Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-02-2010 APPROVED 3/2/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING February 2, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 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, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, 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 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve adding item 4-r, Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2010, to the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Foushee reviewed various documents at their places: - Blue sheet was item 4-r, Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2010 - PowerPoint related to item 4-j, Voluntary Agricultural District Designation: Woods Family Farm - PowerPoint related to item 6-d, Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update — Options - Informational sheet on tax value PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Affordable Housing Performance Report The Board received the Annual Affordable Housing Performance Report from the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Patsy Barbee, Chair of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, made this report. She said that they are presenting their 61h annual performance report along with the 2010 calendar. During this past year, they have spent over$1 million in federal, state, and local funds in the construction of 10 new units and the acquisition of 44 existing units. She said that the calendar highlights the affordable housing projects. She thanked the County Commissioners for continued support of affordable housing initiatives. b. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients The Board acknowledged and presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving the Fall 2009 cycle of Orange County Arts Grants. Arts Commission Director Martha Shannon presented art grant recipient checks along with the Commissioners to the Fall 2009 recipients of the Orange County Arts Grants. She said that, in addition to the information on the abstract, the Arts Commission received 28 grant requests, totaling $33,813 and awarded a total of $22,250 for arts projects proposed by nine non-profit organization, nine schools, and two individual artists. She thanked the Commissioners for their support since 1985. Grant Recipient: Attendees: A.L. Stanback Middle School - NOT AVAILABLE ArtsCenter- Emily Ranii, Ed Camp Arts Advocates dba Franklin Street Arts Collective - Gordon Jameson Carrboro High School - Holly Rio Central Elementary School PTO - Susan Persinger Choreo Collective - NOT AVAILABLE Door to Door Program of UNC Health Care - Joy Javits Efland-Cheeks Elementary School PTA - NOT AVAILABLE Eno Publishers - Elizabeth Woodman Estes Hills Elementary School PTA - NOT AVAILABLE Gravelly Hill Middle School - NOT AVAILABLE Hillsborough Arts Council - Tinka Jordy Tinka Jordy - Tinka Jordy McDougle Elementary School PTA - NOT AVAILABLE Morris Grove Elementary School - Amy Alvut North Carolina Symphony - Rachel Ash Phillips Middle School PTSA - NOT AVAILABLE Emily Weinstein - NOT AVAILABLE Women's Voices Chorus - Susan Gidwitz c. Proclamation Acknowledging February as "Human Relations Month" The Board considered an official proclamation recognizing the month of February as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that each year the Governor proclaims February as Human Relations Month and the annual Pauli Murray Awards Ceremony will be on Feb. 28th Commissioner Jacobs read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission and Office of Human Rights and Relations have diligently served the County of Orange since 1995, and are committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity and understanding throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the County's Civil Rights Ordinance specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, veteran status and familial status; and WHEREAS, the County recognizes the dignity and worth of each individual and desires to promote and maintain a climate of good will among individuals, races, ethnic groups and persons of varying social, religious and economic status, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange County residents, as individuals, to take a stand against social injustice and continue to work together to make freedom, justice, and equal opportunity available for all; and WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made thus far towards equality and leading the challenge for equal opportunity using all the means at our disposal; NOW, THEREFORE, We, The Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim February 2010 as "HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH" in Orange County and challenge County residents to promote the ideology of social justice for all and to celebrate multiculturalism in our county by encouraging residents to embrace our diversity. THIS THE 2nd DAY OF February, 2010. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve an official proclamation recognizing the month of February as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that the Board would receive an invitation to the rescheduled HRR event. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. b. Appointments — None c. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property The Board accepted the report of the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens on real property and set the lien sale advertisement date for March 17, 2010. d. Property Tax Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to six (6) requests fro property tax refund in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. e. Property Tax Releases The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to twenty-one (21) requests for property tax release in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. f. Property Value Changes The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, approving value changes made in property values after the 2009 Board of Equalization and Review had adjourned. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved twelve (12) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2009 tax year. h. Resolution Creating a Special Board of Equalization and Review This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. i. Orange County Arts Commission Annual DCP Renewal with NC Arts Council The Board authorized the Orange County Arts commission and staff to apply by the March 1, 2010 deadline for annual Designated County Partner (DCP) renewal with the NC Arts Council in order to receive state Grassroots Arts Program funds for Orange County. L Voluntary Agricultural District Designation: Woods Family Farm This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. k. Consultant Services - Consolidated Housing Plan The Board awarded a contract for consulting services to W. Frank Newton, Inc. for the development of a Consolidated Housing Plan for Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign contingent upon final review and approval of the County Attorney. I. Notice of Public Hearing on Orange County's 2010 Legislative Agenda The Board directed the Clerk to the Board and the County Manager to publish a notice of the Board's intent to hold a public hearing during its regular meeting on February 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center at 2501 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill, North Carolina to receive public comments on potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2010 North Carolina General Assembly. m. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — February 22, 2010 The Board approved the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for February 22, 2010. n. Letter Supporting North Carolina Department Of Transportation's Application for Southeast High Speed Rail Funding This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. o. Authorization and Issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Including Bonds Previously Authorized and Up to $7,000,000 of Additional Bonds The Board adopted the Bond Order authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the maximum amount of $7,000,000 to refund a portion of the 2004 Public Improvement Bond, in the form presented; adopted the resolution regarding the publication of the bond Order and the Amendment to the Bond Resolution, in the forms presented; and authorized and directed staff to take the actions contemplated in such proceedings to complete the proposed refunding bond issue. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Orange County Schools Projects and Approval of the Corresponding School Capital Project Ordinances The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the applications to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to release funds from Orange County's NC Education Lottery account for Orange County Schools' projects, and approved the corresponding School capital Project Ordinances. Exercise County's Statutory Right of First Refusal to Purchase Board of Education Property The Board exercised the County's Right of First Refusal to purchase real property owned by the Orange County Board of Education and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution. r. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2010 The Board changed the location of the Joint BOCC meeting with the Town of Hillsborough, which is scheduled for Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., FROM the Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street in Hillsborough TO the New Orange County Library, 137 W. Margaret Lane, in Hillsborough. (Meeting room entrance on side of building). VOTE FOR CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: a. Minutes The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes of the November 14, 2009 and December 4, 2009 meetings as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he had placed at each County Commissioners' place a correction for the November 14, 2009 minutes on page 16. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the minutes as presented with the corrections. VOTE: UNANIMOUS h. Resolution Creating a Special Board of Equalization and Review The Board considered a resolution providing for the appointment of a special Board of Equalization and Review to carry out the statutory responsibilities of ensuring that tax lists and tax records comply with the provisions of the North Carolina Machinery Act. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for this item to be pulled because he wanted to recognize the hard work of the E&R Board, especially for this past year. He said that the legislature charges the Commissioners to serve as the E&R Board unless they delegate that authority to another body. He reminded the County Commissioners that they need to make sure that when they appoint members to this Board that this Board of E&R reflects the knowledge of Orange County and the people on the Board of E&R should understand the real estate appraisal process. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adopt the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to appoint a special Board of Equalization and Review with the recommended level of compensation for members of the E&R Board. Further, the Board directed staff to recruit applicants for the E&R Board, with appointments to be made at a future Commissioners' meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS L Voluntary Agricultural District Designation: Woods Family Farm The Board considered an application from the Woods family to certify their farm as qualifying farmland within the Caldwell Voluntary Agricultural District and authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement. Commissioner Pelissier said that Kim and Gail Woods are donating the voluntary agricultural district and she would like to thank them for being a part of this. Kim Woods said that she is a member of a longstanding farm family and she thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their support of farmers. Commissioner Jacobs thanked her and pointed out that the Agricultural Summit would be on February 81h. He pointed out that agricultural income in Orange County has gone up a little recently. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to certify 83.5 acres of the Woods Farm as qualifying farmland, designate it as the third participating farm within the Caldwell Voluntary Agricultural District, and authorize the Chair to sign the Conservation Agreement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS n. Letter Supporting North Carolina Department Of Transportation's Application for Southeast High Speed Rail Funding The Board considered authorizing the Chair to sign a letter supporting the North Carolina Department of Transportation's application for funding from both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well as from annual federal budgetary appropriations to accelerate the Southeast High Speed Rail corridor south of Washington D.C. Commissioner Gordon said that in between the time this letter was drafted and now, North Carolina has received news that it will receive $545 million for high-speed rail from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She suggested that this should be acknowledged in the letter and the item deferred to a later agenda to take into account these recent events. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to defer this item until staff can incorporate the latest information into a letter. The Board does support this high-speed rail funding. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Orange County Consolidated Housing Plan The Board received comments from the public regarding the housing and non-housing needs to be included in the 2010-2014 Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County and proposed uses of 2010-2011 HOME funds. Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that this is a five-year plan and Orange County has had two consolidated plans prior to this plan. This plan must be completed by May. It is required to hold a public hearing for this proposed plan. She said that tonight's public hearing is also to receive comments on the proposed uses of $733,000 in 2010-2011 HOME Funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, housing rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance. Applications are due by March 1, 2010. PUBLIC COMMENT: Griff Gatewood is the housing developer at CASA, which is an independent non-profit. He thanked the Board for its continued support. He said that CASA is committed to serving those who make less than 50% of the area median income, which is a single adult that earns less than $25,000. He asked the County Commissioners to support this consolidated housing plan. He asked the County Commissioners to please make funds available for development of more housing, to have subsidies for those living in this housing, and to provide more project- based subsidies. He said that the average rent is $130 a month, but the operating costs are $250-300 a month. The gap has to be filled by rental subsidies. Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Community Home Trust, distributed a letter. He also said that he wholeheartedly supports CASA's work. "Dear Chair Foushee and Members of the County Commission: The Community Home Trust had a banner year in 2009 when we sold 36 homes to low- income homebuyers. This unusually high volume of activity was driven by the inclusionary housing policy in Chapel Hill, which required that we sell twenty condominiums in the East 54 development. I am pleased to report that we have sold all of our East 54 condos in Phase I and we look forward to Phase II in the spring. In 2010 we expect to sell more than 40 homes, most of which will be new to our inventory of affordable homes. There are currently more than 160 homes in the Home Trust inventory; by December of this year we expect to reach almost 200 homes. As the Commissioners know, because of stagnant HUD income limits, it has been difficult to maintain the affordability of our housing stock without additional subsidy. Typically we have to add subsidy to homes that resell in order to maintain their affordability to low- income families. HOME funds have been a valuable source of subsidy to create and maintain affordability of Home trust properties. Although we have about $200,000 of HOME funds unused from 2008-09 and 2009-10, we expect to be using $50,000 to $70,000 before the end of the fiscal year. We expect to use the balance of our allocation in fiscal year 2010-11. However, there are several large developments that have already been approved by the local governments, including 140 West Franklin in Chapel Hill, Ballentine in Carrboro, and Waterstone in Hillsborough that will require substantial amounts of subsidy. Although it is difficult for us to predict when Home Trust homes will resell, or when private sector developers will initiate already approved developments, we are required to project our subsidy needs 18 months into the future. Based upon what we know at this time and what developments might get built in 2011, we believe we will need an additional $75,000 of HOME funds in this cycle. I want to thank the Board for all the support you have provided to the Home Trust over the past decade. We have worked hard to create a program that allows low-income families to live in affordable, well maintained homes that are integrated into the larger community. Our success would not have been possible without your support." Commissioner Jacobs asked Tara Fikes how the County was doing on providing SRO's in this community in light of the mental health issues. Tara Fikes said that there have been no new initiatives to provide SRO's. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the housing complaints and asked if Tara Fikes had heard anything different with the supposed more sympathetic federal government. Tara Fikes said that she has not heard any new developments. She said that the federal government has held the County harmless from reductions in income levels that are used for program purposes. She said that Congressman Price is quite aware of these problems and Commissioner Jacobs said to jog his memory. Commissioner Jacobs asked Robert Dowling about the long-term maintenance issues that he approached the Assembly of Governments about a couple of years ago. Robert Dowling said that they addressed the affordability challenge with the HOME funds. The maintenance issues are difficult to address because most of the homes are new. The HOME funds have to be spent each year. Commissioner Pelissier made reference to Goal 3 — Promote Neighborhood and Economic Development— and said that there is a statement that says that the County would work with the area Chambers of Commerce and others to promote general economic development. She asked how this would be done. Tara Fikes said that this goal is specific to Chapel Hill's community development grant program. The Town of Chapel Hill is involved in that activity. b. Public Hearing for EMS Franchise The Board conducted a public hearing on the need for ambulance services. Frank Montes de Oca said that the North Carolina General Statute § 153A-250 provides that before a County may by ordinance franchise ambulance services in the County, "the Board of Commissioners must first hold a public hearing on the need for ambulance services." He said that notice must be published once a week for two successive weeks before the hearing. "After the hearing the Board may adopt an ordinance if it finds that to do so is necessary to assure the provision of adequate and continuing services and to preserve protect, the promote the public health, safety, and welfare." He said that the notice has been published as provided in the statute. If the Board determines a need for ambulance service exists it may permit a franchise by Ordinance. Any franchise ordinance granted by the Board cannot, in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-46, be adopted "until it has been passed at two regular meetings of the Board of Commissioners." The Manager recommends that the Board receive the public comments, deliberate on the need for ambulance services, make a determination as to whether a need exists to permit by franchise an ambulance service, and if the Board determines a need exists, direct staff to negotiate with franchise applicants on a Franchise Agreement to bring to the Board. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tony Blake thanked John Roberts for clarifying the amendment to the volunteer fire departments. He said that as a citizen he sees opaqueness with the ES department. He said that it seems like there is an opportunity for inclusion in some of these peer review boards because there is a lack of transparency. Syd Alexander was representing South Orange Rescue Squad and he submitted a letter at the Board's last meeting. He submitted all of the information. He spoke strongly in favor of the Board's finding that there is an absolute compelling need in Orange County for the granting of additional franchises to supplement the professional staff. He said that there is a need for volunteers to give back to the community and to assist the professional services. He said that they can provide a model to the State. He said that in the last 12 months, the volunteer organization of South Orange has provided in excess of 10,000 hours of service to the County at no cost. Fred Stipe is the Chairman of the South Orange Rescue Squad Board of Directors. He spoke about the need for ambulance and rescue services in Orange County, specifically volunteer services. He said that the SORS has been providing all volunteer emergency, EMS, and rescue services to the citizens of Orange County since 1970. Until August 2009, SORS had provided regularly scheduled three-day, 12-hour per day EMS and ambulance service to UNC and the surrounding Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and southern Orange County areas. This service was discontinued due to the lack of specific technical language to provide such a service in the previous franchise agreement. He said that SORS is interested in reinstating this service to help supplement the County's resources and to provide volunteers with training and certification opportunities. He said that SORS loans its ambulances, equipment, and staff to the County during times when County vehicles are out of service or otherwise offline. SORS also provides technical rescue services. It also provides statewide, regional, and national response through mutual aid agreements. SORS also provides technical rescue services for UNC and OWASA. He said that there is a very compelling need for a volunteer organization to continue to provide these services. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was an issue about representation regarding the Emergency Medical Services Peer Review Committee and Annette Moore said that there was a question about the advisory committee. The EMS Peer Review Committee is determined by statute. There was a second committee that would review a stay of the Emergency Services Director. Discussion ensued about the two committees. Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff had an opinion about having representatives that are not part of County government on these committees. Frank Clifton said that the committees could be expanded by adding a designated appointee, but there need to be some qualifications. Commissioner Jacobs said that he was thinking specifically about having a representative from a rescue squad. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to direct the Manager to come back to the Board with a franchise agreement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger that the Board recognizes the need to permit by franchise an ambulance service. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Second Reading: Amendments 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 a second reading 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 authorized the Chair to sign. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that On May 1, 1981 Orange County enacted its first EMS Franchise Ordinance, "An Ordinance Regulating the Operation of Ambulance Services and the Administration of Emergency Medical Assistance in Orange County, North Carolina" (EMS Franchise Ordinance). On April 20, 1993, Orange County repealed the original EMS Franchise Ordinance and enacted the current 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." Since 1993, the EMS Franchise Ordinance has not been updated with any statutory or regulatory changes'. In the intervening years and especially since the events of September 11, 2001 there have been changes in both state law and regulations as well as the practices, policies, procedures, terminology, and the responsibilities placed on the County by both state and federal government governing the services provided by the EMS Franchise Ordinance. The amendments updated the EMS Franchise Ordinance making it consistent with the existing authority mandated to the County by state law and regulations including, but not limited to, the following: 1. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 131E, Article 7 2. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 143, Article 56 3. North Carolina General Statutes section 153A-250 4. North Carolina Administrative Code, 10A NCAC 13P .0101 et seq. The Board at its meeting on January 21, 2010 voted 6-1 to approve the amendments to the EMS Franchise Ordinance. North Carolina General Statute §153A-45 provides that in order for an ordinance to be adopted on its first reading it "must receive the approval of all the members of the board of commissioners. If the ordinance is approved by a majority of those voting but not by all the members of the board... it shall be considered at the next regular meeting of the board." The history of Board actions on these amendments to this Ordinance is as follows: ' In January 2009, extensive revisions were made to 10A NCAC 13P .0101 et seq. • This matter first came before the Board on December 7, 2009, the Board voted to delay the item. Prior to the meeting, both the Orange County Rescue Squad ("OCRS") and South Orange Rescue Squad's ("SORS") attorneys were given a copy of the amendments to the EMS Franchise Ordinance. OCRS came before the Board at the December 7, 2009 meeting and presented a letter in opposition to the amendments. Specifically, OCRS was opposed to the composition of the EMS Advisory Committee and the due process provided in the Ordinance. The attorney for SORS had no concerns about either the EMS Advisory Committee or the due process requirements. The Board asked the County Attorney to review the letter presented by OCRS prior to acting on the Ordinance. Response: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the letter and found that both the EMS Advisory Committee and the due process provisions provided by the Ordinance comported to the requirements of due process under both the federal and state constitutions. • On January 21, 2010, these amendments were brought before the Board, the Board voted 6-1 to approve the amendments to the Ordinance. Fire Chiefs from several volunteer fire departments raised concerns about not having input into the changes to the Ordinance and questioned how the amendments to the Ordinance would affect them. OCRS again indicated it opposed the amendments to the Ordinance for the same reasons they indicated on December 7, 2009 and SORS spoke in favor of the proposed amendments to the Ordinance. The Board expressed concerns about the fire departments' position and the composition of the Emergency Medical Service Advisory Committee and EMS Peer Review Committee. Response: At the Board's December 7th meeting staff from the County Attorney's office indicated the amendments to the EMS Franchise Ordinance did not require volunteer fire departments to be permitted a franchise to provide services that are considered fire fighting services. The volunteer fire departments are not in the business of providing the services governed by the Ordinance. There was no change recommended to require fire departments to have a franchise. The volunteer fire departments contract with the County to provide fire fighting and fire prevention service in the County. Fire fighting services necessarily include both first/medical responder and extrication services, which are incidental to their obligations and specifically referenced in their existing contracts. However, the North Carolina Administrative Code provides that County governments shall establish an EMS System that has among other things: o A defined scope of practice for all EMS personnel functioning in the EMS system; o Written policies and procedures describing dispatch, coordination and oversight of all responders that provide EMS care; o Written policies and procedures for the EMS System's EMS Care data for the daily and on-going management of all EMS System resources; o A written continuing education program for all credentialed EMS personnel, developed and modified based on feedback from system EMS Care data, review and evaluation of patient outcomes and quality management peer review that follow the guidelines of the US DOT NHTSA First Responder Refresher "National Standard Curriculum" for medical responder personnel; and o Written policies and procedures to address management of the EMS System.2 The Department of Health and Human Services may deny, suspend or revoke the approval of an EMS System for failure to comply with the requirements set forth above.3 EMS Systems are also required to have the following components to assure medical oversight of the system: a medical director, written protocols for adult and pediatric patients, and emergency medical dispatch system, an EMS Peer Review Committee whose membership is defined in G.S. 131E-155(6b) and written procedures for EMS personnel to obtain on-line medical direction. Both the state statute and the North Carolina Administrative Code continue to require the County provide oversight of personnel performing responders services within the EMS system. So while fire departments are not required to have a franchise under the Ordinance, state law and regulations do require that personnel who are first/medical responders be credentialed and comply with the policies, practices and protocols of the EMS system. There were no substantive amendments to the sections governing EMS personnel (See Section VII, Standards for Personnel). Frank Montes de Oca said that the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee ("Committee") is not a citizens' advisory board; it is a technical advisory board. The proposed members of the Committee, through their positions either as employees of Orange County or through services contracted with the County have the medical responsibility either to the Board of County Commissioners, the Office of EMS, the North Carolina Medical Board or the Board of Health to oversee the medical health of persons within this EMS system. They are credentialed and have the educational, technical and experiential background to recommend, make and implement system wide medical improvements in the EMS System necessary to ensure a high-quality, high-functioning medical care. The only proposed enforcement responsibility of the Committee is to review stays of franchises, and after hearing evidence the Committee may ether remove the stay, provide a recommendation for corrective action or forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for termination or suspension of the franchise. This does not in any way change what is currently or has been required of fire departments within Orange County. Commissioner Gordon made reference to volunteer fire departments and said that there is some language that might need to be changed to clarify the role of fire departments. Annette Moore said that the fire departments have never been under the franchise ordinance. Orange County does not have to grant fire departments a franchise in order for them to operate. The County has a contract with the volunteer fire departments to provide that service. As part of that contract, fire services, first responder, and extrication services are included. She said that on February 161h, staff will bring back an amendment that specifically excludes fire departments. 2 See 10A NCAC 13P .0201. 3 10A NCAC 13P .0701(1)(1) John Roberts made reference to Mr. Blake's comments about the fire departments not being included and that it was done in secrecy and said that the fire departments were never intended to be covered by this franchise ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jeremy Browner said that he has had discussions with John Roberts about this ordinance and whether sworn testimony will be allowed in a state hearing on the lift of a stay of the Orange County Rescue Squad. He said that the OCRS still feels it is a necessity to have sworn testimony versus unsworn testimony during the hearing to lift the stay that was imposed by the Director of Emergency Services. He said that the other due process complaints of the OCRS have been addressed. He said that the OCRS opposes the composition of the EMS Advisory Board for the reasons he suggested at prior meetings. He said that the OCRS is comfortable with the proposed amendments that have been discussed with the County Attorney. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Manager's Recommendation, to adopt on second reading 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 authorize the Chair to sign; and for staff to return with a refinement that adds and defines the qualifications for at least (1) one public member to be appointed by the Board of Commissioners to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. New and Updated Clinical Services Fees for Health Department The Board considered approving new and updated clinical services fees for the Health Department. Health Director Rosemary Summers reviewed the new and updated clinical services fees for the Health Department, which are incorporated by reference. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve new and updated clinical services fees for the Health Department. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Update on Solid Waste Work Group Planning Process Including Solid Waste Convenience Center Issues The Board considered an update on the general status of the Solid Waste Planning Work Group's development of the three-year update to the County-wide solid waste plan, with particular focus on the future role and funding of Solid Waste Convenience Centers and associated unincorporated County matters. Assistant County Manager Willie Best introduced this item. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the State of North Carolina requires that each local government update its ten-year solid waste plan every three years. The last update was due June 2009 but Orange County and its municipalities (through the Solid Waste Planning Work Group) have not yet completed the planning necessary to finalize the plan. Required elements of plan submittal include a description of all programs, services, budget, plan for waste reduction and recycling, littering and illegal dumping, solid waste collection and disposal, public education, etc. He said that historically the County has acted as lead agency in submitting a single plan plan on behalf of all three municipalities (excluding Mebane at this time) and the County due to the County's role owning the landfill and managing the recycling and waste reduction programs, and the Make Reports section of the Interlocal Agreement. The last plan submittal, for 2006, was essentially a descriptive placeholder type document, with solid waste planning activity continuing until the present through the efforts of the Solid Waste Plan Work Group. The Solid Waste Plan Work Group is made up of elected officials, staff and citizen members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) from all jurisdictions, and was instituted in 2005 to create a more cohesive planning process whose intention is to bring to the governing boards concepts and recommendations on a range of county-wide waste management issues. Gayle Wilson said that staff believes that the time has come to proceed toward completion of the latest version of the 3-year update of the 10-year plan by the Work Group, not only to meet the state's three year plan update objective, but also to provide guidance to County citizens and governments with regard to future direction of recycling and waste management in Orange County. While the planning is not yet complete, at some point a document must be completed and submitted, even if all issues are not fully developed. Additionally, he said the Board of Commissioners are looking for guidance with regard to current rural waste and recycling services, specifically the future role of solid waste convenience centers and a more sustainable funding source for the rural services provided through the convenience centers, which has been the subject of most recent Work Group deliberations. He said that staff is concerned with the ongoing and continuing nature of the Solid Waste planning efforts and the resulting delay and seeks to develop a 3-Year Plan Update and submit to the State at the earliest opportunity, addressing the remaining unresolved issues in the next 3-Year Update due in June 2012. It has been suggested to give all jurisdictions an update at the March Assembly of Governments Meeting. He said that the work group has supported strongly the 61% waste reduction goal, and they have recently been informed that the County's FY 2008-09 waste reduction is 54%. He said that the Work Group adopted some goals — page 6 — Solid Waste Planning Goals for Evaluation of Rural Waste Management Issues: The prioritization of goals to guide decision making with regard to unincorporated area waste issues was completed by the Work Group. The ranking has meeting the 61% diversion goal as receiving the strongest support resulting in a weighting of 28.9%. Safety is second at 18.7%; cost-effective operations third at 18.6%; sustainable funding system fourth at 15.2%; reduced environmental impact fifth at 12.6%; and cost equity last at 5.9%. Based on those priorities, an overarching principle for design and operation of the centers needs to support recycling and waste reduction while enabling users to minimize what is actually discarded. Neighborhood/District Network Option Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) He said that the Solid Waste Planning Work Group (Work Group) had been discussing Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) and other rural waste management issues due in part to the recent public interest in budget related service reduction recommendations. He said this update does not attempt to comprehensively describe the various alternatives and issues considered or discussed as this is a work in progress for the Work Group but only highlight a small portion of the Work Group's effort on the subject. This update will focus on summarizing the center upgrade options considered and the SWCC service scenario that scored/ranked highest on the Work Group's adopted program goals and weighting factors - the Neighborhood/District option for the future of SWCCs in Orange County. This was first introduced by Commissioner Jacobs and was one of five SWCC development scenarios discussed at the December 15, 2009 Work Group meeting. A December 15 report discussed by the Work Group outlines the broader issues and scenarios in more detail and also outlined some longer term funding options. Gayle said that there are several reasons for considering upgrading and modernizing the centers: • The high usage levels of and expressed public demand for SWCCs • Continual population growth in the rural areas • SWCC will be the only County municipal solid waste collection/disposal infrastructure once the Landfill closes • Increasing collection efficiency and need to reduce hauling costs to out-of-county disposal facilities • Maintaining safe operations including serving an aging population more effectively and more closely complying with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements • Intensive traffic at centers (especially on Saturdays) • Increased demand and need for more recycling services, examples include: o the addition of electronics at the SWCCs six years ago o planned expansion to collection of non-bottle rigid plastic containers o proposed addition of fluorescent lamp disposal o possible additions of food waste, plastic film, oyster shells, food based oils and clothing recycling receptacles, o expanded reuse/salvage areas o Maximization of opportunity to meet local waste reduction goals The Work Group discussed the following SWCC upgrading scenarios: • No Upgrades — Leave Centers As Is • Fully Modernized Convenience Center • Partially Modernized Convenience Center • Modernized Neighborhood Center • Full Service (District) Center • Neighborhood/District Center System This Neighborhood/District Center scenario consists of two centrally located full-service recycling and waste management centers and four neighborhood centers. A Full-Service Center (District) consists of a broad array of recycling opportunities with an ability to expand recycling and waste reduction services as additional opportunities arise, as well as municipal waste compaction receptacles, bulky waste handling capabilities, scrap tires/metal and yard waste. It includes household hazardous waste and toxicity reduction services, expanded salvage opportunities, longer operating hours, central locations, possible sale of mulch and various other improvements. The two District Centers represent the anchor facilities of two County waste districts and each District Center is accompanied by two Neighborhood Centers with more limited services and hours of operation. Long-Term Financing of Rural Waste Services/Facilities The Work Group also discussed various funding scenarios or combinations of scenarios that could be utilized for full or partial funding for the SWCCs that included: • General Fund • County-wide Household Fee (similar to the 3-R Fee used for recycling) • Bulky Item Fee (for furniture, white goods, tires, etc.) • Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT per bag for MSW) • Gate Fee (flat fee to utilize center for non-recycling disposal related activities) • Shifting funding of some recycling related services to the 3-R Fee (such as clean metal, white goods, tires, yard waste, etc.) • Convenience Center District Tax PUBLIC COMMENT: Tony Blake, with Orange County Voice, presented a hand out for the next three people. Speaker 1: Tony Blake "After reading the County's report and sitting in the most of the Solid Waste Work Group meetings over the last three months, we find ourselves questioning the role, charter, and cost of this committee particularly with respect to the rural community. We respectfully ask the Board to consider disbanding it or minimally redirect it to focus on in town issues. If you choose to allow it to continue, please clarify its mission and how it is expected to complement the work of SWAB and the County's SW department. Concerns: - Important guiding principles are being taken literally by staff as tangible goals to be achieved at any cost. Platitudes like 61% waste recovery, operational safety, and cost effective are used to justify arbitrary decision-making and reckless spending. Our recycling recovery rate is the highest in the state and our solid waste operations are safe and appear to be undergoing healthy scrutiny of spending. What problem is the workgroup trying to solve? - The rural community is not represented on the 15-25 member work group o One rural representative sits on SWAB and he has not attended the workgroup meetings where the unincorporated areas were discussed. The remaining members are town and county officials, and citizens representing the towns. o Given their broader responsibilities to the BOCC and the county-at-large, Commissioners Jacobs and Yuhasz are able to provide insight but unable to fully advocate for rural residents. Mayor Chilton has offered similar advocacy. This is sincere but insufficient representation. - Given the representation, the workgroup should be redirected to in-town issues where 80% of the trash is generated and there are better opportunities to improve recycling. Although —with no landfill, one must question whether the workgroup is relevant at all. - If the workgroup does continue, can it be directed to shift from anecdote and innuendo to a strategic analysis of facts, figures, and alternatives? Plus, shouldn't meeting minutes and internal memos be posted on the county's website? - Given the current fiscal situation, might it make more sense to focus the workgroup and/or SWAB on the 3-5 year disposal solution, legacy operations, decommissioning and monitoring of the Eubanks landfill? Plus, please consider a broader question. Does SWWG or SWAB have the right mix of skills to find the solid waste solutions for our future? Are they equipped to evaluate long term alternatives, which could include regional solutions and public/private partnerships?" Speaker 2: Norma White "We are pleased the county's report now shows 5 active convenience centers — including Bradshaw Quarry and Walnut Grove. Thank you Commissioner Jacobs for introducing the notion of "district" and "neighborhood" convenience centers. I hope that it will be many years — if ever— before the county decides to add a neighborhood convenience center on Mincey Road. With this functioning network, and given last year's cuts, we ask that the board place a moratorium on new services or new fees for rural residents. - The county's fiscal climate, supported by OCV's survey, suggests strong and overwhelming opposition to any new services or fees for rural residents. We only surveyed rural residents — but we suspect the sentiment extends to all citizens. o Residents already pay for convenience centers through taxes o Given the fiscal challenges facing the county and its citizens, adding services or fees for solid waste would anger most of the community— particularly as we are still adjusting to the convenience center schedule cuts and service changes - The proposed expansion of bi-weekly rural recycling is not supported by rural residents and was questioned by the SWWG in November. o The proposed expansion would mandate a non-essential service and additional fee to 1,000 remote rural households — most of whom are satisfied with convenience center service o There is no basis for county's claim that reduced convenience center hours will reduce recycling o If the county were to add services or fees, we believe that residents would prefer to see Sundays restored to the convenience center schedules — particularly at Walnut Grove Church Road where there are often lines on Saturday. - The notion of waste franchises for rural garbage collection has been questioned by SWWG members which are documented in a workgroup memo dated November 17, 2009 but not in your reports. Today garbage collection is available to every rural resident or community and there is no need for county involvement or new fees. A list of qualified vendors, including those that provide backdoor service to residents that live on gravel roads with long driveways is on the OCV website - There's another workgroup topic—whether or not to modernize convenience centers particularly Walnut Grove and Eubanks. This means pave them, add compactors, and other improvements at roughly $1 million per center. Isn't this a simple financial decision? It could be a good idea but if it is not self-funding, can the county afford it? The convenience centers are clean, safe, and effective and highly valued by rural residents. There seems to be more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future. Money is tight for the county and its citizens, and despite last year's service cuts, residents are satisfied with the current level of service. This is not the time to discuss any new services or fees. We respectfully ask the Board to inform the Solid Waste Work Group that the county will not add new solid waste services or fees for rural residents for the foreseeable future." Speaker 3: Bonnie Hauser The workgroup report questions/discusses whether or not to fund convenience centers from the general fund seems misplaced. There have been repeated suggestions from the workgroup and SWAB that the funding issue be addressed by elected officials but the topic never gets dropped. - In our view, the general fund fits the role of convenience centers and is encouraging important fiscal scrutiny over solid waste spending and services o Rural residents view convenience centers like schools, libraries, parks and other services that are essential to the quality of life for all citizens. They confirmed this in our survey. This may be a principle to discuss with the Assembly of Governments o As a general fund expenditure item, convenience centers seem to get greater executive scrutiny which is essential as the county faces broad fiscal challenges combined with the loss of landfill revenue o This funding should continue to encourage fiscal controls, such as last year's cut to convenience center schedules. Hopefully, meaningful additional cost controls will be motivated by general fund constraints - There are fiscal challenges — but it is not an issue for the workgroup o We are pleased that the county is looking at alternative disposal sites — such as the Person County Landfill - which is reasonably close and has a tipping fee of $35 or less —that's 30-40% less than the county landfill. In 2009, tipping fees were 1/3 (or$600,000) of the convenience center budget. The savings would be significant and not impact services or county jobs. o As Norma mentioned, we've been told that there are service problems at Walnut Grove which should be investigated. However, we've been asked to suggest that the center may be overstaffed. So maybe the option is to restore the 6-day schedule but cut the number of people on a shift. o Then there's the consultants. The workgroup has 2 staff consultants at every meeting and has engaged several specialists including Olver. The specialists are done — but certainly the staff consultants can be replaced by county staff. - Please don't forget waste reduction through composting and recycling —we've said this before — but with the landfill closing, the county and the towns can save a lot of money if we increase recycling and composting — at the collection point. This is an important topic and its outcome will shape our long-term solid waste plan. If our survey is right, the rural community is doing its fair share — and will continue to do better as the county brings dual and single stream recycling into the convenience centers. So right now, the general fund is doing its job to force constraint on the county's solid waste operations. Plus there are many opportunities to further reduce costs without impacting service. Please keep these controls in place and send an important message to the county and its citizens that these costs will be tightly managed for everyone's benefit." Susan Walser was with Orange County Voice and she reviewed some comments. She said that Orange County Voice has been sitting in on many of the SWAB meetings and work group meetings. She said there seems to be a disconnect as to what has been discussed in the work group and what is in the report. She said that there are four solid waste departments in the County— Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough — and two of them are within walking distance of each other. She suggested consolidating these. She said that there is never any pro forma incoming expense data presented to the Board before making a decision. Regarding the convenience centers, she said that they seem to be working fine and no changes should be made when there is no money. She suggested not using consultants and saving money by using staff. Commissioner Hemminger said that she is confused as to what they are supposed to be doing and she knows they have to file this report. She asked if anything needed to be done now. Frank Clifton said that the requirement is for the County and the towns to have a long- term solid waste plan. The State wants to know what jurisdictions are going to do with solid waste. He said that staff in these work groups are evaluating all options out there and developing a long-term sustainable plan. He said that there are issues that have long-term financial implications and the SWCC are part of the long-term plan; and if the SWCC are going to be there for a long time, then there should be a plan as to what they are going to be like for years to come. He said that he is not sure that the SWCC meet State requirements. He thinks, as time goes forward, that the centers need to be segregated into cost centers. One of the elements is do some more community outreach and get more community feedback. Commissioner Hemminger said that the feedback she has heard is that people want the SWCC but the County needs to run them more effectively. She also thinks that more input is needed from citizens. She said that if people can take their trash to a location then it is better in the long run rather than throwing it on the side of the road. Frank Clifton said this is a multi-year plan and if the County is going to be doing solid waste forever, then there should be a forever location. Commissioner Jacobs said that the next time this comes to the Board, he would like to get some information. First, he would like to see the percent of the waste generated in towns versus the rural parts of Orange County. Second, he would like to have information on the staffing of Walnut Grove SWCC. He said that he has never seen a traffic jam at this center. He would also like to see a history of filing of plans with the State and how closely the County has adhered to the schedule and what the penalties were from the State when the County did not adhere to the schedule. Regarding why changes are being made, he said that one of the charges to the Solid Waste Work Group and to the Board of County Commissioners during this budget cycle was to figure out how to afford to keep Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center open. This seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. Commissioner Jacobs said that in November when the Board asked to get this topic on the Board of County Commissioners' schedule, the Board wanted to go to the Assembly of Governments about the whole arrangement of solid waste in Orange County. He said that some of the questions are whether the 61% waste reduction goal is still the goal of the municipalities, the status of the partnership, the viability of the 1999 agreement and whether there is still any commitment to this agreement, whether UNC should be reinvigorated to join the agreement, and whether the County is getting paid by the municipalities for the Greene Tract, as was discussed. He said that the basic idea is to have conversations with partners before making decisions about how to serve the public. He thinks that the County is going at this backwards and they need to start from the top and either reestablish the assumptions as a group (governments and the County) or each government can go their own way. He said that going through the transfer station process they found their partners being less than partners and this is not a viable partnership. He said they need to talk about their assumptions with their partners. Frank Clifton said that the Managers and the Solid Waste staff from the towns and the County did meet and discussed moving forward with Durham and about their partnership and they will be getting back together in another month. The big issue is what happens in two years when the landfill closes. Commissioner Pelissier said that she was under the impression that the Board wanted to engage the elected bodies to have a conversation. She hopes that this also happens. Frank Clifton said that this could be done, but the elected bodies usually look to the staff for recommendations. Commissioner Pelissier said that she is not sure if they are ready to go to an AOG meeting yet. Regarding the possible public input, she is not clear on what the public would be asked. She has no idea what it would cost to modernize SWCC. She feels that the Board is being asked to do something prematurely. Frank Clifton said that staff just wants Board direction on these issues and the staff will continue to evaluate the issues. Commissioner Foushee said that since the County decided not to site a transfer station, then there are residual issues related to solid waste. One of the things that came forward was that, if this item were to be brought to the AOG meeting, that the Manager should be prepared to make some recommendation to the elected officials so that there would be some idea of how to move forward. She suggested waiting until the AOG meeting in September. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the work group did talk about fiscal issues and recognizes that the County cannot keep funding the SWCC at the current levels. He said that the purpose of the work group is to come up with a solution to provide long-term solutions that will allow the SWCC to stay open in some form in the future. He said that it would be helpful to get cost estimates for the neighborhood regional model for SWCC. Commissioner Foushee asked about the role of the consultants in these discussions. Gayle Wilson said that the minutes of the work group meetings are on the website and he will put the historical minutes on the website also. There is only one consultant being used (Resource Recycling, Inc.) and they have been utilized by the work group, almost since its inception for cost estimates, technical information for each convenience center, etc. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is a terrific accomplishment to achieve 54% waste reduction in Orange County. He is not interested in backing away from this accomplishment. He said that one of the reasons you have a consultant is that they bring an outside view and are independent of staff. He said that not adding more services runs counter to continuing to reduce waste. Commissioner Gordon said that one of the immediate things that need to be discussed is whether to go to the AOG in March versus September and what issue would be discussed. She wants to be prepared and clear. Frank Clifton said that the decisions that need to be discussed are as follows: relevancy and commitment of the 61% waste reduction goal with the towns; and the commitment of the towns, including UNC, to be part of a combined effort to go to Durham. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is going to be difficult to reach as a County a 61% waste reduction goal without a consolidated effort from the towns. Commissioner Jacobs said that part of staff's recommendation regarding upgrades to the SWCC is to accommodate more recycling so that the waste stream could be further reduced. Commissioner Pelissier said that there is such an overlap of this Solid Waste Work Group and the SWAB, and this needs to be a focus at the Board's retreat. She thinks that the public truly needs to be engaged in looking at the options, but this needs to be clearly laid out with rationales and presentations. She said that this clearly needs to be done before any final plans about convenience centers are adopted. Commissioner Jacobs said that he appreciates the public for challenging the Board's assumptions. Commissioner Gordon agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to put solid waste on the Assembly of Governments' agenda with the two topics as recommended by the Manager: relevancy and commitment of the towns to the 61% waste reduction goal and the commitment of the towns to be part of a combined effort to send waste to Durham (including UNC). VOTE: UNANMOUS d. Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update — Options The Board considered continuing or discontinuing development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln said that the purpose of this item is to determine whether Orange County wishes to continue with development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan or discontinue until the County can resolve concerns regarding designation of NC 86 through northern Orange County as an expressway. The Board received a presentation from North Carolina Transportation Planning staff last September, and the Board was apprised of the designation of NC 86 as a strategic highway corridor in the North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan. The Board had some concerns about the way the plan was adopted and developed without input from a lot of local areas. NCDOT is concerned about investing staff resources to help develop a plan that the Board of Transportation will not approve. NCDOT says that the plan must be consistent with the statewide plan, so Orange County must show NC 86 as an expressway in the planning. At the September meeting, the Board also approved a survey for public input into the CTP and this has been completed. The Board asked for some background on development of the strategic highway corridor concepts and how that came about. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDORS CONCEPT Background North Carolina Department of Transportation Protect and Maximize Mobility and Connectivity for a Core set of Highway Corridors North Carolina Department of Commerce Foster Economic Prosperity Through the Quick and Efficient Movement of People and Goods North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Promote Environmental Stewardship through Maximizing Use of Existing Facilities Adopted by the NC Board of Transportation September 2, 2004 Primary Purpose: - Provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout North Carolina Primary Goal: - Create greater consensus of vision for each corridor to identify a desired facility type Public Involvement: - 9 Regional Forums — November 2003 —January 2004 Bryson City Wilkesboro Asheville Huntersville Southern Pines Greensboro Jacksonville Wilson Williamston - Publicized through email, brochures, newsletters, listservs Karen Lincoln said that the DCHC-MPO first received a presentation on the strategic highway corridor in concept in December 2005, which was over a year after the plan had been adopted by the Board of Transportation. Comments were sent to representatives noting that several roads had been designated differently than they had done in their long-range transportation plan. How Were the Corridors Selected? Quantifiable Criteria Subjective Criteria Current and future traffic volumes Corridor role and function Route classification Significance to a region Truck traffic percentages Historical role in national/statewide movement Statewide Strategic Corridors Characteristics - High traffic volumes, high truck % - Serve long-distance travel (Murphy to Manteo) - Major users include long-haul trucks and tourists (people passing through) - Connect major activity centers, major military - Bases, state ports, and major airports - Statewide Strategic Corridors are o Desired to be signal-free roads: Freeways and Expressways Regional Strategic Corridors Characteristics - Significant traffic volumes - Serve regional destinations (Chapel Hill to Danville) - Major users include commuters and locals (people that live and work in the area) - Connect regional activity centers Desired to be built to highest appropriate design - 4 lane divided higway OR 2 lane road with extra turn lane Strategic Highway Corridor Facility Types (table) Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan (map) Triangle Strategic Highway Corridors (map) Strategic Highway Corridors Local Jurisdiction Role Short Term - Promote importance of good access management and land use coordination - Protest corridors to maintain high quality of service Long Term - Consideration of strategic corridors in planning process (incorporate into local transportation plans) - Promote land use planning that supports the strategic corridors concept Comprehensive Transportation Plan Long-range Multi-modal blueprint (25 years and beyond) Tool for determining transportation investments Not an implementation document Implemented through transportation improvement program and other transportation funding means Updated to address changes in land use and travel behavior Comprehensive Transportation Plan Options Pursue removal of NC 86 from NC Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan Pursue a facility type downgrade for NC 86 Show NC 86 as Expressway Show NC 86 as Expressway with phased implementation strategy in technical report The Manager's recommendation is to endorse Option 3 : Show NC 86 as a future expressway with a phased improvement plan in the technical report. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful to have this information in a more complete form. She would like to see a regional map of Orange County and the surrounding areas that shows the other options considered. She said that the County Commissioners would have to discuss how to move the traffic through the County. She would like to know the pros and cons of doing what the State says versus other options of proceeding or not. Commissioner Pelissier asked what the hurry is regarding this plan. She said that the DOT identified this as a major corridor, but there are farms up and down this road. Planning Director Craig Benedict made reference to the rush on this and said that NCDOT staff has offered to help the County with the plan. NCDOT is saying that if NC 86 is taken off the vision plan, then it is a very long process and would take years to do, and NCDOT would then drop the CTP and not help Orange County with it because it would not be consistent with the vision plan. He said that there are alternatives such as the regional view, and he has met with Mebane representatives to talk about the 119 Bypass. He said that NCDOT did not look at these other options and there is a lot of work to get NCDOT to come in line with the local vision. Commissioner Jacobs said that he endorsed Commissioner Gordon's comments. Before he is ready to act, he would like to know what actual control Orange County has at a local level. He said that he would rather see this promote "strategic corridors concept that supports Orange County's land use planning." He said that he has not seen a lot to trust with NCDOT and that they will take Orange County's planning issues seriously if it does not suit them. He said that he would like to have an opportunity to know about the decision-making process. He would also like to see the rest of the survey. Karen Lincoln said that this is available online and she could email the link. Karen Lincoln said that the next step in the process would be to come back with the survey results. She said that she had asked NCDOT through the RPO to help Orange County with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which is why it is coming forward now. She said that the strategic highway corridors is where NCDOT will be spending most of its funds. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for some information about what NCDOT was thinking when it designated NC 86 as a strategic corridor. Karen Lincoln said that NCDOT was looking at regional connections (Danville to this area). Commissioner Yuhasz said that it would be helpful to know if NCDOT considered NC 49 or NC 119. He said that this vision plan is not going to be just locally determined because it is a statewide plan. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it sounds like, with Option 3 ( from the Manager's recommendation), that DOT will continue to work with Orange County on a local transportation plan and giving Orange County the opportunity to continue to question whether or not NC 86 needs to be built this way. He said that it is better to be engaged then disengaged. Chair Foushee asked, if the County Commissioners were to endorse Option 3 ( from the Manager's recommendation), if it would preclude the Board from doing the things that are suggested. Karen Lincoln said that there is no guarantee that NC 86 would be removed from the state plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not believe it would take that much time for the Board to review the requested information. She said that the Board did not have the pros and cons, background information, sufficient maps, and the regional plan. She does not think it would take too much time to get this. Craig Benedict said that staff could produce a regional map to provide better context. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to know if the designation also assumed that the Elizabeth Road Bypass was going to be in place around Hillsborough. He suggested a compromise resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to endorse Option 3 (listed below from the Manager's recommendation) to continue development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan with a phased plan for improvements to NC 86 with no explicit endorsement by the Board of Commissioners, and request specific information regarding: • Process for approval • Regional options • Assumptions underlying designation of NC 86 as a strategic highway corridor • Relationship of Comprehensive Transportation Plan to the Orange County Land Use Plan • What is being contemplated to include public comment before the approval of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Option 3 — Show NC 86 as a future expressway with a phased improvement plan in the technical report. Work on Orange County's Comprehensive Transportation Plan would continue as planned. Survey question twelve offered seven options for designating a north-south corridor from Caswell County to US 70 Bypass as a four-lane divided expressway. Respondents could select more than one option. Of the 387 survey responses, approximately 63% chose to use the existing NC 86 corridor (with a narrow margin preferring a new western bypass of Hillsborough). Over twenty-one percent (21.4%) chose "Do not improve NC 86 to an expressway". A change in facility type (Option 4 in the Manager's recommendation), if desired, could be pursued after adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Resolution Approving a No Fault Privately-Owned Well Repair Concept and Authorizing the Development and Implementation of a No Fault Privately-Owned Well Repair Policy for Properties Near the Orange County Landfill The Board considered a resolution approving a no-fault privately-owned well repair concept and authorizing staff to proceed with the development and implementation of a no- fault privately-owned well repair policy for properties near the Orange County Landfill and authorizing the Chair to sign. Frank Clifton said that the staff drafted the resolution and he said that parameters are in the abstract. This item deals with residential wells within a zone of 3,000 feet of the existing landfill and it offers three alternative approaches — repair, replacement of well, or connectivity to existing water line. This does not address septic systems. He said that the Health Department has tried to do some analysis in this area and they have not found any real problems, but there is still a resolve to address this problem. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the status of new wells and if they would be eligible for repair at some point in the future. Frank Clifton said that the County Commissioners would have to decide this. This resolution addresses existing wells. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a creative and sensitive response to this problem. When the water line was extended, he suggested that many of these septic systems need to get pumped and the County may need to address this and educate, because a failing septic tank could be affecting the quality of the water. Commissioner Jacobs said that, once these parts of the neighborhood are annexed, then the municipal responsibility for providing the service should kick in. This needs to be discussed with the County's partners (OWASA and the Town). Frank Clifton said that it would probably be quite awhile before utilities get extended through this area, so this is an interim step to whatever happens. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve a no-fault privately-owned well repair concept and authorize staff to proceed with the development and implementation of a no-fault privately-owned well repair policy for properties near the Orange County Landfill and authorize the Chair to sign. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Resolution Approving the No Fault Privately-Owned Well Repair Concept and Authorizing the Development and Implementation of a No Fault Privately-Owned Well Repair Policy for Properties Near the Orange County Landfill Whereas, in 1999, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of Hillsborough entered into agreement whereby Orange County (subject to the terms of the agreement) assumed the solid waste management responsibility for the disposal of solid waste county-wide; and Whereas, among the many items covered in detail with the agreement were provisions for the County to address various improvements within the `area' neighboring the landfill property at the time the agreement was established; and Whereas, since the County has assumed the responsibility for managing the Solid Waste Landfill property and its functions, residents have expressed concerns pertaining to several issues including unconfirmed or documented failures of personal, privately-owned wells and septic systems serving individual residents within the general area of the landfill; and Whereas, staff developed the attached private residential well repair program proposal wherein wells within an impact area (3000 feet of the landfill's boundary) could qualify for consideration for repair or replacement; and Whereas, this program is proposed for funding via revenues from current Solid Waste landfill revenues/fees or a surcharge depending upon staff estimates and experiences at replacing wells; and Whereas, staff presented this program proposal to the Board of Commissioners at its November 17, 2009 regular meeting to solicit Board input and feedback; and Whereas, the County Public Health Department would need to confirm the need for repair before any well repair or replacement actions commenced; Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approves the no fault privately-owned well repair concept and authorizes staff to proceed with the development and implementation of a no fault privately-owned well repair policy for properties near the Orange County Landfill. Be It Further Resolved that the Board directs staff to meet with the County's solid waste partners to assure concurrence and upon implementation initiate contact with residents within the impact area served by a non public water supply. This the 2nd day of February 2010. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports a. Report of Orange Public Transportation Vital Statistics and Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) Transit Vital Signs The Board considered a report of a three-year comparison of the operational efficiencies of Orange Public Transportation. Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore said that this kind of data is required by the Department of Transportation and provide a key, standardized variables such as miles and revenues. The critical variables are the actual trips. The overall system increased by 2.6% in operation. Chapel Hill Transit was included. The cost per trip is $8.77 compared to other counties, which are much higher. For example, Alamance County is $17.75 per trip. The Board received the report. b. Efland Sewer System The Board received a history of events regarding the creation of the Efland Sewer System and special events thereafter. Craig Benedict said that the Staff Engineer put this information together and he summarized the chronological history of the Efland Sewer System. • 1984 Due to reports of failing septic systems in Efland Estates and at the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School, the BOCC commissioned the McAdams Company to perform an engineering study for provision of sewer in the Efland Community. • 1984-85 County began gathering tap requests from the Efland Community, with the understanding that at least 179 taps would be needed in the initial phase of construction to make the system viable. • 1985 Sign-up period ends with 137 customers (individuals, churches, businesses, and clubs) requesting 191 taps. • 1985 BOCC adopts "Resolution Establishing Rules and Regulations for the Operation of a Sewer Collection Treatment System to Serve the Efland Area of Orange County" • 1985-86 County chooses Hazen & Sawyer to restudy the Efland area sewer situation and construction phasing plan. The original Phase I of the McAdams Company plan is divided into two sections. (See attached map). County chose to continue with the plan to provide sewer service to the area, even though 19 of the 191 taps were located outside of the original Phase I area, dropping the initial number of taps to 172. This was slightly less than the estimated 179 taps needed for system viability. • 1987 Construction begins on the portion of Phase I west of Efland-Cedar Grove Rd. A lack of available funding prevented the County from constructing all of Phase I. The original system had 109 taps. • 1988 System construction was completed and began operation. • 1991 In a memo from the County Engineer to the BOCC and County Manager, the system is already being described as financially troubled. At that time, only 75 taps were in service and the Town of Hillsborough, who treats the wastewater from the system, had just raised their treatment fees by 24%. • 1991-1997 Throughout the 90s, memos from the County Engineer were written regarding cost estimates for expansion of the system and the pursuit and study of various funding strategies, including Community Development Block Grants, financing through customer rates or assessments and a district sewer tax. None of these ideas proved fruitful. • 1997 County issued a bond of $1.2 million to expand sewer service in Efland. • 1998-2002 Discussions in memos from the County Engineer focus on steps required to use the bond money for expanding service in Efland and defining the scope of the project so a consultant could be hired to begin engineering design work. • 2002-2003 Scope was expanded to include the Buckhorn Economic Development District and North Buckhorn community, in addition to the Central Efland expansion. By this time, the costs to construct the system expansion in Central Efland were far above the original estimates prepared in 1996 by the County Engineer. Federal grants were sought and earmarked in the form of EPA Special Appropriations Grants (SPAP). (2003 and 2005). • 2004 Engineering consultant, Coulter, Jewell, Thames, hired to design the Buckhorn and Central Efland sewer expansion projects and Gravelly Hill water and sewer. • 2005-2006 Gravelly Hill is separated from North Buckhorn and Central Efland projects. When it became clear that regulatory hurdles due to the EPA SPAP grant would delay water/sewer service provision to the new Gravelly Hill Middle School, the portion of the project related to the school was separated from the larger project. • 2007-2008 Rate study commissioned. Raftelis Financial Consultants concludes that revenues from customer's monthly rates only cover 20-25% of system costs. Staff develops and BOCC approves a four-year rate increase plan to increase revenues and make the system self-funding. • May 2008 Environmental Assessment and Engineering Report for North Buckhorn/Central Efland project is submitted to the State's Construction Grants and Loans division for review. • July 2009 Rates raised first time in 20 years. This was the first of four increases over the next four years. • Sept 2009 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer, attend EPA workshop on applying for and administering the EPA SPAP grants. • Dec 2009 State Construction Grants and Loans division approves the Engineering Report and recommends a Categorical Exclusion (i.e., environmental clearance) to the EPA Regional office in Atlanta. • Dec 2009 EPA Grant Application draft is submitted to State Construction Grants & Loans section for review. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sam Giabora commended the Board for taking a look at this issue again. He said that it is appreciated that the Board is looking at it with fresh eyes. Commissioner Yuhasz asked how many customers were on this system and Craig Benedict said about 215. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Engineer did not include the upgrade to the pump station for Richmond Hills. Also, he would like to see how the current rates and the rates over a four-year period compare to the rates for Mebane, OWASA, and Hillsborough customers. 8. County Manager's Report Frank Clifton said that OCS will be closed again tomorrow and CHCCS are on a two- hour delay. The County offices are operating regularly. He said that the Governor is considering a statewide declaration of emergency. The County would recoup some of the costs related to the weather if this declaration is made. He said that this was a tough budget year, and when he was hired as Interim Manager he began to take steps to address some of these issues and they have taken actions to contain the budget this year. He said that Orange County has approximately 900+ authorized positions and there are now 145 vacancies, but hiring has been delayed and some may remain vacant. He said that the analysis that is being done will generate a $2 million savings this fiscal year. However, there is still a $3-4 million deficit going into 2010-11 based on anticipated lack of growth and the Board's verbalization of the desire not to increase taxes. He said that there are still some hurdles to climb through for the budget process, and he is looking at a lot of internal reorganizations. He said that the County will be doing business differently and no single element will be singled out. He said that the Chair received a letter from the Town of Chapel Hill on how the County will participate in the funding of the Chapel Hill Library. He said that he thought that he was charged to come back with a recommendation. He recalls laying out the parameters of that recommendation and he has shared this with the County Commissioners. He can do this and bring it forward in a formal sense if the Board desires. Chair Foushee said that she has not seen this letter from the Town yet, but this was the charge that the Board gave the Manager. 9. Board Comments Commissioner Yuhasz— none. Commissioner Hemminger said that she has received a lot of calls about public meeting space and the policy of the County. She formally requested that this be brought back for discussion about what the policy is going to be regarding the public use of County facilities. This was in the form of a motion and Commissioner Jacobs seconded, with the understanding that there be a facility use policy. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon said that N.C. has received $545 million in ARRA funds for high speed rail. This could be significant for Orange County in terms of how it would be spent here. The Transportation Advisory Committee took up the question of Elizabeth Brady Road and and Hillsborough and Orange County passed a resolution, including opposition to the proposal and in favor of the no-build option. Her understanding is that the no-build option will be supported by DOT. The trick now is to get other projects funded in and around Hillsborough. The Triangle Transit Board had a work session regarding an update on the County transportation plans that could be financed by a 1/4-cent sales tax and what those plans might be. She said that it is important for the County to receive an update on these major transportation issues soon. Commissioner Pelissier reported that the Chatham Orange Work Group met in December and it decided to tackle land use issues because Chatham County is in the process of revising its land use plan. The second meeting is later in February. Commissioner Jacobs congratulated the Skills Development staff for being nominated as finalists for an award by the Chapel Hill Chamber for their business. He said that the 12th Agricultural Summit will be February 81h Commissioner Jacobs asked for information on which buildings have defibrillators. Frank Clifton will bring this information back. Commissioner Foushee — none. 10. Appointments-NONE 11. Information Items • Using EPA Grant Money for Rogers Road Sewer Improvements • January 21, 2010 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board