HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-05-2011 �
APPROVED 5/17/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
April 5, 2011
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on April 5, 2011 at 7:00
p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie P. 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 Manager and
Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be
identified appropriately)
1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda
Chair Pelissier made reference to two additional items for item 7-a, Adoption of Unified
Development Ordinance, and an informational item for the $7 vehicle registration tax that was
emailed to the County Commissioners this afternoon.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda
b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
Chair Pelissier said that this is a new agenda item and the County Commissioners are
following the same procedure that they ask of the public. If one of the County Commissioners
wants to petition the Board, they are limited to three minutes and the petition is referred to the
Agenda Review Committee, which is the same procedure that is followed if a member of the
public petitions the Board.
Commissioner Jacobs requested consideration of resolution on two pending items in
the State legislature. The first is Senate Bill 183, which would undermine local authority to
regulate the placing of billboards in major transportation corridors, would restrict the County's
ability to enforce any kind of tree protection ordinance in relation to them, and would by right
�
allow any existing billboard to be converted to an electronic billboard. He said that he spoke
with Kevin Leonard, who is the Director of Government Relations for the North Carolina
Association of County Commissioners, and they have met informally with the sponsor of the
bill, Senator Brown, and with representatives of the billboard industry, who insist that one
reason they need this rule is that local governments keep changing the rules and it is hard to
follow. He checked with the Planning Department, and as of June 4, 1984, Orange County
has in its zoning ordinance a prohibition on erecting billboards in any major transportation
corridor, specifically US 70, NC 86, NC 57, I-85, and I-40. He communicated that to the
lobbyists for County Commissioners statewide. He suggested that the County Commissioners
move forward with a resolution stating opposition to undermining local authority and to
longstanding practice in Orange County. The other bills are HP 574 and SP 462, which
propose raiding the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund.
The County has received $1.25 million for parks at Little River, Cedar Grove, and Fairview
from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. It will have virtually no money to make any grants
if the amount of funds that are being proposed are cut. He suggested that the County
Commissioners oppose this. He also suggested that because these things are moving through
the legislature at a rapid rate that these be considered as soon as possible.
Chair Pelissier asked if there were drafts of these resolutions and Commissioner
Jacobs said that Greg Wilder could help with this.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation
The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness
Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Shemecca Bryant, Executive Director of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center,
accepted this resolution on her organization's behalf and she read it.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Proclamation
"Sexual Assault Awareness Month 2011"
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center assisted 379 survivors of sexual violence
and their family members, friends and loved ones during 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center works with the County's two school
systems and other groups to provide all students with age-appropriate information about
sexual assault prevention, reaching 9,750 youth and adults during the 2009 — 2010 school
year; and
WHEREAS, the coordination of the Orange County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) is
bringing together members of law enforcement, the medical community, the legal system and
other community advocates to improve services for survivors of sexual assault who come
forward; and
WHEREAS, 1 in 5 North Carolina women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their
lives (NC Department of Health and Human Services, 1999); and
�
WHEREAS, in the United States rape is the most costly crime to its survivors, totaling $127
billion a year considering factors such as medical cost, lost earnings, pain, suffering and lost
quality of life (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996); and
WHEREAS, in the United States 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men have experienced a completed
or attempted rape at some time in their life (US Department of Justice, 1998); and
WHEREAS, there are 16,285 sex offenders registered as living in North Carolina (State
Bureau of Investigation, 2011); and
WHEREAS, the blaming of the victim continues to be an enormous problem in instances of
rape and sexual assault; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, a non-profit, volunteer agency which has
been serving this community since 1974, is working with others in the community to stop
sexual violence and its impact through support, education and advocacy;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
do hereby proclaim the month of April 2011 as "SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH"
and encourage all residents to speak out against sexual violence and to support their local
communities' efforts to prevent and respond to these appalling crimes.
This the 5th day of April 2011.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve a proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Orange
County and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. The Week of the Younq Child Proclamation
The Board considered a proclamation designating April 10-16, 2011 as The Week of
the Young Child and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Margaret Samuels, Executive Director of Partnership for Young Children, accepted this
proclamation on behalf of her organization and she read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION
THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD
April 10-16, 2011
WHEREAS, the Orange County Partnership for Young Children and other local organizations,
in conjunction with the National Association for the Education of Young Children, are
celebrating April 10-16, 2011 as The Week of the Young Child; and
�
WHEREAS, these organizations are working to improve early learning opportunities, including
early literacy programs, that can provide a foundation of learning for children in Orange
County; and
WHEREAS, teachers and others who make a difference in the lives of young children in
Orange County deserve thanks and recognition; and
WHEREAS, public policies that support early learning for all young children are crucial to
young children's futures;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
do hereby proclaim April 10-16, 2011 as The Week of the Young Child in Orange County and
encourage everyone to work to make a good investment in early childhood in North Carolina.
This the 5th day of April 2011.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve a proclamation designating April 10-16, 2011 as The Week of the Young Child and
authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Resolution Reaffirminq Support for Taste of Hope Proqram
The Board considered a resolution reaffirming support for the Taste of Hope Customer
Assistance Program sponsored by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the
Inter-Faith Council for Social Services and authorizing the Chair to sign.
OWASA Board members Joy Preslar and Fred Battle represented OWASA tonight to
accept this proclamation.
Joy Preslar explained how the Taste of Hope Program works. She said that this is less
than $1 per month for customers to participate. The InterFaith Council uses the added amount
to help families when they cannot pay their OWASA bill. Fred Battle said that OWASA would
like the Board of County Commissioners' continued support of this program.
RES —2011 — 029
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Resolution Reaffirming Support for the Taste of Hope Customer Assistance Program
Sponsored by the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service and the Orange Water and Sewer
Authority
Whereas, these are difficult times because of the slowdown in the economy and increases in
the costs of necessities such as energy and food, and these circumstances are most
challenging for families who have the least resources; and
Whereas, U.S. Census Bureau data show that the poverty rate in Orange County has risen to
18 percent, which means that almost one in every five Orange County residents is coping with
marginal resources, and the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) has reported that the
�
number of families participating in the emergency food assistance program has risen to 3,000
for the first time in the IFC's history; and
Whereas, when a family cannot pay for water and sewer service, the family's quality of life is
affected in fundamental ways involving health, sanitation, hygiene and food preparation; and
Whereas, Orange County residents have demonstrated in many ways for many years their
commitment to and caring for the well-being of everyone in the community; and
Whereas, since 1997 the IFC and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) have
sponsored the Taste of Hope Customer Assistance Program to help low to moderate income
OWASA customers when they are unable to pay their water/sewer bills; and
Whereas, if an OWASA customer decides to become a regular donor to the Taste of Hope
Program, the customer's monthly bill is automatically rounded up to the nearest dollar, and the
added amount goes to the IFC to help OWASA customers; and
Whereas, in the near future, OWASA will announce the option for customers to add any whole
dollar amount to their monthly bills ($1, $5, $10, etc.) as a Taste of Hope donation; and
Whereas, the IFC has a track record of commitment and service to families in need in the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Southern Orange County community since 1963 as a tax-exempt,
charitable 501(c)(3) organization; and
Whereas, OWASA is a community-owned, non-profit public entity, and in accord with State
law, OWASA does not use its customers' revenues to fund or promote the Taste of Hope
Program; and
Whereas, about six percent of OWASA's customers are regular donors in the Taste of Hope
Program; and their donations total about $7,000 annually, but the need is much greater; and
Whereas, an OWASA customer can become a Taste of Hope donor simply by calling OWASA
Customer Service at 537-4343, sending e-mail to customerservice(a�owasa.org or using
OWASA's on-line form at www.owasa.orq; and
Whereas, the public is also invited to contribute to the Taste of Hope Program with donations
directly to the IFC at 100 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County formally endorsed the Taste
of Hope program by resolution adopted on November 18, 2008;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ORANGE COUNTY THAT:
1. The Board reaffirms its strong support for the Taste of Hope Customer Assistance
Program sponsored by the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service and the Orange
Water and Sewer Authority; and
�
2. The Board expresses its sincere appreciation to residents who are already Taste of
Hope donors; and
3. The Board encourages more residents to donate to the Taste of Hope Program on
a regular basis by having their monthly OWASA bills rounded up to the nearest
dollar and/or by making donations directly to the IFC.
This the 5th day of April, 2011.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve a resolution reaffirming support for the Taste of Hope Customer Assistance
Program sponsored by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Inter-Faith
Council for Social Services and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Fair Housinq Month
The Board considered a proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month 2011
and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes read the proclamation:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A PROCLAMATION
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2011 marks the 43�d anniversary of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the 2gtn
anniversary of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination in
housing on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap and
familial status; and
�
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners enacted the Orange County Civil
Rights Ordinance on June 6, 1994, which affords to the residents of Orange
County the protections guaranteed by Title VIII and additionally encompasses
the protected classes of veteran status and age; and
WHEREAS, Orange County and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development as well as concerned residents and the housing industry are
working to make fair housing opportunities possible for everyone by
encouraging others to abide by the letter and the spirit of fair housing laws; and
WHEREAS, despite of the protections afforded by the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance
and Title VIII as amended, illegal housing discrimination still occurs in our nation
and in our County; and
WHEREAS, by supporting and promoting fair housing and equal opportunity, we are
contributing to the health of our County, State and Nation;
NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County,
NC proclaim April 2011 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and commend this observance to all
Orange County residents.
This the 5th day of April, 2011.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve a proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month 2011 and
authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Distinquished Budqet Presentation Award
The Board considered recognizing the budget staff of the Orange County Financial
Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award for the 2010-11 fiscal year budget document.
Financial Services Director Clarence Grier said that they are recognizing the Finance
Department for receiving the GFOA's Distinguished Budget Award for the 19th year. The staff
members are: Michael Talbert, Allison Chambers and Paul Laughton.
Clarence Grier accepted the budget award on his department's behalf.
Chair Pelissier commended the staff for 19 years of recognition.
f. Resolution Supportinq Public Health Fundinq throuqh State Local Aid to
Countv
The Board considered a resolution supporting public health funding through State Local
Aid to County funds.
Health Director Rosemary Summers said that this issue is a reduction in State funding
in the only flexible funding that remains to help departments. The total State funding in this
area is $11.4 million statewide. Orange County's share is $105,000. The Governor's budget
has in it a 60% cut in these funds and 100% cut of $4,000 for environmental health programs.
This would represent a 20% cut overall in the total Federal and State funds. She is asking the
�
County Commissioners to oppose the cut in this funding and to ask the State to increase
funding for local public health.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING THROUGH
STATE LOCAL AID-TO-COUNTY
WHEREAS, State funding for local public health services is small, only 0.3% of the total state
budget, and these funds are extremely critical in the delivery of local public health services;
and
WHEREAS, State funding for local public health is provided through: (1) Aid to County, (2)
Categorical funding and (3) Contracts/grants for special projects; and
WHEREAS, Aid-to-County funding is the only non-cateqorical funding allocated by the state to
local health departments to assure the provision of essential public health services; and
WHEREAS, These funds are intended to improve health at the local level by providing
resources to address locally identified gaps in services and community needs and creating the
infrastructure necessary to effectively and efficiently respond to local needs; and
WHEREAS, local public health departments must be prepared with the infrastructure to
respond to known issues such as emergency preparedness, communicable diseases,
pandemic flu, childhood obesity, diabetes, infant mortality disparities, methamphetamine lab
clean-up, food safety and promoting the availability and accessibility of quality healthcare
services, as well as response to emerging needs; and
WHEREAS, local public health departments must be adequately funded to mobilize
communities to improve the health of those disproportionately impacted by disease and early
death, and reduce health risks for the entire population; and
WHEREAS, Governor Beverly Perdue's proposed budget calls for over a 60% reduction in Aid
to County funds (a reduction of $6.8 million of the current $11.4 million funding and elimination
of all $400,000 Aid to County funding from Division of Environment and Natural Resources);
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners opposes the cuts to Public Health Aid-to-County funding.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
supports increasing Aid to County funding for local public health departments to assure a
strong statewide system that is prepared to address local public health needs.
This the 5th day of April 2011.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve a resolution supporting public health funding through state Local Aid to County funds.
Commissioner Jacobs said that in the abstract it says, "we may wish to consider
advocating to funding sources and allowing local health departments to charge cost-based
fees for public health, protection, and safety, and lodging establishments." He said that this is
�
something the County Commissioners have brought up repeatedly over the years because the
burden is placed almost solely on local government. The cost of doing the inspections goes
up and when the fees go up, the money goes to the State and not the County. This seems like
a good moment to raise the issue again. He asked to add this stipulation to the resolution.
Commissioner Yuhasz accepted the friendly amendment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
g_ Resolution Callinq for a November 8, 2011 Special Advisory Referendum
Concerninq the Levy of a One-Quarter Cent (1/4�) County Sales and Use Tax
The Board considered a Resolution Calling for a November 8, 2011 Special Advisory
Referendum Concerning the Levy of a One-Quarter Cent (1/4¢) County Sales and Use Tax.
Michael Talbert said that the General Assembly first gave counties the authority to levy
this tax on November 7, 2007. Since that date, 77 referendums have been held across the
State. Currently, 18 of those have been approved with 59 failing. Two other counties have
this on the ballot in the coming year so far— Cabarrus County and Buncombe County. If the
voters approve this resolution, the amount of revenue generated from the '/4-cent would be
$2.5 million annually and would begin April 1, 2012. One-quarter of a cent would change the
sales tax from 7.75% to 8%. This equals 1/4 of a cent on a dollar, 2.5 cents on ten dollars,
and 25 cents on 100 dollars.
Frank Clifton pointed out that the wording of the resolution follows the state statute.
Commissioner McKee said that he has some objections about putting this on the
November 8th ballot. One of the objections was concerning cost. The estimate was $26,000
additional costs of putting this on the fall ballot. His understanding is that this cost, due to the
fact that the County would have to pick up part of the municipal costs, would currently be
$84,500. He said that several people had talked to him about holding the line on taxes and to
back this up with words/actions and go at least two years with no property tax increase before
asking the voters to approve another type of tax.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
amend the resolution to change the date from November 8, 2011 to May 8, 2012.
Commissioner Foushee asked how much would be spent to educate the public.
Frank Clifton said that last year the Board of County Commissioners set a budget of
$40,000 and the County cannot promote the tax, but it can only educate the public with tax
dollars.
Commissioner Foushee stated that it is not the intent of the Board to hold this
referendum at a time to disenfranchise anyone. There is a need to support economic
development, and this is a good funding stream.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the opinion from the General Counsel from the State
Board of Elections was referred to the County Attorney but the County Commissioners do not
have an opinion yet from him. He said that the polls are going to be open in November
anyway because will be municipal and school board elections. He asked how the County
would be responsible for these costs when the polls would be open anyway. He asked for an
opinion from the County Attorney and ask the County Attorney to get an opinion from the
Attorney General and find out if this is how it is done all over North Carolina.
John Roberts said that his opinion is that the Counsel is wrong, but they have the
power and authority to interpret this opinion their way. He said that he checked with the
School of Government and he was told that the Counsel was wrong and they have the
authority to be wrong. He said that he could get an opinion from the Attorney General.
�
Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not want to spend any more taxpayer money
than they have to and he suggested arguing against this opinion. He will ask the Attorney at
the appropriate time to pursue the matter further.
Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that Orange County has not raised property taxes in
two years. He said that some people thought that they property taxes increased because of
the revaluation. He said that he was at the poll last year talking to voters and he still thinks the
'/4-cent is a superior alternative to having to consider raising the property tax.
Commissioner Hemminger agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and asked the Director of
Board of Elections if the voter numbers would be higher in a municipal election or the primary
and the Director of Elections said that normally the numbers are higher at the primary. She
said that she would agree more with a sales tax increase than a property tax increase.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he can see arguments on both sides of the issue but
the need is considerable and the more they delay, the more they lose the opportunity to
pursue economic development.
Commissioner McKee said that there is a perception of spending in the County. He
said that if the $84,500 is correct or incorrect from a legal standpoint, there will be a perception
that the County is incurring additional cost when it is technically not necessary.
Commissioner Gordon asked if we could get an opinion from the Attorney General in a
timely manner. She said that it would make sense to tell the public clearly what the uses are
for this sales tax.
John Roberts said that it usually takes between 3-6 months to get an opinion from the
Attorney General.
Chair Pelissier said that she concurred with the comments of many of her colleagues.
She is very concerned about the timing. She serves on the Orange County Partnership for
Young Children and there is even discussion of eliminating Smart Start and doing major cuts.
If the County has to fund economic development and not raise property taxes, then the County
is faced with a choice of not doing economic development when a commitment was made to
the community to do this, or cutting essential services to citizens. She is not willing to cut
essential services. She would rather keep the monies and keep essential services.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Governor is also contemplating appropriating the
County's fund balance above the 8% minimum that is recommended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Will Raymond said that he is a citizen of Chapel Hill and he agreed that putting this on
a municipal election is a bad idea. He said that he knows from personal experience that the
turnout at these municipal elections is very low. He said that the May date is a more workable
date. He thinks that there should be broad support for this.
James Barrett said that he is from Chapel Hill and he is on the Strategy Team with
Justice United. He said that they were strong supporters of the resolution last time because of
the items that it is supposed to fund. He said that all of the comments he has heard have
been negative about doing this in November. He asked to delay this to May. He said that his
comments relate to item 7-b also.
Kathy Andrews said that this attempt to raise the sales tax just months after being
voted down raises serious questions: What are the motives of our elected leaders? Who do
they really represent? Why would they spend the money to fund a countywide election with
only a few communities having local elections? The people of the community spoke last
November about the sales tax increase. She said that living in one of the highest taxed
counties in the State during the recession is not easy to manage. Everyone is cutting
spending, but the government does not seem to be doing so. She said that it would appear
�
that the motive behind this off-year election is to get the more liberal, southern section of the
County to pass this tax. She said that this is not fair. She said that a matter of this importance
belongs in a regular election year for all citizens. She asked the County Commissioners to
drop the sales tax issue this year.
Joe Phelps said that he signed up for 7-b, but he realizes he should be speaking to this
item. He said that the Board should consider the extra expense that Commissioner McKee
made reference to. He said that one of his questions is whether this sales tax would be
permanent or whether the property taxes might be reduced if the economic development
brings in more taxes. He said that he has not decided how he will vote at this point. He said
that the County has done an excellent job of ineeting the needs of the citizens with reduced
staff.
Bob Randall read a prepared statement. "I'm Chairman of the Orange County
Republicans. I want to first thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Orange County
Commission.
As the Orange County GOP Chair, a resident and taxpayer of Orange County, I, like
many other county residents, have witnessed numerous growth opportunities escape this
county as a result of what many of us believe to be governing leadership who are anti-
business and anti-growth. This places additional tax burdens on residents. Ironically, in
addition to losing these opportunities for growth, we are one of the highest taxed counties in
North Carolina adding a further burden to homeowners and business owners alike.
This County Commission has proposed a special election on November 8, 2011 for
residents to vote on a tax increase by way of a sales tax.
I want to remind you...County Commissioners, that just a few short months ago in the
recent November 2010 election a majority of voters voted "No" on this issue and, in a
democratic society, that one vote should be enough to send the message of what the voters of
this region want.
One has to ask "Why?„ —with county voters already having said, "No," Why do you
need to ask for another vote on this and why NOW in an off-year election? The people have
already spoken clearly on this issue and expressed their desire for "No New Tax!"
I want to again remind you that we are already on the highest taxed counties in the
state. That fact, coupled with our economy being the worst since the Great Depression and
unemployment in North Carolina approaching 10% - higher than the national unemployment
rate —the last thing our residents and taxpayers need is a further economic burden during
these difficult economic times.
Although Orange County Commissioners claim that this new tax will generate more
than $2 million dollars annually, I must remind you that this "excess"revenue comes straight
out of the pockets of Orange County residents who are already over-taxed.
In addition to this burden on county taxpayers as a result of this proposed sales tax,
there is the issue of cost. In a report issued by Tracy Reams, Director, Orange County Board
of Elections, this special vote will cost taxpayers in excess of $80 thousand dollars —yet
another burden shouldered by county taxpayers.
Once again I have to ask you, "Why this vote to increase taxes and why now?"
Lynn Hillman read a prepared statement. She lives in Carrboro.
"Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Lynn Hillman from Carrboro and I want to thank
you for letting me talk to you about the regrettable itch to raise the '/4-cent tax this year, when
instead you clearly should scratch it off your agenda, only a year after voters said no to the tax
in November 2010.
�
But the itch to raise this '/4-cent tax seems to be a symptom of the hard-to-cure malady
of more spending that is unwise because voters said no to the tax last year.
Clearly, County residents were saying they already felt burdened with taxes in a poor
economy when a majority voted no on the '/4-cent tax. Most of the County tax burden falls on
the backs of residents, who were paying 86.4% of taxes as stated in an Orange County
Economic Development Commission Five Year Plan for 2004-2009. Then property values fell
in the last two years, as mine fell on my Chapel Hill house that lost $30,000 of its $200,000
market value.
Why, then, are the Commissioners asking again to raise this tax, and why this year,
when putting it on the ballot will cost more? It is rumored the cost will be $80,000 to open all
precincts when voters will only turn out in large numbers for mayoral races in Chapel Hill and
Carrboro precincts.
Those Chapel Hill and Carrboro voters are the most likely to again say yes to the '/4-
cent tax, as they voted yes last year to spend their share of 45% of the tax revenue for capital
improvements on their already posh-looking school buildings.
Again, one asks why raise the tax now, to spend 45% of the revenue for economic
development and infrastructure improvements, when business and commercial development
clearly are not moving to the county to help pay the tax.
Indeed, this county allows less business development than surrounding counties and
less than the state, where high taxes ranked North Carolina a low 41St among all states and
low among neighboring states for doing business according to a 2011 study of the Tax
Fondation.
So I don't' see why you want to raise this tax now, when in my opinion the revenue will
fall short of the hoped-for$2 million yearly revenue, because the majority of voters said no to
more sales tax that comes straight out of their pockets at the moment of most purchases.
People might look for better prices outside the county.
Indeed, people who feel unfairly taxed might leave the state. As the 2010 census
showed, people have been moving from high tax states in the northeast for sunnier climates
with lower taxes."
George Barrett said that he lives in Orange County. For 31 years, he has operated a
company that does business in Orange County and surrounding counties. He understands
what an increase will do. He said that it may seem like a small amount but collectively it is
large. He said that this money will be taken from the shop owners and the entrepreneurs that
have tightened their belts and are living within their own means. He said that it is time for
Orange County to do the same.
Daniel Ashley read a prepared statement. "I have been a resident of Orange County
for over 35 years. Five short months ago the voters said no to this tax increase. Even though
1/4 percent tax increase will not be a tax on food, which will remain at 2%. There is one tax
that no one wants to talk about. It's known as the Hidden Tax, better known as inflation and
this is why this is not the time to raise taxes. This year food prices have seen the largest
increase in 35 years. How about ground beef up 12% this year. Tomatoes are up 15% this
year. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, yes, but it's up 10% from last year. Lettuce is up
9%. Yes, this is inflation. Our overall food prices are up here in the United States by 3%.
Such foods as meat, poultry, fish, and eggs have risen 6.8% since last March 2010. And with
4% of U. S. food imports coming from Japan it's more than likely that our food exports are
likely to increase due to the disaster in Japan. Anyone can find this information at the U. S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics and see for themselves that inflation is here.
It's in our food prices, it's in our drive to and from the grocery store. Our cupboards are
no fuller than they were a couple of years ago, but our wallets are closer to the side of empty
as we load our groceries in the car. That extra quarter per$100 that you want from someone
�
on a fixed income more than likely has already been put in their fuel tank to go to a doctor's
appointment or spent on a dozen eggs and a roll of toilet paper.
Five short months ago the voters spoke and today more than ever is not the time to
raise taxes."
Bill Knight said that this appears to be the most blatant effort to circumvent the voters
of Orange County. The people in the County would have exactly one item that they would be
required to vote on and the turnout would be low. He said that there is a disconnect because
the citizens have expressed that they do not want taxes now. He said that prices are
continuing to rise and salaries are being frozen. He suggested the County tighten up the belts
and decrease spending.
Ben Lloyd said that in 2008 the County pushed for a vote on an unpopular transfer tax
and spent $110,000 in tax money promoting it. The citizens were told that there would be a
property tax increase if this were not supported it. This upset voters and it got beat. Then
there was a revaluation and it increased the average property tax 24%, resulting in 5,000-
6,000 appeals of revaluations. He continued going through the history of proposals of tax
increases. He said that Orange County residents are tired of the high taxes that they pay.
Charles Rucker lives in Hillsborough. He said that he has seen the conscience of
Orange County slide from confiscatory to predatory. He said that the County seems to be
letting its belt out while the residents are tightening their belts. He asked the County to live
within its means like the rest of the residents.
Vote on changing the date to May:
Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Foushee); Nays, 4
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve the Resolution Calling for a November 8, 2011 Special Advisory Referendum
Concerning the Levy of a One-Quarter Cent County Sales and Use Tax.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 ( Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner McKee)
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A NOVEMBER 8, 2011 SPECIAL ADVISORY REFERENDUM
CONCERNING THE LEVY OF A ONE-QUARTER CENT (1/4¢) COUNTY SALES AND USE
TAX
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted the "One-Quarter Cent (1/4¢)
County Sales and Use Tax Act," Article 46 of Chapter 105 of the North Carolina General
Statutes (Session Law 2007-323), which authorizes counties to levy a local sales and use tax;
and
WHEREAS, in order to levy the local sales and use tax, the County of Orange must conduct
an advisory referendum in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina General
Statutes Section 163-287;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that:
Section 1: In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, a special advisory
referendum is hereby called to be held between the normal time the polls are open on
�
Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at which there shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the
County of Orange the question set forth in Section 3 of this Resolution.
Section 2: The Orange County Board of Elections shall conduct said Referendum.
Section 3: The ballot question shall be in the following form:
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter percent (0.25%) in addition to all other
State and local sales and use taxes.
Section 4: The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is authorized and directed to transmit a
certified copy of this Resolution to the Orange County Board of Elections within three (3) days
after the passage hereof.
Section 5: The Board of Elections shall publish legal notice of the special advisory referendum
in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes Section 163-287.
Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect upon its passage.
ADOPTED this the 5th day of April , 2011.
5. Consent Aqenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve those items on the consent agenda as shown below:
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from February 15, 22, 24 and 28 of 2011 as submitted by the
Clerk to the Board.
b. Appointments — None
c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 70
requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
d. UNC — Chapel Hill Landfill Gas Project Pipeline Easement Aqreement
The Board approved easements as requested by the University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill
(UNC) for a gas line to be installed between the Orange County Landfill and the engine
generator to be constructed at the southeast corner of the parking lot of UNC's Printing
Services Building located at the northwest corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and
Homestead Road intersection in Chapel Hill and authorize the Chair to sign.
e. Community Development Block Grant Proqram —Adoption of Section 3 Plan and
Equal Employment and Procurement Plan
The Board adopted the Section 3 Plan and Equal Employment and Procurement Plan for the
FY 2010 Community Development Block Grant Award and authorized the Chair to sign.
f. Requests for Road Additions to the State Maintained Secondary Road Svstem
�
The Board approved forwarding a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) concerning petitions to add subdivision roads in Efland Estates
Section 2 Subdivision (Cain Drive) and High Rock Village Subdivision (Virginia Lee Lane,
Sunglow Court, Stacy Court) to the State Maintained Secondary Road System.
g_ Memorandum of Aqreement (MOA) between the Town of Hillsborouqh and Oranqe
County for the Hillsborouqh Circulator Transit Service
The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and
Orange County for Orange Public Transportation service for a Hillsborough Circulator bus and
authorized the Manager to sign.
h. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Receipt and Transmittal of
2011 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
The Board received the 2011 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and
transmitted it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in June 2011 and
authorized the Chair to sign the transmittal letter.
i. Central Efland — Phase 2/Northern Buckhorn Easements
The Board authorized County Staff to negotiate for the private easements required to construct
and maintain the Central Efland and Northern Buckhorn sewer extensions.
6. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda
None
7. Public Hearinqs
a. Adoption of Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
The Board considered receiving the Planning Board's recommendation regarding
adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance and to take action on the UDO, closing the
public hearing, and adopting the Resolution of Approval.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this is the night where the Board of County
Commissioners will be accepting the Planning Board's recommendation. This is a culmination
of 20 months worth of work that was initialized in August 2009. He made reference to the
documents for this item — a modified resolution and a sketch (Attachment 3-a). He gave a
chronology of events with the UDO. There were two suggestions made in response to public
and County Commissioner input. One was linking the UDO and its new regulations more
closely to the Comprehensive Plan. There was some language taken from the previous zoning
ordinance and the Planning Board thought that the language in the UDO was adequate as it
stands tonight. Attachment 3 includes suggestions from the County Attorney regarding
evaluating the members of advisory boards. Also, on page 190, there is a response document
to Commissioner Gordon's concerns.
Chair Pelissier said that there are also items from the County Attorney.
John Roberts said that this is on page 76. This is regarding the advisory board policy.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jeremy Browner is a resident of Carrboro. He offered his support and said that he
hoped the Board of County Commissioners would pass this document tonight. The County
sorely needs this document to be passed to help with economic development.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve the Manager's recommendation, with the inclusion of the additional Article 1.6.2 and
the addition of Attachment 3-a.
�
1) Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval of the November 2010
Public Hearing Draft of the UDO with the revisions contained in Attachment 2 (pp 6-
72).
2) Receive the staff and attorney-recommended revisions contained in Attachment 3
(pp 74-79).
3) Close the public hearing.
4) Adopt the Resolution of Approval provided at Attachment 1.
PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN:
Marilee McTique said that she is a 20-year resident of rural Orange County. She said
that she made comments at the QPH and she did read this entire document. She supports the
UDO adoption.
Commissioner Jacobs asked some clarifying questions. On page 10 at the top, #2, and
the criteria for reviewing conditional use development application. He asked about "substantial
justice" and said that he does not know how he would interpret this. Craig Benedict said that
this was some suggested language and it is not substantive.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that, since right after that it says, "ensure equitable
treatment," then this language should be used instead of "substantial justice" because it is less
confusing.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 12, item d-2, and said that there have
been discussions about how in a rural area a 500-foot notice is not adequate. He asked when
this will be addressed.
Craig Benedict said that this will be addressed subsequently.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13, PID District Specific Development
Standards, #3, and he read, "residential uses are not permitted in this district." He said that he
is involved in a foundation that exists around the residential use in a public interest district. He
asked if this would apply to this foundation.
Craig Benedict said that if it does exist it would be grandfathered in.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 198, Zoning Ordinance Section 7.4.1
where it says, "conditional districts shall be located in proximity to interstate highways, arterial
and collector streets or mass transit facilities, and shall be designed to provide direct access to
such facilities." He said that you cannot have direct access to an interstate. He asked what
was meant by "direct access."
Craig Benedict said that it is access through those other arterial and collector streets.
This wording can be taken out.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 197 regarding conditional districts in the
University Lake Watershed Overlay District, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Proteced and Critical
Areas, and the Rural Buffer, is that they are already allowed.
Craig Benedict said that Conditional Districts are not allowed in the critical area
overlays.
Perdita Holtz said that it has to do with the fact that the subdivision regulations require
that subdivisions of a certain threshold be approved through a planned development process,
which is now becoming a conditional use process. It would be problematic to say that you
cannot do conditional use in these areas because it would be a big change to the subdivision
process as it currently exists.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff and the Planning Board for their work.
�
Commissioner Jacobs made a friendly amendment to the motion to delete the words,
"ensure that substantial justice is done."
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not want to wordsmith this document and he
cannot be in favor of not ensuring substantial justice. He said that this can be addressed in
Phase 2.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would be satisfied if someone made a note about
this for Phase 2.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
Chair Pelissier echoed what Commissioner Jacobs said to the Planning Board and she
suggested that, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, she write a letter to the
Chair of the Planning Board thanking them for their work on the UDO. Commissioner
Hemminger seconded this.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RESOLUTION
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO ADOPT A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND REPEAL ALL EXISTING
ORDINANCES NOW/NCORPORATED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statutory authorities provided in the North Carolina General
Statutes, specifically, Chapter 153A, Article 18; Chapter 4; Chapter 160A, Article 19; Chapter
39, Articles 5 and 5(a); and Chapter 47, Article 2, Section 30; Orange County may establish
comprehensive development regulations for designated portions of Orange County and
provide for administration, enforcement, and amendment thereof; and
WHEREAS, under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, Orange County staff,
with the assistance of a consultant, has been working since August 2009 on consolidating
existing County land development ordinances into a UDO with specific changes authorized by
the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, numerous public input meetings were held to provide information to the public and
the opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a draft UDO in August 2010 upon which the public, Board of
Commissioners, and Planning Board commented; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a Public Hearing Draft UDO in November 2010 which incorporated
many of the comments made on the August 2010 draft; and
WHEREAS, two public hearings have been held whereby the Board of County Commissioners
and Planning Board heard formal public comment; and
WHEREAS, after significant review work by the Planning Board, the Planning Board has
recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt the November 2010 Public Hearing
�
Draft with the revisions contained in Attachment 2 of this agenda item abstract to be
incorporated into the UDO; and
WHEREAS, the UDO is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
the November 2010 Public Hearing Draft of the UDO, with staff to incorporate the revisions
contained in Attachments 2, 3, and 3A of this agenda item abstract, is hereby adopted and the
following existing Orange County ordinances are hereby repealed: Zoning Ordinance,
including the Economic Development Districts Design Manual; Subdivision Regulations;
Environmental Impact Ordinance; Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; and
Stormwater Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following text is to be added to Section 1.6.2 as
subsection (G):
The Board of County Commissioners may by resolution establish rules related
to tenure and membership expectations. If the terms of such resolution, or
policy created thereby, conflict with the terms of this section 1.6.1 or 1.6.2 the
terms of the resolution or policy shall control.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to produce the final version of the UDO with
all "track changes" components (strikethrough text, color coded text) shown in final form (i.e.,
removed if noted with strikethrough or normalized text color if color coded) and with all
footnoted explanations/references to prior ordinances removed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to correct any typographical errors,
section reference errors, or spelling errors found during final production of the UDO.
The Unified Development Ordinance and repeal of the existing ordinances shall become
effective upon approval of this Resolution.
b. Public Hearinq to Consider Proposed Uses of Possible Funds from a
November 8, 2011 Special Advisory Referendum Concerninq the Levy of a One-Quarter
Cent (1/4�) County Sales and Use Tax
The Board held a public hearing on potential uses for a One-Quarter Cent (1/4¢)
County additional Sales and Use Tax.
Michael Talbert said that over the past few months, the Board has had preliminary
discussions on the possible uses of the '/4-cent tax. Economic development and education are
at the top of the list. There is a tentatively scheduled work session for Thursday, April 7th to
discuss these issues in more detail.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Will Raymond is a resident of Chapel Hill. He said that this approach is a broad tax
that is progressive. He said that he was troubled with the sales tax process last time and he
would like to see this remedied this time. He said that the educational component is a "good
sale" for getting this tax passed. He said that this seems a little cynical. He is also troubled by
the cost of the outreach effort. He is also troubled by the lack of vital discussion on this. He
�
participated with Moses Carey on the districting referendum and there were vital discussions
on that. He suggested a citizen review process on the materials that will be distributed to
gauge how neutral they will be. He would suggest that 1/3 be used for economic
development. He said that the real need is in human services and he suggested allocating 2/3
of this money for human services. He said that the only way he will support this is if a
significant amount is spent on human services.
James Barrett said that the economic development issue is very important. He said
that to drive on I-40 and to see where Tanger is and where the Orange County line lines are a
stark example of why economic development needs to be supported. He said that a lot of the
schools have huge mold problems and these need to be addressed. He urged the County
Commissioners to continue with using these funds for economic development and education.
Jeremy Browner said that he wanted to bring to the County Commissioners' attention
the issue of emergency services and the response time that is so high. He said that there is a
need to increase the capital funding to purchase more capital equipment and to hire more
emergency personnel. It is his firm belief that the County is not performing its duty by not fully
funding and allowing for these capital items to be purchased. He does not know the insurance
issues regarding this. The goal for response time is 12 minutes, but the national goal is 10
minutes. Orange County's average is 17 minutes.
Tim Wright is a resident of Orange County. He said that he learned that thousands of
dollars were going to be spent to educate the voters of Orange County on the '/4-cent sales
tax. He asked how many elections and funds would be spent until a "no" vote against taxes is
enough. He made reference to economic development and said that he would like to know the
specifics of the uses of the tax for economic development. He is a business owner in Orange
County.
Chair Pelissier said that this is going to be a topic of a work session on April 12tn
Commissioner Hemminger said that the County Commissioners need to be specific on
the uses of this proposed tax and they need to do more education of the public on this tax and
what it is to be used for, etc.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to respond to some things that have been
said this evening. Even though he may not agree with the comments, they were good points.
One of the points was that if the sales tax creates a certain type of revenue if the property
taxes could be decreased. He said that this is pretty speculative, but it is a worthy concept to
keep in mind. He made reference to the County tightening its belt and said that the County
has divested of land, eliminated some positions, eliminated programs, and cut spending. This
should be part of the picture. It is not that the County is trying to feather the nest more. He
looks at this proposal as giving more tools without having to raise property taxes. He thinks
that people were confused last time with having four different things with different
percentages. He thinks that having 50-50 economic development and education will be
clearer. He also shares the concerns about the real estate transfer tax education campaign.
He agreed that this was too much.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he echoed what Commissioner Jacobs said and this
tax is an investment in the County's future. He said that the demand for services is not going
to decrease and there is going to be a greater demand on the County to provide these
services and the only way to get the revenue is through property taxes and sales taxes. The
only way to get real additional money is by increasing the tax base of non-residential property.
The sales tax will allow the County to have the funds to make that investment without having to
look at other services that are already strapped. Everyone needs to realize that this is an
investment that needs to be made now.
�
Chair Pelissier echoed what Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Yuhasz said.
She said that she feels that the public does not realize that the County has cut the budget two
years in a row. She also does not think that people realize all of the services the County
offers.
This item will be discussed in more detail at the County Commissioners' upcoming work
session.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
direct the County Attorney, John Roberts, to seek an opinion from the N.C. Attorney General's
office referring to extensive past practice of common sense regarding the opinion by the
Counsel to the State Board of Elections to require Orange County to bear the full cost of
conducting a November election when polls would otherwise be open for municipal and school
board balloting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Reqular Aqenda
a. Landfill Capacity Options
The Board considered staff recommendations from among three options for extending
landfill capacity, and to provide guidance to staff on final decision.
Solid Waste Management Director Gayle Wilson said that last summer the County
hired a new engineering firm to evaluate landfill closure options. The current closure design
projects closure in late spring 2013. The evaluation resulted in an improved capital design
model and additional landfill life could be obtained by reconfiguring the grades. He made
reference to the materials from HDR Engineering presenting the three grading options. The
recommendation is option #2. He showed a graphic of the current grades. Option #2 changes
the grade to 3-1 and this option would increase capacity until January 2017. Staff is seeking a
decision from the Board tonight.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Trish Galu said that she is on the Strategy Team for Justice United, which came before
the Board two years ago and asked for a vote to take the County's garbage to Durham with the
understanding that it was a short-term solution while the County was working on a long-term
solution for its solid waste. Now the landfill is going to remain open and this is a hardship for
the community. She said that the landfill needs to close for the sake of the community. She
said that they could not wait until 2016.
Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice and said that they support the
statement from Justice United to please close the landfill. She said that the stance is "not in
anyone's backyard," especially not in the Rogers Road community. She asked the County
Commissioners to designate a small portion of the tipping fee to fund remediation for the
Rogers Road community effective immediately.
Allison Norman is a junior at UNC and she is opposed to the extension of the landfill.
She said that she has been working with the Rogers Road community for over a year and she
has smelled the landfill, seen the buzzards, etc. She said that she has had a small glimpse of
how the landfill impacts their lives and this is negatively impacting the residents. She said that
this is racism because injustice has polluted the water and soil.
Rev. Robert Campbell said that as UNC researchers pointed out tonight, the closing of
the landfill is not just about money but the quality of life. He said that the policing of this area
needs to be stepped up because of trucks barreling down the road. He asked that the Board
of County Commissioners make good on all of the years of neglect and pass the resolution.
�
Stan Cheren read a resolution and asked that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt this resolution:
Resolution Regarding Remediation
for the Historic Rogers Road Community
for Hardships Associated with the
Orange County Landfill.
(presented April 5, 2011)
Whereas, the Rogers Road community is a historic African American community that settled in
Orange County on Eubanks Road in the early 1800's. The original community consists of 40
families with descendents who have opted to remain in the community.
Whereas, in 1972, Chapel Hill sited a landfill next to this community with promises that it would
be closed in 1982.
Whereas, the community has suffered 40 years of odors, vermin, traffic and other health and
environmental hazards caused by living with the landfill,
Whereas, the community has been promised water and sewer service for nearly 40 years, and
to date has only received a block grant to fund water and sewer service for 9 families. Long-
term obligations to 37 families and the church remain unfulfilled.
Whereas, Orange County is expecting a funding windfall of $6,322,500 or$8,896,500
resulting from extending the life of the landfill until 2016 or 2017. As the county benefits from
these additional monies - it is at the cost of the quality of life of the citizens living in the Rogers
Road Community.
Whereas, the additional monies offers a means and justification to fund remediation to the
Rogers Road Community for living with a landfill for nearly 40 years.
Therefore, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, in our
unwavering commitment to social and environmental justice for every Orange County Citizen
will
1. Immediately designate $2.5 per ton or 5% of the landfill tipping fee to fund remediation
for the Rogers Road community. The proceeds will be paid in full to RENA (Rogers
Eubanks Neighborhood who is the designated agent for the historic community.
2. Set a county priority to seek alternative methods of waste disposal in order to close the
landfill as soon as possible — but not beyond 2016.
Chair Pelissier said that normally the County Commissioners do not act on petitions or
resolutions when presented at a meeting and they will review this at their next agenda review.
Chris Haney said that at a recent meeting of the Solid Waste Advisory Board, which
met with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association, had the opportunity to present some
results of an air pollution and health and quality of life study that was done in partnership with
�
the residents. He updated the Board on the key findings of the study. Between January and
November of 2009, there was a longitudinal study of health and quality of life concerns of
neighbors of the landfill related to odor and land pollution. Neighbors of the landfill recorded
data and daily order and symptom diaries twice each day for 14 days. At the same time, air
monitors were used to measure ambient levels of hydrogen sulfide in the community every 15
minutes. This is a gas that is produced by landfills and it is a marker for an irritant. The
relationships between ambient hydrogen sulfide and neighbor's reports of landfill odor and
symptoms were evaluated. It was found that reports of landfill malodor were positively
associated with reports of alteration of daily activities, negative mood states, and physical
symptoms including symptoms of respiratory and mucous membrane irritation. It was also
found that reports of landfill odor increased when ambient levels of hydrogen sulfide increased
through the measurements. This study provides strong evidence that landfill air pollutants
negatively impact the health and quality of life of neighbors of the landfill. Residents also
reported how the odor negatively impacted their lives — not being able to go outside, etc. He
said that he hopes that this study can inform the discussion of the historical context of these
exposures in the Rogers-Eubanks community and that the human context of living with the
landfill for 40 years will factor into the decision-making about extending the life of the landfill.
Sarah Hatcher is a master's student in the UNC School of Public Health and
Environmental Sciences and Engineering. She said that there have been some complaints
that some landowners' properties have become makeshift landfills by individuals trying to avoid
the landfill tipping fee, thus dumping illegally. She said that UNC's Daniel A. Oaken Chapter of
Engineers Without Borders Local Project partnered with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
Association to assess and inventory of these illegal dump sites with the goal of addressing this
concern. EWB has an ongoing relationship with RENA and they have participated together
with the water and sewer infrastructure study in January 2010 and a community garden. The
results of the assessment exceeded the expectations for the number, size, and types of
materials found. EWB was able to identify 48 illegal dump sites in the Rogers-Eubanks
neighborhood. These illegal dump sites are located within the headwaters of the Bolin Creek
Watershed. Many of these sites will require heavy extraction equipment to clean up and one
of the sites is nothing short of a mini-landfill that has been covered with soil and has redirected
the natural path of the stream. There were 135 tires along with hazardous materials such as
antifreeze, motor oil, and paint. There was a volunteer-based community cleanup in the
community with RENA whereby high school and college students and community members
gathered 2,440 pounds of trash and recycled 3,860 pounds of other materials. This was
gathered from roadsides and four of the smaller sites. This is a very small fraction of the total
amount of illegal trash. She said that extending the life of the landfill is not a step towards
addressing these concerns. She said that the EWB local project supports the RENA and the
greater community and the efforts to close the landfill and have their environmental concerns
adequately addressed.
Charles Yearling is an undergraduate at UNC and said that he was here with his peers
to voice his opinion that he opposes the extension of the landfill. He said that he has worked
in Chapel Hill and he has friends that live in the Rogers Road community. He believes that this
proposal is another blatant, inequitable action that translates as environmental racism. He
said that the Rogers Road community deserves the right to keep their property. He asked why
nothing has been done about the pollution problem.
Will Raymond said that this feels like the never ending story. He gave some history of
this issue from his perspective. He spoke about how the County has not taken on the
responsibility of mitigating the damage that has been done. He wants to see specific
mitigations laid out. He said that it is time for the landfill to close.
�
C.J. Suit said that he grew up in Chapel Hill and that the extension of the landfill is not
the answer. He is angry and sad about the prospect of this. He said that this is injustice.
Lee Souro is a senior at UNC and said that he wanted to reflect on his interactions with
the Rogers Road community during his time at UNC and part of the Young Democrats. He
said that one of the issues for the Rogers Road community is that there is no bus service to
this community. In time, bus service was extended, but all of the other problems are still there.
He said that the policy of Orange County has disenfranchised this community and he has seen
fees from students allocated to put infrastructure within this community. He said that it should
not be the job of UNC students to build infrastructure development within the Rogers Road
community based on policy set by the local government. He said that UNC Young Democrats
is committed to working in the community and making it a better place. He strongly suggested
closing the landfill at the earliest possible date.
Justin Kingin said that he lives 7/10 of a mile down Tally Hope Trail and he asked why
he had no black neighbors.
Commissioner Foushee said that she does not want to repeat what has been said
because most of the points that she would have made have already been made. She said that
she remembered Martin Luther King, Jr. and his trip to Montgomery, Alabama for sanitation
workers there and one of his questions was, "how long?". She said that she has sat on this
Board for over six years and the County Commissioners have talked about mitigating the
impacts of the landfill on the Rogers Road community and have talked about a planning
process for enhancing the quality of life there. She said that she has spent some time re-
reading her notes and she is appalled that at this point staff has not been directed to bring
back what needs to be done for this community. She is appalled that the County is at this
same point that it was when it established a task force to begin work on this neighborhood to
determine what needed to be done to make it right. She asked if extending the life of the
landfill means that the life of what is happening to the members of the Rogers Road
community is also extended. She understands economics and how the County needs this
money, but she does not understand what this means for the Rogers Road community. She
takes the blame that staff was not directed to bring a companion document that would indicate
the plan for mitigation. She will not vote to extend the life of the landfill until the County
Commissioners talk about enhancing the quality of life for the people who live in this
community.
Commissioner McKee said that he does not have the institutional memory of many
Board members, but from a realistic standpoint, he could support Option 2. He is bothered
that there is no mention of any remediation for the community or where the funds would come
from. He would have a problem supporting any option until there is a definitive statement of
what is going to be done for this community.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she agreed with comments expressed earlier and
she does not want to vote on this until they have a discussion on the mitigation for this
community.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he was in accord with most of what he heard from the
resolution regarding what stance to take toward the landfill with the two recommendations. He
thought that the suggestion about the tipping fee and what should be dedicated was not a
sufficient response. He agrees with his colleagues about the inadequacy of this entire agenda
item. He wants to have a proactive plan for mitigating the impacts of solid waste operations in
the community that has been impacted. He said that he was offended to read a staff person
write, "while I don't relish the required brief public process due to the strong feelings of a small
number of residents in a nearby neighborhood...." He was offended by this statement and he
was also offended that the County Commissioners allowed it to go in a document that was
�
made public. He wants to treat citizen concerns with respect, no matter the number. He thinks
that there should be a plan to mitigate all 48 of those dump sites. He wants to move toward
action as soon as possible.
Chair Pelissier echoed the Board's sentiments. She said that she felt a sense of
shame when Commissioner Foushee was talking. She also wants to have a specific plan for
this community. She does not want to vote on this until there is a plan.
Commissioner Yuhasz agreed and said that the municipal partners should also be
engaged because Carrboro controls half of Rogers Road and the other half is in Chapel Hill's
planning and zoning jurisdiction. Regarding the legal restrictions on the use of solid waste
enterprise funds, if there are any, he wants to know how to get around those.
Commissioner Gordon supported her fellow Board members. She said that this
abstract is incomplete and she would ask the staff to bring forward in a timely manner
something that is complete. She will not vote for this until there is a plan for mitigation with
specifics.
Frank Clifton said that no one expected the Board to vote on this tonight, but only
provide guidance to staff. He said that he has only been here a year and a half and this issue
has been studied to death. He said that the County has taken the brunt of the criticism for
many years. He is not sure why the County is in the landfill business to begin with. He said
that it seems that nobody is committed to do anything. He believes that it is time to do
something. He said that the staff is in favor of acting on the direction from the Board, but they
need input and the assertion of the Board.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked clarifying questions about Options 1 and 2. He said that
he would support Option 1 because Option 2 allows a higher mountain.
Commissioner Foushee said that she understands that staff is asking for direction
tonight, but her comment is that she will not vote on any option until it is accompanied by a
mitigation plan. This is her direction to staff. She said that the document should show what
the County has done and what it has left to do. She is only concerned about what the County
will do and not what the towns will do. She does not want to be controlled by what the towns
may or may not do.
Commissioner Jacobs gave some history about how the County got into the solid waste
business. He said that the simplest answer is that the County Commissioners are the ones
elected to represent everyone in Orange County. At that point, Rogers Road was not even in
the town limits and Orange County was the only one that could represent them. The County
Commissioners believed that they could do a better job of trying to bring some amelioration to
a community that had been dealing with this so long. The County did spend $200,000 out of
the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to bring a water line to this community. He said that he would
like this to be resolved this fiscal year, which is in 85 days.
Frank Clifton said that part of the issue is that the staff brought to the Board of County
Commissioners a well replacement policy and it took an inordinate amount of time for the
towns to review this process. He said that when the staff brings this back they will copy the
towns but they will not ask for support or agreement on this issue because it will take too long.
Commissioner Jacobs asked to include in the discussion the issue of the revenue
stream coming from the sale of inethane gas to UNC.
Chair Pelissier asked for information on whether the landfill gas removal would mitigate
some of the landfill odor.
Frank Clifton said that he thinks the direction is for the County staff to initiate a timeline
associated with extension of the landfill that will entail some type of infrastructure analysis
associated with whatever is defined as the Rogers Road area and the costs associated with
those issues, and then the impact on the fee structure that would be associated with making
�
those improvements, including the potential long-term revenue stream from the landfill gas
program.
Chair Pelissier reiterated that the towns will be informed, but the County will be acting
alone.
Commissioner Hemminger asked to include what has been done in the past.
Frank Clifton said that there is an issue of illegal dumping and who is responsible.
Under the general statutes, the property owner is responsible unless they can identify who has
done the dumping.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to review existing proposals and past studies
of this mitigation issue and the legal options related to illegal dumping.
Chair Pelissier said that she thinks that the direction given to staff addresses the spirit
of the resolution that was presented by the community.
b. Sales Tax Distribution Method for Fiscal 2011/2012
The Board considered Sales Tax Distribution Options and confirming that the Orange
County distribution of local option sales tax will remain based on Population for fiscal year
2011/2012.
Michael Talbert gave history of the local option sales tax. Orange County has chosen
to use the population base as the basis for this sales tax. The second option would be to
distribute the sales tax based on the property tax base and the levy associated with that base.
This would affect the towns negatively. A third option might be for the County to enter into an
agreement with the towns that would hold the County harmless. He made reference to page 3
of the abstract. If the Board wants to make a change, it would have to be done by the end of
April 2012. No action taken would keep it as it is now.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to indicate to the municipalities his
interest in the information in the third option.
Frank Clifton said that it is in the best interest of the municipalities to do this third
option.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
engage in a discussion of this formula over the next year on this issue.
Chair Pelissier said that she is in favor of looking into a cost-sharing arrangement
because the towns are looking to increase density in the towns and this would be to the
County's disadvantage.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Approval of Oranqe County's Capital Fundinq, Debt Manaqement, Fund
Balance, and Investment Policies
The Board considered approving changes in the Capital Funding, Debt Management,
Fund Balance Management, and Investment Policies.
Clarence Grier said that the Board has seen the Capital Funding, Debt Management,
and Fund Balance policies previously. This brings the County into compliance with GASB 54
and compliant standards for a county in reporting for fund balance. The Board has not
discussed the investment policy, which follows the law of North Carolina statutes and is
conservative in nature.
Frank Clifton said that the fund balance is two months of operating expenses.
Clarence Grier said that if these policies are adopted, it goes a long way in helping to
improve the bond rating for the County.
�
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve changes in the Capital Funding, Debt Management, Fund Balance
Management and Investment Policies.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Efland Sewer Rate Schedule Amendments
The Board considered amendments to the existing Efland sewer rate increase
schedule.
Staff Engineer Kevin Lindley gave the background on this sewer system. The rate has
been held static on this system for the first 20 years of operation. Staff brought forward a
proposal to increase the rates to a point where they would actually cover the cost of operating
the system. The Board approved a four-year series of rate increases starting in July 2009.
One of the issues with the increases is that the rate that the customers would be paying by the
fourth year has the potential to be extremely difficult for the residents to afford. Several
members of the community have come up with ways to reduce this rate. One of the options is
sending the wastewater to Mebane to be treated. The staff is still discussing this with Mebane
officials. Currently, the rates are $2 per thousand gallons less than Mebane's out of town
rates.
Craig Benedict went over the proposals.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Ashwick and said that it still bothers him that
he is subsidizing $300,000 homes on this rate. He would like to at least propose considering
that this is counted toward affordable housing efforts.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tish Galu said that she is a member of the Justice United team that has worked with
the County Manager, Craig Benedict, and Kevin Lindley over the last year or more on this
issue. They support the Manager's recommendations. This is an equitable solution. Since
there is economic development planned in this area, this supports that effort. She thanked the
Board, the Manager, and the staff for working to get to this point.
Chair Pelissier thanked the staff for working with the community.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve the Manager's Recommendation for Proposal 2, which is a revenue
neutral option to the proposed rate schedule that would increase the base change from $10.16
to $12.68 per month and approve the amendment to remove the Efland Sewer Rate Schedule
from the Efland Sewer Resolution, with the rate schedule to remain/be addressed as part of
the County's annual fee schedule/budget amendment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9. Reports
a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) — Implementation Bridqe Report
The Board considered a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) — Implementation
Bridge Report from Clarion Associates.
Craig Benedict introduced Roger Waldon from Clarion Associates.
Roger Waldon thanked the Planning Board for working on the UDO. He said that this
document is a resource that compiles all of the comments made about the UDO. Going into
Phase II, the County Commissioners will have to make some decisions about the next
increment and which issues to tackle first. The suggestion is to take the issues that were most
commonly brought to the Board by the public— conditional districts, economic development,
streamlining the process, and adjusting location-specific standards.
�
This will be discussed in more detail at the April 12, 2011 work session.
10. County Manaqer's Report
Frank Clifton said that the Governor thinks the County's fund balance belongs to the
State. Right now the County's fund balance is at 12% and the goal is 17%.
Frank Clifton said that there is a lot of discussion on misdemeanants being housed in
county jails. There is an agreement with the Federal Marshall service to provide 70-80 beds
depending on the availability and the Federal Government pays the County to do that. That
revenue stream runs the County jail. There is a chance that the time might be increased for
federal prisoner stays, and this would mean that the jail would not have enough beds. A new
facility will need to be built. The estimate is $4,000,000 - $2,000,000 in lost revenue and
$2,000,000 of additional expense. He asked the County Commissioners to talk to any
legislators about a potential revenue stream. This is about 2.5 cents on the property tax rate.
Frank Clifton said that he has received and is working on a utility service agreement
with the City of Durham for the Eno district. He will keep the Board informed. This is the next
step in economic development for this area.
11. County Attorney's Report
No Comments
12. Appointments-NONE
13. Board Comments
Commissioner Foushee — none
Commissioner Jacobs reported on the Ag Summit on March 21St. There were about
120 people in attendance. It centered largely on the food processing center.
Commissioner Jacobs reminded everyone that the opening of Fairview Park is on April
9tn at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the two petitions he brought up earlier and
said that he was suggesting that these be put on the agenda for April 12th because he does
not want to wait for two weeks. When things are moving fast, the Board may not always have
two weeks to bring something back. He said that the billboard stuff is moving fast.
He suggested that those two items be worked on as resolutions and that they will be
distributed before the meeting on April 12tn
Chair Pelissier said that this is probably not a problem.
Commissioner Hemminger reported on the Falls Lake Stakeholder Association meeting
and someone from the Division of Water Quality came to speak and explain information about
what is going on. She will try and document some of that and distribute it. An RFP will be put
out in the summer for a proposal for a consultant.
Commissioner Yuhasz— none
Commissioner Gordon — none
Commissioner McKee said that he and Chair Pelissier attended an Orange County
Democratic breakfast for a round robin discussion. He thought there was some positive
feedback.
Chair Pelissier said that the original request for the Orange County Democratic
breakfast was to talk about the budget situation and the conversation was on economic
�
development instead. This was a good opportunity to talk about economic development in
Orange County.
14. Information Items
• Triangle Regional Transit Plan and Orange County Transit Plan Updates
• March 15, 2011 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
15. Closed Session-NONE
16. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
adjourn the meeting at 11:13 PM.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board