Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20091207,~ APPROVED 1/21/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING December 7, 2009 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, December 7, 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 Pelisse, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Donna 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. Board Organization The Clerk distributed ballots for Chair and Vice-Chair. a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Chair -Valerie Foushee Vice-Chair -Bernadette Pelissier b. Designation of Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2009-2010 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to elect Chair Foushee as the voting delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2009-2010. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Appointments a. Manager A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to reappoint Frank Clifton as County Manager. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Clerk to the Board A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to reappoint Donna S. Baker as Clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ,~ c. Attorney A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to reappoint John Roberts at County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to add Item 4p -Classification and Title Change for Budget Director to Deputy Financial Services Director and Temporary Employment Agreement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Chair went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - Reference sheets for item 4-k, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Budget Amendment #5 (beige, lavender, pink) - Multiple letters for item 6-a: Update and Recommended Actions -Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Selection A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to pull Item 4-k -Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Amendment #5 from tonight's agenda and put it on the December 15th agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Earl McKee lives in the northeast portion in the County. He said that the Board of County Commissioners approved on November 17th a plan to upgrade property on Revere Road to be used to station an ambulance and crew in order to reduce response times. He said that as President of Caldwell Fire Department Board of Directors, he expressed appreciation for this decision. Once the station is completed and occupied, he feels that the response time will be in line with the rest of the County. He thanked the Board for this. Sam Gharbo said that he spoke here on the Efland Sewer rates. He said that he read to the Board the last time about the contract with Orange County and the citizens of Efland about the sewer rates. He said that staff had told them that it was illegal for Orange County to subsidize one specific community. He said that there are lots of multi-faceted issues and the community plans to look at this. He said that the reality is that this is an Orange County sewer that happens to be located in Efland and is not the unincorporated community rising up and forcing Orange County to put a sewer system in Efland. He said that the County is raising the rates on 215 people to cover a sewer system that the County put in for the County's purposes. He said that this is unjust and that they as a community will do what they can to be pleasant and work through this process. He said that this community did not ask for this sewer. He said this is not a legal issue and he asked the Board to continue to review this rate process. ,~ b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Proclamation for Bill of Rights Day in Orange County The Board considered a proclamation to recognize December 15, 2009 as Bill of Rights Day in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Peggy Misch read a prepared statement. "The significance of recognizing Bill of Rights Day annually is to remind everyone these rights are given to all persons, not just citizens. At times these rights have been often taken away. Thomas Jefferson warned, All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Understanding this, the Orange County Board of Commissioners defended these rights in the face of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, by passing a resolution reaffirming the rights of its residents regarding the protection of civil rights and civil liberties in October 2003. The Orange County Bill of Rights Defense Committee applauds the Commissioners who reaffirmed the protection of immigrant rights by passing A Resolution Opposing the Use of Local Law Enforcement to Enforce Civil Immigration Law and Policy in January 2007. The Bill of Rights Defense Commitment encourages the Commissioners to continue addressing human rights by adopting the Orange County Social Justice goal in 2010. The Committee is looking forward to the pending discussion to provide safeguards from potential abuses of the Secure Communities program in Orange County. Tonight `The Board will.....consider recommended actions for bringing the search process for a Solid Waste Transfer Station in Orange County to a conclusion.' The thorough analyses weigh heavily on the environmental assessment of the Millhouse Road site. Will each Commissioner consider the human rights of the residents most affected by the decision? From constitutions, `We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,' We, the people of the State of North Carolina, I add, tonight `We, the People of Orange County, urge the Commissioners to make a just decision regarding the disposition of waste in the County.' Also tonight the Commissioners consider proclamations recognizing Human Rights Week, Human Rights Day, and Bill of Rights Day. I invite all the Commissioners and public to participate in the annual reading of the Bill of Rights, Tuesday, December 15, noon, on East Franklin Street Courthouse steps, Peace and Justice Plaza." ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION Bill of Rights Day DECEMBER 15, 2009 Whereas, the necessary states ratified the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, on December 15, 1791; and Whereas, the Bill of Rights protects every person of this state and nation from the infringement of basic human and civil rights; and ,~ Whereas, the freedoms of speech and association and the right to due process and equal protection of the law, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, are a model for democratic institutions and laws all over the world; and Whereas, the people of North Carolina stood strong in withholding ratification of the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added to ensure their inalienable rights; and Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners demonstrated its commitment to "upholding the civil rights and civil liberties of all persons in Orange County and their free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by our constitutions and laws of the United States, the State of North Carolina, and Orange County," in a May 20, 2003 approved resolution entitled "A Resolution Regarding the Protection of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties"; and Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners reaffirmed the protections of all its residents by passing "A Resolution Opposing the Use of Local Law Enforcement to Enforce Civil Immigration Law and Policy" on January 23, 2007; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that we the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim December 15, 2009 as "BILL OF RIGHTS DAY" in Orange County and commend this observance to all people. This, the 7th day of December 2009. Commissioner Jacobs asked the Civil Rights Defense Committee and staff to add that the convention to insist on a Bill of Rights for ratifying the Constitution was held in Hillsborough. He said that Orange County should take pride in that in these resolutions. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve a proclamation to recognize December 15, 2009 as Bill of Rights Day in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Proclamation from Human Relations Commission for Human Riahts Week. Human Rights Day and Bill of Rights Day The Board considered proclamations recognizing Human Rights Week, Human Rights Day and Bill of Rights Day and authorizing the Chair to sign. Human Rights and Relations Director Shoshanna Sayers introduced this item. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION Human Rights Week, Human Rights Day, and Bill of Rights Day WHEREAS, on December 10, 1948, the member States of the United Nations signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and countries of different political, economic and social systems agreed on the fundamental rights that all people share solely on the basis of their common humanity; and ,~ WHEREAS, Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week were adopted by the United Nations in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights Day was first declared in 1941 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to commemorate the 1791 Ratification of the Bill of Rights; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights guarantees, among other basic liberties, freedom of speech and of the press as well as freedom of religion and association; and WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and establishes fundamental rules of fairness in judicial proceedings, including the right to trial by jury; and WHEREAS, the primary responsibility to promote respect for these rights and freedoms lies with each individual in Orange County, and each of us can play a major role in enhancing human rights; and WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County support Human Rights and recognize that the "inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace;" NOW, THEREFORE, We, The Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim December 10 - 16, 2009 aS HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK and December 10, 2009 aS HUMAN RIGHTS DAY and December 15, 2009 aS BILL OF RIGHTS DAY in Orange County and challenge our residents to study and promote the ideas contained in these documents to the end that freedom, justice, and equality shall not perish but will flourish and be made available to all. THIS THE 7t" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve proclamations recognizing Human Rights Week, Human Rights Day and Bill of Rights Day and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 5 and 17, 2009 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. ,~ b. Appointments -None c. Contract with City of Durham for Animal Control Services for the Portion of the City in Orange County The Board approved an agreement for the remainder of FY 2009-10 between the County and the City of Durham to provide Animal Control Services in the amount of $500 for the very small portion of the City located within Orange County and authorized the Manager to sign. d. Examination of Bonds The Board maintained the bonds at the present levels. e. Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan The Board adopted a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan for Orange County. f. Citizen Participation Plan for Housing/Community Development Programs The Board approved the Citizen Participation Plan for use in the implementation of federal and state housing programs. g_ Resolution Providing for Voluntary Participation in ICMA-Retirement Corporation Supplemental Retirement Benefits for County Manager and Other Employees The Board approved a resolution authorizing a deferred compensation plan administered by ICMA-Retirement Corporation as provided in the employment agreement and available to all Orange County employees and authorized the Chair to sign. h. Visitors Bureau Tourism Sales Coordinator Position Classification Title Change The Board approved the classification title change from Publications Coordinator to Tourism Sales Coordinator. i. Bid Award for Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park, Phase I The Board awarded a bid to McQueen Construction in the amount of $498,992.40 for the construction of Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park, Phase I; and approved the resolution as requested by NCDOT; and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution; and authorized the County Manager to execute the contract subject to County Attorney review on behalf of the Board, and to sign necessary change orders to the extent of the project budget. L Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (Schools APFO) -Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers The Board approved the November 13, 2009 membership and capacity numbers for both school districts, which will be used in developing 10-year student membership projections and the 2010 SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee Report. k. Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Amendment #5 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. I. Amendment of Audit Contract The Board approved the amendment of the audit contract for FY 2008-09 with McGladrey and Pullen extending the date for completion of the County audit and authorizing the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. m. Second Reading: Extension of the Ordinance Granting Emergency Services Franchise and Agreements to Orange EMS & Rescue Services, Inc. and Technical Rescue Services, Inc. The Board approved on second reading an extension to March 31, 2010 of the EMS Franchise Agreements by ordinance for the two active rescue squads in the County: Orange EMS & Rescue Squad, Inc. and Technical Rescue Services, Inc d/b/a South Orange Rescue Squad under the same terms and conditions as the franchise agreement adopted by the Board on December 14, 2004. ,~ n. An Amendment to the EMS Franchise Agreement entitled "An Ordinance Regulating Emergency Medical, First Responder and Rescue Service and Granting of Franchise and Contracts to the Operators in the County of Orange" This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. o. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2010 The Board amended its regular meeting calendar for 2010 by adding a Board of Health joint dinner meeting with the Board of County Commissioners for Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. (prior to the 7:00 p.m. Budget Work Session) at Southern Human Services Center, 2501 homestead Road in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. ~ Classification and Title Change for Budget Director to Deputy Financial Services Director and Temporary Employment Agreement The Board approved the title change and classification of Budget Director, grade 31 to Deputy Financial Services Director, grade 27; and approved the terms of temporary employment agreement for Michael Talbert to provide functional responsibilities as the Interim Deputy Financial services Director. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: k. Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Amendment #5 The Board considered approving budget, grant and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2009-10. This item was deferred to December 15, 2009. n. An Amendment to the EMS Franchise Agreement entitled "An Ordinance Regulating Emergency Medical, First Responder and Rescue Service and Granting of Franchise and Contracts to the Operators in the County of Orange" The Board considered approving amendments to the EMS Franchise Ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance Regulating Ambulance and Emergency Medical, First Responder and Rescue Services and Granting of Franchise and Contracts to the Operators in the County of Orange," and authorizing the Chair to sign. PUBLIC COMMENT Jeremy Browner represents Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. and he read a letter in opposition to the EMS Franchise Agreement entitled, "An Ordinance Regulating Emergency Medical, Fist Responder, and Rescue Service and Granting of Franchise and Contracts to the Operators in the County of Orange." He said that the Orange County Rescue Squad disagrees with the current makeup as drafted and wishes that it was instead chaired by an Orange County Commissioner, and that it have a representative from the Orange County Chief's Council, have a representative from the Orange EMS that is active on the line; and include the Orange County Health Director. OCRS does not believe that the EM Director should have a vote on the committee. In addition, the Orange County Rescue Squad feels that there are certain due process requirements that should be added to the process, which will include: - An evidentiary hearing in which parties offer evidence - The cross-examination of adverse witnesses - The right to inspect documents ,~ - The giving of sworn testimony - The right to have written findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence In addition, there is no understanding on what vote will constitute the opinion of the committee that will be reported to the County Commissioners. He asked that the County Commissioners amend the draft to indicate whether it is the simple majority or not. Finally, in response to 16.3-g, in which the EMS Committee would report to the County Commissioners, the Orange County Rescue Squad asks that the ability to respond directly to the County Commissioners be allowed. Commissioner Gordon asked if this was time-sensitive for tonight and John Roberts said that he would recommend addressing this at the first meeting in January. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve referring this to the County Attorney's office for further review to come back with a recommendation as soon as preferable. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Outdoor Lighting The Board received the Planning Board recommendation on astaff-initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.31 Outdoor Lighting Standards of the Zoning Ordinance and considered a decision on adoption. Planner Michael Harvey introduced this item and went over the attachments. This item was presented at the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. Staff is proposing to tighten up the plan submittal requirements to require more information from non-residential developers. The current ordinance is not specific enough. Language has been added to address Commissioner Yuhasz's concern relating to the review of single-family duplex residential development, stipulating that they are not required or mandated to submit formal lighting plans or light data sheets as contained within the attachment. The staff has begun the process of trying to differentiate between non-residential developments within urbanizing and rural portions of the County. The Planning Board recommended several modifications to the definition sections. It was staff's determination that if those items were not advertised specifically, they could not incorporate them into this amendment packet. The Planning Board agreed to allow staff to incorporate those proposed changes into the revised sections for the UDO. There are also amendments to the ordinance for lighting in rural areas of the County and firm deadlines for when lights have to be turned off. The recommendation by the Planning Board is to adopt the ordinance amendment as contained in Attachment 1. Commissioner Gordon noted that the Planning Board made many good suggestions. She asked if these would be addressed later. Michael Harvey said that these comments would be coming back. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 6.31.9 on page 14, the third line, and said that the word "while" does not need to be there. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has repeatedly brought up the bank on NC 86 entering Hillsborough on the east side and it has lights that glare in the face of everyone that ,~ drives past all night and there is no shielding. He would like to ask the bank to shield the lights. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to ask the Board to ask staff to address the lighting situation in a rural area and how this would be permitted for a recreational function. He would like this addressed in the UDO process. Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a section that deals with what items need to appear on a final plat and he asked that staff look at all items to be placed on a final plat. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said that this is not a part of the ordinance but he would like to make a motion that, as part of developing the UDO that the County Commissioners direct staff to consider possible changes to the review process for the installation and use of lighting fixtures connected to a proposed land use. Commissioner Yuhasz seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adopt the ordinance resolution contained in Attachment 1, with changes as recommended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Reaular Aaenda a. Update and Recommended Actions -Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Selection The Board received updates on several issues and considered recommended actions for bringing the search process for a Solid Waste Transfer Station in Orange County to a conclusion. Frank Clifton read through his memorandum, which is shown below: MEMO TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners December 7, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: Solid Waste Transfer Site Decision County Manager Comments and Recommendations • Several years ago a different group of County and Town elected boards decided the County would assume the lead role in operating the existing landfill AND in pursuing a future site for solid waste facilities. • Later County Commissioners decided that a SWTS was a preferable option to a establishing a new landfill. That conclusion was reached after evaluating alternative sites and determining no preferable sites existed. ,~ • The search for a location to house a SWTS has been lengthy, costly and emotionally charged. We are nowhere with less than desirable choices, each with vocal opposition well versed in the issues and vested by potential impacts of an ultimate decision. • If we were considering two different sites, we would be having similar discussions with different persons just as invested in the outcomes. • Current SWTS options: Highway 54 property - 1. The site will work. 2. The site (140 acres) allows for the potential future consolidation of nearby rural convenience centers and other associated uses if needed. 3. The site is expensive but has a willing seller at a yet to negotiated final cost. 4. Transportation costs associated with this location are going to be higher than some other more centralized site. 5. The site is located in a more rural section of Orange County at some distance from the base of users producing solid waste flows. 6. The waste from a SWTS will be hauled to some yet to be determined landfill at some distance from the location of the proposed location (forever). 7. Probable litigation from opponents could delay implementation. Paydarfar property - 1. The site is county owned. 2. The site will work BUT with limitations with regards to its capacity to operate and leaves no room for expansion. 3. The site is close to the existing landfill and the areas where both the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County houses most of their service fleet operations. 4. Subject to agreement of the Towns and County, public utilities could be extended to the site to aid in its viability. 5. There are issues with access in that there is a railroad crossing that may require improvements and some consideration may need to be applied to truck traffic routing going northeast from the site to limit existing and future traffic issues. 6. There may be, subject to confirmation, deed restrictions which prohibit any use other than residential which would also preclude a public park as a use. 7. Probable litigation by opponents could delay final implementation. NOTE: The "best" site from an `operational' perspective was the site initially proposed but later rejected within the current landfill maintenance facility located just north of the current convenience center site on Eubanks Road. With or without a SWTS at that location, existing solid waste infrastructure and associated uses, traffic, other environmental and neighborhood impacts will continue beyond the closure of the landfill. The area has been impacted as it is now constituted for at least the next 30 years or beyond and that is not likely to change. HOWEVER, that site is not under consideration at this time. AS THE NEW COUNTY MANAGER, I could avoid making a specific recommendation claiming the parameters impacting upon the decision were established prior to my arrival and thus without input. HOWEVER, my interests in Orange County are long-term and beyond my employment. I am invested in the County's future. I get paid to offer advice based upon my professional knowledge and experience. Difficult issues are part of the job. ,~ Discussions with the City of Durham indicate a willingness on their part to allow Orange County both anear-term and long-term opportunity to use the City of Durham's SWTS. This current decision process, its length and competing aspects of any decision do predetermine that it is likely solid waste from Orange County will be transported to Durham or some other location for some period of time. Even with a County Commissioners decision to select one of the two sites currently under consideration, delays in putting the new SWTS into operation would probably create a need to transport local solid waste somewhere outside of Orange County. It is recommended that: 1. The County Commission consider authorizing staff to formalize an option to use the City of Durham SWTS for some specific timeframe (3-5 years) and negotiate an arrangement that would encompass the total solid waste flows of Orange County (the Towns and UNC at their option) for that time frame. 2. IF on a long-term basis it is decided from a cost analysis standpoint that building a SWTS in Orange County is a necessity, then: the major users (the Towns, UNC and the County) should all become directly involved in the determination of an appropriate location. That site should potentially and feasibly be located within the planning jurisdictions and/or upon properties either owned or acquired by the parties collectively. 3. The Durham option `long-term' is a "regional solution" to solid waste disposal but not the most comprehensive or environmentally responsible approach. Once transported to Durham, the solid waste goes to a landfill in Virginia. It would appear that this approach is somewhat a contradiction to Orange County's leadership tradition of environmental stewardship and awareness. 4. It is possible that after anear-term decision to transport waste to Durham is made other viable waste disposal options could be pursued by Orange County, its Towns and UNC on a collaborative basis. We need to acknowledge the impacts of this recommendation beyond the immediate issue of the location of a SWTS. 1. Once flow control over the waste stream is relinquished, obtaining the County's established desired recycling goals will become more difficult. 2. Future County SWTS fees would have sustained some of the financial aspects of the local obligations associated with the continuing 30-year obligation to rectify any environmental issues over that period that may arise at the soon to be closed existing landfill. 3. The future obligations of the existing inter local agreement between the County and Towns may be mute. The County only controls it limited solid waste stream (convenience centers, schools and county properties). The Towns may rightfully seek to pursue other more cost effective options elsewhere if determined to exist to lower their operational expenses. 4. Once the solid waste stream leaves Orange County, it is unlikely this issue will be again raised for consideration given the difficulty in dealing with the potential associated impacts. 5. FINALLY, the County and Towns (subject only to negotiations) will have very limited control over the future solid waste disposal costs. We may shop our solid waste to accepting landfills or SWTS sites elsewhere, but the viability of those options will vary ,~ little and only upon the distance from collection routes where full trucks will travel to the disposal location. Staff is prepared to fully respond to any information within the meeting package and answer questions the County Commissioners may have with regards to any input. I will be glad to respond further to any questions raised regarding my recommendations. Whatever decision(s) the County Commissioners might make on this issue, the staff is prepared to move forward toward implementing that direction in a proactive and professional manner. This has been a difficult process for the County and there is no `perfect' solution. Respectfully, Frank W. Clifton, Jr. County Manager Commissioner Nelson thanked the Manager for his thorough analysis. He made reference to the recommendation of 3-5 years with Durham and asked why the County does not just get out of the waste collection business altogether. Frank Clifton said that this is a viable option, but the significance of doing that is that the County has invested heavily in the process of recycling. Once the waste leaves the County entirely, there is no control over the recycling. He said that the responsible thing to do would be for all entities to stay involved. Commissioner Nelson asked Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson about the typical mileage for trash trucks and Gayle Wilson said that it would be about 36 miles to Durham and 21-22 miles to NC 54 from the centroid. Commissioner Pelissier asked how this would affect the debt and Frank Clifton said that there would be no impact on the general fund, but to get the appropriate financing rates, the general fund has to guarantee it. He said that one concern that he has with this process is that it has been discussed over a long period of time and if the County were to build a waste transfer station and a less costly option comes up, it is too late because too much money has been spent. He said that the 3-5 years with Durham would give a clear analysis of the costs of hauling the waste and whether or not there was a better alternative in the long-term. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the recycling program and how it could be sustained. Frank Clifton said that the program would still exist, but they would have to be a little more inventive on how to pursue it. Public Comment: Bonnie Hauser read a prepared statement from Orange County Voice. OCV Statement to the BoCC on the WTS December 7th I'm Bonnie Hauser of Orange County Voice and 1'll be our only speaker tonight. We appreciate the time you've taken over the last year to hear our comments. Here's a recap ,~ We continue to strongly oppose the Bingham site - It's too far, there's no water/sewer, there are road safety issues and acres of wetlands that should have disqualified the site from the start -you already know that. We also oppose the Paydarfar site -not only because of the issues raised by the community but because, like Bingham, it's too expensive and it's an investment in models of the past None of the options you are considering conform to the Olver process. But that's not an issue, because we all know that the process was flawed and compromised. Given the changes in our economy and other factors, it's no longer relevant. Then there are the economics -once the landfill closes, the county will no longer make money on trash. Now is the time to re-think how to handle it -- including how any option will impact taxes and fees. Finally, the interlocal agreement needs to be reexamined in the light of changing conditions. What was designed at one time to manage the landfill has inadvertently become a mechanism to dump in-town trash on out-of--town communities. We don't want to belabor the shortfalls of the last 2 years. ---- We're concerned about the next 20. The situation is changing --- We're all better informed, and with Mr. Clifton as Manager, the staff now has the leadership to correct the missed opportunities of the past. We now know that there are options that are cheaper, greener, and more flexible than Bingham or Paydarfar, which would not burden any community. Most importantly, these options begin to build a solid waste infrastructure for Orange County's future. We are prepared to discuss them in the context of a new and better informed process. Tonight we respectfully ask that you choose Durham as an interim solution so that the county can apply the lessons learned over the last 2 years toward along-term solution that makes sense. Since Durham is cheaper than either site, and there are short term benefits that will help with the county's immediate fiscal challenges. We respectfully ask that you choose Durham for the benefit of every Orange County Community and that you not rely on a process that seemed designed to divide us from the start. Please vote tonight to use Durham for the short term and start us on a path to a responsible waste management. ,~ Thank you for considering our view. Again, Orange County Voice will have no other speakers tonight but if you look around the room and in the overflow areas, residents are wearing stickers to show their support for our statement. Good luck in your deliberations and if you choose Durham, we are committed to work with you, SWAB and other community groups to get this right. Thank you. Nancy Tennison was from Orange Justice United, formerly known as Orange County Organizing Committee, said that they are composed of and supported by 38 member faith communities and non-profit organizations, and they work to improve the lives of ordinary people in Orange County. She said that Orange Justice United supports the County Manager in choosing Option B and entering into negotiations with the City of Durham to send Orange County's waste to the Durham waste transfer station. She said that this seems to be a viable short-term solution and possibly along-term solution. Richard Eckberg said that he was presenting a statement from Douglas Guile, who is an Environmental Engineer and President of Prescott Environmental Services of Chapel Hill. Douglas Guile is also a member of the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board. Mr. Guile could not be present and he asked that everyone attending this meeting understand that his comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the SWAB or of himself as a member of SWAB, but strictly are his own professional observations. He said that Douglas Guile has recently been in contact with a company called INENTECH, which stands for Integrated Environmental Technologies. The company now manufactures Plasma Arc Melter Units for the disposal of waste. Plasma arc is new, clean, non-combustion technology and converts complex organic and inorganic waste. The byproduct is sin gas, which is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, and nitrogen, which is an efficient fuel for generation of steam, which can power turbines to produce electricity. In other words, these units are capable of converting trash into something useful such as power. He said that Mr. Guile has seen this in operation in the Hanford site in the State of Washington. INENTECH is now in partnership with Waste Management. The partnership is known as SR2. There will be a demo unit of this in Texas in the spring of 2010. He said that the waste in Orange County could easily be handled by two of the SR2 units. He said that Mr. Guile plans to bring in experts on this technology to speak with the SWAB. Frank Tozzolina said that he appreciated the Manager's comments about not putting money into a transfer station now because someone more efficient might be on the horizon. He agreed with looking into the plasma arc technology. He said that if all communities work together, then they can avoid the duplication of things. Laura Streitfield was from Preserve Rural Orange. She said that both of the proposed transfer station sites came from a flawed process. She said that a year ago criteria stipulated sites with a minimum of 25 acres and led the County to larger rural properties. She said that the Howell Property is 15 times larger than needed for a transfer station. By contrast, the Greensboro transfer station located on a highway sits on just 9.4 acres and can handle 1,200 tons per day of waste. She said that more recently smaller properties were added to the options without applying criteria and outside of the systematic search. She said that all communities here have concerns about environmental and community impacts and the failure to identify sustainable and equitable options. She asked the County Commissioners not to choose unsuitable sites simply to be done with this process. She urged the County Commissioners to choose the Durham transfer station and allow time to find better options, ,~ including conducting a systematic and thorough search for smaller sites. She asked that the County Commissioners follow the County's Comprehensive Plan closely. David Caldwell said that he would like to tell the County Commissioners about the history of the Rogers Road area and waste disposal. He said that whatever is decided will be a truly historical event that will go down as one that was right and just. Christopher Lamb said that during the past Board of County Commissioners' meetings they have heard citizen opposition of the Millhouse Road site. He said that this opposition is not based on the "not in my back yard" mentality. He said that opposition is coming from a broad cross-section of Orange County citizens, residents, and leaders. On December 1St, the Carrboro Aldermen passed a resolution requesting that the Board of County Commissioners remove the Millhouse Road site from consideration. On September 28th, the Town of Chapel Hill rejected further financial analysis of the Town Operations site and the Millhouse site due to concerns of environmental justice. Bishop Hatley and Rev. Carmen have voiced concern of the site selection process and issues of environmental justice. He said that the community has started a petition process for collecting opposition signatures to the Millhouse site. He has received 450 signatures just tonight. He said that this broad opposition should make it clear that this is not a simple case of "not in my backyard" but is a case of environmental justice and right and wrong. He asked the County Commissioners to permanently remove the Rogers/Eubanks/Millhouse Road community from any future waste transfer facilities. He requested that the County Commissioners pass a resolution tonight stating this position. Barbara Hopkins lives on Purefoy Drive in the Rogers Road community. She said that here they are making another final decision and the decision is more than just the County Commissioners'. She said that it has come to this situation because of the choices made by the Board of County Commissioners and their predecessors going all the way back to 1972. She listed some of the past Commissioners that made these decisions. She said that over the last 37 years, County Commissioners have come and gone with decisions and promises forgotten, but the Rogers Road community is still here and they have not forgotten. She said that those of them that live in this area are tied to this process. She said that the County Commissioners can right the wrongs that have resulted from decades of collective decision- making. She asked the County Commissioners to take this site off the list now and forever. Neil Kirschner lives on Millhouse Road. He said that he has heard from officials in the past that Millhouse Road was never part of the GREC. If so, he asked why OWASA prepared a plan for water and sewer from Millhouse Road back in the 1990's. He also asked how the Nunn Family, an anchor in this community, became so insignificant that they have become invisible to elected officials. He said that the Nunn Family occupied 200 acres on Millhouse and Eubanks Roads. He said that this road should have been named Nunn Road, since they were the largest family and stakeholder on the road. He does not want to hear the nonsense about Millhouse Road not being part of the Rogers/Eubanks community. He said that this community has been turned into a de facto industrial park. Robert Long is a resident of the greater Rogers Road community. He made reference to a letter in front of the County Commissioners from an engineer who walked the ten-acre site today and found that approximately 10% of it is wetlands. This fact was overlooked by other surveys. Secondly, he acknowledged that Gertrude Nunn and her son and daughter and other Nunn family members are in attendance. Lastly, he said that he looks forward to when the greater Rogers Road community can partner with Orange County leadership and put this adversarial relationship behind them once and for all. He dreams of a time when Orange County can truly be recognized for its environmental and social leadership. He said that the members of the community are asking for the County Commissioners to adopt a resolution that would allow the greater Rogers Road community to finally close the book on this ordeal. They ,~ are asking for assurance that this process will not double back again to this community. They would like their community to be taken out of consideration as a trash site now and forever. Robert Campbell said that he stands here tonight with residents, family, friends, and members of the Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Association and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism. He asked everyone in support of no waste transfer station in the Rogers Road/Eubanks Road/Millhouse Road community to stand. He said that one site under consideration is a County-owned plot of land on Millhouse Road and they oppose this site because it is in the same community that has been impacted by solid waste disposal for the past 37 years. He said that they live with bad water, bad air quality, unsafe roads, and they are an underserved community. He said that they have worked tirelessly to protect the quality of life. He said that because of the history of these issues, the Rogers/Eubanks neighborhood was given an invitation to the White House to be a participant in a clean energy economic forum. On November 25, 2009 he received a letter from EPA that the complaint against Orange County is moving forward and the EPA will consider investigating the County on the issue if the BOCC decided to put a waste transfer station on Millhouse Road. He asked that the County Commissioners finally do the right thing for Orange County. Cecil Griffin said that he has expressed to the County Commissioners that the use of the Paydarfar site is a bait and switch that violates public trust in Orange County. He said that his Dad was mayor of a small town in eastern North Carolina for many years and he would ask his dad why he and the town board did or did not do certain things, and he would respond, "Son, regardless of what is legal, we have to try to do what is right." He said that his dad was never defeated in the reelection campaign. He asked the County Commissioners to do what is right. Mark Dorosin is the Senior Managing Attorney for UNC Center for Civil Rights. He made reference to his letter sent last week regarding restricted covenants at the Paydarfar site, which includes a restriction for the property to be used for residential purposes only. He said that a number of adjacent properties also originally belonged to the Blackwoods and contained similar or identical restrictions, thereby creating mutual benefits and burdens for the owners of those properties, and which give those owners legal rights to enforce the deed restrictions. He said that these restrictions, although legally binding and otherwise enforceable, may not be able to stop the development of a waste transfer station if the County selects the Paydarfar site. North Carolina courts have held that if the County violates those restrictive covenants, such action would constitute a taking of vested property rights for which the adjacent owners would be entitled to just compensation. It would be up to a court to determine the value of the property right not to live next to a solid waste transfer station for each of the other owners subject to those restrictions. This process would be complicated and expensive. He reminded the Board of the critical environmental justice issues in the possible selection of the Paydarfar site. Federal and state guidelines specify that environmental justice requires governments to consider both the cumulative effects and recurrent impacts of environmental decisions on communities of color, as well as past impacts not adequately remedied. The guidelines also specifically refer to past environmental commitments to communities of color that have been broken or ignored. He asked the County Commissioners to please remove the Paydarfar site from any further consideration of any solid waste uses. Tom Schopler thanked the Manager for his analysis of this process. He made reference to the question of the control of the waste flow and said that it seems that the County could have licensing and oversight on the trash haulers and the inspection capability to make sure that the trash is properly sorted and the proper recycling takes place. He said that he supports the use of the Durham transfer station. He thinks that the 3-5 year window allows proper time to address the issue directly. ,~ Charlie Viles is the parent of a child at Emerson Waldorf School. He is also on the Board of Directors of the school. He said that he is supportive of the Durham site. He read a prepared statement. He gave some numerical facts: - 36.2 acres is the minimum acreage required for the Bingham site according to the staff report - 10 acres is the minimum acreage required for the Paydarfar site according to the staff report - 4 acres is the number of additional acres east of the Paydarfar site that the County staff thinks is needed from the Town of Chapel Hill. - 0 is the likelihood that the Town of Chapel Hill is going to grant those 4 acres. - 5 out of 5 is the vote that the County Commissioners made on December 12, 2006 to, "purchase a 10-acre tract of land from David Paydarfar for an addition to the future Millhouse Road park property." - 40 feet is the width of the access road to get to the Paydarfar site, which will have to go on the park property purchased from the Blackwood's four years ago. - 55 is the number of households on Millhouse Road north of the railroad tracks. - 242 is the number of students at the Emerson Waldorf School between the grades of K-12 less than half a mile from the Paydarfar site. - 4 is the number of votes needed tonight to take Millhouse Road off the table for good. Earl McKee said that he would not advocate for any particular option, but over the past years, various options have been chosen but no site yet. He said that many people are not here tonight and feel that the collection and the disposal of trash is one of the basic services due the citizens of Orange County in return for taxes paid. To date, hundreds of thousands of tax dollars have been spent on consultants and countless hours of staff time has been expended on this issue. Any further delay would be viewed as a waste of tax dollars. He said that citizens expect to take their trash to an easily accessible collection site, and have it processed and disposed of in an economical and responsible manner. Regardless of which option is chosen, some will be upset. Kent Hayes said that the NC 54 site does not make sense for the County and he asked the County Commissioners to do the right thing and chose the site in Durham. He also asked the County Commissioners to consider withdrawing the Bingham Township community from further consideration for waste disposal. Spence Dickinson thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its work. He supported the Manager's recommendation. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners are grateful for the citizens' input and the decorum with which they have comported themselves over the years. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners need to enter into the record the letter and resolution from the Town of Carrboro and the letter from the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioner Jacobs said that everyone has gone through a long learning process and a long listening process. He said that there are compelling arguments against the two sites under consideration. He does not want the County to be held hostage to its own process when it yields results that it cannot defend. He said that the money spent to get to this point was not wasted money. He said that he does not think that the Board is ready to give up its leadership role in North Carolina in solid waste reduction and in recycling. He thinks that this is ,~ still an opportunity to take some creative leadership in trying to address solid waste issues when the State gives very little help and no incentive to work with neighbors. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve adopting option B- City of Durham Transfer Station: (1) Authorize the County manager to proceed with validating an interlocal agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements as an intermediate solution (3-5 years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the greatest extent possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste and promoting recycling. (2) Direct County Management to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999 Interlocal Agreement as necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid waste disposal facilities and formalizing waste stream flow commitments so that any agreement with the City of Durham provides the towns and county with the best rate possible over the course of a long term agreement. (3) Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and in solid waste planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing already what they oppose. (4) Direct County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board to establish a discrete timeline and framework for a public process to evaluate alternative methods for solid waste disposal, with an emphasis on strategies that are environmentally sensitive, socially responsible, cost-effective, and multi-jurisdictional across county lines. Said framework for evaluation to return to the Board no sooner than September 2010. (5) No additional funding for consultants to pursue these matters shall be authorized without explicit direction from the Board. A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger: (6) To exclude the Millhouse Road -Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from any future solid waste facilities. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger agreed with the friendly amendment. Commissioner Gordon said that she came into the meeting with some thoughts that she wanted to share, but she has decided to cover only the highlights of her statement. She said that the County Commissioners had agreed to site a WTS in Orange County and made a commitment to a defined site selection process. Of the candidate sites, she did not believe that there was one that was ideal, but she did believe that following the site selection process means rejecting the site in Eubanks Road area. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier to add a friendly amendment. She said that there is still a landfill in Orange County, and if the County Commissioners want to stick with their values, they need to take care of their own trash. She said that in the interim, and ,~ with the study between the jurisdictions, they need to specify to look at the possibility for a landfill in Orange County. She said that if everyone is concerned about having trash in their own backyard, they should be concerned about where they are sending it. She wants to stick to the values. Commissioner Jacobs did not accept this as a friendly amendment. He said that his motion does not preclude considering a landfill. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he too is concerned about the long-term solution for trash and Durham County is only an intermediate solution. He said that he would have been very pleased to have accepted Commissioner Jacobs' motion, but now he is concerned about adding on commitments that may tie the hands of some future Board of County Commissioners and will raise expectations among certain people that they are off the table. He said that if there is going to be a clear, transparent, fair process, nothing should be off the table. For this reason, he is hesitant to support the motion as stated. Chair Foushee said that she is happy that they are finally removing the Rogers- Eubanks-Millhouse Road community from the site list. She said that this is a consideration of environmental injustice. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1(Commissioner Yuhasz) A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to specifically consider a landfill when the staff looks at solid waste alternatives. Commissioner Nelson said that he seconded this motion because he does not believe it is consistent with this community's values to shift its waste to a poorer, less affluent community somewhere, whether it's Virginia or rural North Carolina. He is deeply opposed to this. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is part of him that agrees with this, but having voted in 2000 as a unanimous Board against siting another landfill in Orange County, he suggested that since 2/3 of the waste is produced in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, there is an inherent injustice with putting a landfill on the other end of the County. He said that he is not in support of putting the waste of 2/3 of the people in the backyards of 1/3 of the people. He respects the motion but cannot vote for it. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he will vote against this motion because it presumes that the community is seen as only Orange County. He said that a solid waste solution should come from the regional community. He does not want to concentrate energies in merely an Orange County solution. Commissioner Nelson said that the reality is that the waste is being shipped to a poorer county that is largely minority and it is not consistent with Orange County's values to take waste from an affluent county that ship it to a county that is poorer because it is easy to do. He said that it will be a nightmare for another community. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the suggestion to take waste from Chapel Hill and Carrboro and send it to some place in a remote part of Orange County is the same philosophy as taking the waste from an affluent community and sending it to another community. He said that whatever group is constituted to look at the solid waste problem should be allowed the latitude to look at it with complete freedom to find the best solution. This is why he voted against the previous motion. VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner Nelson); Nays, 4 ,~ THE MOTION FAILED 7. Reports-NONE 8. County Manager's Report None 9. Board Comments Commissioner Hemminger asked to have the item regarding hunting deer with dogs brought back for discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to have the issue regarding hunting deer with dogs come back as a discussion item to the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Frank Clifton said that there is a meeting scheduled tomorrow with citizens about this. Commissioner Jacobs asked for an update on tethering dogs. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a deadline while the Board of County Commissioners is on recess to comment to the Department of Transportation on the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Foushee to have something on the agenda for December 15, 2009 that states a County position in opposition to Elizabeth Brady Road Extension and stipulates the alternatives that have been suggested to DOT for the same money that would alleviate traffic concerns in the Hillsborough area. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs invited people on December 10th at 10:30 a.m. Dr. Taurari will make a presentation at the County Commissioners' request on the Cornelius Street Economic Development possibilities. Dr. Taurari's class has been working on this issue this semester. Commissioner Gordon said that Senator Ellie Kinnaird organized a meeting with Transportation Secretary Gene Conti in November to discuss the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension and possible alternatives. The meeting was attended by two Hillsborough Town Board members, Commissioner Gordon, and other individuals. Secretary Conti agreed to seriously consider the concerns raised, and work to find a solution. He said that if it looked like Elizabeth Brady Road Extension would not be viable, then they could consider other alternatives. She will send more information in an email. Chair Foushee said that she met with Senator Kinnaird last week to talk about the 2010-11 budget year, and Senator Kinnaird confirmed that the State expects a shortfall. There was also a discussion about stimulus funding and how Orange County might be more competitive in receiving funding. Senator Kinnaird said that she would set up a meeting with Chair Foushee and Dempsey Benton to talk about being more competitive. Chair Foushee said that she and Commissioner Nelson met with Carolyn Efland of UNC to talk about transit in Orange County and how it will be part of the regional transit operation. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Board had a retreat last week about boards and commissions, and part of that discussion was that the Board was to get information back about overlaps between boards and which boards should be removed, adjusted, or combined. He ,~ said that it seems that since the boards are not going to be active over the next couple of months, then the Board should hold off on making any appointments until something comes back as a result of that retreat information. He also has some concerns about diversity and appointing the same people to boards whose charges overlap. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to postpone all appointments until this is discussed in January. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10. Appointments a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee -New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. DEFERRED b. Arts Commission -New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Arts Commission. DEFERRED c. Commission for the Environment -New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Commission for the Environment. DEFERRED d. Joint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) -New Appointment The Board was to consider making one appointment to Joint Orange Chatham Community Action. DEFERRED e. Orange Unified Transportation Board -New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. DEFERRED 11. Information Items • No Fault Well Repair Fund Report • Memorandum Regarding Utility Extension Fund History • November 17, 2009 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 12. Closed Session NONE 13. Adjournment ,~ A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board