Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-14-2010 APPROVED 2/1/2011 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING December 14, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the 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 Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - Lavender— document that goes with item 7-b —Approval of Health Department Expansion within Whitted Human Services Building and Approval of Budget Amendment#5-B (questions and responses that will be put in the record) - Aqua —for item 6-a — Orange-Alamance Boundary Line Adjustment Action The Chair asked to add a closed session: Pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 11(a)(3): " to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to add the closed session as stated above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Erin Martin was from the Friends of Bolin Creek, which is a non-profit organization that is committed to conserving and protecting the Bolin Creek Watershed since 2003. The goal now is to promote cost-effective, long-term solutions to enhance the environmental, recreational, and economic value of this unique North Carolina natural resource. She made reference to a map that shows the watershed. She said that as the water has become more necessary, it has also become more polluted. The Friends of Bolin Creek is developing a conservation plan to document conditions in the watershed and to make recommendations for its protection and long-term health. They are coordinating with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County, the North Carolina Department of Water Quality, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to support the development of a watershed restoration plan and to put forward their own conservation plan. The Friends of Bolin Creek Conservation Plan will describe the history, geology, and economic impact of this urban watershed. It will also recommend improved storm water management policies. It will evaluate land use and local ordinances to improve the stream's health. She introduced Rob Crock. Rob Crock is also a member of the Friends of Bolin Creek. He said that the health of the watershed matters to the County. He said that it supports cost-effective drinking water. He said that Bolin Creek is unusual in that north of Estes Drive it encompasses over 400 contiguous acres of forest land. He said that this is a land that needs to be protected in Orange County. He said that the Friends want to conduct a study and take on all of the policies and practices that affect the creek's health. He said that, ultimately, Bolin Creek ties into Jordan Lake, which is an economic driver for much of the area. Julie McKlintock was also from the Friends of Bolin Creek and said that the conservation study started in March and will take a year to complete. She said that healthier water will require changing human behaviors. She said that the Friends of Bolin Creek are all about community education and this study will help with that effort. The recommendations will be brought to the Board next fall and tonight they are requesting support. Robin Jacobs is from the Eno River Association and said that they appreciate what Orange County does and the partnership with their association. She presented the 2011 Eno River Association calendars. 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. Automatic External Defibrillator(AED) Demonstration The Board observed a demonstration on the use of an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) like the ones being located in various County facilities. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that the Board of County Commissioners asked them to come and demonstrate the new defibrillators that will be placed in all buildings in Orange County where they are not currently located. Clint Osborne made the presentation while the medic team demonstrated the defibrillators. Frank Montes de Oca said that the new models cost about $99 a year and it is self- diagnosing with less chance of a misfire during the shocks. Commissioner Jacobs said that a past Commissioner commented that he had received extremely good care from Orange County EMS recently. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 4, 2010 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments (1) Affordable Housing Advisory Board — Reappointment The Board reappointed Lynda Baker to a second full term expiring June 30, 2013. c. Electronic Listing for Business Personal Property The Board authorized the Tax Administrator to proceed with the electronic listing process for business personal property; approve the attached resolution, which is incorporated by reference; and approve the attached agreement with Tax Management Association, Inc., subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, and authorized the County Manager to sign the agreement. d. Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget Amendment #5 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2010-11 for Department on Aging, Health Department, and Department of Social Services. e. Applications for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools The Board approved applications to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to release funds from the NC Education Lottery account related to debt service payments for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools and authorize the Chair to sign. f. Resolution for Purchase of a Conservation Easement— Mark and Lori Volpe; and Approval of Budget Amendment # 5-A The Board approved a resolution to approve the purchase of a conservation easement in land owned by Mark and Lori Volpe to protect Eno River buffers and aquatic habitat and approval of Budget Amendment#5-A and authorized the Chair and Clerk to sign subject to final review by staff and County Attorney. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION Approval of Conservation Easement between Orange County and Mark and Lori Volpe WHEREAS, Orange County has adopted goals that promote the preservation of natural areas, wildlife habitat, farmland and open space in the County; and WHEREAS, Orange County established the Lands Legacy Program for the purpose of protecting the most significant natural and cultural resources through partnerships with landowners and other conservation entities; and WHEREAS, one component of the Lands Legacy Program is the acquisition of conservation easements on lands that include natural areas, wildlife habitat and riparian buffers within water supply watersheds; and WHEREAS, Mark and Lori Volpe own 71 acres located within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed; and WHEREAS, Mark and Lori Volpe wish to protect a 5.18-acre portion of their property that has 400 feet of frontage along a section of the Eno River that has aquatic habitat of national significance and is located upstream of two public water supply reservoirs; and WHEREAS, Mark and Lori Volpe wish to grant a permanent conservation easement to Orange County, which will protect the natural resources associated with their property: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby 1) accept on behalf of Orange County the conservation easement in the property owned by Mark and Lori Volpe that is described in the conservation easement agreement; 2) approve the execution of this conservation easement agreement with Mark and Lori Volpe, in accordance with the terms of the attached easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and the county attorney; and 3) authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the easement agreement on behalf of the Board, with a closing to occur on or about December 31, 2010. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board thanks the Volpes for their civic-minded interest in pursuing this conservation easement through the Lands Legacy Program. This the 14th day of December, 2010. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Items Removed From Consent Agenda — NONE 6. Public Hearings a. Orange —Alamance Boundary Line Adjustment Action The Board considered the Orange-Alamance Boundary Line Report as amended (from November 29. 2010 Joint County Work Session) and made a recommendation for the 100% resolution of boundary location. PUBLIC COMMENT: Becky Malone spoke on behalf of the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association and said that they would like all of Mill Creek subdivision to move into Alamance County. Jill Desmonie said that she wants for Mill Creek to move into Alamance County since they are so isolated from the rest of Orange County, especially with the schools and EMS. Thom Schopler said that he wanted to reiterate what the citizens said at the joint Orange County and Alamance County meeting on November 29th that the Morrow Mill area wants to remain in Orange County. He said that it would be an undue burden if they were moved to Alamance County. Specifically, he is concerned about Emergency Services and the distance that they would live from Alamance EMS if they were moved to Alamance County. James Howard said that he originally bought property in 1969 and the house and land were in Orange County. He said that access to their driveway comes off of Morrow Mill Road in Orange County. He said that at the joint meeting on November 291h, it seemed that Alamance County was in agreement with their properties staying in Orange County, but something has changed recently. He asked the County Commissioners to please keep them in Orange County. Lawson Brown was representing Tanger Outlet Center and he said that he also represents 1-85/1-40, and both entities are interested in being in Alamance County. He is asking that they stay in Alamance County. Carol Ann McCormick is from the Morrow Mill Road Contingent. She said that Alamance County does not know that they even exist. This has been a continuing problem, especially with snow and ice storms. She had to call Alamance County at one point during some snow to request that they scrape the road because the school bus could not get through, and she was told that Alamance County was not even aware that this road was in Alamance County. She always has to call during a storm to remind them to plow the road. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners for making sure that children that are currently enrolled in Orange County schools can stay in Orange County schools, but she will have to inform the school district each year of this and she is concerned about bus service since they were grandfathered in. She asked that this neighborhood stay in Orange County. Will Bettman is also from the Morrow Mill neighborhood and he wants to stay in Orange County. He said that he has written letters to both Boards of County Commissioners. He is not sure what else the neighborhood needs to do. The majority of the residents in the neighborhood want to remain in Orange County. Jim Anson lives in Mill Creek and he asked that Mill Creek stay in Alamance County. Jim McFadden said that he would like to be part of Alamance County. He currently lives in the Orange County portion of Mill Creek. He feels more associated with the bordering county of Alamance. Frank Clifton said that Craig Benedict would make a PowerPoint presentation on this issue. The County Attorney has been in contact with Alamance County and has a recommendation after the presentation. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 14, 2010 Item 6.a. Orange-Alamance Boundary Line Adjustment Action 2008 Taxing Boundary Option 1 77% NCGS 14% Petitioned - Approve 100% which includes 91% NCGS and Petitioned areas and 9% Orange County Recommendation without agreement - This option does not include any of the November 29, 2010 work session adjustments (approx. 8% of the green NCGS line) Option 2 Nov. 29 Meeting Adjustments 8% NCGS 69% Orange County Staff 9% Petitioned 14% - Approves 83% green and blue line and holds in abeyance 17% orange and red line. Option 3 NCGS 86% Petitioned 14% Maps and Table ORANGE-ALAMANCE BOUNDARY LINE TIMELINE OF EVENTS 2008 UNCERTAIN OR DISPUTED BOUNDARY NC 153A-18 2008 BOCC's Asked NCGS to do PRELIMINARY Survey 2008, 2009, 2010 PUBLIC OUTREACH November 9, 2009 JOINT BOCC's CONSENSUS ON OPTION 2 V. 3 2010 January MANAGER CONSENSUS PRINCIPLES) February—April LOCAL BILL PREPARATION PETITION PROCESS (Close by 12/15/10 2010 July— October PETITION MAILINGS AND STAFF ANALYSIS November 29,2010 JOINT BOCC's ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE REVIEW December 6, 2010 ALAMANCE BOCC (ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION) December 14, 2010 ORANGE BOCC (ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION) January— February LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO INCLUDE ALL CRITERIA (LOCAL BILL AND ADMIN) PURSUE RESURVEY AND LOCAL BILL PREPARATION 2011 LOCAL BILL BEFORE MAY 15 2010 LOCAL BILL - 1362 SESSION LAW 2010-61 SET LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA AND PROCESSES SECTION 2 Acknowledged NCGS "preliminary survey... to form a boundary baseline." only. SECTION 3 General Assembly recognizes difficulties in unclear boundaries and children attending different counties from residence. SECTION 4 2010 local bill area "that involve residents and property located in areas affected by the resurvey of the boundary line." 2010 LOCAL BILL -1362 SESSION LAW 2010-61 SECTION 7 WHAT Administrative method WHO Owners of property ISSUE Annexed (Le. switched form one county to the other) or bisected (Le. split by NCGS) RECOURSE "opportunity to petition ... " OPTIONS "remain in the county to which their property was previously assigned" "or in the case of bisection, to be assigned to one county or the other" CONSTRAINTS "save and except that small lot subdivisions [Le. Eliza Lane, NW 9th Street, Collington Farms, Village of the Oaks, etc.] shall not be divided on a lot by lot basis" NOTE: BOCC's approved criteria and sent letter that was more administratively restrictive than the 2010 Local Bill language. This allowed joint staffs to narrow administrative petition results and still allowed legislative latitude to include other local bill criteria noted in Section 7 above and Section 8 below during the public hearing process. SECTION 8 ACTION "cause areas of the boundary line to be resurveyed in areas., ," WHERE CASE 1 met established administrative criteria CASE 2 "in areas where for practical or other reasons the NCGS line is not reasonable or is unduly burdensome," [legislative action] SECTION 10 The elected and appointed officials and employees of Alamance County and Orange County shall incur no liability under any local or North Carolina statute, law, ordinance, rule or regulation for any act or failure to act relating to taxation, .. as it relates to the currently utilized boundary line", Special Note: • The local bill, SOCC administrative criteria or the letter (see letter Section 1.7) does not require a petition to be submitted to be considered for a boundary line adjustment. • The local bill (Sections 4-11) refers to property owners and not just homeowners, so undeveloped properties can be included legislatively. • The 150' buffer is not mentioned in the local bill so, consistent with the local bill, a legislative determination can be made to, as noted in Section 7 [for properties] "to remain in the county to which they were previously assigned" [Le. taxed]. These local bill criteria apply to the Howard/Miller subdivision and other areas east of Morrow Mill Road. • Approving only some of the petitionable properties (i.e. only 14%) by default, splits other properties, which would be inconsistent with the local bill that states "in the case of bisection to be assigned to one county or the other". • Orange County or Alamance County have not jointly adopted the NCGS preliminary survey, so there is no default provision that automatically puts the straight line into effect. Portions of the NCGS and "all mutually agreed upon modifications thereto" (Section 9) are incorporated by virtue of a 2011 local bill for ratification before the NC General Assembly. If boundary line portions are yet unresolved by the 2011 local bill submittal deadline, then these portions may still remain "Uncertain or disputed boundary" as described in NC 153A-18. The County Attorney's will reconcile this aspect. • Forwarding a 100% solution to the General Assembly to adopt a new line for January 1, 2012 brings finite clarity to the boundary line location thereby reducing the effects of boundary and property disputes. John Roberts said that the local act that was passed is clear about students remaining in their current school system and they shall be residents of Orange County for all public school purposes, and that includes buses. He said that he is recommending an Option 4, which says, "We recommend that our BOCC adopt the 91% of the line exactly as Alamance adopted it in its motion. Both counties will, through a separate local bill, ask the general assembly to leave existing tax, elections, etc., processes in place while the counties solicit input from the 9% property owners through an administrative process similar to that in which we have just engaged for the whole line. Once the process is completed the counties will submit a local bill to the general assembly asking for adoption of the agreed upon final 9% of the line." This option was stated on the blue sheet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board could adopt the 9% in principle and then add the caveat that it would be added later. John Roberts said that, in conversations with the Alamance County Attorney, they thought it was best to have the protection of the General Assembly for this 9%. Commissioner Jacobs said that it was unfortunate that the Alamance County Attorney did not bring up the issue of indemnification at their joint meeting and instead waited until it appeared before his board. He said that Alamance County was basically sidestepping the indemnification issue. Discussion ensued about the 9% and the timeframe. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the likelihood that Alamance County might accept the 69% in Option 2. He said that this is the only option that recognizes the concerns of the Morrow Mill area. John Roberts said that the chance that Alamance County would accept that is zero. Commissioner McKee asked about the process and what happens if the County Commissioners do nothing and leave the line as it is now. John Roberts said that the Alamance County Attorney would likely push the County Commissioners to send to the General Assembly a green line that is a straight line that does not involve any petition criteria. If that happens, it will get passed whether Orange County likes it or not. Chair Pelissier asked how many people were involved in the 9% and Craig Benedict said that it is about 26 property owners. There are probably another 20 in the 8%. The people that spoke tonight were not part of the 9%. If the County Commissioners approve the 91%, the NCGS line will be affixed in the Morrow Mill area. Chair Pelissier asked about Option 4 and if there was any indication that Alamance County would not insist on being indemnified. John Roberts said that Option 4 would not involve any indemnification. Commissioner McKee asked, if the Board accepted Option 4, whether there would be an alternative of going back and revisiting the 8%. John Roberts said that there is no opportunity to revisit the 8%. The 91% would be fixed by the General Assembly, and that includes the 8%. Commissioner Jacobs said that one of the things that sometimes happens in government is that they are not clear enough. He said that there are two statements that would be reasonable to add to the resolution. One is that, "Orange County is committed to resolve in the delineation of the remaining portions of the Orange/Alamance County within calendar year 2012." John Roberts said that this could be added. The second statement is, "Orange County is committed to making adjustments to the Orange/Alamance County line in the areas not currently included in the 91% under which there is agreement between both counties." John Roberts said that this sounds fine also. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the motion include these clarifying comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to: 1. Adopt 91% of the line exactly as Alamance County adopted it in its motion; 2. Both counties will, through a separate local bill, ask the GA (General Assembly) to leave existing tax, election, processes in place while the counties solicit input from the 9% property owners not included through an administrative process similar to that previously used for the entire line. 3. Once the process is completed, the counties will submit a local bill to the GA asking for adoption of the agreed upon final portion of the line; 4. Orange County is committed to making adjustments to Orange/Alamance line in the areas not currently included in the 91% on which there is agreement between both counties; 5. Orange County is committed to resolving the delineation of the remaining portions of the Orange/Alamance County line within calendar year 2012. Commissioner Yuhasz said that during the first joint meeting with Alamance County last year, there was a consensus that they would try and minimize the displacement of people from one county to another. He said that somehow this consensus was lost. When both parties met again a few weeks ago, the same consensus was reached and once again, the consensus has been lost. He does not think that it is appropriate to agree to anything that goes back on the commitment that both boards made. He thinks that this motion ignores the reasonable expectations of people who bought property in Orange County, lived in property in Orange County, and who could remain in Orange County. He will vote against this for that reason. Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Yuhasz's sentiments and said that she feels conflicted. Commissioner Hemminger says that she wants to stay committed with working with the 91%. Commissioner Foushee said that there is still a possibility to negotiate those areas where there is not a formal agreement. Commissioner McKee said that he came tonight convinced that Option 2 was the right option. He said that it seems as if his hands are tied because he can either accept the agreement between the counties and hopefully address Morrow Mill and others, or he can take a chance to having Alamance County petition to do it for Orange County. He is not willing to have another county do it. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz ) Commissioner Jacobs said that it was brought to his attention from one of the fire chiefs that as the line is changed there will be changes in EMS for these areas as well. This is a separate issue to be dealt with. 7. Regular Agenda a. Proposal for Soccer Superfund Partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill The Board considered an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill that would establish parameters under which 2001 Soccer Superfund monies appropriated for Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park would be re-allocated to support an artificial turf soccer field installation project at the Town of Chapel Hill's Cedar Falls Park and authorizing the Manager to sign. Parks and Recreation Director Lori Taft said that staff wanted to continue to discuss this potential project that started with the 2001 bond referendum for a Soccer Superfund. Some of this money has remained unspent with the Twin Creeks projects, where it was allocated for soccer fields. An engineer was hired for this project and it did not look like it would be viable with the remaining money. The money has been sitting idle, but the commitment for the bond referendum remained. In 2009, the Board of County Commissioners made a priority to spend the remaining part of the bond money. A project was proposed by numerous people, and in April 2010, the County Commissioners authorized staff to go ahead with a proposal to provide funding in the form of a Soccer Superfund grant to the Town of Chapel Hill as a partnership in the development in improved facilities at Cedar Falls Parks. Where there was a softball field, there will now be an oversized artificial turf soccer field, which will allow it to remain in play all year long. The funding would be matched by funding from Chapel Hill. Also, the Town of Chapel Hill plans to apply for a Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Grant this coming cycle. The County Commissioners authorized to move forward with this idea and to develop an interlocal agreement. The staff has worked on this since then. The interlocal agreement is limited to five years. The agreement calls for the park to be managed by the Town staff and maintenance and operations would be fully taken over by the Town, including paying for field lighting. She said that there is consensus with both staffs at this point. The grant application has a deadline of January 31st. Butch Kisiah from Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation explained the advantages of the turf fields. He said that this will be a great addition for Orange County. He thanked the County for supporting this. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the agreement and the reference to lease periods. He asked how the determination was made about who can lease the fields. He asked if there would be equal opportunity for groups throughout the County to lease. Butch Kisiah said that they rent fields to the soccer organizations within the County. It is open to anyone who is interested. There is a large meeting for interested parties. It is a combination of first come first served and trying to fit program needs into a schedule that allows as much use of the field as possible. Commissioner Jacobs asked why there was a five-year agreement. Lori Taft said that this was discussed with the Attorney and staff and they did not want to string it out for ten years, but they wanted to give Chapel Hill extra time if something went wrong with the grant. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are a few things in the agreement that are assumed but not stipulated. One of them is within the principles that the County Commissioners adopted about the Soccer Superfund, which is something like, "subsidized or reduced fees would be available to qualified participants." He assumes that this is Chapel Hill's policy, but it is not in the agreement. He thinks that the policy should be followed within the agreement. Butch Kisiah said that there are some commitments to organizations and subsidized fees are allowed. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill that would establish parameters under which 2001 Soccer Superfund monies appropriated for Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park would be re-allocated to support an artificial turf soccer field installation project at the Town of Chapel Hill's Cedar Falls Park and authorize the Manager to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs commended Commissioner Hemminger, who started working on this before she became a County Commissioner. Commissioner Jacobs also pointed out that the County does not have a consistent policy with how it deals with providing recreational facilities within municipalities. He would like to address this on a complete agenda item and have a complete packet. b. Approval of Health Department Expansion within Whitted Human Service Building and Approval of Budget Amendment # 5-B The Board considered reviewing and approving plans for the renovation of space for the Health and Dental Clinics at the Whitted Building and approving Budget Amendment#5-B. Health Director Rosemary Summers made a PowerPoint presentation. Whitted Renovation Project December 14, 2010 Purpose of Renovation ➢To provide adequate space in Hillsborough for the provision of medical and dental clinical services for the residents of Orange County. ➢To provide adequate office space for current staff members. Medical and Dental Clinical Space Whitted Building has been identified since the original space study in 2000 as having inadequate space available for medical clinic services and office space. ➢2006 Space Study Update to BOCC recognized a continuing need for additional space for clinic services for both medical and dental clinics and office space. Current Clinical Shortcomings ➢No negative pressure room, used to see TB patients or others with communicable diseases that require us to protect others from acquiring ➢No separate area for patients to have their blood drawn for laboratory tests Pharmacy with inadequate secured storage for vaccines and other medications Current Clinical Shortcomings Patients with appointments are waiting as much as 45 minutes in the waiting room until an exam room "opens up". Dental patients have to travel through a central corridor through the medical clinic to access the dental clinic. This is a patient traffic flow and privacy problem. The waiting room is not adequate for the current patient flow when dental services are also present. Two dental operatories do not offer adequate patient privacy when reviewing medical histories Security issues at the current building as evidenced by two break-ins in the last 12 months. Current Office Space Shortcomings "Double and triple" stacking of people in offices. .Inadequate storage space for materials used on a daily basis. .Inadequate patient education space. Historical Timeline ➢1998 Southern Human Services opened Planned dental clinic for Southern Human Services not able to be funded as part of the new building at that time. ➢2002 Whitted Building HVAC replacement project with clinical upgrades ➢11/6/2006 West Campus construction authorized ➢2007 Board of Health conducted a facility needs analysis and presented options for single and dual service needs to Commissioners 3/6/2008 BOCC decided to 1) lease/option for Hillsborough Commons for DSS immediately and Health at exercise of option to buy, 2) add 15,000 Sq Ft to SHSC by 2011-12 if possible Work completed and DSS moved to Hillsborough Commons in 2009 ➢1/2010 BOCC authorized reallocation of space for Health and Dental clinics, for 3-5 yrs pending Hillsborough Commons 9/21/2010 BOCC approved consolidation of dental clinical services on a temporary basis (10 years) 11/18/2010 BOCC confirmed that they would not exercise the option to buy Hillsborough Commons Limited Renovation 1/2010 Short term space not contemplated for use for clinics Primarily for"unstacking" staff and supplies, and patient education Changed with the abandonment of Hillsborough Commons Project Board Recommendations for Dental Consolidation Based on efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery ➢Ideal is two full-time staff in two locations ➢By consolidating staff in one location, there are equipment savings and additional appointments available for patient convenience ➢Improved patient flow and ability to utilize more student help without compromising care Temporary decision until alternatives can be more fully explored for Southern Human Services Current Renovation Plan Basic renovation plan to address clinical needs for medical and dental for 10 years Accommodates requirements for ADA compliance, patient privacy, and adequate provision of medical and dental care Ensures that the health department will meet basic accreditation standards for facilities in 2012 Funding Projected cost of the 2012 Hillsborough Commons Project upfit for the health department space was 30,000 sq. ft. for a total of $5,250,000 (figures revised in 2008 did not include medical office upfit of $200/sq ft and did not include equipment); The current project includes estimates for both equipment and renovation Funds Medicaid cost settlement funds are federal funds, no county tax dollars Required to budget and spend these funds for programs that earned the funds Majority of the costs are associated with the medical clinic upfit not dental Cost settlement funds in addition to the capital allocation to replace dental equipment will pay for the entire project Dental earns approximately 10% of the cost settlement funds Commissioner Gordon made reference her questions to the staff and their answers. This handout was at the County Commissioners' places and is as follows: Agenda Questions - Dec. 14, 2010 - Item 7-b, Whitted Building (1) The background material for this agenda item states that "Currently no long term plan for health and dental clinic space exists." It also states that staff has worked to develop interim plans that, among other things, will anticipate and respond to the projected increase in needed services and that will support needed health and dental services for at least the next decade. Why isn't the County developing a long term plan for health and dental services, considering the pros and cons for various alternatives, before spending about $1.5 million for an alternative that is supposed to last for a decade? As the abstract indicates during the 2008 space study updates, the long-term plan that was proposed included relocating health department services in Hillsborough to Hillsborough Commons and a 15,000 square foot addition to Southern Human Services for additional health and dental health service needs if possible by 2010-2011. This was approved by the Board of Commissioners on March 6, 2008. Last year, given the economic situation and the county's current debt service, the Board of Commissioners decided not to exercise the option to buy Hillsborough Commons and therefore the plan approved in 2008 was void. The Health Department has in good faith submitted extensive analysis and updates to the space study each year since 2006; with the most extensive analysis occurring in 2007 and again in 2009-201 0 for dental services. Pros and cons have been included in each of these iterations for consideration by Commissioners. (2) With respect to the Health Clinics, the only cost estimate cited previously was $200,000 - $250,000 plus equipment for renovations that would serve for three to five years. Please describe those proposed renovations, including but not limited to the part of the Whitted Building in which they were located, how many square feet were being renovated, the total number of square feet for the clinics, and the cost for the equipment. As the abstract states, the $200,000-250,000 included minimal changes to the building to accommodate only the health clinic moving into space in Building A on the ground floor. It did not take into account additional exam rooms, a negative pressure room, or other clinical needs to accommodate anything other than a 3-5 year time span until Hillsborough Commons could be renovated. It did not include any upfit or changes in the current clinic space to accommodate the transition of dental services as that decision had not yet been made. (3) With respect to the Dental Clinic, please describe the proposed renovations that were authorized for the Whitted Building when the BOCC agreed to close the Dental Clinic at Carr Mill, and include the same information as requested in question (2) above. Please refer to Attachment #2 for Dental Options that was presented at the September 21, 2010 meeting, you will see that this option called for "renovated dental clinical space at Whitted to accommodate 8 dental chairs". This was the first recommended option that was approved by the Board at that meeting. That Board agenda item is attached here for your convenience. There was no discussion at that time about renovation costs to accommodate this transition. (4) My understanding is that Medicaid Maximization Funds could be used at another location, and thus their use is not limited to the Whitted Building. Could the funds be used for construction at the Southern Orange Human Services Campus? Yes, they could be used for new construction as well, however they must be spent in the program that earned them and the entire sum could not be used to construct a dental "wing" or "extension". Over the years, the dental program has had to access these funds to replace broken equipment that was not able to funded by the county. Approximately 10% of the Medicaid Maximization funds can be spent on the dental portion of the renovation along with the $100,000 authorized during the 2010-2011 budget process by the Board. (5) The agenda materials for the space allocation discussion at the BOCC November 18, 2010 work session noted that minutes for the meeting (March 6, 2008) approving the lease/purchase of DSS office space and Hillsborough Commons included the request that funding for a 15,000 square foot addition to the Southern Human Services Center be funded by 2011-2012 if possible. Why is County staff not recommending a plan for expansion at the Southern Orange Human Services Campus that will anticipate and respond to the need for services by the citizens in southern Orange County? Wouldn't planning have to start now in order to have any chance of offering needed services there in the next few years, rather than waiting a decade? What might be the critical elements of such a plan? Staff recognizes that new construction takes a longer period of time than renovation. The economy and subsequent decisions of the Board of Commissioners has indicated that a forward look to service expansion in the southern part of the county is desirable and have indicated that this should be part of the Capital Improvement Plan process. The recommendations for space needs through 2020 were made by the Health Department and forwarded to Commissioners in 2008. It is presumed that plans to implement these recommendations will need to be made pending debt service and other needs of the county and how they fit into providing additional space for human services. The decision on how quickly to proceed is up to Commissioners. (6) According to the December 14 agenda materials, the BOCC has made a decision to not pursue purchase of Hillsborough Commons. Has the owner of that property been notified of our decision? In discussion with the owner in June 2010, the Manager and the Asset Management Director indicated the County would not exercise the option in February 2012 at the current terms. The owner declined to modify the terms of sale. If not, why not, and does the BOCC have to do anything else to get that notification sent? Per the terms of the lease, "If the County fails to exercise the Option within the Option Period, this Agreement shall automatically terminate; the parties shall have no further obligations"... Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to know why there was not a long-term plan for the southern end of the County for dental and health services before spending this kind of money. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners decided that they were going to put a clinic in the southern part of the County when they adopted the decision to consolidate services in Hillsborough. Frank Clifton said that he does not think that the Board took that action specifically. He understood that the staff was to develop a long-term plan for health and dental services in the southern part of the County. There were no specifics discussed. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Rosemary Summers for the thorough presentation, because the last presentation was not thorough. He thinks that the County Commissioners said that they wanted to develop a dental clinic at southern Orange and this is not the Manager's recollection. He said that whatever was resolved should have been in the agenda packet. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the Medicaid maximization cost settlement funds and if they were for capital purposes primarily, partially, or optionally. Rosemary Summers said that in the action the County Commissioners took in 1998 establishing the fund, the funds were designated for capital. This is for capital furnishings and equipment. Often that is where the funding does not get placed, so that was the argument. Deputy Director of Financial Services Michael Talbert said that the Medicaid maximization funds are one project within the Capital Projects Fund. It is not a separate fund in itself, but it is one capital project. The funding for that project is the Medicaid maximization money that comes in each year as a supplement. He said that the financial impact of this project is that there will be a budget amendment for$576,000 to recognize official Medicaid maximization money that has come in the last two years. This increases the budget from $1.8 million to $2,392,000. The County has spent a little over$300,000 of that money over the past ten years. When the project was established in 1998, the County banked the money for future capital needs. After the budget amendment, the County will have a little over$2 million to go towards this project. Commissioner Jacobs asked about "this project." Michael Talbert clarified that there is a project for Medicaid maximization and the recommendation for tonight is to use this funding for this renovation of the Whitted Building. When this is done, there will be $600,000 remaining in the fund that can be used for future health and dental clinic needs. Discussion ensued about the details of this fund. Commissioner Hemminger said that she did not even know these funds existed. She asked if the funds could be spent for planning and Rosemary Summers said yes, as long as the programs that earn those funds are what will be going to go into that facility. Commissioner Foushee said that she is in favor of the Manager's recommendations, but she thinks that the time has passed that the County Commissioners talk strategically about how to provide dental clinic services, particularly in southern Orange County. The needs are going to be greater in the future. She still thinks that transportation is going to be problematic. She said that if the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have information about where to site a dental clinic in southern Orange County, she would like to have this information and assistance from the Towns. Rosemary Summers made reference to the list of dental Medicaid providers and pointed out that anything that says Brower Hall is part of the UNC School of Dentistry. The majority of the providers that are general dentistry providers are in the School of Dentistry. She said that she has been in discussion with Piedmont Health for the short-term and arrangements have been made for patients that cannot get transportation to Hillsborough. Piedmont Health will accept a referral from Orange County at the County's cost to charge for the patient for an initial visit for eligible patients. Commissioner McKee said that he does not doubt that there will be increases in the use of health and dental clinics. He said that the County may need to address a dual system again. He said that it is his understanding that Orange County is not required to provide dental services at any particular level other than common decency. He asked Rosemary Summers if she anticipates hiring additional staff to handle the additional inflow. Rosemary Summers said that one of the options that the Board of Health discussed was the eight-chair clinic that this renovation would take care of is with no additional staff now. The next recommendation that the Board of Health made, and that the County Commissioners approved, was that in 2012-13 that additional staff be added to fully utilize those eight chairs. Commissioner Jacobs said that, to be consistent, the County Commissioners recently sent a letter to the Orange County Schools thanking them for working with KidsCope to not charge rent because KidsCope could pay for capital improvements to the school's facility. If that is the policy that the County wants the schools to follow, and the County is going to use the Whitted Building with the Town of Hillsborough for some other purpose and the Town is going to provide some capital improvements, then the County should follow the same principle and not charge rent. If rent is charged, then the County should do the capital improvements. Frank Clifton said that the staff can come back with a proposal for the issue of providing dental care in both ends of the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the Manager's recommendation (with an additional 6th point): 1) Approve the scope and design of the project as presented; 2) Authorize bids to be solicited; 3) Approve the $576,068 Budget Amendment#5-B for the Medicaid Maximization Capital Project; 4) Approve the use of Medicaid Maximization Capital funds and Dental Capital Equipment Funds to complete this project based on the Construction estimate of $1.47 million; 5) Authorize the Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute a month-to-month extension of the existing Carr Mill Mall lease for a period not to exceed 90 days following the June 30, 2011 expiration; and 6) Direct County staff, in concert with the BOH, and the health department, to develop a plan for restoring dental services in southern Orange County in a timely and cost effective manner, including discussion of partnership opportunities with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would accept the additional point if "timely" falls within the parameters of the original BOH recommendation and the motion that the County Commissioners approved previously. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) c. Revised Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Review/Approval Schedule The Board considered the Planning Board's recommended schedule for further review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), deciding whether the November 22 public hearing will be continued to February 28, 2011 in order to receive additional oral public comment, and considered approval of a schedule. Craig Benedict made reference to the handout, which was distributed by the Clerk. He said that after the November 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing when the UDO was addressed, the County Commissioners directed the Planning Board to come back with a recommendation by December 14th. On December 1st, the Planning Board met and discussed the timeline at length with the instructions given by the County Commissioners to come back with the timeline that respected the upcoming budget deliberations. The motion was made by Vice-Chair Judith Wegner of the Planning Board and it was approved 9-1. He went through the motion: "Number 1 that the Planning Board expresses its intent and desire and commitment to work in detail with Conditional District and Conditional use District by having two meetings in January and to address stream buffer issues in a meeting early in February. Number 2 that the Planning Board recommends that the staff meet with any of the interested other municipalities in the County during the month of January to provide them with information and to solicit their input. Number 3 that the Planning Board commits itself to submit to the Board of County Commissioners substantive recommendations by the middle of February so that the Board of Commissioners can determine whether it would like to calendar a further discussion of those matters for the end of February scheduled public hearing. Number 4 that the Planning Board recommends that the planning staff hold an additional outreach meeting by the end of January to inform the public more fully about issues, particularly Conditional Districts and Conditional Use Districts. Number 5 that the Planning Board further commits itself to develop a proposal for the priorities among the continuing issues to be considered in part two of this process and will advise the Board of County Commissioners about its recommendation by mid-March on that point." Craig Benedict went through the handout. Option 2A would keep the public hearing open until March 15th to accept the Planning Board recommendation. The Planning Board recommendation would be made on February 2nd. This means having meetings in January and addressing conditional use and in early February on stream buffers. The Planning Board recommendation would be made to the Board of County Commissioners on February 151h. If everything goes well then, the public hearing would stay open until March 15th and the County Commissioners could vote on it that night. Option 2B is the same except that the public hearing would be open until February 28th to hear more oral comments from the public and refer that to the County Commissioners in April. He said that there is some difficulty in Option 2B and that is that comments heard at the potential public hearing in late February would have to be turned around for the Planning Board to react to them two days later. The public testimony on November 22nd was all very positive. PUBLIC COMMENT: Stan Cheren read a prepared statement on behalf of Orange County Voice. OCV Statement on the Unified Development Ordinance December 14th, 2010 Good evening. My name is Stan Cheren and I am speaking on behalf of OCV. We thank you for considering an extension to the UDO timeline, which among other things, allows more time for public review and comment. We respectfully request that the board extend the public hearing to February 28th and secure at least one public outreach session to inform the public on conditional use and zoning districts and other important zoning changes that potentially impact rural zoning and the rural buffer. Since all rural residents are directly impacted by the UDO, we ask that the outreach session be held in a location that's easily accessible from the north and southwest. If only one session is planned, a Hillsborough location would work well. We support economic development and would support a timeline that moves forward with zoning changes in the Economic Development Districts — if it accelerates economic development, and if it is acceptable to the property holders in and around the E-D-D's. With respect to the rest of the unincorporated county, residents have become concerned that county zoning may not sufficiently protect natural resources, quality of life and the assets of rural citizens and property owners. It's in this context that we respectfully ask the board, as a priority, to correct two glaring zoning issues. • First— please remove "municipal use" from zoning categories. Several years ago — before most of this board was seated —the county added "municipal use" as an approved use to every zoning category. This allows the county to place a prison, waste facility, school or any other county facility anyplace in the county without asking! The county can pursue these projects - by right—without public notice or a hearing — regardless of the impact. We respect that this board has held itself to a higher standard of conduct— but proper land use must be driven by ordinance and not rely on the good graces of a sitting board Please act quickly and decisively to eliminate this loophole. With your support, it is conceivable that this correction can be made in the first release of the UDO. • Second — please make airport zoning a high priority for phase 2 of the UDO. As you know, UNC's recent effort was one of several attempts to site an airport in the rural county, and certainly not the last. Orange County's airport zoning ordinances are over 20 years old, and allow an airport to be sited with a special use permit. Please ask for airport zoning which addresses the likely impacts and implications for infrastructure, watershed protection and adjacent uses. Proper zoning is likely to clarify that there is no good place for an airport in Orange County—which is not a problem since there is more than sufficient airport capacity nearby. It can also nullify State Law 2008-204 which allows local zoning to override UNC's authority to site an airport in Orange County. The UDO will impact Orange County for many years to come. We thank you for recognizing the importance of taking the time - to get it right." A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the proposed schedule and: B. Continue the public hearing to February 28, 2011 to receive additional public oral input (April 5, 2011 BOCC action): i. Authorize staff to notify the public of the November 22 public hearing continuation through email distribution lists, County website, press release, posted bulletin, and letter to municipalities (item, "ii" below). If the BOCC chooses to publish an additional legal advertisement in the newspapers, the BOCC will need to allocate an additional $3,000 to the Planning Department's advertising budget. ii. Direct the County Manager to send a letter to the four municipalities located in Orange County (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane) asking what form of UDO presentation is necessary and what dates in January 2011 are suggested if a formal presentation by County staff is requested. iii. Direct the Planning staff to hold a public outreach meeting on the UDO by the end of January 2011. iv. Direct that written comments on the proposed UDO from municipalities and advisory boards (other than the Planning Board) must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 2, 2011 in order for the Planning board to consider the comment prior to making a recommendation to the BOCC. v. Continue the November 22, 2010 public hearing to February 28, 2011 (note: public hearing will be continued to April 5, 2011 at the February 28 hearing in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation). vi. Direct the Planning board to complete its review and make its recommendation on adoption of the UDO in time for the April 5, 2011 BOCC meeting. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the difficulty of the Planning Board having a meeting so soon after the public hearing. He asked if the public hearing could be moved to February 21st or the Planning Board meeting could be moved ahead a week. Craig Benedict said that the 28th is a regular QPH and on February 1, 2011 the BOCC would have to advertise for that public hearing. If it were moved earlier, by January 20th, the public hearing date and the proposed items would have to be decided upon. One recommendation was to have a public outreach in January to supplant the legal public hearing. Staff believes that they can do more one-on-one in a public outreach session and address issues directly with the people that are sending emails and asking questions. Commissioner Gordon asked about the other option of having the Planning Board set their meeting on March 9th and Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board would have to address the comments from the public and have the minutes approved that night. Commissioner Yuhasz said that his preference would be to have another public hearing, but not to bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners any later than April 5th Commissioner Gordon said that she thinks the Planning Board can work with this schedule. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is commendable that the Planning Board wants to do as much as possible in advance of the February 28th public hearing. He wants to support the motion and have the public hearing on February 28th. Regarding the outreach meetings, he said that he does not have confidence that these work as well as a public hearing because he has been to a few on the UDO where very few people attended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Permit Extension Act of 2009 The Board received the Planning Board and Board of Health recommendations on whether the County should formally opt out of provisions of the Permit Extension Act of 2009. Michael Harvey gave some background and summarized this item. This Act temporarily suspends local land use regulations that rescind previously issued development approval(s) due to inactivity, or failure by the applicant to obtain the necessary permits allowing for the commencement of land disturbing activities, within established local time limits. The Act covers `any development approval'valid from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. In August, the General Assembly revised the Act, extending the moratorium on local deadlines for this year. The Act now expires December 31, 2011. The Planning Board and the Board of Health recommended that the County should not opt out of the provisions of the Act. The Manager's recommendation is that the Board take no action and allow local permits to fall under the provisions of the Act. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the Planning Board and Board of Health recommendation and information; and take no action and allow local permits to fall under the provisions of the Act. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. 2010-11 County Employee Performance Award The Board considered approval of a "non-recurring" one-time performance award for qualifying County employees. Frank Clifton presented this item. County employees have not received any increases in compensation during the current or last fiscal year. He said that the employees deserve some recognition for overall performance. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to table consideration of this item until no sooner than May 261h, as part of the budget process and subsequent to the budget public hearings. Commissioner McKee said that his concern is ongoing increased cost to the General Fund. He does support the employees and the 401(k) contribution, and this was reinstated this past fall. He is wholeheartedly willing to revisit this during the budget discussions. He is afraid that the State cuts will come down to the counties. Commissioner Hemminger commended the Manager and the staff for all of the money that they have been able to save the County. She does not think it is prudent at this time to give a bonus now, especially if employees will have to be cut later. Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Hemminger. She said that if the economy continues the way it is now, then giving this bonus could risk some employees being cut at budget time. Chair Pelissier agreed and added that, in addition to reinstating the 401(k), the County has not increased the cost to employees for other benefits such as health care. In the private sector and many other sectors, there are costs being transferred to employees. This should be recognized as a reward to the employees of Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said that he hopes that staff does not take this as a snub, but he does not think it is prudent at this time to give bonuses. VOTE: UNANIMOUS f. Orange County Transit Initiatives Follow Up The Board considered follow up on items discussed during the November 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners budget work session and then considered approving action items. Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. Board of County Commissioners Southern Human Services Center December 14, 2010 Presenter: Craig Benedict Orange County Planning Director Agenda Action Item 7-f Orange County Transit Initiatives Follow Up Purpose Follow Up From 11/09/2010 Work Session Discussion Points/Actions Items Item 1:Assumption — Orange County Light Rail Share Action: Alternative scenario UNC — OC County Line Item 2:Alternatives Analysis Action: Provide regular staff reports to BOCC Items 3 and 5: Alternative Plan Scenario Action: Develop scenario focused on bus using local funds Item 4: %2 Cent Sales Tax Information: Funds are critical to the current TRTP (Triangle Regional Transit Program) Item 6: Regional Planning Action: Plan for the County first, then the Region. Item 7: Proposed Program Schedule Action: Consider delayed plan phasing. Item 8: Vehicle Registration Fee Information: Resolution is required to enact; effective date is 6 months after resolution (e.g. res. 01/2011; eff. date 07/2011). Distribution per future inter-local agreement. Additional information is provided in attachments. Discussion Points/Actions Items Item 9: Fare System Action: Develop equitable system-wide fare structure Item 10: Bus Rapid Transit Action: Provide regular staff reports to BOCC Item 11: Duke University Action: Involve Duke in the plan development process Recommendations? Commissioner Gordon asked about the $325,000 and if this was based on the $7 fee and not the $10 fee and Craig Benedict said yes. Chair Pelissier suggested considering this as a whole and pulling aside the issue of vehicle registration fees. Commissioner Jacobs asked to take out#4 and #8. Commissioner Gordon suggested deleting things that say, "point taken and understood." Craig Benedict said that this is not a formal resolution but to have the thoughts put in writing. Commissioner Gordon suggested separating the things that will be discussed further and leaving the things that are acceptable. She asked to take out#7. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve action items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 as stated in the abstract. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Item 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to have staff come back with a recommendation for consideration of the 1%-cent sales tax to come back on the ballot versus the %2-cent sales tax no later than the February 11th retreat. Commissioner Hemminger asked that staff check with the County's neighbors to see if they are going to be bringing this forward again. Commissioner Foushee said that she would not like for this information to hold this up. Commissioner Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Foushee. Commissioner Gordon said that she would not vote for this because of the message this would send to the partners. She said that Triangle Transit is trying to get a decision on the %2 cent-sales tax referendum to come back in the March-April timeframe so that the referendum can be announced in May for November. Commissioner Jacobs said that he respected Commissioner Gordon's comments but consideration does not mean action. He just wants some timely consideration. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Item 7 Commissioner Gordon said that it would be more temperate to say, "the BOCC was concerned by the speed of the plan and wanted to take more time to consider it and also to do comprehensive planning at the county level in the context of the regional plan. Chair Pelissier asked Commissioner Gordon to work with staff on the wording. Commissioner Yuhasz wants to make sure that the point that the County needs to do comprehensive planning at the County level is not lost. Item 8 Commissioner Jacobs recommended the same timing as the 1%-cent and %2-cent tax, no later than the February 11th retreat. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs to direct staff to bring back an analysis of the uses and feasibility of enacting the vehicle registration fee no later than the February 11th retreat. There was no second. Chair Pelissier noted that the retreat agenda is already filled up. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has objections to this because he has not even been consulted about the retreat. Commissioner Gordon said that she has the same concerns with this one as the other item on the sales tax. She thought this was covered in #5. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like more clear information on the $3 Triangle Transit registration fee. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger to pursue more on these items in the next few months. There was no second. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would support this, but not with an indefinite timeframe. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to get more information on how to enact the vehicle registration fee, including the $10, by March 151h VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner McKee) 8. Reports a. Orange Public Transportation — Chapel Hill Transit Consolidation Study Update The Board received a report on the status of the Orange Public Transportation and Chapel Hill Transit Consolidation Study but did not discuss it. Agenda Action Item 8-a OPT— CHT Purpose OPT-CHT Consolidation Study Update OCT-CHT Consolidation/CTSP (a.k.a Countywide Seamless Transit) NCDOT— project manager/sponsor Project Schedule (12-15 months) Current Project Status: • Scope Draft Reviewed (managers & staff) • Final Scope in 2-3 Weeks • Notice to Proceed by NCDOT when the scope is finalized • Multi-agency involvement 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Advisory Board on Aging — Two New Appointments and One Reassignment The Board was to consider making two new appointments and one reassignment to the Advisory Board on Aging. DEFERRED b. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council — New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to appoint Allan Green to the Bingham Township position to a partial term expiring March 31, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Orange County Planning Board — New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to the Orange County Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that this item be delayed and re-advertised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Solid Waste Advisory Board — New Appointments The Board considered making new appointments to the Solid Waste Advisory Board. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Graf lives in Cedar Grove and he is a member of Orange County Voice. He encouraged the Board to consider applicants that live outside of Chapel Hill Township so that the representation is fair. Patrick Mulkey read a prepared statement. "Good Evening, my name is Patrick Mulkey and I am a resident of Bingham Township. In order for no one to read anything into my remarks and for the record I would like to remove my name from consideration to the Solid Waste Advisory Board. I have served on a few advisory boards in the past and I never recalled making a recommendation to the Commissioners for a vacancy. I understand from the Clerk's office that there is no procedure for the boards to follow and that should change. People elect to be with like-minded folks and groups like advisory boards are no different, so you have to be careful in accepting their recommendations. Diversity, in my opinion, is not the color of your skin but it is your core beliefs, be it that you are liberal, moderate, or conservative. A combination of all will serve everyone well. I do agree that women and men do not think alike for I have come to appreciate that knowing my wife for 30 years and counting. I appreciate the Commissioners' and Manager's work to reduce and streamline the advisory boards — it makes it easier for all of us to participate in a meaningful way. We hope that as the County moves forward, you will consider policies that will assure those boards continue to be relevant and constructive boards, including: - Strictly enforced term limits and rotations to assure continuity of content and fresh new ideas - Strictly enforced policies on conflicts of interest— particularly excluding appointees from doing business with the County—possibly for a year beyond the end of their appointment - Of course, increased representation of rural residents on all boards. Many of the county seats — like SWAB — are considered "at large" and rural representation often gets overlooked — even though over 21,000 families (over 1/3) now reside in the unincorporated parts of the County. In closing, considering the discussed that occurred in last month's work session and the unknown solid waste direction for the near future, maybe it would be best to delay or disband SWAB until all the partners can agree to a plan." A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Stan Cheren to position #1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to defer consideration of appointment to position #2 and ask Commissioner Yuhasz to continue serving in his current capacity until the recommendations about the future of the Solid Waste Advisory Board are received. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Foushee-none Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Yuhasz— none Commissioner Hemminger— none Commissioner Jacobs said that he has asked for regulations of the solid waste convenience centers regarding staff assisting the public. Frank Clifton said that it was supposed to go out by email to all Board of County Commissioners. Regarding the Fire and Rescue Emergency Service study consultant, Commissioner Jacobs said that he met with some fire chiefs on November 30th to say that there was nothing to report. There was supposed to be a report in two weeks, which is today. He asked the Manager to follow up on this because the first time there was a study, the consultant did not meet deadlines and he does not want to repeat this. Regarding the retreat, Commissioner Jacobs said that he has not been consulted about this at all. Before there is a retreat, the County Commissioners have always been asked to submit opinions and comments. Chair Pelissier said that she consulted with Commissioner McKee, and she was told by the Clerk that everyone had submitted suggestions for the retreat. That is why she did not consult everyone else. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see what is on the agenda to see if he has any additions to make. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz that staff develop and bring to the Board in a work session in fiscal year 2010-11 a consistent policy for conditions and expectations governing provision of recreation facilities within the jurisdiction of Orange County municipalities. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Commissioner Gordon said that she does not know what it means in terms of staff time and the existing staff work plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs that a complete agenda item shall include, unless otherwise directed by the Board of County Commissioners, any relevant County study or executive summary, adopted policy, resolution, or motion related to the subject under consideration. There was no second. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like ready access to those items but does not want more paper. He suggested providing a link to this information online. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with that. Frank Clifton said that he would prefer some type of timeframe because at some point information becomes irrelevant. He said that an electronic link could be provided. The Board agreed by consensus. Commissioner Gordon said that she had asked for an update on the addressing project. She was concerned about areas in Orange County that have strange addressing systems that pose a hazard for EMS. She asked if this could be put in a Manager's memo by January. All agreed. Commissioner Gordon reported about the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting and stated that there will be funds for New Freedom and JARC projects. The application deadline is February 281h At the Triangle Transit meeting, there was discussion about a bus project that would have buses running on shoulders of the road. The Department of Transportation is doing a study using the Triangle as a pilot project. 13. Information Items • December 6, 2010 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Update on Jordan Lake Partnership Activities • OWASA Draft Forest Management Plan 14. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to go into closed session at 11:00 PM for the purpose of: Pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 11(a)(3): " to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the board." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by, seconded by to reconvene into regular session at 11:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by, seconded by to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS I' Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board