HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090901 APPROVED 10/6/2009
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
September 1, 2009
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 1, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and
Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
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
None
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Kathleen Hoffman made reference to the letter she sent via email regarding the
community recommendations to keep the Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center open. She
said that there is widespread endorsement of these recommendations by more than 20
community groups. She presented a copy of the letter for the record. She said that when the
community presented concerns about closing the center on August 181h, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to review the issue of temporary to permanent closure. She
spoke about how shocked she was to hear about the proposal to increase curbside recycling
by the end of 2009. She said that she was struck by the staff assertion that this expansion
would occur with no additional cost or budget impact in 2009. She said that no actual numbers
or details were provided, but this was surprising, giving the difficulty of finding money to keep
Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center open several days a week. She said that it does not
make sense to close local garbage access while extending the rural recycling. She said that
the County only saves $20,000 by closing this facility. Keeping it open 2-3 days a week will
cost a portion of this amount. She suggested that the County use the money for recycling
expansion to keep Bradshaw Quarry open. The email letter is shown below:
"Dear Mr. Clifton:
As Commissioner Foushee suggested last Tuesday, here's a summary of ideas to cut costs
and keep the Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center open.
We are working with the County's estimate that Bradshaw Quarry costs roughly $35,000 to
operate 6 days a week. The County estimates costs of $3,600 to buy out the lease and
$10,000 to restore the property. The net savings would be $21,400 in FY 2009-2010.
The community supports the County's cost reduction initiative and is willing to accept
compromises to keep Bradshaw Quarry open — even if it's only a couple of days a week.
Here's a starting list of ideas.
- Reduce operations at Bradshaw Quarry to 2 or 3 days a week— including either
Saturday or Sunday or better yet alternating Saturdays and Sundays.
- Eliminate all Bradshaw Quarry services except household trash and basic recycling,
including batteries. Residents are willing to drive longer distances to haul electronics,
metal, wood, mattresses and other waste that's less frequent.
- Don't worry about yard waste disposal. Our yard waste consists of fallen trees, leaves,
and garden debris which are used for firewood, compost, and habitats.
- Stagger the hours across centers so you can share employees and vehicles. For
example, keep Bradshaw Quarry open on Tuesday, Thursday, and alternating Saturday
and Sunday; and High Rock (the other lesser used facility) open on Monday,
Wednesday and alternating Saturday and Sunday (opposite BQ).
- Possibly keep centrally located Eubanks open 6-7 days and reduce the days at all
other centers to 2 or 3 days a week.
We do not wish to impact other communities. However, if the above ideas don't provide
sufficient savings, consider further reducing hours at the other centers and/or reducing
curbside recycling, especially in the western end of Bingham.
Given the County's concern that the Bradshaw Quarry site is too small and trucks are
competing with resident activity— isn't it possible to bring your trucks in when the center is
closed to the public? With reduced hours, that should be easy, and if services are reduced,
additional space will be freed up.
As you know, the cost problems for the County's solid waste department are just beginning.
When the cash-generating landfill shifts to a WTS cost center, the County will lose the
subsidies for recycling and other programs. We fully support proactive steps to reduce overall
costs for solid waste management. Cutting the hours at all convenience centers is an effective
first step.
Implementing our suggestions will allow the County to cut costs without eliminating our service
completely. We believe that cutting hours at all five centers and operating alternating
schedules offers clear advantages over maintaining four centers on a uniform four day
schedule. We are open to other suggestions and compromises, and encourage you to
collaborate with us to solve this problem.
Closing Bradshaw Quarry places a disproportionate financial and logistical burden on a single
community that has no local alternative to handle its trash. Please remember that citizens are
struggling with tight budgets, too.
Chief Tommy Holmes of the Orange Grove Fire Department and Kathleen Hoffmann of
Orange County Voice have agreed to coordinate community interests and will work with you
and the Commissioners. Hopefully they can help you resolve this issue quickly and easily.
There is a win-win here. Please work with us to find it.
Sincerely,
Residents of Bingham and Cheeks Township including:
Apple Mill Neighbors, Bradford Ridge Subdivision, Buckhorn/ELG Neighbors, Cane Creek
Baptist Church, Carolina Concerned Citizens (Oak Grove Church, Nick's, BQ, and others)
Cascade Forest Homeowners Association, Collins Creek Neighbors, Covered Bridge
Neighbors, Dimmocks Mill Neighbors, Frog Level Community (Arthur Minnis/Dodson's), Harry's
Market at White Cross, Heritage Families and Farms (Sykes Family Farms, Holmes Family &
Farms, Kirby Family, Kirk Family Farm, Stanford Farm), Hunters Woods Neighbors,
Lloydtown/Morrow Mill Loop, Maple View Farm and Agricultural Education Center, Mebane
Oaks Road Neighbors, Mt. Mitchell Road Homeowners, Neighbors in the Trails, Orange
County Voice, Orange Grove Fire Department, Silas Lane Homeowners, South Orange Grove
Road Neighbors, Sugar Ridge Neighbors, Orange Grove Neighbors, Rigmor House, Teer
Road Neighbors, Thunder Mountain Neighbors, Western Park Lane Neighbors, White Cross
Volunteer Fire Department.....and many others."
Kathleen Ferguson is the Chair of the Economic Development Commission and wanted to
give the County Commissioners a heads up about the advisory board. She said that the
commission is looking to find ways to gain additional information and research and it has come
up with a proposal for the Board of County Commissioners. She said that a proposal will be
forthcoming.
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. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from June 16 and 23, 2009 as submitted by the Clerk to the
Board.
b. Appointments — None
c. Community Home Trust— Use of Fannie Mae Uniform Community Land Trust Ground
Lease Rider
The Board endorsed the use of the Fannie Mae Uniform Community Land Trust Lease Rider
by the Community Home Trust and authorized the County Attorney's office to review and
approve.
d. Addition of Subdivision Roads in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT Maintained
Road System
The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained system for subdivision
rods in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT and recommended the Board of Transportation
accept those roads for maintenance as State secondary roads.
e. Resolution Naming Area in New Main Library for Rebecca B. Wall
The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to officially name the
local history area of the new Main Library on West Margaret Lane for Rebecca B. Wall
consistent with the naming policy.
VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
5. Public Hearings
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to the Amount of Development
of Non-residential Land Uses within Certain Watershed Overlay Districts
The Board received the Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) and considered
taking action on a staff-initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.23.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance seeking to allow the development of non-residential land uses within certain
critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located
within previously identified Rural Community Activity Nodes.
Planner Michael Harvey reviewed this item. He made reference to Attachment 2, which
was the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. He said that the Cedar
Grove Rural Community Activity Node has approximately 295 acres, with 60% of it
encumbered by the existing Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District. Section 6.31 of the
zoning ordinance specifically stipulates that you cannot have any commercial or industrial
development within the critical watershed overlay district and 60% of this node is unusable for
that purpose. During the May Quarterly Public Hearing, the staff indicated that it was not the
County's intention to stipulate that 60% of this node could not be developed for non-residential
purposes. Staff proposed an amendment that stipulates that the prohibition would remain in
place, but that language would be added to the section stipulating that commercial
development could occur within established node boundaries consistent with policies and
guidelines of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. If this ordinance is passed, the critical
watershed overlay district would still exist on the zoning map and additional non-residential
development would be allowed, consistent with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, which
would include a maximum of ten acres of Local Commercial I and a maximum of ten acres of
Neighborhood Commercial II, for a total of 20 acres, representing approximately 5% of the total
500 acres within the existing node boundary. He said that any development within this area
would be limited to a 6% impervious surface limitation.
He said that the Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 2009 meeting and
voted 6 to 1 that: Section 6.23.1 be amended to only allow the properties at the intersection of
Carr Store and Efland-Cedar Grove Road within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity
Node to develop non-residential land uses consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, and
that the County Board of Commissioners authorize the development of a Small Area Plan for
the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the
entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions
of the Ordinance.
He said that the staff does not believe that the proposed amendments as offered by the
Planning Board can be enforced. There is an area of the node that the Planning Board wants
to exclude from the prohibition and staff is uncomfortable with this without any study being
done.
Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
amendment that staff has proposed in Attachment 2.
Commissioner Pelissier said that there was some reference that this would be looked at
by the County Attorney because legally the County could not select just a few properties to be
exempt. John Roberts said that he would be hesitant to recommend that this piece of property
be carved out for these parcels without further study.
There was no public comment.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked why this was coming up at this particular time and
Michael Harvey said that he was directed by the Planning Director and Manager in January to
fix this issue.
Commissioner Pelissier said that it looks like much of this node in the critical watershed
is comprised of two large properties. She asked if these were in the present use value or
conservation easements and Michael Harvey said that the property to the south is under
present use value.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and do NOT adopt the
Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he seconded for the purpose of discussion, but he
would rather do something.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict gave some history
about the nodes.
Craig Benedict said that the nodes were put on in 1981 with the Land Use Plan and the
watershed lines were put on in 1994 and there was no specific discussion about excluding
commercial development in the nodes.
Commissioner Jacobs said that an assumption could be that it was assumed back then
that there would be no commercial development in these nodes because they were so close to
the watershed.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County was very proactive in watershed protection
back in 1994. She said that she made the motion that she did because she would prefer to
have a study.
Commissioner Jacobs said that there may need to be a small area plan for this area.
He said that there is some evidence that there is a historic commercial district in Cedar Grove
and this is an opportunity to work with the community in an expeditious manner.
He suggested amending the motion that staff recommend a one-step small area
planning process for the Cedar Grove node. Commissioner Gordon agreed with this
amendment, but asked that there be a reasonable timeline.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she would not want to vote against what staff is
recommending because there is so much on the plate for the Planning Board now. Secondly,
this is only about 20 acres maximum and if the 6% impervious surface applies, this is not
anymore than there would be if there was residential development. She does not see anything
happening in this area in the near future that would be inconsistent with this area. She does
not think that a small area plan could be completed in the near future.
Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier.
Commissioner Hemminger asked if this sets a precedent with other nodes in a
watershed. Michael Harvey said that the only other node in a watershed is a rural industrial
node and it is currently supporting a quarry operation. It is covered by a special use permit.
Upon closure of that quarry operation, the rural industrial node disappears altogether.
Craig Benedict said that if the Board of County Commissioners allows commercial
development in this industrial node, it will come back to the Board of County Commissioners as
a legislative item — a special use permit for rezoning.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he agreed with much of what Commissioner Pelissier
said and that he is hesitant to add more to the Planning staff's workload. He said that he
would be in favor of staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Gordon restated her motion: Receive the Planning Board
recommendation, deliberate on the petition as necessary, close the public hearing, and do
NOT adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of
this abstract, and direct staff to develop a plan and timeline for a one-step small area plan in
this area. Commissioner Jacobs seconded this motion previously.
VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 5
MOTION FAILED
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
receive the Planning Board recommendation, deliberate on the petition as necessary, close the
public hearing, and adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within
Attachment 2 of the abstract.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
6. Regular Agenda
a. Update and Recommended Actions — Solid Waste Transfer Station Site
Selection
The Board received an update on several issues and considered actions for moving the
site selection search process for a Solid Waste Transfer Station in Orange County to a
conclusion.
Frank Clifton said that this item has been studied for many years and efforts have been
pursued and the County Commissioners have narrowed the choices down to four options. The
County has spent several hundred thousand dollars on consultants and analysis and this does
not include staff time. He went through the options:
Option A. Highway 54 site — If the BOCC is prepared to move forward on this site then:
1) Authorize the County Attorney and County Management to initiate negotiations to
acquire the Hwy 54 site, up to a total of 150.87 acres (142.87 main acreage; 8.0 access
acreage). The appraised value is $935,000.
2) Authorize Solid Waste Management to issue an RFP for an engineering firm to conduct
the design/development of the Solid Waste Transfer Station facility at Hwy 54 or any
other selected site; including authorization to retain a secondary engineering firm
whose role will be to perform a peer review of technical services/work products
provided the County by the primary firm.
3) Authorize Solid Waste Management to solicit letters of interest/intent from private
and/or public entities to provide the recipient landfill for solid waste transferred from
either a Millhouse Road or Hwy 54 Solid Waste Transfer Station.
4) Approve a reimbursement resolution for the project and authorize Financial Services to
initiate actions to secure financing for land acquisition, professional services, and other
project related expenditures as may be required, including budget amendments.
5) Direct the County Clerk to begin solicitation of volunteer representatives from the Hwy
54 area to serve on a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed by the BOCC to
help guide the design/development phase of the Solid Waste Transfer Station on the
Hwy 54 site.
Option B. Town of Chapel Hill owned site - Await action by the Town of Chapel Hill to
determine if the town owned site is actually available for consideration; under what conditions;
and at what cost.
1) If this course of action is pursued, delay needs to be avoided. It is recommended that
the County should seek the Town's decision on this matter in no less than 60 days.
2) If the Town can not make a timely decision, then the County should move forward with
another option.
3) The other provisions as outlined in Option A apply.
Option C: City of Durham transfer station — If the BOCC sees this option as a viable
solution, then:
1) Authorize the BOCC Chair and County Manager to proceed with validating a potential
inter-local agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing
future arrangements.
2) Direct county staff to begin working with the towns with regards to formalizing waste
stream flow commitments so that any agreement with the City of Durham provides the
towns and county the best rate possible over the course of the long-term agreement.
Option D: County owned property north of old landfill off of Millhouse Road — If the
BOCC sees merit in this option, then:
1) Authorize staff to engage the engineers in a site review to include the basic
environmental reviews (30-60 days).
2) Direct the staff to begin the process associated with reimbursing the Parks and Open
Space Fund for the purchase of the Paydarfar property ($191,172).
3) Direct staff to initiate the required joint land use plan modifications with the Town of
Chapel Hill needed to authorize the planned use as a transfer station, if necessary.
4) Authorize Solid Waste Management to issue an RFP for an engineering firm to conduct
the design/development of the solid waste transfer station facility for this site; including
authorization to retain a secondary engineering firm whose role will be to perform a
peer review of technical services/work products provided the county by the primary
engineering firm.
5) Authorize a reimbursement resolution for the project and authorize Financial Services
to initiate actions to secure financing for land acquisition, professional services, and
other project related expenditures as may be required, including budget amendments.
6) Direct the BOCC Clerk to begin solicitation of volunteer representatives from the
Millhouse Road area to serve on a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed by
the BOCC to help guide the design/development phase of the project.
7) Note: Public water and sewer is located very near this property and could be extended
to the site via a bore under the railroad. If there is value in extending those utilities to
the site (for this facility and the future park facilities on the parcel to the north) then an
amendment would be required to the Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement. We believe
the site can be serviced with a well and septic tank system so this item might be
considered as part of developing the future park site.
8) Finally, it is recognized that selection of this site will still generate community concern
and opposition. While not fully mitigating the selection of this site upon all parties, it is
suggested that the BOCC might consider offering some portion of the land purchase
differential between the Hwy 54 site ($935,000 appraised value) and the acquisition
reimbursement on the County owned site ($191,172) totaling $744,838 toward a
water/sewer solution for the Rogers Road area. The County's offer should be viewed
as the seed money to initiate long awaited and needed improvements possibly
involving other town governments and OWASA.
Additional Suggestion-( suggested by Interim County Manager/staff — It is reasonable
to consider establishing a surcharge based on per ton delivery of solid waste disposal,
which could be set aside to mitigate impacts in the area on a long-term basis from a landfill
or transfer station. The surcharge could be addressed periodically by the Board depending
on the situation.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Will Raymond said that he is a citizen of Chapel Hill. He said that the County is not
looking for a perfect site, but one that meets the environmental, fiscal, and community criteria
that the Board of County Commissioners adopted almost two years ago. He said that the
reason for adopting those criteria was to foster confidence in the public that this decision would
be made on grounds that they could understand. He said that the site on NC 54 has a lot of
environmental issues and it is clear that this site is not in the waste centroid. He said that the
Town of Chapel Hill site fails some of the criteria and is problematic politically. He would prefer
Plan B, which is to send the trash to Durham County.
Mark Hulbert is a parent of children that go to Emerson Waldorf School. He said that
they cross Millhouse Road every day to go to playing fields and he is already worried about the
traffic. He is afraid that a transfer station will add more traffic to this area. He said that if the
County chose one of the Chapel Hill sites, the transparent process has not been followed. He
said that the public process is flawed by the public's perception. He suggested sending the
trash to Durham County so that there is sufficient time to build a good process that is fair and
transparent.
Laura Streitfield is with Preserve Rural Orange. She said that when she asked staff
this week about the environmental review process for the transfer station, County staff directed
her to the updated comprehensive plan. She said that one of the challenges to sustainability
is loss of natural habitats. She made reference to the proposed site on the Howell property in
Bingham Township. She said that this site lies in an agricultural residential zone with wetlands
running through it, without municipal services or interstate access. She said that the citizens
hold Orange County accountable to follow its own standards and ask the County
Commissioners to make every effort to locate a transfer station in a non-residential area with
compatible lands, municipal services, and interstate access. She said that it appears that the
25-acre minimum for the site is no longer essential. She said that it makes sense to look at
smaller sites. She asked the County Commissioners to apply the same standards to this
project as is applied to all citizens in Orange County in the comprehensive plan.
Alex Castro said that he has lived in Orange County for 20 years and he is happy to
see that the majority of his taxes go to the schools. He said that the County needs to provide
good education and it bothers him that the County wants to spend $5-6 million on garbage.
He suggested using Durham County's transfer station. He said to do the right thing with the
tax dollars.
Nancy Tunnessen read a prepared statement:
"My name is Nancy Tunnessen and I am here tonight representing the Orange County
Organizing Committee. We are working to improve the lives of ordinary people of Orange
County and we are composed of and supported by 30 religious congregations and nonprofit
organizations. As a group we study a variety of issues and we get involved in public debate
when we think our voice can add value and reason.
This past spring representatives of our member organizations voted to weigh in on an
issue of environmental justice in our county. The possibility that the proposed Waste Transfer
Station would be located at the Eubanks Road landfill site seemed unjust and discriminatory.
You all responded to the anguish of the Rogers Eubanks Road neighborhood and essentially
removed that community from consideration for the Waste Transfer Station. We applauded
your decision.
But the County still has the problem of what to do with our trash. We are here tonight
to reiterate our plea that the County use the gift of extra time it has been given to come up with
a viable, socially responsible, economically sound, environmentally friendly solution.
With citizen help criteria were written to help identify possible sites for a Waste Transfer
Station. Tonight you have before you 4 options, only one of which surfaced using those
criteria to identify it, and it has severe drawbacks. Option 3, to work with Durham, reflects the
sentiment that a waste transfer station in Orange County might not be the solution after all.
Options 2 and 4 just "emerged." That concerns us. If the acreage criteria have been adjusted,
it strains creditability to think these two parcels are the only ones in the County that qualify as
possible sites for a Waste Transfer Station.
We are all tired of trash....but this is an important decision and needs to be made
carefully. We remind you that there really is time to do this right.
With that extra year of projected use for the landfill, revisit the whole long-term issue of
what to do with our trash.
Use the talents and local knowledge of the County staff. Explore a regional approach
to dealing with our trash. The possibility of working with Durham should be carefully
considered. Cost and efficiency are important considerations in this decision. But think in
terms of long-term costs, not just land acquisition, construction, and one-time expenses. If the
Waste Transfer Station is the best solution we have, then recognize that the parameters have
changed since the original specifications were established for siting a waste transfer station.
Look for several smaller sites near the main generators of trash and near the interstates.
Continue our County's leadership in developing innovative ways to deal with our solid waste.
Now is the time to accept the gift of time you have been granted and think creatively
and strategically about long-term solutions. This County has done it before and can be a
leader again."
Mike Hughes is a civil engineer and he is speaking for Orange County Voice. He made
reference to the wetlands on the Howell property. He said that this site should have been
excluded according to the original criteria. He said that the source of water that feeds these
wetlands includes vernal pools. He spoke about the adverse affects of this transfer station to
the vernal pools.
Charles Viles read a letter.
"Dear Board of County Commissioners,
I am Charles Viles, parent at the Emerson Waldorf School (EWS) and a member of its
Board of Directors. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight, though I am
disheartened to be here in front of you to discuss not one but TWO sites that are being
proposed along Millhouse Road. Both of these sites are grossly unacceptable from a social
and community impact perspective.
We have discussed the first site on Millhouse Road (site 744 or option B) at two
previous BOCC meetings. It is far too close to a working school and the daily educational and
athletic activities that occur on fields and gardens directly adjacent to 744. There are serious
traffic issues related to trucks traveling on Millhouse. Neighborhood legal counsel identified a
host of issues regarding the actual viability of this site for a Waste Transfer Station. It is a poor
choice.
The second site on Millhouse Road (option D) was introduced to the public just last
week. It's about 1/4 mile away from site 744. Our traffic concerns related to this site are even
greater than for the town-owned site. The entrance is closer to Emerson and requires trucks to
cross the RR tracks to dump their waste. This 10-acre tract directly abuts the existing landfill
whose front entrance is on Eubanks Road. It is unbelievable that the BOCC has twice rejected
the existing landfill as a viable site, yet County staff now proposes a tract directly adjacent to
that site as one of only 4 options remaining.
The County's memo states the following in its summary, `....Efforts in this process
cannot be viewed as anything but comprehensive; open to review and community
involvement.' Really? That is NOT the view from those who live or go to school along
Millhouse Road.
If there is a silver lining it is this: It is abundantly clear from the County memo that it is
possible to revisit sites that have been previously excluded and do so quickly and cheaply. It's
equally clear that some key criteria have changed. Let's identify what those changes are and
turn the crank on the site selection process and work together to find a solution that is socially,
economically, and environmentally responsible."
Neal Kirschner lives on Millhouse Road and said that he is here on behalf of the Rogers
Road site. He shared some history on the Paydarfar site. He said that the Chan's purchased
the property in 1981 and built a house, which burnt down three days later. The property was
then bought by Dr. Paydarfar. He said that when the Blackwood property was purchased by
the Orange County Parks and Recreation department for a park the County then contacted Mr.
Paydarfar about purchasing his property, which it did. He said that he talked to Dr. Paydarfar
at length Sunday night concerning this purchase. He said that Dr. Paydarfar expressed
complete surprise at this turn of events and explicitly told him that it was his clear
understanding that this land become part of the Blackwood tract of land. He said that this tract
in the middle of the Rogers Road neighborhood and is not even on a State road.
Robert Campbell showed a map of the full community. The map was also overlaid with
the Historic Rogers Road area. He said that the map the County is using was created by the
Chapel Hill Small Area Planning Task Force. He said that this map was wrong then and is
wrong now to define their area. The map does not show the large Rogers Road area or the
Nunn site, which has always been part of the Rogers/Eubanks/Millhouse Road community. He
made reference to the minutes from July 17, 2007 of the Historic Enhancement Development
Task Force and said that Commissioner Moses Carey made a statement about how this map
was created by the small area task force. There were several arguments about that map. He
said that this map was used because the task force was told that the Orange County
Commissioners were interested in the area impacted by the landfill for over 30 years. He said
that Millhouse Road was still part of the enhancement program that was started in 2001, but it
was not included in the map. He said that the County cannot use this map to define the
Rogers/Eubanks/Millhouse Road area. He said that any decision made about this community
based on that map is wrong. He presented the map that he considered to be correct.
Robert Long is a 12-year resident of Millhouse Road. He said that over the last year
alone, the residents have seen the opening on Eubanks Road of the new animal shelter and
Morris Grove Elementary School. Soon there will be another residential development with 120
townhomes that are under construction across from the park and ride. He would like to see a
thorough analysis of the carrying capacity of Eubanks Road, especially considering the waste
load from Carolina North and the projected growth of Orange County over the next two
decades. Already, there is a dangerous mix of heavy industrial vehicles and buses combined
with a rapidly increasing volume of passenger vehicles. He said that the traffic should be
reduced on Eubanks Road and not increased. He said that the greater Rogers Road
neighborhood is not the right location for a transfer station intended to serve long-term needs
of Orange County.
Chris Lamb said that his neighborhood consists of over 30 homes less than a mile from
the Town Operations Center or the Paydarfar site. He said that over the last couple of months,
there have been many meetings with the neighbors on Millhouse Road, Eubanks Road, and
Bingham Township. He said that they have found that the same concerns are shared about
the selection process and the events that have led to tonight's meeting. He said that on June
15, 2009 at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the legal counsel, James Cox,
presented a detailed attachment about the Town Operations site. He encouraged the Board to
review this document prior to making a decision. He said that many of the objections to the
Town Operations site also apply to the Paydarfar site, and he listed these. He said that the
point submitted as public record on June 16th are sufficient defense that the Board of County
Commissioners should stop further consideration of siting any waste transfer station at the
Rogers/Eubanks/Millhouse Road community. He said that the County does not need 25 acres
for a transfer station and he suggested changing the selection criteria to 10 acres. He asked
the County Commissioners to reevaluate these options, including innovative alternatives.
David Co!dwell said that he is here for the Rogers Road neighborhood. He said that
they are in opposition of Option D, the County-owned property. He hopes that this option will
not be considered.
Kathy Schenley read a prepared statement.
"My name is Kathleen Schenley. My home at 6714 Millhouse Road was built in 1981.
The site selection process has gone awry in many ways. I wish to address the site
selection criteria established and adopted by the BOCC.
Adopted Exclusionary Criteria #9 includes `county-owned land acquired for parks
and/or nature preserves.' The Paydarfar property was purchased using Park and Open Space
Bond funds — money designated by the citizens of this county for the purchase of park land —
not transfer stations.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #1 (Environmental Justice Considerations states
`fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting from transportation, governmental, and
commercial operations or policies.' The citizens of the greater Rogers Road neighborhood
have already born this burden. No more.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #3 (Impact on Local lnsfrastructure) — cites the
need to consider `the potential impact....of increased collection and transfer traffic and
suitability of roadway designs for heavy traffic.' Millhouse Road is in no way suitable for this
kind of traffic.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #4 (Adjacent Land Uses) — requires
considerations of `potential impact on a community's existing use of space (e.g. restriction of
open space or outdoor uses).' To build a transfer station adjoining a park would certainly
restrict its use.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #5 (Proximity to Schools, Churches, and
Recreation Sites) — asks for consideration of `how near a facility is to parks.....or other public
areas where people congregate.' Again, a park and a transfer station are not compatible
neighbors.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #10 (Traffic Compatibility) — states that `the best
sites for transfer stations are located away from areas that have....school bus and pedestrian
traffic.' Millhouse Road has both school bus and pedestrian traffic, plus significant use by
recreational cyclists.
Adopted Community-Specific Criteria #11 (Impact on Historical and cultural features) —
requires `understanding the community's history, values, goals, and aspirations.' The history of
this property dates to colonial times; the values held by the Blackwood family cherished natural
preservation; the goals of the Blackwood family were to preserve this land for future
generations to enjoy; the aspiration of this community is to live in peace with our neighbors and
nature.
The Town Operations Center site and the Paydarfar property are not suitable for a
waste transfer station. These are your criteria. You adopted them. You should obey them."
Susan Walser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that there has been
no discussion or disclosure of the financial impact of a waste transfer station. She said that
the County should discuss the full economic impacts before deciding on a site. She said that
the residents deserve an option that is socially, environmentally, and fiscally responsible.
Kathy Kaufman spoke for the Orange County Organizing Committee. She said that for
two years, the County has spent a lot of money working out this issue of what to do with the
trash once the landfill is closed. She said that the site identification process has failed to
identify viable sites. She said that it is in the best interest of everyone involved to find a
solution that works. She said that the Orange County Organizing Committee thinks that the
County should add and approve an Option 5, "to pursue a simple amended process that would
yield suitable sites." She gave some suggestions for amending the process: 1) reduce the
parcel size from 25 to 10 acres; 2) disqualify sites that are adjacent to residential areas; 3)
revisit the highway criteria looking especially for sites near an interstate; 4) recognize that
costs are extremely important; 5) clarify the size and features of the facility; 6) in the interest of
social justice and simple fairness, clarify the boundaries for the greater Rogers Road
community and exclude it from consideration; 7) create a steering committee to manage the
process and ask the committee to report to the Board of County Commissioners. The
committee should have representatives from major stakeholders impacted by this decision,
including the community groups; 8) continue to evaluate alternatives while the site selection is
underway. Continue discussions with Durham and other vendors. She strongly urged the
Board to add and approve Option 5 to pursue an amended process.
Bob Reynolds said that he is a new resident in this area and as far as the Howell site
goes, he said that it does not look to him that there has been very much research on this
property. He said that he brought his property and there was no disclosure to him about this
proposed transfer site.
Diahna Garvey is a student at Emerson Waldorf School. She said that this site has its
entrance close to two proposed sites and she lives next to the school and works on the farm.
She is concerned about the increased traffic if the transfer station comes to this site.
Mary Beth Mueller has children at Emerson Waldorf School and coordinates the farm
program. She said that she is concerned because children come out to the farm for the
sensory experiences. She is afraid that this transfer station will negate these experiences
because of the sights and smells associated with it. Also, the children that go to the farm will
be crossing the road twice, and she is concerned about the traffic.
George Buehler has children at Emerson Waldorf School and he reiterated what others
have said in that it appears that there are now two sites that are contrary to adopted criteria.
He said that he was glad to see the addition of the Durham option.
Jan Grossman spoke about the safety and traffic concerns with Millhouse Road. He
asked that Millhouse Road, north of the Blackwood property, be closed to all but emergency
vehicular traffic. He said that Millhouse Road should cease to be a cut-through road for all but
walkers and cyclists. He said that the Town Operations Center and any other municipal
operations should be accessible only from the south, while the north of Millhouse Road would
be accessed from NC 86. The intersection of Millhouse Road and the Town Operations
Center and the railroad tracks is a disaster waiting to happen. He said that additional major
traffic will make a major accident on this road inevitable. He asked the County Commissioners
to not make the copout line that NCDOT makes all decisions on roads and that the County has
no say. He said that the County Commissioners can make a difference.
Chris Heaney was from the UNC School of Public Health. He said that he is here to
report the second portion of preliminary reports on a partnership between the UNC School of
Public Health and the Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Association. He spoke about stream
sampling that was performed from May-July 2009. There were 10 stream sampling locations.
Within the Rogers Road community, considering all 10 sites, a total of 57 stream water
samples were collected. Additionally, all of the surface water samples collected along the
proposed site exceeded the limits for these bacteria.
Tracy Kuhlman sent the following email to the County Commissioners:
"Dear County Commissioners,
I am deeply concerned about the recent developments in the search for a waste transfer
station site. With the relatively sudden appearance of Millhouse Road on the list of proposed
sites, any semblance of a legitimate search process seems to have been abandoned.
Selection criteria are changing faster than I can say "waste transfer station," and the criteria
haven't been evenly applied across the county. If 10 acres are suddenly acceptable for a
waste transfer station site, then that new criterion needs to be used to look for all eligible 10-
acre sites in the county.
All of the reasons you rejected the originally proposed site on Eubanks hold true for both of the
Millhouse sites. For example, schools, residential areas, and recreation areas should be
avoided, traffic issues should be considered, and most importantly, a community that has
hosted the current waste disposal facilities for 37 years should be excluded. Millhouse was
considered a part of the Rogers Road community long before the landfill ever physically
divided the area, and the houses on the north side of Eubanks are just as affected by that
landfill as those on the south side. The map that the newspapers keep publishing as the
"Rogers Road Heritage Area" is being used out of context: At Commissioner Moses Carey's
direction, it was a map specifically created by the county's Rogers Road Enhancement Task
Force to designate a starting point for providing compensation to the community. Community
members of the task force were strongly encouraged to limit the boundaries. That map does
not represent how community members define their community.
It is also misleading to suggest that the money the county will save by not purchasing the site
on Hwy 54 will go toward improvements needed in the Rogers Road community. My
understanding is that the county would prefer not to spend extra money to purchase land
because it doesn't have that money. In these difficult economic times, the county can't even
afford to keep all of its waste disposal convenience centers open; how is that non-existent
money going to help Rogers Road?
The residents of the Rogers Road community have made it clear that they do not want a waste
transfer station in their community, and that the health of their community (including Millhouse)
is not for sale. They have hosted our county's garbage for far too long. It is time, again, for
the BOCC to stand up for environmental justice in Orange County by saying "no" to the
Millhouse Road sites.
Thank you for your continued efforts on this difficult problem,
Tracy Kuhlman
1009 Tallyho Trail, Chapel Hill"
Commissioner Yuhasz invited Jan Sassaman from the Solid Waste Advisory Board
(SWAB) to talk about the proposed Paydarfar site.
Jan Sassaman said that the SWAB is aware of the potential of Option D and they
discussed this site as part of their discussions in early summer. He said that there was no
formal vote on any of these sites but the discussion of this site was favorable over the other
options. The Paydarfar site was more favorable to the SWAB compared to the Town
Operations Center site because it is owned by the County, it is further away from most
residences and the school, it offers more continuity because of the close proximity to the Solid
Waste Department (using same equipment, similar staff, etc.). He said that the Paydarfar site
is probably better environmentally than the Town Operations Center site, but there are no data
confirming this. However, the SWAB recognizes that there is still the issue of the Rogers
Road community regarding the Paydarfar site, and this needs to be addressed. He said that
the SWAB does not like any option that would use the Durham transfer station. The SWAB
sent a resolution about this to the Board of County Commissioners on August 6, 2006. He
said that the waste transfer station needs to be as close as possible to the waste generating
area. He said that this will necessitate mitigation with any residential areas.
Commissioner Pelissier asked about the option with Durham and the mileage from
Chapel Hill to Durham. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that it is about 17.2 miles one
way.
Frank Clifton said that the trucks would be coming from all different areas of the County
and the mileage would be impossible to compute.
Commissioner Hemminger asked if the big customers (the towns) have been included
in this option with Durham since it is further and Frank Clifton said that the staff has distributed
this information to the Town Managers.
Gayle Wilson said that, throughout this process, the County staff has worked with the
Town staff and the staff is aware of the hauling costs with all options.
Chair Foushee asked about the interlocal agreement with the municipalities and the
County related to the transfer of garbage. Gayle Wilson said that there have been off and on
discussions and references to the obligations contained in the interlocal agreement. There
seems to be an assumption that the County assumed some obligation for disposal of waste as
included in the interlocal agreement. He deferred to the County Attorney on this issue.
Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners need to know the County's
obligation as it relates to the interlocal agreement.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to see the Towns' obligations as well.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she has looked at the interlocal agreement and it does
not involve the Town of Hillsborough. She would like to revisit the interlocal agreement and
include the Town of Hillsborough.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that when the County agreed to take over the solid waste
system, it took over managing the landfill. He asked if this obligation will continue with the
County regardless of what happens with the other parts of the solid waste interlocal
agreement. He said that there is a need to have an ongoing revenue stream for the Solid
Waste Department.
Gayle Wilson said that the County did accept permanent responsibility for the solid
waste facilities when it entered into the interlocal agreement.
Frank Clifton said that the State mandates that the County is responsible for 30 years
following the closure of a landfill.
Chair Foushee said that she applauds the staff for their work and for those citizens that
have been with the County Commissioners throughout this process. She said that she cannot
support Option D because the County set forth a process to come to a site selection, and it is
important to her to have a transparent and fair process. She does not see that Option D
complies with the criteria and it does not follow the process.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is a difficult thing for the Commissioners to talk
about. He said that he feels that the process was transparent and the criteria were clear. He
feels that the criteria brought the County to the only option, which was the one on NC 54 and
he does not think that this is a good option. He said that the criteria as applied give the County
a site that is not comfortable. He said that the County has been asked to reopen the site
selection search that might produce a site that is not near anyone in this room tonight. He
thinks that this is not realistic. He said that to reduce the site to 25 acres or less does not
mean anything because the sites they have looked at are smaller, but include buffers. He said
that the County Commissioners were willing to look at the Town Operations site, but he does
not think that the Town of Chapel Hill will put this site forward. He said that all of the reasons
that the County thought that this site was good also apply to the Paydarfar site. He likes this
site because of the economics, the effective use of the facility, etc. However, there are
mitigation problems. He does think that once the facility is in place and operating, it will not
have all of the negative effects to the extent that people suggest. He said that he is in favor of
Option D.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she wanted something near the interstate and she
does not like circumventing the process and upsetting neighborhoods. She believes that she
would like to look at Option D and she is in favor of mitigation options for the Rogers Road
area. She would like to continue conversations with Durham, in the event that it is needed in
the short-term. She thinks that the County needs a waste transfer station so that it can be in
control of its own waste. She agreed that changing the criteria would not produce a lot of
other sites.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he has considered it illuminating to listen to all of the
citizens over time and he thinks that the County should look at short-term and long-term
solutions. He said that he has always been a proponent of talking with Durham. In thinking
about distances, Durham is not a whole lot farther than going to the Howell tract. He said that
the waste centroid is near Chapel Hill and Carrboro, but the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
remain mute when it comes to how to provide amenities to the communities. He said that the
County Commissioners need to pose questions to the Towns about the financial breaking point
for them and which site is too far. He said that the Paydarfar site has great promise, but it is
not right across from the school garden. He said that as far as the traffic, the County can work
with DOT to ban trucks from Millhouse and Rogers Road. Hillsborough was able to work with
DOT to ban trucks from Churton Street. He said that he would like to make a decision within
the next 60 days.
Commissioner Pelissier said that this issue has been on her mind more than anything
else since she was sworn in. She said that she wants to meet all of the criteria but there is no
ideal site. She said that she wants to talk about transparency. She said that no matter what
the County Commissioners do, people will question their transparency and their process. She
is not keen on exploring options with Durham because it would just be delaying the County's
own decisions while shipping its waste elsewhere.
Commissioner Nelson said that he is almost speechless about where this has ended up
with the lack of transparency and ignoring criteria. He said that this is a mess. He said that he
is generally not supportive of Durham for a long-term option. He said that he is not supportive
of the Paydarfar property. In the short term, he suggests approaching Hillsborough about
sending its waste as soon as it is practically possible to Durham, which could buy time with the
landfill.
Commissioner Gordon agreed that there is no ideal site. She said that one thing that is
critical is that they get clarity on the interlocal agreement and the actual costs to the Towns,
the County, and the taxpayers. She cannot support Option D because it did not follow the
process or the criteria. She said that she does not want to open the search process again and
she would like to make a decision by the end of November or first of December. She is
surprised that there are four options, since the 41h option was just added, and does not meet
the criteria.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Chair Foushee to direct
staff to approach the Town of Hillsborough about hauling its waste to the City of Durham for a
period of time.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to make their major
decision about siting the transfer station first and then make Othe secondary decisions.
Commissioner Nelson said that the decision is not going to be made tonight and he was just
trying to buy some more time on the life of the landfill.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he is hesitant to break this process into pieces. He
would rather have an over-arching conversation with municipalities about their participation.
Frank Clifton said that if the Board believes this to be a viable option in the short term,
then Gayle Wilson can ask private haulers to see if they can reach an agreement to take
waste out of the County, but this takes revenue out of the revenue stream.
VOTE: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 (Ayes, Commissioner Nelson and Chair Foushee)
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the issue of transparency and said that the
end does not justify the means. He is willing to look at all options and to set a date to vote,
such as 60 days. He said that it is reasonable to look at these options if they are viable.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that sometimes a good process takes you to a bad result
and then you abandon the process. He said that he does not favor the NC 54 site but does
not want to remove this as an option. He would like to wait until hearing from Chapel Hill about
the town property before removing it.
Commissioner Gordon suggested doing this as a motion and then putting a limit on the
response time. She suggested picking a time in November for asking Chapel Hill to respond to
the County about this site.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to ask staff to investigate all four options and come back with information at the December 7th
meeting.
Frank Clifton asked if this includes the option for Durham and it was answered yes.
Commissioner Jacobs asked that staff look at cost options for all of the concerned
parties.
Frank Clifton said that staff would notify all of the Towns and the City of Durham about
this date, proceed with additional analysis of the County site, and begin the solicitation process
for RFPs for the design of a transfer station site no matter where it is sited. He said that he
brought this ten-acre site forward because the Board was willing to look at the Town
Operations Center site and if that fell through, this site would be similar. He understands that
there has to be some parameters on this process.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked that staff investigate the parameters of the solid waste
interlocal agreement.
Commissioner Jacobs said that staff needs to engage DOT in this process. He would
also like to make sure that staff comes back with an implementation analysis of short and long-
term concerns that were raised by the Rogers Road community.
Commissioner Nelson said that he is going to vote against this motion because two of
the options in this motion did not go through the process.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Gordon, and Chair Foushee)
Commissioner Pelissier asked for a sight-seeing trip to visit all of the sites, if possible.
7. Reports
a. Update of Activities on Orange County Economic Development Efforts
The Board received an update of activities on Orange County economic development
efforts including: the development of a Solar Cluster; the partnership with the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce promoting the Buy Local program; discussions with Buckhorn
Partners, LLC on designing a state certified business park at the Buckhorn EDD; and
discussions with the Town of Hillsborough regarding the incubator development along the US
70/Cornelius Street Corridor and the proposed UNC Hospital Systems new facility in
Waterstone Village.
Economic Development Director Brad Broadwell made this presentation.
Progress Report from Orange County Economic Development Department
As presented to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Presented by Brad Broadwell, Director Orange County Economic Development
Department
September 1, 2009
Solar for Agriculture
In an effort to expand the renewable energy market and support Orange County's agricultural
enterprises, Economic Development staff has been working with USDA Rural Development
representatives to develop a program to educate Orange County's farmers about funding
opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities for their existing
operations. The USDA Rural Energy for America (REAP) program provides grant and loan
funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades such as solar water heaters,
solar pumps, and insulating existing structures. While this program offers partial funding to
make these energy saving changes more affordable to small farmers, additional capital is
required. By coordinating with local vendors and utilizing the North Carolina Energy
Improvement Loan fund (which recently received a large infusion from stimulus monies) we
hope to provide a comprehensive and streamlined opportunity for small farmers to make
energy saving improvements to their operations.
Proposed Solar Installation on Construction & Demolition (C&D) Landfill
As part of the solar cluster development white paper in May 2009, the installation of a solar
array on the closed portion of the county's C&D landfill was proposed. This project would
serve several functions with respect to the advancement of a solar cluster:
• It would be a visible reference project, which would be especially powerful given this
would be the second renewable energy (after methane) utilized from the landfill;
• It would serve as a concrete sign of County's support of the future of solar/renewable
energy;
• It could serve a potential community education forum;
• It would build local solar market-attract future business; and
• It would provide revenue generation from an underutilized public resource.
The project would utilize the closed portion of C & D landfill because its site characteristics
make a solar installation plausible —this area of the landfill is expected to have minimal settling
and minimal methane production. In compliance with existing permit requirements, the
installation would not puncture landfill or otherwise adversely impact landfill cap and would
allow activities required by landfill permit would continue (required operations and
maintenance would activities not be altered).
The project approach would utilize a third party financing model, with no county capital funds
anticipated. The current economic climate for renewable energy provides generous tax
incentives for renewable energy installations — 35% state tax credit, 30% federal tax credit OR
30% federal grant in lieu of credit, and accelerated depreciation. Because governments can't
take advantage of these credits, the project is made feasible by allowing a solar company to
install the solar array, have a group of investors fund the installation, and allow these third
party investors to utilize the tax benefits.
To initiate the project, a Request for Proposals (RFP) process would commence with input
from Economic Development, Solid Waste, the County Attorney, Purchasing, and other groups
as needed, such as ERCD. The RFP would be prepared using several RFPs from similar
projects around country that have been collected. Because there are few similar projects that
have been completed in North Carolina, we would also utilize the help of NC Solar Center and
Appalachian State Energy Center to structure project. The project would most likely set up as
a `ground lease' whereby the solar developer owns and operates the solar installation and the
county receives a monthly or annual lease payment for use of the land. All tax credits,
depreciation, and RECs (renewable energy credits) would be realized by developer. All
construction costs would be borne by developer. The project design, including the type of
solar collector used and the number and location of solar panels, would be left open to allow
creativity by bidders —we would merely state that we want to `maximize the economic and
environmental benefits for the County'.
Once the team has drafted an RFP, we would present the draft RFP and a list of evaluation
criteria to the BOCC for their approval, so I request that with your approval that we now pursue
the drafting of an RFP, to be submitted to BOCC upon its completion, and then move to a
review and award process.
Business Attraction--Solar
As a result of the initial earned media since we presented the solar concept and white paper,
we have several inquiries from business outside of the county looking at a move or expansion
into Orange County. Of the 6 inquiries that have come through the economic development
office at this time, only one new business expansion seems to be viable.
Buy Local Program Update
I'd like to turn your attention to another successful activity that the Economic Development
department is working on to contain retail tax leakage from the County. The department has
been involved with the Buy Local for some time.
A taskforce was created by interested members of the community through the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro COC whose mission was to educate all residents (consumers, businesses,
institutions and local governments) as to why they should buy locally. The taskforce's objective
is to create a measurable change in consumer spending habits to increase local tax revenue,
job retention and creation, and strengthen local businesses and their profitability.
[Additional historical information on the Buy Local program provided as follow up to the
September 1, 2009 presentation is provided as follows: The "Shop Orange" campaign was
initiated by the EDC in 1993. The first campaign kick-off was August 10t • 1993 with a news
conference held at University Mall. The original slogan was "Shop Orange First— It Will Help
All Of Us!". The program's objective was to make community improvements through funding
by increased county retail sales taxes. The original "Shop Orange First" committee included
representatives from both local school systems, the Chapel Hill and Hillsborough Chambers of
Commerce, the EDC, the Federation of Teachers, various PTAs, the Chapel Hill Herald, the
Village Advocate, WCHL, the Chapel Hill News and the Daily Tar Heel. The campaign
culminated with an EDC member riding in several Christmas parades wearing an orange Santa
Suit with the "Shop Orange" slogan on the side of the car.]
There is an important connection between a successful community and a successful economy.
When you spend money on local goods and services, those purchases generate local taxes
which local governments use to fund critical services such as schools, police and fire
protection. It's no surprise to this BOCC that 53% of retail dollars or approximately $477
million dollars are spent outside of Orange County by county residents. Now more than ever,
with a shortfall in consumer spending, individuals can have a major impact on maintaining their
local community's quality of life simply by paying attention to where they shop. We have
supported the group's latest effort by funding the printing and distribution of new collateral
marketing materials to be interested Orange County businesses.
Hillsborough Business Incubator
Currently the Economic Development department is working with Hillsborough's Planning
Director, Margaret Hauth, Associate UNC-CH planning professor Meenu Tewari, and interns
from her class that propose to work on a project for the town of Hillsborough that includes an
analysis and marketing study to recommend reasonable potential uses for eight parcels/areas
in the Cornelius Street Corridor. With five of the areas greater than 2 acres and 3 less than 2
acres, special emphasis will be placed on considering the possibilities of specific business
enterprises, including:
• Retail (incubator);
• Service business/office incubator;
• Fast food;
• Sit down dining;
• Grocery;
• Medial services community center; and
• Attached housing.
Proposed Hillsborough Hospital
At the request of the Hillsborough government, we recently submitted a white paper and
summary of the ramifications of building a new hospital and medical facility in Hillsborough.
Proposed Buckhorn Project
Over the last several weeks we have had an opportunity to do an informal assessment of local
economic prospects. Although perceived and real opportunity was discussed regarding
numerous opportunities through the county, strong feedback was evident suggesting that we
have darn near hit the bottom of job losses, and the housing slump and prospects seemed to
have brightened locally, in Washington and on Wall Street. Locally, we are seeing renewed
interest in and possible opportunities for the Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD)
in the Mebane area to become a technology park.
Some of my perceptions at this time include:
• Commercial brokers do not see Buckhorn EDD as a viable large scale retail option now
or in the coming future;
• Some brokers don't see it as a viable office park/light manufacturing site or distribution
center unless water and sewer are brought to the site;
• Credit markets are loosening a bit but not yet for new projects; and
• Feedback included asking for the county to be more proactive in developing a plan
(physical and financial) to bring water and sewer to the site.
With this in mind, and if we are to take some action, we need to assess any developers
commitment to the Buckhorn EDD, and any action moving forward in developing this EDD
needs to be based on current market realities, plausible and workable commitments to projects
such as the oft discussed building of a state certified technology/business park.
Economic Development Commission Advisory Board request
And I would also like to take a moment before I close to make you aware of a request that will
be forthcoming very shortly from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) advisory
board.
The current EDC advisory board is seeking to retain at least one, but preferably two, graduate
student interns by the end of September to assist them in researching data they believe is
critical to offering recommendations to the BOCC to improve Orange County's economic
health, vitality, and sustainability.
The EDC advisory board feels they will be better positioned to help the BOCC evaluate
economic development opportunities arising in the normal course of events, to seek out
opportunities that otherwise would leak to surrounding counties, and to generate opportunities
that otherwise would remain dormant.
A request of the BOCC will be forth coming outlining a financial commitment to pay the interns
a stipend, which is felt to substantially increase the chances of engaging forward-thinking
student interns whose interests, passions and experience are compatible with growing
sustainable, green economies.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she was glad to see in the plan for doing an RFP
that Brad Broadwell wanted to include several boards that have an interest. She asked if any
farmers had expressed interest in the solar clusters on their land and Brad Broadwell said that
many have asked for information.
Commissioner Pelissier asked Brad Broadwell to forward the education plan on the
Buy Local program.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it is great that the County is working on solar
initiatives. He said that the County had gotten a commitment of $400,000 of DOT Economic
Development funds for Buckhorn Road. Willie Best said that he spoke to DOT about 60 days
ago and the State was holding all funding as of then and the funds are still committed. Willie
Best said that there has been nothing in writing from DOT yet. Commissioner Jacobs asked to
get something in writing from DOT.
Commissioner Jacobs asked what is going on with the Value-Added Shared Use
Center. Commissioner Jacobs asked Noah Rannells to send the County Commissioners
something in writing about the status of the value-added shared use center.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County had talked with six different companies
about locating solar in Orange County and he asked what happened to the five that were not
interested.
Brad Broadwell said that one out of six is not bad in this business. He said that his
department does not have the tools necessary at this point to begin playing this game of
attracting economic development.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if Buckhorn was going to be viable for retail in the short-
term and Brad Broadwell said that it would not be viable for two years for a retail complex.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked what the County could do to keep this project viable and
Brad Broadwell said that there is still growth in the area and developers need to see that there
are still opportunities.
Commissioner Nelson left at 10:28 PM.
8. Board Comments
DEFERRED
9. County Manager's Report
10. Appointments
NONE
11. Information Items
• Memo from Solid Waste Director Regarding Bradshaw Quarry Road Solid Waste
Convenience Center Closure
12. Closed Session
NONE
13. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to adjourn the meeting at 10:29 PM .
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board