Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-01-2010 � APPROVED 8/17/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING June 1, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger 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 inembers 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 Chanqes to the Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to add an item to the agenda — proposed 3-b, Recognition of Tax Administrator Jo Roberson — Recipient of the William A. Campbell Award. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda Guerry O'Briant read a prepared statement: To: Orange County Commissioners From Guerry O'Briant/Marie Ministero Date: June 1, 2010 Subject: Transcription errors/over charged property taxes PIN #9845886455 In May 2005 Marie and I moved to Orange County after being moved out of the home my dad was born in 1901 by the North Carolina Railroad Company under threat of condemnation. As we were physically moving in, two Orange County tax assessors came to appraise the house and garage. At that time, my wife and I told them that the garage was not going to be completed because the Orange County Planning Department told us that the area over the garage could not be habitated. My two sisters, Alene Thomas and Linda Justice, were helping with the move and heard us tell the assessors that garage has no plans to be finished. They proceeded to look over the house, basement, and garage. It was evident that the basement and area over the garage were not completed and with no plans to be completed (Reference: section 5, page 1, highlighted). The tax records show the garage as attached. As you can � see, there were transcription errors made. The document states that the garage was attached and clearly it is not! November 2009, I talked with Judy Ryan, Deputy Assessor, about why the garage was valued at $140,000.00. She said that it was valued and being taxed because it had a completed area over the garage. The rate of excess taxes being charged to us was $570.00. At this time, I reminded her the area was not completed. She asked if she could send an assessor out to view the garage once again. Mr. Ray Jordan came out and confirmed the area was not completed and was being used as storage only. On April 2, 2010, I sent a letter to the Orange County Tax Assessor requesting a refund for excessive property taxes I paid from 2005 through 2008 (Reference: Section 1, Page 1). Ms. Ryan responded with letter (Reference: Section 2, page 1 and 2) saying it was illegal to pay us back for overage paid for taxes, stating North Carolina General Statute 105-381. After reviewing these general statutes (Reference: Section 4, Page 1), I am claiming that this is a transcriptional error and should be apparent from examining the notes (Reference: Section 3, Page 3). Transcriptional errors are accepted by the courts as in Ammons V. Wake County (Reference: 3 pages). The errors made from transferring records from field notes to computer were not picking up the proper prefix or description of the basement and area over the garage. Example: 1) Attached — not detached — as referring to the garage 2) Finished — not unfinished — as referring to the area over the garage and the basement. These transcriptional errors should be apparent from examining the original note made by the assessor in May 2005. We are requesting a refund of the overpaid taxes for years 2005 through 2008 plus 6% interest, totaling $2,622.00, claiming that these errors were indeed transcription errors and it is legal to be refunded for such errors. Thank you for your time and attention to our concerns. Any assistance you can render will be greatly appreciated. Cc: Christopher M. Wyne, P. A. Scott Dorsett, Real Estate Appraiser Emite Curl, Property Tax Consultant Will Atherton spoke on behalf of the Sportsplex Community Advisory Committee. He made reference to his PowerPoint handout, as shown below: Sportsplex Community Advisory Committee Recommendations Will Atherton/John Stock Current Makeup - Committee selection is made by the County Board of Commissioners — 15 people - Meetings are managed by County Manager's Commissioners staff � - Meetings are represented by: 0 5 from County 0 2 from schools 0 8 at-large 0 2 Sportsplex staff 0 3 additional participants (Assistant County Manager, Asset Management & Purchasing Services Director, Financial Services Director) - Committee elects Chair and Co-Chair - County Staff o Takes minutes o Agenda o Some work items - Committee gives direct feedback to Sportsplex staff o Events o Programs o Equipment o Concerns o Finances o Suggestions Suggested Layout - No Oranqe County staff needed - Committee run by Sportsplex 0 8 interest group representatives assigned by Sportsplex/committee ■ Aquatics ■ Family fitness ■ Skating/hockey ■ Senior programs • 2 — Central Orange Senior Center • One staff • One from Friends of central Orange Senior Center ■ Afterschool/camps ■ School Systems 0 2 — Representatives assigned by County Board of Commissioners ■ Represents the County— may or may not be members of Sportsplex • Parks and Rec liaison committee member • At-large o Sportsplex staff as needed - Committee members would o Elect Chair and Co-Chair o Elect Secretary - Chair o Would give feedback to BOCC at least 1 per year o Sets agenda (Sportsplex staff) o Sets meeting dates (work with Sportsplex staff) - Secretary o Take minutes o Send out updates � John Stock said that he is concerned about the limited staff resources and keeping quality input from various interest groups. This new advisory board layout should help with the limited staff resources. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the interest groups and if those would be Sportsplex employees or members from the public and Will Atherton said that they would be members of the public. Jim Dooley said that the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce will be putting on its 28th Hog Day and he thanked the Board of County Commissioners for allowing them to use County property again for this event. Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Margaret Cannell thanked the County Commissioners for letting them come back to the original site for Hog Day and she said that they would be doing a lot of recycling and composting. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) Chair Foushee went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - beige sheet— proposed item 3-b - yellow sheet— in reference to item 4-n - pink sheet— in reference to item 6-a - blue sheet— in reference to item 8-a 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Resolution Honorinq Joe Thompson — 2010 Small Farmer of the Year The Board recognized Mr. Joseph A. Thompson, owner and operator of Thompson Prawn Farm, as the 2010 Gilmer L. and Clara Y. Dudley Small Farmer of the Year through the Cooperative Extension program at North Carolina A&T State University and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil introduced this item. Mike Lanier with Cooperative Extension read the resolution and also nominated him for this award: RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION FOR JOSEPH A. THOMPSON 2010 Small Farmer of the Year Award North Carolina A&T State University � WHEREAS, Joseph Thompson has been a loyal and dedicated farmer who has survived economic and technological changes to lead a rigorous, but rewarding way of life; and WHEREAS, Joseph Thompson opted out of the commodity agricultural system and joined the "local foods system" which provides small and midsized farmers an opportunity to make a living and provides other benefits including: farmland preservation, less energy intensive farming, less reliance on distant food sources, increased food safety, and improvements in animal welfare and environmental protection, as well as other benefits; and WHEREAS, Joseph Thompson, as the owner of a small farm, is helping to lead the way locally in the revitalization of rural communities and rural economies by setting an example of how small farms can be profitable, attracting the attention of a younger generation who would like to farm, and creating a demand for related local business in agricultural processing, distribution, supplies, services, and equipment; and WHEREAS, Joseph Thompson has been actively engaged in farming in Cedar Grove, which has enriched the heritage of Orange County, provided economic opportunities and supported the social structure of his community, and provided income and sustenance for his family, while tending his land with dedication, commitment, appreciation, and determination; and WHEREAS, Joseph Thompson has been recognized by the Cooperative Extension program at North Carolina A&T State University with the Gilmer L. and Clara Y. Dudley Small Farmer of the Year award for his resourcefulness and self-reliance skills resulting from his adherence to "old school farming principles" that have saved him tens of thousands of dollars in costs, and for his willingness to try new ideas and experiment with practices to maximize his profits, as well as the adoption of new direct-marketing and computer skills that are vital to his business; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby recognize Joseph Thompson on his receipt of the 2010 Gilmer L. and Clara Y. Dudley Small Farmer of the Year award and bestows gratitude on Joseph Thompson for his many years of farming, his leadership in helping create a new farming model, and his production of a wholesome and exciting new food product for the residents of Orange County. This the 1st day of June, 2010. Joe Thompson thanked the Board and staff for this award. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to recognize Mr. Joseph A. Thompson, owner and operator of Thompson Prawn Farm, as the 2010 Gilmer L. and Clara Y. Dudley Small Farmer of the Year through the Cooperative Extension program at North Carolina A&T State University and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution. � VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Recoqnition of Tax Administrator—Jo Roberson — Recipient of the William A. Campbell Award The Board recognized Tax Administrator Jo Roberson for being awarded the prestigious William A. Campbell Award at the North Carolina Tax Collectors' Association (NCTCA) Conference on April 22, 2010. Judy Ryan said that Jo Roberson was presented this award this year in recognition of exceptional accomplishments in advancing the science and art of property tax collection in North Carolina, by order of the President of the North Carolina Tax Collectors' Association. She said that Jo Roberson is generally among the top two or three collectors in the State. 4. Consent Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. b. Appointments (1) Hillsborouqh Board of Adjustment— Reappointment The Board reappointed Carl Edward Sain to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment to a second full term ending March 31, 2013. (2) Oranqe County Planninq Board — Reappointments The Board reappointed Brian L. Crawford, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos to the Orange County Planning Board to second full terms ending March 31, 2013. (3) Workforce Development Board-Reqional Partnership — Reappointments The Board reappointed Patrick Rhodes to a first full term ending June 30, 2012 and Sandra S. Morgan to a second full term ending June 30, 2013 to the Workforce Development Board-Regional Partnership. c. Property Tax Refund The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to one request for property tax refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105- 381. d. Property Tax Refund Request This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. e. Property Tax Releases The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to thirteen requests for property tax release in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. f. Aqreement Renewal with City of Durham for Animal Control Services for the Portion of the City in Oranqe County The Board approved an agreement renewal for FY 2010-11 between the County and the City of Durham in the amount of $500, subject to final approval of the FY 2010-11 budget, � to provide Animal Control Services for the very small portion of the City located within Orange County, and authorized the Chair to sign. g_ Aqreement Renewal with Town of Hillsborouqh for Animal Control and Emerqency Animal After Hours Call Services The Board approved an agreement renewal to provide the Town of Hillsborough with animal control and emergency animal after hour call services from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 for a set fee of $25,160, subject to approval of the FY 2010-11 budget. h. Aqreement Renewal with Town of Chapel Hill for County Provision of Animal Control and Emerqency After-Hour Services and Collection of Pet License Fees The Board approved an agreement renewal that provides the Town of Chapel Hill with animal control and emergency after-hour animal services from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 and that addresses how pet license fees for Chapel Hill residents will be collected; and authorized the Chair to sign, subject to review by the County Attorney, subject to approval of the FY 2010-11 budget. i. Aqreement Renewal with Town of Carrboro for County Provision of Emerqency After Hour Animal Services and Collection of Pet License Fees The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign an agreement renewal with the Town of Carrboro, subject to final approval of the FY 2010-11 budget, to provide the Town with emergency after hour animal services during FY 2010-11 and address how pet license fees for Carrboro residents will be collected. i Hyconeechee Reqional Library Svstem Contract Renewal and Renewal of Aqreement for Professional Services for Hyconeechee Reqional Library Svstem Director The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the annual Hyconeechee Regional Library System contract renewal establishing the operational and financial responsibility for coordinating library services between Orange, Person, and Caswell Counties, and approved and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement renewal between the Hyconeechee Regional Library System and Orange County to provide professional services for a HRLS Director for a one-year period ending June 30, 2011. k. General Enqineerinq and Environmental Manaqement Services Aqreement for Solid Waste Manaqement The Board approved an agreement for general engineering and environmental services for the Solid Waste Management Department with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas for professional engineering services for three years commencing on June 10, 2010 and authorized the Chair to sign. I. Bid Award Ambulance for Emerqency Services The Board awarded a bid to Excellance, Inc. and authorized Emergency Services and Asset management and Purchasing Services to proceed with the immediate plan to purchase the ambulance from Excellence, Inc.; and approved funds up to $220,000 from the Emergency Services Reserve Capital Project, allocated this amount to the Emergency Services Department's capital budget section within the General Fund for the purchase, and approved the attached Capital Project Ordinance. m. Fairview Park Utilities Riqht of Way Aqreement with Duke Enerqy The Board approved an agreement for the dedication of Right of Way to Duke Energy for the installation and maintenance of electrical utilities built to service the Orange County Fairview Park facility and authorized the Chair to sign. n. Oranqe County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Process Plan � This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda a. Minutes The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board for May 6, 2010; May 11, 2010; and May 13, 2010. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 15 of the May 6th minutes, line 14. He read a corrected statement, "He thinks it is not reasonable that the County should be supporting the Chapel Hill Library at the same proportional level as it did initially." A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the minutes for May 6, 2010; May 11, 2010; and May 13, 2010; with the changes as made by Commissioner Yuhasz for May 6, 2010, page 15, line 14. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Property Tax Refund Request The Board considered adoption of a refund resolution related to one request for property tax refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. Commissioner Yuhasz said to give Jo Roberson a chance to speak to the applicant, Mr. O'Briant. Jo Roberson said that she understood the issue that there was a garage that was unfinished, but their records show a finished garage, and Mr. O'Briant and his wife would like a refund. Unfortunately, on the advice of counsel after review, and after review of the statutory requirements, she cannot make a recommendation for a refund because this does not meet the definition of a clerical error, nor does this meet the definition of an illegal tax. The record has been corrected for this garage and the value has been reduced accordingly for 2010. John Roberts said that the problem was not that there was an error made, but it was the type of error that was made. The General Assembly and the courts have limited to clerical error what can be refunded. The courts specifically rule that mistakes of judgment like this are not eligible for refund. Clerical error has been defined as transposing numbers on valuation. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to forward this appeal to the Legislators with a cover letter that these situations arise periodically and that the County Commissioners are disappointed that under the Machinery Act that the Board is constrained to address what is obviously a mistake, but which it cannot correct under the current purview. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the attached resolution denying one property tax refund request in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. VOTE: UNANIMOUS n. Oranqe County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Process Plan The Board considered directing the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Steering Committee to continue with data collection, data projections, alternative selection and analyses, and development of the plan with public input to include NC 86 as a strategic � highway corridor, with a phased plan for improvements to a future expressway as an ultimate configuration. Chair Foushee said that there is a sheet that is in reference to this item. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to append this abstract to the May 13th Board of County Commissioners Work Session minutes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Public Hearinqs a. Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area -Zoninq Ordinance and Atlas Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment The Board considered adoption of County-initiated amendments to certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Atlas, and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map and closing the public hearing. Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Amendments BOCC Regular Meeting June 1, 2010 Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Amendments •Heard at February 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing •Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments •Criteria used to designate Critical Area •Sliding scale for impervious surface limits for existing lots under 5 acres in size •Definitions Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Amendments •Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments •Ensure consistency •Zoning Atlas (map) and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendments •Depict new definitions / criteria with a redefined overlay map •Protected and Critical Areas in Upper Eno Existing Watershed Overlay District map adopted in 1994 (map) Protected and Critical Areas in Upper Eno (map) Why Change? •Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan calls for re-evaluation of Seven Mile Creek area •Zoning Ordinance text and Atlas need to match •Present Atlas does not match text in some areas •Can lead to disputes •Potential reservoirs protected in 1994 are no longer suggested •Focused economic development growth areas Changes Since QPH •Change in criteria to exclude the land area north of West Ten Road and west of the I- 85/US70 Connector � •Addition to criteria language to clarify the intent of continuing the critical area designation in an "isolated area" is to provide a greater level of protection for an area that drains to protected streams. •Source of elevation data was added to section that references elevations of reservoirs. •A sliding scale for impervious surface ratios for existing lots smaller than 5 acres was added •Future change to be added to UDO —Appeal Process Proposed Criteria •Based on straight-line distances: •from normal pool elevations of reservoirs (Class I and Class II) •from centerline of third order and higher streams for a specified distance •Excludes areas designated as "Transition Areas" (i.e., growth areas) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map •Clarify that there are State-Required and County-Designated Critical Areas (same regulations — density, lot size, impervious surface) •Removes from "Critical Area" designation lands in Efland area designated for growth / economic development •Continue to protect: •Water quality •Headwaters •Fragile water supply •Groundwater resources •Aquatic environments •Remove text-map Conflicts Planning Board Recommendation •Considered at the March and April Meetings •Planning Board recommended approval of the amendments Recommendation •Receive Planning Board recommendation and close the Public Hearing •Discuss the amendments further, if required •Take action of the proposed amendments in Attachments 1 and 2 County-wide Impervious SurFace Limits A surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces include all concrete, asphalt and gravel surfaces. These include, but are not to be limited to, streets and parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and structures which cover the land. Applying Criteria — State Required Critical Areas (Class I Reservoirs) MAPS PUBLIC COMMENT: Brian Dobyns made reference to the map and said that the blue part is the land that is protected and the red part is the reservoir being protected for that purpose. He said that in � 1994, this was how the area was presented to the citizens. He said that the difference between these is significant. He said that he does not know a lot about how to protect water quality of the streams. He showed a map of Mt. Willing Road, US 70, and the interstate with the old line. He said that he wants to address the area below the line with Planning because the citizens felt that it belonged within their boundary and they were not allowed to do any planning outside the boundary, which was the definition of the small area plan. He is a landowner within this area and he has been working with ERCD to do a conservation easement over his property and the planning for this came out of nowhere. He said that the two departments were not really working together. He said that this does not really protect the nature preserve. Carolyn Christman said that if the County is looking to restrict land use then the County needs to show a clear, compelling, and urgent need. The County also has to show clear plans and a source of revenue stream for the goals of the property. She said that she does not see this. She said that this is not the right time for this proposal, but it is kind of a wish list. She said that it is not fair to ask landowners to sacrifice their land for conservation purposes at this point. She asked that the County Commissioners reject the proposal at this time and come back to it later. Dolly Hunter said that she does not own any of this property, but she asked the County Commissioners to reject this rezoning of the Upper Eno Critical Area because it is regressive planning. She said that this corridor is the County's most valuable area for economic development because it is the intersection of I-85 and I-40. She said that the County desperately needs economic development and instead of restricting this area, it should be designed for economic development. She said that there is no urgency to do this now. She said that what should be done first is to sit down with the City of Mebane and make a plan to serve this corridor with water and sewer for development. Ben Lloyd said that he has concerns about this area. He said that the critical areas called for in this ordinance are one half mile from the water source or the ridge line. This has put between 18-19,000 acres of Orange County in a Water Quality Critical Area. He said that some consideration needs to be given to the way the water flows. He has joint land on the west side of Duke Forest, which has been left in the critical area. He thinks that consideration needs to be given to the length of flow that the water has to get back to the Eno River other than the way the crow flies. The other consideration is the four-lane connector and the land that he owns. He invited the County Commissioners to come to his property and observe how the water flows instead of looking at it on a map. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he has some real problems with this proposal. He said that this area was originally proposed to protect the Seven Mile Creek reservoir. At this time, the County is not protecting this reservoir anymore and it is not even planning on protecting the potential Seven Mile Creek Reservoir because it is not defining the protected area in terms of a protected reservoir. He said that protecting a reservoir is not part of what is going on here. He made reference to page 7, the second bullet point: "The land area within one half mile on each side for an upstream distance of 2.5 miles (straight line distance)." He said that he would like to know why such a meat cleaver approach is being used to define what is being protected. He said that the critical number should be along the stream and not as the crow flies. He asked about the water quality justification for doing this. He made reference to the fourth bullet point and said that he does not see any explanation of why the County is doing 1.5 miles and why it is not 1 mile or 3 miles. He made reference to page 40 of the Planning Board minutes from March 3, 2010 and read: "The direction we got from the Board of County Commissioners in October was to make the definition be about as close as you can get to what the 1994 line was." He said that this is not something that speaks to protection of water quality. He said that he also looked at the minutes from the October 13th work session of the � Board of County Commissioners and there was no motion or suggestion by the Board of County Commissioners acting as a Board to make the protected area conform to the 1994 line. He said that there is something going on here that does not make sense to him. He said that in looking at the map from October 13th, it shows a proposed protected area that tracks the original protection to the Seven Mile Creek area. He thinks that the original suggestion was to revisit the Seven Mile Creek Critical Area in light of the changing expectations for a reservoir there. He said that this area may be critical to the water quality, but no one has seen evidence that protection of this extent is necessary. Craig Benedict said that in 1994 Orange County used the State rules to designate some critical areas, but the State rules had minimum requirements. He said that there have been elaborate conversations with Environment and Resource Conservation about having an Upper Eno Conservation District that marries with the critical area designations. Commissioner Gordon said that her understanding about the reasoning behind this was that it had nothing to do with the underlying assumptions or reasons for designating a critical area. Instead, the question was whether the boundaries could be better defined given the better technology. She views it as a refinement. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the question is how much land is being kept in the critical area that does not need to be kept. Commissioner Jacobs said that with the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan, the point was to address that area that should be served with water and sewer that was north of the Interstate. He asked Craig Benedict if this was successful. Craig Benedict said that the Efland/Mebane Small Area Planning Task Force, which had members of the Board of County Commissioners and Mebane Commissioners started in 2004 and was adopted in 2006. One of the important recommendations was that the red line (critical area from 1994) limited the potential of the investment Orange County was making with the water and sewer in Efland. The recommendation was made to reexamine the need for the Seven Mile Creek Reservoir and see if more land should be protected. He said that this amendment reflects this recommendation to pull the line to West Ten Road. He said that another 200 acres of economic development potential would be added into this area based on these amendments and further amendments that are necessary. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that most of the properties affected by this amendment would not have to change. Craig Benedict said that 92% of the critical area from 1994 will remain the same. The other 8% are either being added to the critical area (5%) or taken out of the critical area (3%). Commissioner Jacobs asked about the issue of flow as asked by Mr. Ben Lloyd. Craig Benedict said that it would be difficult to use GIS to survey every stream and develop as the water flows. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the memo from Dave Stancil on page 69 and he read: "It is highly important to maintain supplemental protection for Seven Mile Creek area of the watershed. This area is recognized by Orange County and the State of North Carolina as an important natural area and wildlife corridor. Seven Mile Creek and its tributaries contain high quality surface waters that provide habitat for state and regional flora and fauna. He said that there are documents in here that extend the rationale beyond merely reservoirs. Commissioner Pelissier asked how many acres were being put in this time round as compared to the original public hearing. Craig Benedict said that the difference is 53 acres from the February Quarterly Public Hearing until now. Commissioner Pelissier said that one of the big questions raised is regarding Seven Mile Creek. She said that she appreciates the letter from the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) and she is supportive of protecting habitat, but it confuses the public that the real rationale for this is really related to water quality. She thinks � that the County should stick to the concept of water quality. She said that, in the long run, it is cheaper to protect water quality by protecting land than it is to deal with the issues afterwards through chemical treatment. Craig Benedict reiterated the issue of protecting water quality by protecting land. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the property is already restricted in its use by the natural component of available soils. He said that if it is restricted by natural soils, then there is no reason to put additional artificial restrictions on top of that. He agreed that it is cheaper to protect water at its source than treat water before you drink it. He said that this extra restriction does not have a commensurate benefit to the overall community. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Chair Foushee to postpone adoption of this item with instructions to the staff to provide some quantification of the water quality improvement that will be provided prior to the Board adopting any other watershed critical area protection within the Seven Mile Creek watershed. Frank Clifton said that this affectively leaves the current regulations in place as they are and does not authorize any change. Commissioner Hemminger made a friendly amendment to release the economic development area from the critical area. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed to this. Commissioner Pelissier said that she is not sure the County Commissioners can get the level of detailed information that Commissioner Yuhasz is asking, and it may cost a lot of money and time. Commissioner Nelson said that he will vote against this motion because he agrees with Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner Gordon. He is intrigued by the arguments of Commissioner Yuhasz. VOTE: Ayes, 2 ( Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner Foushee); Nays, 5 MOTION FAILED A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the Manager's recommendation to close the public hearing and take action on the proposed amendments as shown in Attachments 1 and 2. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz) b. Public Hearinq on Possible November 2, 2010 Special Advisory Referendum Concerninq the Levy of a One-Quarter Cent (1/4�) County Sales and Use Tax The Board conducted a public hearing to solicit comments from the public on a possible November 2, 2010 Special Advisory Referendum concerning the Levy of a One-Quarter Cent County Sales and Use Tax. Frank Clifton said that this is to allow public input before the Board of County Commissioners' discussion on June 15th. There are two revenue options — increase property taxes or impose the '/4-cent sales tax. If the County has the referendum, it would not have a significant impact this fiscal year. Michael Talbert made the presentation. The final date to get this on the ballot by November is August 6th. The current legislation says that the tax can only be levied either on January 1St or July 1St. There is a technical amendment that would change that to April 1St, if approved. The total revenue for next year (FY 2011-2012) would be approximately $2.3 million. All of this is contingent upon voter approval. � Commissioner Jacobs verified that this would not include food and medicine and he asked that this be added to the resolution. Michael Talbert said that this tax would also not be shared with the towns. PUBLIC COMMENT: Will Raymond is a resident of Chapel Hill and said that it is understandable why Orange County is looking at this revenue, but a sales tax is a regressive tax. He said that Orange County is not New Hanover County, which has a much different tax situation, and the impact is going to mainly be on Orange County residents. He suggested that it be clearly identified where the revenue is going. He would like to see this money go to social services, above and beyond the current baseline of the Social Services budget. He said that the revenue from this will be very unpredictable and sensitive to economic conditions. He said to be sure to allocate to mend the harm this tax will create. He also suggested putting a time limit on this tax. Joe Phelps said that he agreed with Mr. Raymond and he asked if there would be more public hearings on this topic. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners have not had the opportunity to discuss this yet. Commissioner Hemminger asked when the Board would be having this discussion and Frank Clifton said that the primary concerns are education, County debt, and economic development. At this point, the revenue generated by this would be about $3 million a year. He said that it would be appropriate to designate a portion of the revenue to any of those things, including social services. Commissioner Hemminger asked that the Board discuss this before the break and Frank Clifton said that he could add it to the June 15th meeting. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he thinks the property tax is the regressive tax and the County has reached the limit of what it can ask from property owners. He said that this is an opportunity to spread the tax around to all of the citizens. He sees this as dedicated to County debt and economic development and he will support putting this on the ballot. Commissioner Pelissier said that she supported putting this on a referendum and she agrees with Commissioner Yuhasz. She said that the Board must vote on this at the June 15tn meeting if it is to put this on a referendum by August. Commissioner Jacobs said that he came prepared to vote on this tonight. The detailed discussions about where the money would go could happen later. He pointed out that citizens will be paying this tax, but residents will also be paying it, and not all residents pay property taxes. Chair Foushee said that she is in support of this, but she is not ready to vote on this tonight. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to give another opportunity for more of the public to speak on this before voting and to bring this item back on June 15th for a vote. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Draft Comments — Proposed Falls Lake Nutrient Manaqement Rules The Board considered draft comments for submittal to the N.C. Environmental Management Commission on the proposed Falls Lake Nutrient Management Rules, which are to be presented for public comment this summer. Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation Dave Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation. � Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Draft Rules June 1, 2010 Falls Lake Rules Timeline ➢2005 — General Assembly adopted SL 2005-190 Nutrient strategy for surface water reservoirs ➢2009 - SB1020 required water quality improvements in Falls Lake ➢Stakeholder process held, ended January 2010 ➢DWQ submitted draft rules to EMC March 2010 ➢Fiscal note completed June 2010?? ➢Public comment period mid-June to mid-August 2010?? ➢Temporary rules February 2011 ➢Final rules adopted by EMC in 2012 Draft Nutrient Management Strategy Goal: Meet chlorophyll-a standard lake-wide. Projected to be accomplished through reductions of nutrients entering lake: ➢40% Nitrogen reduction ➢77% Phosphorus reduction Measured against baseline year of 2006. DWQ proposes a "Staged Approach" starting in 2011: Stage 1: 10 years to reduce nutrient contributions to lake watershed-wide. Obiective- meet water quality standards in lower lake by 2021. Stage 2: Additional 15 years to further reduce nutrient contributions in upper watershed. Obiective- meet water quality standards in entire lake by 2041 as a result of the full implementation of load reduction measures by 2036. Proposed nutrient reductions from: ➢ New Development ➢ Existing Development ➢ Wastewater Discharge ➢ State and Federal Entities ➢ Agricultural Lands ➢ Fertilizer Management Nutrient Trading program also established. New Development (Stormwater) Targets: 2.2 Ibs/ac/yr Nitrogen � 0.33 Ibs/ac/yr Phosphorus ➢ At least 50-60% of stormwater treatment required to be onsite. ➢ For redevelopment no stormwater retrofits required beyond what currently exists at site. Existinq Development (Stormwater): Includes reductions from septic systems and discharging sand filters. Accounting tool is not currently available to determine baseline or current nutrient loads. Stage 1 (by 2021): Reduce loads from developed lands to 2006 baseline. Stage 2 (by 2036): Starting in 2021, load reduction program must be submitted and then updated every 5 years documenting plan for achieving remaining reductions from developed lands. Aqriculture Applies to: ➢ Commercial production of crops or horticultural products (other than trees). ➢ Production or management of: ➢5 or more horses ➢20 or more cattle ➢20 or more swine (outside a feedlot) or 150 or more in a lot. ➢120 or more sheep ➢130 or more goats ➢650 or more turkeys ➢3,500 or more chickens, or any combination in excess of 20,000 Ibs Stage I (10 years): Collective 20% N and 40% P reductions relative to 2006 baseline. Relies on voluntary practices on a collective basis. Stage II (15 more years): Collective 40% N and 77% P reductions relative to baseline. Will require specific actions by individuals, including buffering all cropland and pasture and excluding livestock from surface waters. ➢ Accounting tool not presently available. EMC is currently soliciting public comments concerning "hobby farms". Not involved in commercial production and not included in draft rules at present. ➢ How to define them? � ➢ Should they encompass large (> 1 acre) gardens and dog kennels (> certain number of dogs per acre)? ➢ What requirements should they meet? Dave Stancil made reference to the letter on page 4 of the agenda abstract and said that it is based in large part on the Jordan Lake Rules letter in 2007-2008 and a lot of the same comments apply. There are also comments by the Agricultural Preservation Board on page 17. These concerns were worked into the draft letter. Commissioner Pelissier made reference to the first page of the letter from the Agricultural Preservation Board and read (bottom of 3�d paragraph), "The APB recommends that regular sampling occur at the Eno River, Flat River, and Little River at or near the point where these rivers flow out of Orange County and into Durham County." She said that there was a lot of discussion about this at the APB, and this is a crucial part. She suggested that this be added to the draft letter. Dave Stancil said that he could add this to the letter. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would be interested in the comments on the four bullets and the Board agreed. Commissioner Hemminger said that the next to the last paragraph was the most important and she suggested putting the highlights out first. Commissioner Jacobs suggested using some bold on the highlights. He also asked that "hobby farms" be defined. He also asked that staff monitor the comments of Durham when it complains about having to spend money to protect Raleigh's water supply, so that Orange County can cite the same comments in asking Durham to help Orange County protect Durham's water supply. He would like to see what Durham has to say in its letter to the EMC. Commissioner Gordon suggested highlighting the topic headings and what Orange County has done. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to authorize the submittal of the letter to the EMC during the public hearing period, with the changes as suggested above VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Adoption of a Code of Ethics for the County Commissioners and Consideration of Recommendinq the North Carolina General Assembly Repeal Portions of Session Law 1987-460 The Board considered a recommended Code of Ethics to guide the Commissioners in the performance of their duties and considered recommending the General Assembly repeal portions of Session Law 1987-460. John Roberts said that this is before the County Commissioners again with the amendments made from the Board. He said that Orange County is unique in that it has a disclosure law and this Code of Ethics would replace that. The changes are underlined throughout the document. Commissioner Gordon said that when this was discussed last time, the County Commissioners made some suggestions on page 5, Section 3-c. She said that the Board also talked about "a business, firm, or corporation which is doing business for Orange County pursuant to contracts which have been awarded by Orange County." She would like to see this wording in here and she thought the Board agreed. John Roberts said that the language in Section `c' currently takes in more than just contracts. He thinks that this would include both contracts and other things. He could add the � word "contracts". He suggested the following language, "firm or corporation, which is currently doing business with Orange County pursuant to contracts awarded by Orange County, or is attempting or has attempted in the past calendar year...." A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adopt the recommended Code of Ethics, with the amendment above, to guide the Commissioners in the performance of their duties and approved recommending the General Assembly repeal portions of Session Law 1987-460. Code of Ethics for the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina WHEREAS, the Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Section 35, reminds us that a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty," and WHEREAS, a spirit of honesty and forthrightness is reflected in North Carolina's State Motto, Esse Quam Videri, "To Be Rather than to Seem," and WHEREAS, Section 160A-86 of the North Carolina General Statutes requires local governing boards to adopt a code of ethics, and WHEREAS, as public officials we are charged with upholding the trust of the citizens and residents of Orange County, and with obeying the law, and WHEREAS, as public officials of Orange County we believe our citizens and residents are entitled to the most open and ethical government possible under the law. NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of our blessings and obligations as citizens of the State of North Carolina and as public officials representing the citizens and residents of Orange County and acting pursuant to the requirements of Section 160A-86 of the North Carolina General Statutes, we the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby adopt the following General Principles and Code of Ethics to guide the Board of County Commissioners in its lawful decision-making. The Orange County Board of Commissioners directs all advisory boards and committees, which currently serve, or which may in the future be created to serve, the Board of County Commissioners, to respect and abide by these same General Principles and Code of Ethics in the performance of their lawful duties insomuch as they may be applicable to the performance thereof. GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE CODE OF ETHICS • The stability and proper operation of democratic representative government depends upon public confidence in the integrity of the government, and upon responsible exercise of the trust conferred by the people upon their elected officials. • Governmental decisions and policy must be made and implemented through proper channels and processes of the governmental structure. • Board members must be able to act in a manner that maintains their integrity and independence, yet is responsive to the interests and needs of those they represent. • Board members must always remain aware that at various times they play different roles: • As advocates, who strive to advance the legitimate needs of their citizens and residents, • As leqislators, who balance the public interest and private rights in considering and enacting ordinances, orders, and resolutions, and • As fair and impartial decision-makers, when making quasi-judicial and administrative determinations. � Board members must know how to distinguish among these roles, to determine when each role is appropriate, and to act accordingly. • Board members must be aware of their obligation to conform their behavior to standards of ethical conduct that warrant the trust of their constituents. Each official must find within his or her own conscience the touchstone by which to determine what conduct is appropriate. CODE OF ETHICS Purpose. The purpose of this Code of Ethics is to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for the Board of County Commissioners and to provide guidance in determining what conduct is appropriate in particular cases. It should not be considered a substitute for the law or for a board member's best judgment. Section 1. (a) Board members should obey all laws that apply to their official actions as members of the board. Board members should be guided by the spirit as well as the letter of the law in whatever they do. At the same time, board members should feel free to assert policy positions and opinions without fear of reprisal from fellow board members or citizens. To assert that a board member is behaving unethically due to the fact that one has a disagreement with that board member based on a question of policy (and not on the board member's ethical behavior) is unfair, dishonest, irresponsible, and is itself unethical. (b) Board members should endeavor to keep themselves up-to-date, through the board's attorney, of the most pertinent constitutional, statutory, and other legal requirements with which they must be familiar in order to meet their legal responsibilities. A list of applicable laws and regulations accompanies this Code as Attachment "A". (c) Board members shall comply with General Statute §160A-87 in receiving two clock hours of ethics education within 12 months of each appointment or election to office. Board members may additionally receive two clock hours of ethics education annually, but failure to receive such additional ethics education shall not constitute a violation of this Code of Ethics. Section 2. Board members should act with integrity and with independence from improper influence as they exercise the functions of their offices. Characteristics and behaviors that are consistent with this standard are: • Adhering firmly to a code of sound values. • Behaving consistently and with respect towards everyone with whom they interact. • Exhibiting trustworthiness. • Living as if they are on duty as elected officials regardless of where they are or what they are doing. • Using their best independent judgment to pursue the common good as they see it, presenting their opinions to all in a reasonable, forthright, consistent manner. • Remaining incorruptible, self-governing, and not subject to improper influence, while at the same time being able to consider the opinions and ideas of others. • Disclosing contacts and information about issues that they receive outside of public meetings, and refraining from seeking or receiving information about quasi-judicial matters outside of the quasi-judicial proceedings themselves. • Treating other board members and the public with respect, and honoring the opinions of others even when they disagree. • Being careful not to reach conclusions on issues until all sides have been heard. • Showing respect for their office and not behaving in ways that reflect badly on it. • Recognizing that they are part of a larger group and acting accordingly. � • Recognizing that individual board members are not generally allowed to act on behalf of the board, but may only do so if the board specifically so authorizes, and that the board must take official action as a body. Section 3. (a) Board members should avoid impropriety in the exercise of their official duties. Their official actions should be above reproach. Although opinions may vary about what behavior is inappropriate, this board will consider impropriety in terms of whether a reasonable person who is aware of all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the board member's action would conclude that the action was inappropriate. (b) Board members shall, at the first regular meeting after the annual organizational meeting of the Board immediately after assuming office, and annually thereafter, file with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners a written statement describing any interest he or she or his or her spouse or domestic partner has in real property situated in whole or in part in Orange County and the general description or location of that property. (c) Board members shall, at the first regular meeting after the annual organizational meeting of the Board immediately after assuming office, and annually thereafter, file with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners a written statement describing any legal, equitable, beneficial or contractual interest he or she or his or her spouse or domestic partner has in any business, firm or corporation, which is currently doing business with Orange County pursuant to contracts awarded by Orange County, or is attempting, or has attempted in the past calendar year, to secure the award of a bid from Orange County or the approval of any Board or Agency of Orange County. (d) If a board member believes that his or her actions, while legal and ethical, may be misunderstood, he or she should seek the advice of the board's attorney and should consider publicly disclosing the facts of the situation and the steps taken to resolve it, such as consulting with the attorney. (e) Sections 3(b) and 3(c) shall specifically apply to the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, Board of Adjustment of Orange County, Planning Board of Orange County and Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County and any other advisory boards or committees specifically designated by the Board of County Commissioners except that members of boards other than the Board of County Commissioners shall file the required disclosure within 30 days of their initial and subsequent appointments to said boards. Section 4. Board members should be faithful in the performance of the duties of their offices. They should act as especially responsible citizens whom others can trust and respect. They should set a good example for others in the community, keeping in mind that trust and respect must continually be earned. Board members should faithfully attend and prepare for meetings. They should carefully analyze all credible information that is properly submitted to them, mindful of the need not to engage in communications outside the meeting in quasi-judicial matters. They should demand full accountability from those over whom the board has authority. Board members should be willing to bear their fair share of the board's workload. To the extent appropriate, they should be willing to put the board's interests ahead of their own. Section 5. Elected members of local governing boards should conduct the affairs of their boards in an open and public manner. They should comply with all applicable laws governing open meetings and public records, recognizing that doing so is an important way to be worthy of the public's trust. They should remember when they meet that they are conducting the public's business. They should also remember that the records of their local government belong to the � public and not to them or their employees. They should make clear that a climate of openness is to be maintained at all times in their governmental units. In order to ensure strict compliance with the laws governing openness, governing board members should strive to be open. They should prohibit unjustified delay in fulfilling public records requests. They should take deliberate steps to ensure that any closed sessions held by the board are lawfully conducted, and that such sessions do not stray from the purposes for which they are called. Section 6. If, by a majority vote of the board, the board has reasonable cause to believe that one or more of its members has violated a provision of this Code of Ethics, it may at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to open an investigation into the matter. All information compiled, including the grounds for the finding of reasonable cause, shall be shared with the member when it is received. All information pertaining to the case shall be open to public inspection and copying pursuant to the North Carolina public records statutes. If, upon investigation of a violation of this Code of Ethics, the board has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of a criminal law may have occurred, it shall refer the matter to the local district attorney. Should the board determine that it wishes to proceed further with censure proceedings, it shall, by a majority vote, call for a hearing to be held at a regular meeting or at a special meeting convened for that purpose and shall adhere to the procedures set out in Attachment "B" "Censure Procedure". This section shall apply only to the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County. This Code of Ethics adopted this the 1St day of June, 2010. ATTACHMENT "A" APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 1. Avoid deriving a direct benefit from contracts in which you are involved in making or administering on behalf of the public agency. (G.S. 14-234((a)(1); criminal penalty; note defined terms in the statute: direct benefit, involved in making or administering a contract.) 2. Avoid attempting to influence others who are involved in making or administering a contract on behalf of the public agency, even if you aren't involved, if you will derive a direct benefit from the contract. (G.S. 14-234 (a)(2); criminal penalty; note defined terms in the statute: direct benefit, involved in making or administering a contract.) 3. Avoid soliciting or receiving any gift or reward in exchange for recommending, influencing, or attempting to influence the award of a contract by the public agency you serve. (G.S. 14-234 (a)(3); criminal penalty.) 4. Consider the ethical and practical consequences of deriving a direct benefit from a contract that is authorized under any exception to the statute, and weigh these considerations against the potential advantage to the public agency and to yourself. Follow reporting requirements to ensure transparency. (G.S. 14-234 (b); (d1).) 5. Avoid participating in deliberations about or voting on a contract in which you have a direct benefit, when the contract is undertaken as allowed under any exception to the statute. (G.S. 14-234 (b1); criminal penalty.) 6. Avoid using your knowledge of contemplated action by you or your unit, or information known to you in your official capacity and not made public, to acquire a financial � interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise, or to gain a financial benefit that may be affected by the information or contemplated action. Avoid intentionally aiding another to do any of these things. (G.S. 14-234.1; criminal penalty.) 7. Avoid receiving any gift or favor from a current, past, or potential contractor. (G.S. 133- 32(a); criminal penalty.) 8. Consider the ethical and practical consequences of accepting a gift or favor under any exception to the statutory prohibition, and follow reporting requirements to ensure transparency. (G.S. 133-32(d).) 9. Avoid voting on matters involving your own financial interest or official conduct. (G.S. 160A-75; 153A-44.) Identify and disclose these matters in advance so that your board can determine whether or not you have a conflict that allows you to be excused by the board from voting. When in doubt, obtain an opinion from your local attorney about whether you must vote or may be excused. 10. Avoid voting on any zoning map or text amendment where the outcome of the vote is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on you. (G.S. 153A-340(g); 160A-381(d).) 11. Do not participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter, including matters that come before the board when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under G.S. 153A-345 or 160A- 388, if participation would violate affected persons' constitutional right to an impartial decision-maker. Impermissible conflicts under this statutory standard include "having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change"; "undisclosed ex parte communications [communications between a board member and someone else who is involved in the matter that occur outside the official quasi-judicial proceeding]"; "a close familial, business, or other associational relationship with an affected person": or "a financial interest in the outcome of the matter." (153A-345(e1), 160A-388(e1); violation of the constitutional standard by one member invalidates the entire vote.) 12. Fulfill your statutory obligation to vote on all matters that come before you even when there are appearances of conflict, and only refrain from voting when there is a legal basis for or requirement to be excused from voting. (G.S. 153A-44; 160A-75.) ATTACHMENT "B" CENSURE PROCEDURE Notice of the required public hearing stating its time, place, and purpose shall be given once a week for two successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the jurisdiction. The notice shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days before the date fixed for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be included but the day of the hearing shall be included. Alternatively, the hearing shall be advertised on the jurisdiction's website for the same period of time, up to and including the date of the hearing. The notice shall state that a detailed list of the allegations against the member is available for public inspection and copying in the office of the clerk or secretary to the board. The hearing shall be convened at the time and place specified. The hearing and any deliberations shall be conducted in open session in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina open meetings statutes. The County Attorney shall conduct the hearing and shall carry the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. � The accused board member shall have the right to have counsel present, to present and cross-examine expert and other witnesses, and to offer evidence, including evidence of the bias of any other board member or the presiding officer and shall have the burden of proving such bias by a preponderance of the evidence. An audio or video and audio tape of the proceedings shall be prepared. Any and all votes during the hearing shall be taken by the ayes and nays and recorded in the board's minutes. Once the hearing is concluded, it shall be closed by a majority vote of the board. The presiding officer shall next entertain a motion to adopt a resolution censuring the member based on specified violations of the Code of Ethics. Any motion made must be an affirmative one in favor of adopting a non-binding resolution of censure and stating that the evidence presented has met the burden of proof. If the motion or resolution does not state particular grounds for censure under the Code of Ethics or state that the evidence presented has met the burden of proof, the presiding officer shall rule it out of order. If a motion to adopt a resolution of censure stating particular grounds under the Code of Ethics has been made and appropriately seconded, the board shall debate the motion. The accused member shall be allowed to participate in the debate, but shall not vote on the motion to adopt the resolution of censure. At the conclusion of the debate, the board shall vote on the resolution. If the motion to adopt the resolution of censure is approved by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, a quorum being present, the motion passes and the non-binding resolution of censure is adopted. The text of the resolution of censure shall be made a part of the minutes of the board. Any recording of the board's proceedings shall be approved by the board as a permanent part of the board's minutes. The proceedings shall then be considered concluded, the board having done all that it legally can with respect to the matter in question. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs asked about a Code of Ethics for senior staff and John Roberts said that this would be at the first meeting in August. c. Oranqe County Fundinq Support for the Town of Chapel Hill Library The Board considered discussing Orange County's funding support for the Town of Chapel Hill Library. Frank Clifton said that he put together a synopsis on this topic, and he summarized the meeting with the Town of Chapel Hill. Commissioner Jacobs said that he had a telephone conversation with Councilmember Pease, whom they had met with earlier in May, and Mr. Pease was much more understanding of the budget situation than was previously expressed. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is hard to see how they can address this Chapel Hill funding outside the conversation of the southwest branch library. He said that he is okay with funding at the level now, but any potential increase in funding has to take into account the effects of a future southwest Orange County Library. He made reference to the Manager's point#2 and increases to the library support triggering increases to school funding based on the funding formula. He said that it seems that the Board should look at this and should not consider additional funding for the libraries as part of the budget for the purposes of determining what the school proportion of that is. � Commissioner Gordon said that they need to come up with a response to Chapel Hill based on what the Board thinks it can do at this time. She said that the County Commissioners should not assume what Chapel Hill wants and to respond to them the best they can. She said she thought that we should do something more in terms of funding for the Chapel Hill Library, and that a good starting point is the proposal from the Manager. Commissioner Pelissier said that she is not sure what she wants to do this year because of the budget, and she is not sure what she would want to do next year either. She said that she has a hard time deciding what to do for Chapel Hill without looking at the big picture, including a southwest library. She would like to engage Chapel Hill and do joint library planning. Commissioner Nelson said that for him the budget presentation colored how he feels as to what the County can do right now. He said that the Chapel Hill Library did not receive a cut in the County's budget and virtually everything else did. He said that this is a clear case that the County has not kept up its commitment to the Chapel Hill Library. He agreed with looking at the big picture when addressing all of the library needs and he would like to continue the conversation with Chapel Hill. He said we needed to have a good, broad library plan which would be completed in about six months. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would be willing to defer making a definitive statement until after the budget discussions. He does not want to cut the Orange County system while increasing funding for another system. He said that the premise of any increase in funding is to treat our system as well as we treat another library system. He distributed a handout with a suggestion of something to put on the agenda for June 15th, and read from the handout. "Direct staff to start during the summer break to investigate the feasibility of establishing a consolidated southwest Orange branch library to maintain optimal public access in a fiscally constrained manner. - Consider use of the Skills Development Center as a library branch - Systematically weight the Skills Development option along with other available, cost- effective alternatives - Measure each possible site against siting criteria recommended by the Carrboro Library Workgroup as part of the 2004 Orange County Library Services Task Force report - Report back to the BOCC in a timely manner prior to the late-fall break The investigation should include: - Soliciting comments about plans and uses of the Skills Development Center by DTCC and other partners, along with the advisability and difficulty of changing their status - Interest by the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill in possible collaboration on developing and/or operating a southwest Orange branch library - Costs of rental, construction (estimated $2.6 million for 10,000 square feet, per 2007 report), or renovation of new or existing buildings that might house a southwest Orange branch - Speed to bring various sites online to begin serving the public. Commissioner Jacobs said that what is done in southwest Orange could have a significant impact on how the Chapel Hill Library is used. His understanding is that the bus service to the Chapel Hill Library is going to be reduced. Commissioner Gordon said that it makes sense to have a plan. She noted that taxpayers all over Orange County pay for library services in the county, and that includes residents from Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Hillsborough, and rural Orange. We need to have a � collaborative relationship among our libraries. As for an agenda item to start a site search for a southwest library, she is not ready to vote tonight to place that on the June 15th agenda. Commissioner Nelson said that he supports doing a site search for the southwest library and doing it thoroughly. He said that he wants the Board's decision to be data based. To include a particular site complicates the search. PUBLIC COMMENT: Nerys Levy read a prepared statement. "My name is Nerys Levy. I am on the Board of the Friends of the Carrboro Branch Library and I have also been on three Orange County Library task forces — a fact which underscores my commitment to furthering the growth of Library services in Orange County. During the course of the three library task forces from 2000-2007, the constant theme was how Chapel Hill Municipal Library had to absorb the absence of adequate library services in other part of Orange County and how the County needed to develop branches. And yet the 2010- 2011 Fiscal Year budget plans to cut the personnel and hours at the Carrboro Cybrary and limit resources going into the Carrboro Branch Library. With the proposed budget cuts, Carrboro will have 1.875 librarians supporting the patron base of southwest Orange which, as we all know from the library task force pie graph, is about 30,000 people. Some of those patrons may I add live within the Town of Chapel Hill. The Carrboro Branch Library at McDougle School has 22,000 books —this taxpayer investment is locked up every Monday through Thursday until 3:30 p.m., closed on Fridays, and available for a total of eight hours on Saturdays and Sundays. Southwest Orange taxpayers use the Carrboro Branch Library when it's open. If it were open more hours then the burden on Chapel Hill Library would be even less. In 1958 the Town of Chapel Hill chose to become a municipal library. It has never been stated how the Town then thought of treating non-municipality residents re: library fines and usage. We need to know those facts. Southwest Orange residents — and particularly those within the boundaries of the Town of Carrboro- pay very high rates for library services — including supporting the Cybrary and the Carrboro Branch Library—they also contribute to the $250,000 per year received by the Town of Chapel Hill. Most would prefer to have a library within their vicinity open at accessible hours for their children to do their homework on library computers — all children of middle and high school ages have to submit their homework online —this would serve them better and would really reduce the strain on the Chapel Hill Library. So, let us all work together in creating a comprehensive system of accessible branches for Orange County residents. As the County Manager suggested last Thursday, think about merging the Cybrary and Carrboro Branch Library in a store front facility— and keep that facility open all day. With this innovation over 8,500 unwanted patrons at the Chapel Hill Library from southwest Orange County would cease to be a constant problem to the Chapel Hill Municipal Library. That would be much more cost efficient and money well invested in the future. Thank you. And thank you for an enlightened discussion." Chair Foushee said that she agreed with most of what has been said, especially Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Gordon. She said that she does think they need to increase the funding to the Chapel Hill Library, but she does not know how much and when. She said that if they are talking about providing library services in southwestern Orange County, then she cannot see talking about ending library services at Cedar Grove for good. She said that the recommendation is too vague for her to support as it is written. As for the � question of placing on the June 15 agenda an item to start a search for a southwest Orange library site, she said that she would like for the Board to determine whether or not it will direct staff to embark on this venture over the summer rather than leaving this to the Chair and Vice- Chair. She said that the agenda for June 15th is very crowded right now. She would rather it not be the responsibility of the Chair and the Vice-Chair to make a determination as to whether or not to direct staff to do this. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the main library the County was supporting at first is entirely different than what it is supporting now. He would like to look at the 50% number further. Regarding looking at locations for the southwest library, he would like to get staff to look at this. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Chair Foushee about making a decision to put this topic on the June 15th meeting. She asked if this proposal was a temporary solution or long-term. She said that she is not sure she wants to dedicate a lot of staff and community time to a temporary solution. Commissioner Hemminger said that the Board has not given any direction as to what it wants to do with a future library in southwest Orange County. The Board needs a comprehensive plan that includes our goals for libraries and we need to work with all the parties involved. Commissioner Gordon said that if we do a search for a southwest library, we should do a principled search. She said that she has a hard time talking about the Skills Development Center as a library branch location when there is already something there. The Skills Development Center is located where it is to deliver these services to the residents of the southern part of the county, and she would object to relocating all of these services for southern Orange to Hillsborough. She thinks that these services should be located somewhere in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Commissioner Nelson said that this part of the conversation about the location of the southwest library complicates the discussion and the County does not have the money now and may not in the next two years. He suggested having a three-year plan with revenue streams and a memorandum of understanding. The plan should also address the formula for funding and interoperability. Commissioner Jacobs said that all he was asking for was to put this on the agenda and have staff look at whether or not a facility could be opened in a timely manner. He said that he is tired of being on a Board of County Commissioners who has had the same conversation about economic development— everybody is for it, but nobody does anything about it. He said that the County is finally moving to where maybe something is going to happen, but there is always an excuse for not doing something. He is only suggesting that a greater need will be created by making cuts in the southwest branch libraries. This is an opportunity to look at alternatives and it does not presuppose it is going anywhere. The Skills Development Center is one place we can afford and Durham Technical Community College is not opposed to moving their services. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to create a three-year plan that creates a funding stream for Orange County library needs including the southwest branch and rural needs, which will include a plan to increase funding for the Chapel Hill library, a Memorandum of Understanding that addresses interoperability and a funding formula for the Chapel Hill Library that addresses future potentialities. � Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is important to have a plan, but he has a problem with a permanent commitment to continuing to fund the Chapel Hill Library when it is not known how a southwest library will affect the Chapel Hill Library and its usage. Chair Foushee said that these things could be included in the MOU. Commissioner Jacobs suggested putting this in writing, bringing it back on the 15tn and having the Library Director review and edit it. Frank Clifton said that the MOU should be time-specific and it will be renewed or renegotiated. He asked whether the plan will also be stand-alone with its own revenue stream that will not be affected by other funding issues. At the present time the library system is part of the General Fund and subject to whatever else happens in county government. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon asked what the Board should tell Chapel Hill and Chair Foushee said that she would write a letter. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs to add to the June 15th agenda, asking staff to prepare an agenda item to investigate the feasibility of siting a permanent southwest Orange County Library branch. There was no second. The motion failed. Commissioner Jacobs said that if a Commissioner wants something to be on an agenda, then it should be on an agenda. Chair Foushee said that on matters this important at this stage of the budget, this is not something to enter into without the sentiment of the entire Board. 8. Reports a. Report - Update on the UNC Binqham Facility The Board received an update on various issues pertaining to University of North Carolina's Bingham Facility, and received information from university representatives. Dave Stancil said that staff tried to pull together information from other departments about the UNC Bingham facility. There are environmental health issues and there have been some violations of the Division of Water Quality standards. The light blue paper is the response from UNC. PUBLIC COMMENT: Alex Castrode said that on March 2nd he asked on behalf of Preserve Rural Orange County to direct staff to do this report on this facility. He said that this report confirms several environmental concerns of expansion of this facility. He thanked the Board for directing staff to do this work. He said that the National Institute of Health has awarded a grant in the amount of $14.4 million to UNC to expand this facility. This grant is tied to the stimulus plan and has a fast paced construction schedule requirement. There are several discrepancies in permitting omissions pertaining to the wastewater treatment system. The system has been shut down and the wastewater is being hauled away. He suggested that the County write a letter to the Chancellor of UNC stating the concern about the continuation of past mistakes of design and construction because of the haste in meeting the NIH schedule, asking that a full environmental impact statement be completed to ensure no harm is done to the environment, and asking that UNC consider formalizing a coordinating body with representatives of the County government and local community. Laura Streitfeld is the Chair of the Board of Preserve Rural Orange. She said that the questions that they have about this facility are many and the answers have not been � forthcoming until more recently. The concerns include accountability, transparency, environmental sustainability, and the fast track for the money to be spent in construction and expansion. She asked the County Commissioners to slow down the process and ask questions. She said that the fast track has led the consultant to put in gas lines and she learned recently that there is an effort to put in a natural gas line to power a central energy plant. This involves a cooling tower, a gas line from Alamance County through Orange County, and the public is not aware of these details. She said that the discrepancy between what has been proposed and what actually exists on the site are of great concern. This fast track has led to violations at the local, state, and federal level. She asked the County Commissioners to look at what is best for County citizens. She also asked that the County test the water and soils here. Will Raymond said that UNC is a dominant land developer in the County. He said that he believes that they have reached a point with the University and this research facility that they need something like the Carolina North framework for these discussions. He said that this is an ad-hoc and crisis-to-crisis approach. There must be a structured, transparent process. Bob Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at UNC, said that he has been in charge of this facility for three and a half months. He said that Chancellor Thorp gave him a charge to open up the process and be transparent, admit the mistakes they had made in developing the property, restore good relations with the neighbors, and put a team together that would lead in a positive direction toward further development that has the minimum possible impact on the neighborhood. He said that he subscribed to this charge and he set out to do this. He said that there have been town meetings. He made reference to the two violations and said that they have not received any violations since he took over and he intends not to receive any. He said that he has shut down the incinerator and he is trying to get it removed. He also shut down the wastewater treatment system, which was unreliable. He said that he hopes to make the reclaimed water available to fire departments if needed. He said that this reclaimed water is safe to discharge. He said that they received a $14.5 million grant from NIH to construct two more buildings at Bingham and the intent is to self-fund a third building and he is committed to obtaining every required permit and he will do so in an open fashion that allows the usual public input and comment. He has no intention of avoiding any of that process. He said that every letter they receive from any regulatory or governmental agency and every letter they send back in return, they send by email to every neighbor as quickly as it happens. Cliff Leath said that his property abuts this facility and he commended Mr. Lowman for his transparency, but the problems that are there came from before and he hopes that the facility now has a slower process. Commissioner Hemminger said that several Commissioners attended a tour of the facility and they do read the emails that are communicated between UNC and the property owners. Commissioner Jacobs said that he received an email from a citizen that was concerned about pharmaceuticals in the water. He asked how the treatment process would address this. Bob Lowman said that there would probably be less of a problem than most municipal wastewater streams, because they do not flush unused pharmaceuticals down the toilet. He continued explaining how the wastewater would be dealt with. Commissioner Jacobs said that there have been concerns raised by the local fire departments about the amount of money they are being paid to provide fire fighting capability, � which does not compensate them for the expense required. He asked if Bob Lowman has been in contact with the fire departments. Bob Lowman said that he has not been in contact with the fire departments, but he will be. Bob Lowman continued to answer clarifying questions from the County Commissioners. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the fast track and the timeframe for keeping the grant funds. Bob Lowman said that the schematics are due to the NIH by July 31St. The deadline for completing the plan is July 31, 2011. After the NIH approves the plans, the project has to be bid within six months. It is anticipated to take 18 months for construction. 9. County Manaqer's Report Frank Clifton said that Representative Faison has introduced the legislation that would allow Caswell County to operate a government-owned broadband system. He thinks that it might be worthwhile to ask Representative Faison to do something like this in Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to ask Representative Faison to introduce legislation to allow Orange County to operate a government-owned broadband system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Frank Clifton said that back in December the Board of County Commissioners authorized the County to spend up to 50% of the cost of installing sidewalk along Margaret Lane near the new Orange County Library. This was based on the estimate of $70-80,000. The bids are $90,000 and the town has asked that the County be willing to still contribute 50%, which would raise the cost about $6,500. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to contribute 50% to the installation of a sidewalk along Margaret Lane. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said that two local bills were submitted — one regarding the Orange/Alamance County line and one regarding hunting deer with dogs and Orange County banning that practice. He was at the Legislature today to defend the Orange/Alamance Line bill and this received a favorable committee report to proceed to the General Assembly. Not all members of the local delegation were willing to sign off on the hunting deer with dogs' legislation. In order for that to be considered in committee, it has to be non-controversial. It was suggested to try this again next year. 11. Appointments a. Oranqe County Board of Adjustment—Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to appoint Dr. Larry Wright to a first full term ending June 30, 2013. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Hyconeechee Reqional Library Board — New Appointment � The Board considered making a new appointment to the Hyconeechee Regional Library Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to appoint Dr. Paul Parker to the Hyconeechee Regional Library Board, with his term ending March 31, 2013. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Oranqe County Nursinq Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to appoint Sarah Lowman to a one-year training term ending June 1, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Oranqe-Person-Chatham Area Proqrams Board — New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to Orange-Person-Chatham Area Programs Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to appoint Paul Rosenthal to the OPC Area Programs Board, with his term ending December 31, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Nelson — none Commissioner Jacobs asked for a status report on OPC and whether it is adding other counties. There were some concerns raised by a citizen on the way in which it is operating. Commissioner Pelissier said that the OPC Board voted to sign a letter of intent. She will forward this information when it is official. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to have a work session at the first work session on August 19th, and dedicate that work session to economic development, have Economic Development Director Brad Broadwell bring together other community members, and invite staff of Chapel Hill EDC, Town of Carrboro, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, and Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce to talk about how to move forward with economic development. Commissioner Yuhasz asked to include the appropriate parties from the Town of Mebane. Commissioner Pelissier agreed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Yuhasz suggested looking as a Board at some procedure that if a Commissioner wants to add an agenda item to the agenda that it can be added. Commissioner Hemminger— none Commissioner Gordon — none Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz about having a procedure for agenda items. Her intent with the Chapel Hill Library item was to put it on a work session agenda at a later time. Chair Foushee said that the elected leaders had a meeting on Friday and discussed possible referendum dates. It was determined that October 11, 2011 is not a good date � because there are no elections on that day. She said that Craig Benedict is now on the steering committee representing Orange County in that regard. Commissioner Nelson said that he does not agree that any Commissioner can put anything on an agenda because it is an easy way to clog up agendas. Commissioner Gordon said that she thought that there was already a procedure for a Commissioner getting an item on the agenda. 13. Information Items • New Customer Information Packet for Efland Sewer Customers • May 18, 2010 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 14. Closed Session-NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board