) that amends the FDPO, Zoning Ordinance text, Zoning Atlas, and Subdivision Regulations as detailed within the abstract Commissioner Gordon asked why the two members of the Planning Board voted against this and Planner Glen Bowles said that one voted against it because she was concerned that the County's regulations exceeded FEMA's, and she was also concerned about an enforcement case she was involved in. The other negative vote was against that vote. Commissioner Jacobs said that on page 75, some of the concerns were addressed in the memo about how to deal with maintenance to private roads and farm lanes. In looking at the Planning Board minutes, he said that it would be nice, if there is a minority vote, to see the names of the people who voted in the minority. Commissioner Jacobs said that the reason he pulled the February 23rd minutes from the consent agenda was because he did not understand the first paragraph about his comment. He asked for clarification on this. Craig Benedict said that the question was whether people within 500 feet of the affected property would be affected by this and he answered that they would not, but the zoning code requires that the property owners be notified. Commissioner Yuhasz said that at the last Quarterly Public Hearing, he expressed concerns about adopting these changes into the zoning ordinance, particularly with respect to zoning on bona fide farms. He said that the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was designed to do something different than the zoning ordinance and it is not wise to include these requirements within the zoning ordinance. He thinks that there are likely to be unintended consequences to people as the zoning regulations are enforced through and in these flood plains. He will vote against this for those reasons. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was considerable discussion by the Planning Board about the way in which this was or was not to be applied to bona fide farming. He asked Geof Gledhill for his opinion about how the County should regard bona fide farms and regulating flooding on land that is used in bona fide farming operation through the zoning ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is a zoning ordinance because it meets the definition of a zoning ordinance. This is the main reason that the Administration recommendation is to put this into the zoning ordinance. He thinks that Orange County has two zoning ordinances right now. The bona fide farm exemption, in his opinion, is not likely to be significant, even if there is a challenge to the application of the flood damage prevention regulations to bona fide farming operations. He said that the fact that the North Carolina Land Use Regulation Authority exempts bona fide farms and these federally-sponsored and federally-funded flood damage prevention regulations do not recognize that is, in his judgment, an issue that could be addressed by the General Assembly. NO PUBLIC COMMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution (attachment one) that amends the FDPO, Zoning Ordinance text, Zoning Atlas, and Subdivision Regulations by: a. Incorporating the amended FDPO text into the Zoning Ordinance text; b. Creating a new Zoning Overlay District— Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) for inclusion on the Zoning Atlas; c. Affirming the various amendments to the FIRM (future SFHA Overlay District) that FEMA approved on February 2, 2007; d. Correcting definitions and references in the Subdivision Regulations to reflect FDPO terminology; and e. Repealing the FDPO VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz) 4-a. Minutes The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from the Quarterly Public Hearing on February 23, 2009 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to change line 4 on page 5. The paragraph should read, "Commissioner Jacobs said that the notices were very difficult to understand. He asked for clarification on whether it would change anything about the additional notified properties beyond the affected property. Craig Benedict said no." VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Transfer Station Site Search Follow-up Report The Board received follow up information on the solid waste transfer station site search and associated parallel track process as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on January 22, 2009 and provided feedback and directions for the next steps. Laura Blackmon said that at the January 22nd meeting staff was directed by the Board of Commissioners to look at the two sites selected and to investigate a parallel track with possible alternative approaches including partnerships with private corporations or with adjoining counties, and to utilize the Solid Waste Advisory Board as a forum for public input. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson summarized the information. Site 056 was appraised for one-third of the asking price for the property. The survey indicated that it was 142.71 acres. There were environmental surveys on this site and there has been a lot of public comment. The information has been submitted to the required agencies to make determinations. Regarding the OWASA site, 759, no right of entry was received and the County was unable to conduct assessments, surveys, or appraisals. Regarding the parallel track, alternative approaches, partnerships, and methodologies for solid waste disposal (Attachment B), Olver, Inc., has conducted a cost analysis of hauling directly to regional transfer stations. There was a forum for public comment on this issue. The analyses showed that it is more costly to direct haul for collection vehicles to a regional transfer station. It is also more costly to utilize regional transfer stations than the NC 54 transfer station. Attachment C was technological alternatives to land filling. The SWAB conducted three public forums regarding alternative technology and Olver, Inc. performed additional research. The conclusion is that only mass burn waste to energy technology is the proven technology. There would have to be some partnering or regionalization. A waste to energy site would be at least as difficult to site as a transfer station. If it is in Orange County, waste would likely have to be shipped in from the outside to meet the quantities necessary. He said that most environmental groups are opposed to waste to energy incineration and there are no known partners of interest in such an endeavor. Another parallel track issue was the engagement of surrounding potential jurisdictional partners. He has contacted his counterparts in Wake, Lee, Chatham, Alamance, and Johnston Counties, and the City of Durham. None of the partners are in need or are interested in the alternate technologies. Also requested at the January 22nd meeting was a report on contingency transfer alternatives (Attachment E). It appears that Orange County has a year more of additional capacity than previously thought. Staff is going to resurvey to verify these results. Contingency Planning: There are three approaches to how Orange County will handle the locally collected waste should the landfill reach capacity prior to the availability of a new transfer station: - Reduce the quantity of incoming waste to the landfill by eliminating non-Interlocal government partner customers - Once capacity is reached, divert all government and private customer waste to out-of- county regional transfer stations - Develop a temporary waste transfer/diversion operation at the landfill (non-landfill temporary waste transfer/diversion locations would be much more difficult, costly and time-consuming to permit) Gayle Wilson said that staff would like direction from the Board on the transfer station site process, parallel track issues, or contingency plan issues. The Board is being asked to consider awaiting receipt of the final information from the State Clearinghouse regarding the environmental assessment; consider authorizing the County Attorney to execute a letter of agreement with Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice to assist in litigation of this process; and to direct County Management to bring back to the BOCC the ruling from the Planning Department pending receipt and review of the State Clearinghouse Report on the Environmental Assessment of candidate site 056. Gayle Wilson introduced members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board to make some comments. SWAB Comments: Chair of the SWAB, Jan Sassaman, said that the SWAB has looked at these issues for 2-3 years and he would like to bring to the Board some of the issues the SWAB has discussed: • There is an avoidable predicament looming and time is of the essence, but the landfill has a finite lifespan. Though the County may have contingency plans, it needs a long-term solution for handling the solid waste. Planning, permitting, and construction all take time and there must be a well-planned and well-executed public transfer station for Orange County. • Waste to Energy and other disposal options are not suitable for Orange County as short short or mid-term solutions for waste disposal. The SWAB has examined alternative waste to energy technologies twice over the past two years. There is no change in the conclusions from the September 24, 2008 memo to the Board of County Commissioners. This was supposed to be included in the agenda packet. Waste to energy is appealing as a long-term solution, but it is not an immediate solution. • No matter what is done, the County will need a waste transfer station. It is unlikely that a landfill, waste to energy plan, or other disposal facility would be cited within a reasonably close proximity to the Orange County population centers that generate garbage. Building a transfer station sooner rather than later will save money in the long run and is also environmentally responsible within the restraints of the Countywide waste disposal needs and options. • Waste transfer stations are not the same as landfills and incinerators. The negative appeal is that it would handle garbage and it would involve trucks. • SWAB has, on several occasions, identified characteristics of an ideal site for a waste transfer station. And ideal waste transfer station site, in addition to being located in an environmentally and socially defensible area, would be located as close as possible to the waste generation centrum, would be located as close as possible to its infrastructure supports (i.e., utilities and transportation corridors), and have sufficient size to provide buffering as well as offering space for other solid waste activities as needed. • The County needs to get on with the process of obtaining a site and developing the necessary facilities. Jan Sassaman said that the SWAB is in agreement that the NC 54 sites may not be the best possible locations for a waste transfer station in terms of the operational and technical criteria, but these two sites are what remain at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Laura Streitfield said that she was here from Preserve Rural Orange. She said that Preserve Rural Orange opposes a transfer station in Bingham Township, which would irrevocably transfer the rural and agricultural community into an industrial zone. They are requesting that complete and accurate information be provided to the public and elected officials prior to any decision to select a final site or acquire property for a transfer station. She said that significant questions remain about the NC 54 site. Costs to taxpayers, counties, and towns have not yet been fully disclosed to the public and environmental impacts remain to be specified. Also, driving routes and disposal locations are not yet known. She said that environmental regulations were put in place to protect citizens and land from irreparable damage. She urged the County Commissioners and the consultants to consider these regulations as they were intended and not as steps toward permitting or mitigation. Preserve Rural Orange feels that this site should be ruled out for consideration. She spoke about the past proposals of airports in this area and the environmental studies that were done for sewers, etc. She said that there may be a conflict of interest in having a consultant who stands to benefit from the design of a transfer station analyze the alternatives and costs of other waste disposal solutions. The final concern is the criteria and how they are applied to this site. She asked that the County Commissioners get all of the information before deciding. She said that a site like this did not belong in rural Orange County. Ray Kirby said that there are going to be trucks on this road. He said that from 8:30- 12:30 daily, there are approximately 750-800 cars and trucks going down NC 54 per hour. From 12:30-3:30, there are approximately 650-700 cars. From 3:30-5:00, there are about 700-750 cars per hour. Adding trucks on this road will be dangerous and chaotic. Rick Eckberg read a prepared statement. He was from Orange County Voice. "Thank you for the opportunity to provide public input for the board. We believe that building a Waste Transfer Station on the Howell property on Rt. 54 in rural Bingham Township is a mistake. The Howell site is far from the waste generation centroid and from the County's existing solid waste facilities; the site lacks public water and sewer; this property does not `perk' well and will not allow easy septic installation; finally, the Howell site is neither located on a major highway nor convenient to rail service. In short, the Howell site does not meet established EPA standards for solid waste transfer structure and will be very expensive to develop. We also believe that placing such a facility in the rural community is at odds with zoning and long-range comprehensive County planning, and that the Howell site poses significant environmental and safety problems that will delay and add unnecessary cost to the project. We realize that the BOCC has been buried under numerous reports and recommendations from Olver, Inc., our staff, the SWAB, and other interested parties for more than a year, and that it has been difficult to sift through so much data and assumptions, some of them contradictory, and to arrive at a good decision about future cost effective solid waste disposal in Orange County. We have been perusing these same reports and generating our own information pertinent to the topic, and want to assist the Board in asking good questions and seeking correct information based on solid facts. Expediency should not dictate a decision of this magnitude, rather, hard financial, technical, and environmental data must be weighed so that Orange County selects a sustainable, fiscally responsible, and proper course of action that properly serves present and future needs of all its citizens." Susan Walser was also with Orange County Voice and read a prepared statement. "Environmental and Safety Risks There are environmental and safety risks —which will add to the costs for the Howell site. Your package contains reports from Olver, their contractor Hal Owen and Associates, and the state clearinghouse that concurs with our view. Here are some important points that are embedded in the volumes of reports in your packages. As you listen, please recall that the exclusionary criteria states any parcel of 25 acres or more must not be encumbered by wetlands, floodplains, and endangered flora and fauna. It appears that this site should have been excluded from the start. -There are risks to endangered and protected aquatic species o Even though County's EA indicated that there are no endangered species within 10 miles of the site, Olver's new report, supported by NC DENR and Mr. Owen's report, confirms that the Haw River Nationally Significant Aquatic habitat—which contains endangered species — is 2 miles downstream from the site. o The tributaries on the site and the area of Collins Creek between the Howell site and the Nationally Significant habitat has never been surveyed. o Mr. Owen's team surveyed the site and found evidence of a state threatened species. Their work did not include downstream impacts. o NC DENR states that all of these species are vulnerable to runoff from construction and ongoing operations, and that problems may have already been caused by the driveway that's now being built— purportedly for two private homes. It's stated in Olver's report: more expensive work now must be done to perform natural natural resource surveys at the site and downstream prior to proceeding with development. You might ask how will it impact the project time and cost? Not the minimum costs, but the likely costs." Michael Hughes read a prepared statement. He was also from Orange County Voice. -"There are large wetlands areas on the site. We were the first to report this to you and bring it to the Staff's attention. These wetlands were not mentioned in the County's Environmental Assessment but have now been delineated by Hal Owen and Associates. They are also now shown on page 123 (attached) in Olver's most recent report dated April 16. o The proposed site plan on page 123 of the report is a schematic and is not drawn to scale. As stated in the Owen report, `our findings (were presented) on a hand drawn map representing the approximate location and extent of each wetland observed.' It is apparent that the impact and footprint of the road and the facility is not realistic. Do not let this diagram give you the confidence that this project is feasible. Much more work will be needed. the site plan on this page, with all of its challenges, requires 37 acres. o The consultant has not done enough planning and engineering to know how much land might be required, the extent of the wetlands impacts, and the costs of mitigation. o Olver estimates in their report that they believe that it will be at least one month before ACOE can get to the site to evaluate the jurisdictional wetlands. My experience is that it will take approximately 8-12 months after that, under the best of conditions, to obtain the permits to mitigate the wetlands. o The wetlands may have been already compromised by the road (driveway) that's been constructed without a permit from NCDOT. If so, the remediation expense and mitigation is currently Mr. Howell's responsibility. Does the County want to assume that liability? o In order to determine how much acreage is required for the WTS, a topographic survey needs to be performed by a licensed Professional Land Surveyor, and a sensible site plan needs to be prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer. Of course you can avoid all of this time and expense if you stop work on Howell and seek another site. -There is still an outstanding safety issue with the proposed road that connects the site to 54 o The limited sight distance may create unsafe conditions for trucks entering and leaving the facility—this safety issue may be insurmountable. o This of course means that the County may have to buy even more land and spend more for development. o As we've told you, the road improvements for turn lanes are underestimated - you might ask where they came from. So when you hear the County's report, you may want to ask where these important items have been taken into consideration in preparing the cost estimates and project timeline for the WTS. -The topographic survey of the site and the delineated wetlands by a registered Professional Land Surveyor. -The preparation of a real site plan. -IPA application to the USACOE and NCDENR for wetlands mitigation. -Submittal of a driveway permit application to NCDOT to determine whether a driveway for municipal trucks will be permitted at the Howell site, and the extent of the improvements to NC 54 that will be required. -Surveys for significant species on the site and directly downstream You might also ask—when all is said and done — is it possible that we cannot develop the site at all without incurring significant additional unplanned expenses and delays? If you ask the right questions now, we can avoid inevitable delays and overruns. If you ask the right questions now, you may decide that a WTS in Bingham Township is not in the interest of any citizen of Orange County." Tony Blake read a prepared statement and was also from Orange County Voice. "As a citizen, it is important to get accurate information to the community and board. It's concerning to me that the County and its consultant took it upon themselves to make significant changes to the scope and function of this important resource without highlighting this change, its reasons and impacts. Olver's estimate to build the WTS in Bingham is now $4.77 million — including land and building. It's a lot lower than the $7-10 million estimate from last December and took some effort to uncover and understand the differences. SWAB members asked important questions which you may want to ask tonight: One SWAB member asked: what impact did shrinking the facility have? Olver explained on April 2nd: -The facility was reduced from two bays to one which some say eliminates the space needed to recover recycling from household trash -The educational facility has been eliminated -We have heard opinions that the one bay facility serves the County's needs just fine Q: Which is true? Why would we invest in a 20-year facility that doesn't support the County and its municipal customer objectives? Q: Don't these factors impact the selection criteria as well? If a smaller facility works, wouldn't a smaller parcel— say 5 acres— work too? If the reduced facility serves the need, then this is a good example of fiscal responsibility and we should consider it— if we move the facility closer to town, to a site with water and sewer, which would further lower costs to build the facility. Plus it would save the municipalities at least $5 million for hauling over the next 20 years. Land purchase estimates are confusing too. Olver now estimates $375,000 for land. Even if they used reassessed market value instead of the $3 million "willing seller" price, the County will pay at a minimum $935,000 —there is no arguable basis to assume less unless you are throwing out the "willing seller" criteria that was the deciding factor for selecting the site in the first place. Q: What number is the accurate estimate for land? After you hear their report, please ask the County to estimate the facility that Orange County really needs — one that supports our recycling and educational goals. Also ask that estimates include the real cost to the County for the land — including environmental mitigation and traffic improvements. We also suggest that you ask for a new estimate —for one year or twenty. Q: How much would the County and the towns save if we moved the facility that meets EPA guidelines close to town? Think about the cost of trash trucks running around the County empty half the time and how that money could be better spent— don't' forget the large hauling trucks that driving down 54 during rush hour and sharing the road with the school buses and farm equipment. Think about this in the context of responsible growth and land use." Marty Hanson read a prepared statement and was also from Orange County Voice. "Land Use Planning: Greensboro is the example of a WTS `well done'! Not because of the building which is quite impressive. It's because it's well-sited — in an industrial area — on a highway, near power, water and sewer and near rail. -Strategic land use planning at its best -It's in a 5-mile industrial area — surrounded by a large storage tank farm and manufacturing and storage facilities. 1-85 is on one side. The rail on the other. -It didn't come that way. To make it work, Greensboro had to work with local residents and even worked out a relocation arrangement with its residents. -At this point, if Greensboro wanted to upgrade to WTE, the site is ready to go — it would be simple and they'd save years and millions — probably 10's of millions of dollars. This could be a great time to step back, meet with the towns, and use this project as the foundation for shared effort for serious land use planning for industrial and municipal services. The comprehensive plan is a great start. Adding `government use' to our zoning ordinance is not. This planning is prerequisite to proper siting of a WTS and other services which —when well done —will benefit every citizen." Bonnie Hauser read a prepared statement and was also with Orange County Voice. "We are pleased to see that Olver's analysis and conclusions are getting very close to ours. In their economic analysis, there are still errors in their assumptions which we'd be happy to discuss with them. Once the corrections were made, we'd be extremely close. Most of all, we are pleased to have the support of SWAB, the SW professionals and citizens throughout the County when we say: -A WTS near town is the best option — not on Eubanks Road — but a site with access to water, sewer, highway and power, and within reasonable proximity to our existing Solid Waste operations -A WTS in Bingham Township doesn't work. It's a waste of money and commits the County and the Towns to unnecessary, recurring costs for hauling and disposal. This is in addition to the environment and safety risks that we've discussed. -Even Olver now admits that vendors are a viable interim alternative — if it's needed -Separately, the time is now to form regional partnerships to explore long-term alternatives to land filling. We'd even suggest adding the this topic to the County's legislative agenda to encourage North Carolina to seek federal funding and incentives for new, renewable resources such as waste to energy. So to recap, as you listen to the County and Olver's reports, please consider these important questions: -What is the right size and features for our facility and if it's different than what was agreed with the community, what impact does that have on site selection process that may no longer be relevant. -What are the risks to wetlands and habitats, and safety? What is the likely impact on project schedules and costs to understand them and mitigate them? Is it worth the effort? -What is the cost and service impact of having the facility so far from the other solid waste operations? -How much will the County and the towns save if we move the facility close to town? We hope that after you hear the reports, ask questions, and deliberate, you will realize that a WTS in Bingham simply doesn't work. Rather than continue to waste more time and taxpayer money, please consider a motion to stop work on any sites in Bingham and start a search for a suitable site that is close to town. Please ask the tough questions tonight and place Orange County back on the path to responsible waste management. Thank you." Robert Campbell was from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism. He said that the residents of the Rogers-Eubanks community do not want a transfer station within the community. He said that the SWAB has recommended, via a resolution, a temporary transfer station on Rogers Road. He said that in his mind there is no such thing as a temporary transfer station. He said that the landfill was supposed to be temporary, but became permanent for 37 years. He said that if the County Commissioners will look at the impact of this in their community, they would not site a temporary site here. He said that today is about justice and the quality of life. Myra Dodson lives in Bingham Township and asked how much money has been paid to Olver to date. She asked about the fee for the project management contract. She said that there must be true transparency. Nancie McDermott said that she is here as a member of the Coalition to End Environmental Racism. She is also a member of the NAACP. She said that she has worked under Rev. Campbell and others from the Eubanks community. She said that she has watched a lot and has followed the official processes over the past 1-2 years. She said that all of the other entities have said no to this (Hillsborough and NC 54). Rogers-Eubanks have said no loudly, continually, and persistently for 37 years to a landfill. In all of that time, none of the Boards of County Commissioners ever listened to the "no's." Now, suddenly she hears that because the three groups that were sited at the top have said no, a contingency solution is to build a temporary waste transfer station in the Rogers Road community. This is shocking, outrageous, and unacceptable. She does not understand how the County can accept "no" from three groups that are new to the issue and Rogers-Eubanks Road can be ignored and trampled. She said that the notion of a transfer station in Rogers Road is wrong, absurd, unjust, etc. She asked the County Commissioners to vote to take Rogers Road off the table for good. Michelle Laws said that she is here on behalf of her grandmother who lives on Rogers Road. She wants to lend a human face to this issue and have Rogers Road removed from the list of consideration. She said that enough is enough. She said that her grandmother was just diagnosed with cancer and then had a stroke. When her family was trying to extend another bathroom so that she could easily get to it during her treatment, they found that the septic system had broken down and sewage was seeping in her front yard. She said that the humanity side has to be added to this discussion. It is not just about the numbers. Albert Vickers is a member of the SWAB and he is here as a taxpayer. He said that the County definitely needs a transfer station, but it makes no sense to building a transfer station that increases the carbon footprint. He said that the location on NC 54 is geographically wrong and it will cost the taxpayers more money. Commissioner Nelson asked Gayle Wilson about a letter from Jim Conner about a vernal pool and the impact of this. Gayle Wilson said that he hired a professional wetlands specialist to look at that area, and where the footprint of the facility is, there has not been anything identified like a vernal pool. Commissioner Nelson asked about a temporary transfer station on Eubanks Road and what that means and what it would look like. Gayle Wilson said that the concept that he is laying before the County Commissioners is not a structure or facility but about 5-6 months before landfill capacity they would build an earthen ramp and would contract with a company, which would load trucks, tarp them, and haul them to a distant landfill. It is simply a waste diversion operation. Commissioner Nelson said that there were comments about species of interest near the proposed site and he asked what will happen if these are found on the site. Gayle Wilson said that they are trying to determine ahead of time the presence of flora or fauna and if it is there, and the facility cannot be put there, then they would not place it there. Commissioner Nelson said that this issue has divided the community and dragging this out any longer is not fair to the Rogers Road community or to anyone else. Commissioner Hemminger disagreed with Commissioner Nelson and said that there are three new County Commissioners and they were forced into a decision about this in December. She said that a work session with the other municipalities is needed to discuss this issue. She said that they have received so much information tonight and she does not think they have fully researched this. She knows that a transfer station is needed. She does not feel comfortable with these recommendations. She said that this is the first night that she has heard directly from the SWAB. She needs more information. Commissioner Jacobs asked how the transfer station got to one bay instead of two and Gayle Wilson said that the original transfer station concept plan had two bays. When they started the site search process, the consultants utilized the original footprint, but when the consultants started the financial analysis parallel with the County budget, he advised them to reduce the size of the facility to the minimum facility that would last 20 years. The staff had never broached with the County Commissioners or the community any other operation other than transfer of waste. Consistent with that, and to focus on the financial analysis, he instructed the consultant to move to a single bay and a less extravagant facility. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the site selection was based on having a two-bay or one- bay facility and Gayle Wilson said that he does not remember these being in the criteria, but it was a conceptual diagram. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought that one of the arguments against the Durham waste transfer station was that they would not do recycling and separation the way that Orange County does. Gayle Wilson said that the difference is that, with the Durham transfer station, that it would not enforce Orange County regulations and ordinances at the facility. facility. Orange County would still do recycling the way it is now, even if there is no recycling at the transfer station. Commissioner Pelissier asked about Collins Creek and the two tributaries. She said that she does not have a clear picture about the final conclusions. She said that she feels the County Commissioners do not need to decide tonight on how to proceed because she has too many questions. She would like a total summary of the issues in all of the documents. Gayle Wilson said that he would try and provide the County Commissioners a summary. Commissioner Pelissier made reference to cost information and the potential conflict of interest. She asked for some clarity on some of the cost information. She echoed Commissioner Hemminger's suggestion of a work session. She would like to include the towns in this discussion. She said that the County may need to reconsider how it deals with solid waste. She believes that the Towns want to help the County solve this problem. Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff, the SWAB, and Orange County Voice who have tried to analyze this information. Commissioner Jacobs asked how much the White Cross Fire Department has been involved in some of the planning of the facility. Gayle Wilson said that he is not aware that it has been involved. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an oversight and the County will have to help subsidize the coverage. It was answered that the fire department charged with covering this area is Orange Grove, but no one has been in touch with this fire department either. He said that he was also confused about the driveway that Mr. Howell was putting in and that DOT had denied the permit. He has heard that the driveway is still going in. He does not understand why a questionable entry point would be used. Gayle Wilson said that the County has nothing to do with what Mr. Howell does. It is roughly near where the concept plan shows the driveway coming in, but there was no consultation. Commissioner Jacobs said that having driveways next to each other would be complicated and he suggested talking with Mr. Howell about this road. Gayle Wilson said that he does not think DOT would allow two parallel driveways. Commissioner Jacobs said that there should be an environmental impact statement. He would be interested in seeing in writing the additional steps of an environmental impact statement beyond what is being contemplated as the environmental assessment. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has empathy for the three new County Commissioners who had to vote the first night they sat on this Board. He is willing to have a conversation in a work session about this. The flip side is that the Towns are not interested in working with the County and they rely on the SWAB to protect their economic interests. The County Commissioners have tried for years to engage the Towns on this issue, with nothing in return. He said that his responsibility is to the citizens of Orange County and not to the municipalities. He wants to talk about what is best for Orange County. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the alternatives that have been suggested are not going to work and they are going to have to build a transfer station in Orange County. The Howell site may have problems, but it is the prime candidate site. He said that the investigative process on this site must be completed. He thinks that the parallel track has reached its end. Commissioner Gordon said that there are environmental concerns and other concerns. She wants to find out about the environmental implications on this candidate site. She does not agree with placing a temporary transfer station in the Rogers Road community. She believes that the County has the responsibility to take care of the solid waste. Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comments related to fire safety and an environmental impact statement. She also agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz about ending the parallel track. She said that she will oppose a temporary transfer station in the Rogers Road Rogers Road community. She is not opposed with having a work session, but she agrees with Commissioner Jacobs that the Towns have been invited to participate and they have not done so. Commissioner Pellisier said that she would like to invite the Towns, but if they do not want to come, she would still like to have a work session so that she can feel comfortable. She would like to make an official decision to not have a temporary waste transfer station on Eubanks Road. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to vote on getting an environmental impact statement. She would also like to invite the Towns again. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve recommendations 4 and 5: Authorize the County Attorney to execute the March 11, 2009 letter of agreement between the County and Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice to handle litigation on behalf of the County arising from or related to the County's Solid Waste Transfer Station siting process; and Direct County Management to bring back to the BOCC the ruling from the Planning Department pending receipt and review of the State Clearinghouse Report on the Environmental Assessment of candidate site 056. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Foushee that there would be no temporary waste transfer station on Eubanks Road, to request an environmental impact statement or the Board's equivalent, that the County would consult with the affected fire department, and that the Towns would be invited to a work session, particularly the officials. Commissioner Yuhasz said that#5 addresses the environmental assessment and he would not want to presuppose the results of that, which would call for an environmental impact statement. Commissioner Jacobs said that he added the word "equivalent" because if it was a private application, the County would require a level of specificity. Commissioner Yuhasz was satisfied with this. Commissioner Nelson said that staff asked for feedback on the contingency plans. Laura Blackmon said that it would be helpful to discuss the economic impacts in a work session. Commissioner Nelson said that the Board has not discussed the need to keep additional capacity in the landfill just in case of an emergency. He would like to talk about the costs and benefits of keeping 6-12 months of waste capacity. Gayle Wilson said that there are regulatory limitations on how long a landfill can be land- banked. There would have to be some ongoing activity. Commissioner Nelson asked the staff to bring the Board more information on this at the work session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports - NONE 8. Board Comment Commissioner Jacobs invited all to a reception of the Triangle J Council of Governments Governments tomorrow to meet the new Executive Director. The Legislative Breakfast was held this morning and the goal is to have the TJCOG have more of a regional presence. Commissioner Pelissier said that she attended a breakfast sponsored by the Hillsborough Chamber. She just learned about some enabling legislation for Edgecomb County and publicly financing houses for teachers and county employees. She thinks that this is an interesting idea and she would like more information on this. Commissioner Nelson said that he attended the Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting to recognize former County Commissioner and former Carrboro resident Shirley Marshall. Commissioner Yuhasz - no comment Commissioner Hemminger— no comment Commissioner Gordon said that the Long Range Transportation Plan for this area is out for public comment and she would like to request that this item be put on the agenda for May 51h Also, the Commission for the Environment has been working on a resolution about biosolids application in the County. The resolution asks for a task force to be created. She would like this on an agenda soon. Commissioner Hemminger said that the Orange County Housing and Land Trust voted to change its name to Community Home Trust. Chair Foushee said that she met with Mayors Foy and Chilton to talk about library services and they agreed that they will use the September AOG meeting to discuss moving forward with library services in Orange County. Staffs will be tasked with reviewing both task force reports and bringing back possible recommendations. Chair Foushee said that she was invited to meet with the UNC student body leadership last week to talk about how to establish a relationship with them. Prior to that, she met with the Durham Tech Board of Trustees and, as far as the budget for 2009-2010, Durham Tech is reasonably set to run the majority of its programs. Commissioner Jacobs asked staff what happened to the Orange/Alamance County line issue. There was discussion about having two public hearings and it has dropped off the radar. Laura Blackmon said that this was supposed to be discussed previously at a work session. Staff is gathering materials to have meetings with Commissioners in groups of twos or threes to give basic information and to have discussion. Commissioner Jacobs said that the public has no clue what the County is doing and to have subterranean conversations is not right and is a disservice to citizens. Laura Blackmon said that there would be no subterranean meetings, but the staff would be providing the County Commissioners with information and would answer questions. There would be no decisions made in these meetings. Commissioner Jacobs said that outreach to Alamance County and to the citizens is needed. There needs to be a plan that is broadcast. 9. County Manager's Report 10. Appointments a. Arts Commission — New Appointments The Board considered making new appointments to the Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Emily Lees, Audra Marotta, and Tiffany Johnson to first full terms ending March 31, 2011 to the Arts Commission. Commissioner Jacobs nominated Tiffney Marley for Tiffany Johnson's position. VOTE on Emily Lees: UNANIMOUS VOTE on Audra Marotta: UNANIMOUS VOTE on Tiffany Johnson: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 VOTE on Tiffney Marley: UNANIMOUS b. Hyconeechee Regional Library— New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to the Hyconeechee Regional Library. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Brenda Stephens to a first full term ending March 31, 2012 to the Hyconeechee Regional Library. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Orange Unified Transportation Board — New Appointments The Board considered making new appointments to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. Commissioner Gordon said that there is a meeting tomorrow and only one application has come in. She would like to hold the other positions open until May 51h A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to appoint Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to fill the Orange County Planning Board position to a term ending September 30, 2011 to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) d. Transportation Services Board — New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to the Transportation Services Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to appoint Frank Montes de Oca to a first full term ending March 31, 2011 to the Transportation Services Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 11. Information Items • Memo Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Educational Facilities Impact Fees 12. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn into closed session for the purpose of: "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board, in the case of Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. vs County of Orange and Colonel F. Rojas Montes de Oca, Jr., Orange County Emergency Services Director." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by seconded by to reconvene into regular session at 11:45pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:45pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board