Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-24-2011 APPROVED 5/17/2011 MINUTES JOINT MEETING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL March 24, 2011 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session for a Joint Meeting with the Town of Chapel Hill on Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and Council members Gene Pease, Jim Ward, Ed Harrison, and Matt Czajkowski CHAPEL HILL TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Roger Stancil CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Laurin Easthom, Donna Bell, Sally Greene, and Penny Rich Chair Pelissier welcomed all and reiterated that this is the first meeting of just the Town and County. Last year there were discussions about not having the Assembly of Governments meeting twice a year as it has been in the past. The decision was made to have only one Assembly of Governments meeting per year and the Orange County Board of Commissioners would have a joint meeting with each of the municipalities in Orange County. This allows for more focus on specific concerns with each municipality. She noted that the third item — Southern Human Services Center—will be the second item rather than the third item. Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks (Chair Pelissier and Mayor Kleinschmidt) Mayor Kleinschmidt said that some members are not here tonight due to outside commitments. 1. Economic Development a) County Initiatives (Changes in EDC Board Structure and Future Investments) Frank Clifton said that the Board of County Commissioners has been working for some time in reviewing and restructuring the Economic Development efforts. Economic Development Director Gary Shope went over the document, which is shown below: Proposed Collaborative Orange County Economic Development Work Plan Economic Development Mission Our purpose is to make Orange County a smart, innovative place — a great place in which to live, learn, work, & play. We encourage public-private investments to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the non-residential tax base. Through these investments, we enhance the financial well-being and quality of life of county residents, and the ability of their local governments to provide high-quality services. What follows are value-added initiatives we plan to undertake throughout the coming year. The proposed implementation steps include: I. Develop functional qroups to quide county-wide economic development strateqy Phase One: Form a "Working Group" Board of Advisors consisting of our county-wide ED partners to create sustained collaboration among the following "partners": a) Chapel Hill ED/Town Manager/Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber b) Carrboro ED/Town Manager/ Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber c) Hillsborough Town Manager/Hillsborough Chamber d) Mebane Town Manager e) Orange County Manager/OCED f) UNC-Economic Development/Kenan Center for Private Enterprise g) Durham Technical & Community College-Orange County Campus Phase Two: Evolve a "private sector" ED Board that provides clear guidance relative to creating additional corporate investments in new and expanded "21St century industry" in Orange County, seek their advice on more cluster-based technologies, determine through their counsel a sound incentive policy that makes sense for new and expanded business locations and receive their guidance relative to the innovation community. II. Develop collaborative Economic Development course of action that makes best use of our assets and allows Oranqe County to be a competitive participant in reqional, national and international opportunities Establish ED policy that focuses on collaboration going forward, whereby all voices can be heard. Assist in creating ED "wins" for our partner towns, inclusive of new business locations such as; ITC, Data, Life Sciences, Social Media; expansions of existing businesses; creating economic wealth through innovation and entrepreneurship; ag- based initiatives/innovations and; travel & tourism. III. Continue to develop key partnerships Continue to engage directly with the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the Research Triangle Regional Partnership in presenting a "credible" economic development story to respective staff and developers and responding to all inquiries with professionally-developed materials. IV. Expand opportunities to develop relationships with potential clients Participate more fully with "industry-specific" trade shows that focus on life sciences, ITC, software, data/cloud computing and green-based technologies. V. Ensure exceptional client interFace Enhance Orange County ED's interface with potential clients, including development of a separate Orange County website with more business-friendly URL, improvement of accessibility of available space opportunities and creation of appropriate promotional materials. Develop "standalone" Orange County Economic Development website that directs client inquiries to www.investinoranc�enc.com. VI. Implement next step for existinq industry visitation proqram Build on Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) program foundation, including utilization of `ExecutivePulse' client management software platform. VII. Host First Annual Oranqe County Industry Appreciation Day alonq with `Economic Health' Summit Develop local and regional awareness of Orange County's renewed interest in Economic Development by providing opportunities for area businesses to interact with potential customers, suppliers and their Economic Development professionals. VIII. Provide input for coherent and business-friendly UDO Maintain involvement with the Orange County Planning department's Unified Development Ordinance, particularly with the Phase II process to ensure the document is supportive of the County's Economic Development vision. IX. Continue to move forward with the implementation and delivery of water/sewer service, alonq with hiqh-speed data lines to EDDs Available infrastructure is a key requirement to support development in Orange County's designated Economic Development Districts (EDD). X. Develop relationships with existinq land owners to help define land most available for development A thorough understanding of Orange County's inventory of available properties is critical to efficiently respond to desirable development opportunities. XI. Strive to reinforce need to create varyinq job opportunities county-wide as well as "balance" tax base mixture via new/expanded business development efforts and real estate re-use. Visible and constant reinforcement of Orange County's economic development strategy is vital to the program's success. XII. Support qrowth of local small businesses, entrepreneurs and aqricultural economic development Agriculture and small business development has long been a key component of Orange County's character and its economic existence. Continuing to foster development of these segments will be a key component of our economic development strategy. Chapel Hill Town Manager Roger Stancil said that they are grateful that Gary Shope has come to work with Orange County. He said that the County's and Town's focus may be a little different. He said that the Town has moved into the economic development arena very thoughtfully and created in 2006 an economic development department and hired Dwight Bassett as the Director. He said they worked with a committee of their Town Council and created an economic development strategy and condensed it to one page, as shown: . . � - - . � Economic Development Strateqy Statement: The Town of Chapel Hill will innovatively and proactively diversify local economic opportunities by retaining and supporting existing jobs, and attracting new, desirable jobs in locations convenient to transit and housing. Our goal is to build a sustainable economy within the context of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan which places importance on the built and natural environment, community character, transit orientation, social equity and quality of life. Goal Statements and Objectives 1) Grow the non-residential tax base consistent with the principles of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. a) Analyze the retail market to identify opportunities and capacity b) Involve stakeholders in identifying locations and objectives for non-residential development c) Continue to seek new opportunities for downtown redevelopment 2) Develop educational and employment opportunities to expand workforce skills and reduce commuting. a) Work with community educational institutions to identify and develop training for job opportunities. b) Establish a working group of residents, students and professors to identify strategies for retaining and attracting the creative class. c) Work to increase the supply and diversity of new office space. 3) Focus on locally owned and/or oriented businesses. a) Work with UNC, the Downtown Partnership and the Chamber of Commerce to identify and understand barriers for new and existing business development. b) Develop incentives to assist in small and local business development. c) Develop stronger pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between centers of activity. 4) Maintain an open and collaborative relationship with the University. a) Develop an Innovations Team with the University as a think tank for economic development 5) Welcome green and ecologically sound businesses and developments. a) Work with our community partners to develop incentives for green development, jobs and business opportunities. 6) Maintain a community character that promotes economic vitality, environmental protection and social equity. a) Continue our welcoming environment for a diverse workforce b) Continue and diversify our strong affordable and workforce housing policies. Roger Stancil said that they are now working on a retail development strategy. He said they have begun a marketing campaign that Chapel Hill is open for business and open to business. They want people to know that there have been some innovative projects that have evolved over the past few years. The Town is currently considering changes to the ground sign ordinances so that shopping centers can let people know what is there easier. He pointed out the economic development work plan, which is shown below: A. Involve stakeholders in identifying locations and objectives for non-residential development - Create a community conversation to identify how Development Opportunity areas can be used to grow commercial tax base - Retail Goals -Ephesus Church-Fordham Planning Initiative and Follow-up (Engineering) -Other Development Opportunity Zones to consider (Define Development Opportunity Zone) -Define a number of SF Council Committee would like to see developed in the retail market. -Look for ways to market opportunity sites. B. Seek new opportunities for downtown redevelopment. -Implement new Downtown Master Plan C. Create a modified process for small area and focus planning -Begin Ephesus Church/Fordham Small Area Plan D. Develop marketing programs for Economic Development. (Web, e-news and other)Develop a marketing program to improve the perception of Chapel Hill's business friendliness. -Begin to influence/change perceptions of the business climate in Chapel Hill -Run ads with testimonials of development process assistance and improvements -Begin to assist in growing the ability of our market to increase our absorption rate in specific areas. E. Enhance the tax base and consider the residential/commercial ratio target for the Town to even the tax burden -Determine a target -Continue to develop relevant data on inventory and demand (Also: Create an inventory of commercial spaces and tenants.) -Consider strategies to achieve target A. Work with community educational institutions to identify and develop training for job opportunities. B. Establish a working group of residents, students and professors to identify strategies for retaining and attracting the creative class. C. Work to increase the supply and diversity of new office space. Goals from Office Market Study and Incentives -Join RTRP -Set aside dollars to begin marketing (external) -Set aside $ for incentives if competitive projects should come in -Begin targeted marketing (separate from general marketing) to select clientele that we would desire to attract A. Develop incentives to assist in small and local business development. (Jumpstart and marketing?) B. Develop a strategic approach to improving the Town's development process. C. Develop stronger pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between centers of activity. (Complete Streets) D. Address issues related to business development in Chapel Hill including: rents, regulatory environment, space available, focused incentives(Define interests, Develop strategies) -Goals from Barriers to Small Business Study - TASKS: 1. Develop non-residential building inventory and track opening/closings 2. Update "Opening a Business in Chapel Hill" brochure 3. Create checklist for all new businesses and business developments 4. Fund "Jump Start" business development fund to assist with rent on start-up businesses 5. Work with Planning to address issues rPlatPC� tn Sinn C)rc�inanrP � A. Develop an Innovations Team with the University as a think tank for economic development. B. Continue Town/Gown Economic Development - Working Group A. Work with our community partners to develop incentives for green development, jobs and business opportunities. A. Continue our welcoming environment for a diverse workforce B. Continue and diversify our strong affordable and workforce housing policies. -Complete Housing market study Mayor Kleinschmidt said that with this plan they learned from people who do or did do business in Chapel Hill. He said that the Krispy Kreme project was special because it allowed the Town to put into effect what they had developed from their permitting processes, etc. This business was opened in 30 days. It is an example of how far they have come as a Town by following this new economic development work plan. Frank Clifton said that the County, because of its size, cannot have a plan for delivering economic development services that is all the same, but has to be diversified depending on the communities it is working with. He said that in a very short space of time, there have been businesses that have come forward and in a joint collaborative effort, the Towns of Chapel Hill, Mebane, and Hillsborough along with Orange County put together an economic development package of opportunities. Gene Pease said that Gary Shope made the point that for this to be successful that there needs to be an investment in infrastructure. He asked if anything has changed and if this was going to be done in their lifetime. Frank Clifton said that the County has always had EDDs and the County is having discussions with the City of Durham to extend water and sewer into Orange County along US 70 and I-85 from the east. The County Commissioners have also authorized the preliminary analysis and engineering of water and sewer lines on Buckhorn Road toward Mebane. The County will be spending probably $10,000,000 over the next 3-5 years in water and sewer to make those economic development districts viable. Chair Pelissier said that the County is also considering putting the '/4-cent sales tax back on a referendum and one of the reasons is for an investment in economic development. Commissioner Gordon said that the Manager talked about each community having its individual economic development strategy. She said Chapel Hill has shown its work plan and Orange County has shown its plan, but she wants to know the vision for collaboration and how each entity can reinforce each others' economic development work plan and how everyone can move forward. Matt Czajkowski asked if Orange County would need to allow Durham to extend their city limits into Orange County in order to get water. Ed Harrison said that Durham has a long standing policy about this. Frank Clifton said that the discussions Orange County and Durham County are having now are that there would be a system where the County would front money to extend sewer where it was needed and then be reimbursed either through a fee structure, or the City could annex. Durham agreed that annexation would not be required to get water and sewer. Matt Czajkowski said that this is a vital question that warrants additional clarity before they commit to something that results in further annexation by Durham County into Orange County. He asked if the County always started with the premise that there is no other source of water except getting it from Durham County. Chair Pelissier said that the infrastructure the County is talking about now is not in the Eno EDD but in the Buckhorn EDD with Alamance County. She agreed about having clarity with these issues, but the County is not there yet. This is all very preliminary with Durham. Commissioner Jacobs said that since 1981 when the County adopted a Land Use Plan, which shows Durham being in that area and annexing that area, it has been accepted ever since. He does not see any reason to change it and there has been an amicable relationship. Matt Czajkowski said that he thinks the focus of economic development has made the issue of allocation of revenues relevant. Jim Ward said that the Town is getting a primer on some of these issues and that is why these meetings are helpful. He asked why the County would want to speed up the development in an area that will wind up in the City of Durham. Frank Clifton said that this is not a large area of the County and it would probably never have any houses. It could be a potential boost in the tax base with no real investment other than water and sewer. Chair Pelissier made reference to Commissioner Gordon's question about the overall vision. She said that each Town and the County all have different roles in economic development, and if everyone looks at the big picture and recognizes what each entity's role is, that is collaboration. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that Gary Shope's document was a product of both the County and the Town and this was a collaborative plan. He said that there has been collaboration with elected officials and staff to accomplish this for their community. b) Joint Collaborations and Marketing Efforts (Recognize Recent Efforts) Chair Pelissier said that neither the towns nor the County have a formalized incentive policy. Gary Shope said that when they look at this collaboration they are trying to provide leadership and look at things that have worked in the past and what has not worked in the past. He said that the interest is in helping these communities with their own economic development vision and this will be done very slowly. Jim Ward said that Carrboro was conspicuously missing in these conversations and he asked if this was an intentional omission. Frank Clifton said that Orange County staff has had some talks with Carrboro's Economic Development Director before he left and asked him what Orange County could do to help them. Gary Shope said that he did have a discussion with the Town Manager of Carrboro and the town just hired a new Economic Development Director and once this person starts, there can be more dialogue. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that the Town of Chapel Hill has realized that economic development in Hillsborough helps Chapel Hill and vice versa and the same thing is going to be true with Orange County and Carrboro. He said that Chapel Hill has the brand and they want to help all of the communities. Commissioner Gordon clarified that the Board was going to be considering the '/4-cent sales tax at the April 5th Commissioners' meeting. c) Incentive Policy Discussions (Need and Formalization) Frank Clifton said that in order to attract businesses, there must be some standard of investment that the municipalities are willing to make. He said that the County does not have a lot of experience with this. He said that the investment in education is a kind of incentive. He said that the County wants to be in a position to discuss incentive plans and what might be available. Since the County is not in the utility business, it is hard to offer those things. He would feel more comfortable if the County had some kind of standard. He thinks that this is worth pursuing and formalizing. Gary Shope said that whatever incentives are done at the local level would be folded into the statewide incentives. The State has stepped up to the plate in a large way depending on the project. Gene Pease said that Chapel Hill has told its professionals that it wants to be in the game and you cannot be in the game without professional tools. He hopes that Orange County does the same thing. Chair Pelissier said that there has been a lot of reference so far to bringing in businesses from outside, but it really does not mean that. She has been approached by people that have grown up in this community that want to start some kind of industry in Orange County. d) Phase II of County Unified Development Ordinance Process Craig Benedict said that another part of the economic development tool is the process of the Unified Development Ordinance. This is a framework that includes all aspects from the environment, process, and committed uses. Of the 250,000 acres in the County, only 16% of it is scheduled for urban growth. Thirteen percent of that is all of the towns combined and 3% of it is scheduled in the County's economic development districts. Phase II is to look at targeting industries and making it easier and more expedited for industries to come into the County. Jim Ward said that there is concern that slight changes in the wording in the UDO may make it more difficult to keep the rural buffer intact. Roger Stancil said that Council Member Penny Rich had some specific concerns but she is not here tonight. Chair Pelissier said that at the last public hearing the County Commissioners asked staff to write a letter to the towns addressing these concerns communicated to the Board. If this letter does not sufficiently answer the questions, then staff will come to a council meeting to address the concerns. Craig Benedict said that part of that response was a question and answer response. In the UDO as written, there are no changes to any watershed designations, uses, or impervious areas within the document and no changes to any of the uses within the rural buffer or the joint land use plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she does understand the concerns about the UDO. In the old zoning ordinance there was specific language about protecting surrounding neighborhoods and specific language about criteria for approving planned developments. She felt that the language in the new UDO was not the same in critical ways. She said the Board of County Commissioners now has more discretion to approve any conditional zoning districts and conditional use districts. Mayor Kleinschmidt said these were the Town's concerns and exactly why the Council passed the resolution. He asked why the language could not be the same. Craig Benedict said that based on the public hearing, staff came up with four different suggestions that could further tie in rezoning applications through conditional districts and tie it stronger to the comprehensive plan. Additional language was suggested to the Planning Board. Some of it was importing what was from the old code into the new code. The Planning Board has recommended that some of the language is redundant and there are strong enough linkages in two of those areas. Some of the traditional districts are being suggested to be limited to the urban transition areas, and this is a change. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he thinks that six different volumes have been compressed down into one that is still fairly massive. He said that this is an indication of the need to proceed with Phase II and make this document more manageable. He made reference to conditional use and said that by law conditional use is tied to the land use plan. A conditional use decision cannot be made as an elected official that does not involve reflection of the land use plan that underlies all of the development decisions. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County has been discussing for years about the rural buffer and how it can promote some agricultural uses and areas in the rural buffer. Something like Maple View Ice Cream could be argued as something that should not be allowed in the rural buffer, but it has been a success. He thinks that there are some reasonable uses that are consistent with the character in the rural buffer. There is no easy answer to this and there is a division of opinion on this. Commissioner McKee made reference to the evolution of this document over the past year and a half. He said that, as a former member of the Planning Board during that time, the discussion was serious and the members took their responsibilities seriously. They spent a lot of time in a very vigorous debate concerning the changes. The document is still in progress and he thinks it should move forward to Phase II. Jim Ward asked if the County would take advantage of the expertise in the Planning Departments of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro during Phase II to maintain the rural buffer. Chair Pelissier said that the County has no intention of changing the character of the rural buffer. The County Commissioners would welcome any comments from the Towns. Frank Clifton suggested that the Towns' Planning Departments get a copy of the UDO and start reviewing it right now. Craig Benedict said that in Phase II the County can do better early in the process and get as much activity and outreach as possible rather than wait to the latter part of the process. e) Improvements to Interstate Highway System through Orange County Chair Pelissier said that this item came up with the joint meeting with the Town of Hillsborough. Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that the area is in the process of a 2012-2018 program and there are new criteria now. He showed the area on a map. Improvements to Interstate Highway System through Orange County via 2012-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Orange County Board of Commissioners Chapel Hill Town Council Joint Meeting March 24, 2011 Item 1.e) NCDOT Transportation Reform Strateqic Prioritization Process .Limited transportation resources •Statewide Transportation Plan Mission and Goals .Data-driven and transparent process 10-Year Proqram & Resource Plan Transportation needs and fiscal constraints from 2011-2020 5-Year Work Proqram Cash-constrained accounting of State's transportation program from 2011-2015 State Transportation Improvement Proqram Embedded in 5-Year and 10-Year Plans Project I-0305 A Widen I-85 from I-40 to west of SR 1709 Project I-0305 B Widen I-85 from east of State Road 1709 to Durham County Line — Future Years (unfunded) STIP Project I-3306 A Widen I-40 from I-85 to Durham County MTIP Project I-3306 A Widen I-40 from I-85 to Durham County MPO MTIP Project I-3306 A: Widen I-40 from Durham County Line to NC 86 (westbound) MTIP Project I-3306 C Widen I-40 from I-85 to NC 86. NC 86 to Durham County Line (eastbound) Orange County Draft 2012-2018 TIP NCDOT is seeking public input on the proposed final version of the State Transportation Improvement Plan. NCDOT will host one public meeting in each of its 14 transportation divisions. Division 7 Public Meeting March 29, 2011, 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. John Robert Kernoodle Senior Activity Center 1535 South Mebane Street Burlington, NC Citizens can review the proposed list of projects and comment online: http://www.ncdot.qov/�rojects/PublicEn�a emq ent.html Commissioner Gordon said that the strategic prioritization process may make a difference in how monies are allocated. She said that there are three tiers of roads — statewide, regional, and sub-regional roads. She said that if the projects are not classified correctly, it can make a difference when the projects are prioritized for funding. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that he received an email today from the Metro Mayors listserv and the understanding is that if the gas tax is capped, that would keep I-85 the way it is in Orange County. He suggested that everyone call their legislators and reference H399 in order to kill this bill. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is also a bill to preempt local authority to put up seven billboards per mile, including digitized billboards. He hopes that everyone could oppose this kind of destruction of some of the character of Orange County that they have worked so hard to preserve. Jim Ward made reference to the I-40 expansion and said that since it is not going to be funded soon, he hopes that when the representatives are at that meeting that they mention that the concrete is so much noisier than asphalt. He would like this to be a part of the conversation. He would like a sound wall for the first section of I-40 to be included also. He made reference to the intersection at NC 86 and I-40 and said that this is a very problematic intersection and said that an upgrade at that intersection could open up some of the adjacent property to the Town of Chapel Hill for a higher use. Chair Pelissier said that she hoped that the representatives from the Chapel Hill Town Council on the Transportation Advisory Committee would communicate these comments. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that he would do this. 2. Future Facility Development at County Southern Human Services Center Asset Management Services Director Pam Jones said that in the agenda packet is a concept plan that the Board approved in 2006 for the Southern Human Services Center. The Manager in his recommended Capital Improvements Plan has recommended that the County do a master plan of this site. In 2006 there was a concept master plan. The master plan will go more in depth and will look at the cultural and archaeological surveys. There is no future construction that has been approved on this site, except the expansion of building site #5. The expansion would be 15,000 square feet off the east end of the building that would be designated for human services — dental, Social Services, Housing and Community Development, and Child Support. This was approved in 2008 contingent upon funding. This funding has not come to bear yet, so it has not been started. This will be the next thing on the radar. Part of the master plan would be to look at doing some predevelopment work. Frank Clifton said that several issues have brought this to the forefront. One is that the Town was reviewing its tree ordinances and they were trying to decide how any changes to the tree ordinance might impact this site from a development standpoint. There is a long-term intention to expand this facility that serves a lot of County functions. Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to emphasize that Orange County needs to be working with the Town of Chapel Hill following the parameters of their ordinance to move the project forward. She said that she would like to see coordinated human services in the Southern Human Services Center, such as health and dental services, as soon as possible. Jim Ward said that if the funding for this site is far down the road, he would ask that the County take a more urban look at the design because this is a very suburban design. Matt Czajkowski said that there was a discussion some years ago about a shelter being put in the Southern Human Services Center campus and Chapel Hill is in the process of siting a transitional facility in Chapel Hill. He said that the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are going to try and address the issue of homelessness in Orange County and he asked if there was any contemplation to address this issue, such as a food service facility at this location. Chair Pelissier said that she is the Commissioner representative on the Partnership to End Homelessness and there are discussions about general services but with the County building that type of facility, there has not been any discussion. She said that usually counties do not build shelters, but non-profits do this. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County offered building site #3 for a shelter and at that time, Mayor Foy addressed this issue at the senior center and there was a lot of opposition from people who use the senior center about having a homeless shelter next door. The Mayor addressed how they could coexist. There was never a vote, but the shelter was moved somewhere else. The County did step forward and entertained this possibility. Commissioner Gordon said that Project Homestart is located on the Southern Human Services Center campus and it is a facility for women and children. This site is leased for 25 years. Commissioner Foushee pointed out that during the discussion about the homeless facility there was also discussion about providing the justice facility and a possible swap of having a committed location in downtown Chapel Hill. This somehow got lost in the discussion. Ed Harrision left at 9:14 PM. 3. Solid Waste Issues a) Inter-local Agreement Modifications for Solid Waste Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the Town of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County have had a partnership since the 1970's with regard to solid waste. From the mid-80's to 2000 the Landfill Owners Group guided landfill operations under the administrative control of the Town of Chapel Hill. In 1999, there was a working group of elected officials, attorneys, and managers that met for months in crafting the existing interlocal agreement. The key provision in the agreement was that the County would provide local disposal and the partners would provide waste to that facility that would provide the funding. The recent decision regarding the transfer station has brought the interlocal agreement into question. The Solid Waste Advisory Board has discussed this issue thoroughly and has made some recommendations on how to proceed. The suggestion is that a new working group be formed to revise the existing interlocal agreement or to craft a new interlocal agreement for solid waste management. The Solid Waste Advisory Board recommended that with the possible additional life of the landfill that a long-term solution could be implemented that might avoid or at least minimize the interim delivery of waste to the City of Durham. The SWAB strongly recommended that a comprehensive solid waste management agreement among the local governments is desirable. These recommendations are on page 2-3 of the memorandum from the SWAB to the County Commissioners (Attachment 2-a). Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners asked the towns to appoint one elected official and one staff person to work with this proposed work group to work on the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the SWAB was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to address alternatives that may exist and SWAB said that there was nothing in the interlocal agreement that provided for alternatives to the landfill. He thinks that it is important that these discussions be at an elected official level. Commissioner Gordon left at 9:20 PM. Jim Ward said that something that closely resembles the current SWAB would have value to carry the ball on these issues. He thinks that there should be a lot of pressure to get to work on this. Chair Pelissier agreed. b) Extended Landfill Life Cycle (Community Improvements Fund — Surcharge Option) Gayle Wilson said that last summer the County engaged a new engineering firm (attachment 2-b). The first task for the firm was to evaluate landfill closure options. His recommendation is Option 2. . . j . . . - . . . . - 1. 452,000 CY Remaining Advantaqes 70 Months • No public involvement process January 2016 • Extended site life • Additional tipping fees ($50 x 126,450 extra tons = $6,322,500) compared to existing • Revise slopes from 4:1 permitted capacity to 3:1 • Easily constructed and maintained side • Less than 10% capacity slopes increase • Does not exceed existing permitted height • Additional 191,591 CY or 126,450 tons • Consistent with existing slope construction • No additional cell construction Disadvantaqes • Does not maximize potential airspace • Extended site life may have negative impact on public perception • • j • . • g . • . • g 2. 530,000 CY Remaining Advantaqes 82 Months • Extended site life January 2017 • Additional tipping fees ($50 x 177,930 extra tons = $8,896,500) compared to existing permitted capacity • Revise slopes from 4:1 . Easily constructed and maintained side to 3:1 slopes to achieve maximum airspace • Maximum landfill height . Consistent with existing slope construction • Additional 269,591 CY . No additional cell construction or 177,930 tons Disadvantaqes • Public involvement process • Construction permit application renewal (5- yr permit) • Slightly increases overall landfill height • Extended site life may have negative impact on public perception 3. 617,000 CY Remaining Advantaqes 96 Months • Extended site life March 2018 • Additional tipping fees ($50 x 235,350 extra tons = $11,767,503) compared to existing permitted capacity • Revise slopes from 4:1 . Maximum airspace to 3:1 • No additional cell construction • Maximum landfill height Disadvantaqes • Includes slope wedge • Public involvement process • Additional 356,591 CY or 235,350 tons • Construction permit application renewal (5- yr permit) • Slightly increases overall landfill height • Considerable difficulty in constructing wedge airspace recovery over existing constructed side slopes • Extended site life may have negative impact on public perception Memorandum To: Frank Clifton, County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: MSW Landfill Expansion Capacity Options Date: March 2, 2011 I have been evaluating the HDR Engineering memorandum of February 3, 2011 (attached) that presents three options for obtaining additional capacity for the county landfill. This memorandum has previously been shared with you and indicates that the county may want to extend final capacity using one of these options. All three options will considerably extend current capacity estimates of March-June 2013. None of the options would result in a lateral expansion of the facility and the existing landfill footprint would remain the same. Options 2 and 3 would require a public process led by the State and assisted by the Solid Waste Department because the current permitted capacity would be increased by more than 10%. I have attached a table summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each option and I am recommending option #2. Option #2 would extend capacity until about January 2017. The basis for my recommendation is as follows: • Option 3 would provide the greatest capacity, but would be extremely difficult to construct. • 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, I believe extending capacity would be in the best interest of the residents of the county as a whole, be a considerable benefit for users who depend on landfill, would delay expenditures for closure and post-closure, would delay the more expensive delivery of waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station, would allow for the continued reserving of funds for closure and post-closure, and provide additional time for local elected officials to explore other longer-term waste management alternatives. • It would appear that we have an obligation to reasonably optimize the use of the public infrastructure. If you concur I will direct HDR Engineering to develop the permit modification accordingly. In the event you do not concur, we will proceed with Option #1. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that he does not like the fact of extending the life of the landfill. He said that it is hard to swallow for six more years. He asked if there was an extension of the landfill and another option became available, then could the landfill be closed earlier. Frank Clifton said that it all depends on the capacity. The landfill could be closed at any time if there were another alternative. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that item c addresses using the landfill for six more years and the discussion of the transfer station was to discuss multi-jurisdictional alternative solutions to burial or shipment of solid waste. He said that Commissioner McKee has talked to him about the possibility of the methane gas recovery revenues from UNC coming from the landfill and whether that could go toward community improvements. Jim Ward said that he is in favor of finding an additional revenue stream that will help the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner McKee said that using a transfer station is simply giving the County's trash to someone else. He thinks that the County's trash should be the County's responsibility. He would like to explore a viable and economical alternative solution to a transfer station. Frank Clifton said that if the County does pursue a waste to energy process, that this siting decision should be collaborative with all elected boards. Commissioner Foushee said that she wants to keep in mind that one community has been burdened with this landfill for many years. c) Opportunities to Pursue a Long-Term Solution for Solid Waste Gayle Wilson said that the SWAB recommended that this new working group deal with this issue also. There are not a lot of possibilities for alternatives. Most of the non-landfill ways require a larger amount of waste and a regional cooperation. There are some emerging technologies. 4. Adjournment Chair Pelissier said that this has been a productive meeting and this model of ineeting with each town individually has worked well. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 PM. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board