Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990504APPROVED 1217199 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING May 4, 1999 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 4, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Albert Kittrell and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Brown added a Resolution Regarding Civil Discourse in Orange County. This Resolution was added as item "3-E". Commissioner Jacobs asked to have the Board discuss a matter of procedure regarding the structure of the agenda. Chair Gordon indicated that there was a proposal on the agenda that Board Comments be heard after reports but there does not seem to be unanimity on this suggestion. There was a consensus on the Board that "Board Comments" be returned to its original position on the agenda. 2. CITIZEN & AUDIENCE COMMENTS a. Matters on the Printed Agenda Chair Gordon stated that citizens who have indicated a desire to speak on an item that appear on the printed agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. b. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Ms. Rea Kobota, Assistant Professor in the UNC School of Education and a member of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools English as a Second Language (ESL) Task Force, spoke in support of the Task Force's recommendations. She said that ESL students bring rich cultural and linguistic resources to the community. It takes between five and ten years for limited English proficient students to develop skills at the same level as their peers, however, these students are required to participate in the statewide testing after two years. She stressed that helping these students with academic development is crucial for the countywide educational process. Research clearly shows that ESL programs, based on sound educational theory, are far more effective than submerging these students in regular classroom with no language support. The Task Force's proposal is in line with the compliance guidelines of the Office of Civil Rights. She asked the Commissioners to adopt the recommendations of the Task Force. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Kobota to discuss the difficulty older children, particularly high school children, is having. Ms. Kobota said that older children have a larger academic gap between the English speaking peers and themselves. Sometimes older children do not have the educational background from their home country which causes an even wider gap. Commissioner Halkiotis noted that at budget time, the County Commissioners would set the tax rate and decide on a budget but that the County Commissioners do not approve or disapprove individual items in the schools budget. The school board decides how to spend the dollars that they get. He asked Ms. Kobota to encourage the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School Board to adopt ESL as one of their priorities. Q \19990504A.a BOARD COMMENTS: (These comments were made after the discussion on collocation of facilities Commissioner Halkiotis thanked those members of the Board of Commissioners who supported the resolution for Mr. Jose Campos. He has been returned to the United States and resumed the productive citizen roles that he had before he was deported. This is a classic example of federal, state and local government, as well as other local groups, working together for a cause that everyone agreed with. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the status of the discussions on the Interlocal Agreement on Solid Waste Management. John Link said that a meeting was held today. Chair Gordon led the group through a process whereby the Towns response to the County Commissioners "Elements of Expectation" was reviewed. This issue could be addressed at the next meeting or the first meeting in June. It is hoped to have the Memorandum of Agreement signed before the summer break. The Towns are motivated to meet that deadline as well. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had received an e-mail from Representative Insko about a bill that advanced in the Senate allowing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for Huntersville. County Attorney Gledhill has indicated that we do not need legislative authority to initiate a TDR program. However, based on this e-mail it appears that the legislators and the elected officials in Huntersville think that special enabling legislation is required. He asked the County Attorney to let the Board of Commissioners know if local legislation is required and if it would be possible to add Orange County to the Huntersville request Geoffrey Gledhill stated that it is not necessary to request enabling legislation for a TDR program Commissioner Carey suggested that Orange County participate in the Huntersville request because having local legislation would clarify the issue. He said that it looks like the law will be passed for Huntersville and he feels that Orange County should be involved in the request as well. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 3. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS a. Purchase of Site for New High School The County Commissioners considered approving the purchase of a 64.8-acre site on the north side of Grady Brown School Road in the amount of $603,200. This site will be used for a new high school in the Orange County School District. Randy Bridges, Superintendent of the Orange County Schools, said that the Chair of the Orange County School Board, Delores Simpson and the Vice-Chair Susan Dovenbarger, attorney Mike Parker and construction consultant Ray DeBruhl were in attendance and available to answer questions. He presented some of the factors that they considered in choosing the site. ¦ The acreage requirement from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is that there be a minimum of 30-acres of useable land plus one acre per 100 students beyond the thirty acres. The high school they intend to build would house one thousand students. That would require a minimum of forty-acres. For the athletic complex, parking, physical education fields and future growth an additional ten to fifteen acres would be added to that. That would require fifty-five acres minimum and the tract that is being recommended consists of sixty-four acres. ¦ Availability of water and sewer is also extremely important and this site would be able to tap-on at the Grady Brown site which would reduce the cost of construction considerably. ¦ Availability of land is another issue that limits and directs their choices. There are two landowners involved with this site and both are willing to sell to the School System for a reasonable price. Bridges stated that they had budgeted approximately $600,000 to buy the site for the high school and the cost of this site is $603,200. They feel that the price is very good compared to other sites that they have investigated. It is also possible that a school built on this site would easily lend itself to expansion from Q:\19990504A.a a 1000-student school to a 1600-student facility. He presented a map of the site and explained the proposed layout of the high school. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners approve the site. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the purchase of a 64.8 acre site on the north side of Grady Brown School Road in the amount of $603,200 for a new high school in the Orange County School District as stated below: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COM A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SITE FOR THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN THE ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS DISTRICT WHEREAS, the bond referendum approved by Orange County voters in November 1997 included a portion of the funding required for the construction of a new high school in the Orange County School district; and WHEREAS, the Orange County schools have, since the approval of that bond referendum, engaged in a process for identifying and selecting an appropriate site for that new high school, and have obtained options for the purchase of an appropriate site; and WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statutes-Section 116C-426 (f) provide that "...no contract for the purchase of a site shall be executed nor any funds expended therefor without the approval of the board of county commissioners as to the amount to be spent for the site..."; and WHEREAS, representatives of the Orange County Board of Education have presented sufficient information to persuade the Board of Commissioners that the proposed purchase price of $603,200 for the 64.8 acres under consideration is an appropriate amount to be spent for the site; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that it hereby approves the amount to be spent by the Orange County Board of Education for the site of the new high school. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Carey made reference to a letter, dated May 3rd from Randy Bridges regarding the new elementary site on NC-67 and the School Board's willingness to move the site so that an opportunity can be created for collocating a school and recreation facility for the northern part of the County. The letter states that the Board of County Commissioners was not willing to share in the initial cost of site preparation. Commissioner Carey said that he did not remember the Board taking official action not to share in the cost of trying to make that site useful for schools and athletic purposes. The Board of County Commissioners have been the biggest advocates for the collocation of recreational and school facilities and for value- engineering. If the memo is correct, that it will cost more to the taxpayers of Orange County if the site preparation is postponed, he was opposed to the delay. He asked for clarification on this issue. County Manager John Link mentioned that staff had polled the Board of Commissioners to see if they would be in favor of moving the elementary school site to create the possibility of adding ball fields in the future, which is not connected to any kind of approval process for the development itself. As far as moving the school site, and the associated costs that would be incurred, it was in excess of $100,000. One of the favorable results, of course, would be the additional ball fields. There are not funds budgeted in the C.I.P. for this expense, but more importantly the discussion that Craig Benedict had with the developer indicated that they did expect some consideration on the part of the Commissioners for the donation of the eleven acres for the ball fields. John Link said that he was clear, in his discussion with Ray DeBruhl, that there cannot be a connectivity between the approval or acceptance of the acreage for ball fields being used in the open space requirement for the development, prior to the approval of the development. This is the position that has been clearly stated by the Board of Commissioners. Q \19990504A.a Commissioner Carey stated that if the developer expected connectivity, that was one thing. If they expect the County to make any concessions on possible future developments, that is a very different situation. He is not promoting connectivity. However, if the County or the School System is going to own the land, then we should be working with the School System to make sure that the ballfields are developed at the time that the bulldozers are already on the site. If it is possible to develop the ball fields at a lower cost he wanted to make sure that we caused that to happen now. Commissioner Brown asked staff to explore the possibility of purchasing the land separate from any connection to the developers. School Board Chair Delores Simpson stated that the Orange County Board of Education is very concerned about this situation and they are requesting that the Board of Commissioners give it every possible consideration. Commissioner Jacobs stated that another part of the problem that staff needs to resolve is how to approach this type of planning without having the Board of County Commissioners, in anyway, either advocate for, or comment about, the development. Chair Gordon mentioned that the Schools and Land Use Councils would be coming forward with a Memorandum of Understanding about the collocation of facilities. That will help in determining where things should be collocated but it does not speak to the financial part of it. She requested that staff begin to work on guidelines or a process or implementation program, with regard to how schools and parks should be collocated. Also, the Schools and Land Use Councils could be working on other guidelines on how this would go forward. She stated that instructions need to be given to staff with regard to an implementing program that would define how the program would be financed, what kind of parcels would be purchased and developed, etc. These issues should be a part of the charge. Also, as a formal process, anything that allocates formal money would need to be part of the C.I.P. budget. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there are other services and functions that need to be collocated, such as senior centers, library services, Sheriff Department functions, health services, etc. There needs to be a standing group within the Manager's Office reviewing these types of issues on an ongoing basis. Chair Gordon suggested that this needs to be on the next Schools and Land Use Councils' agenda. Specifically the issue Commissioner Carey presented needs to be addressed. Also, follow-up in general about school and park collocation and other kinds of collocations as well needs to be done. John Link stated that the School Board and Superintendent face a stringent deadline in terms of beginning the elementary school project. The Board of County Commissioners will discuss the C.I.P again next week. He proposed that for the short-term that he and Superintendent Bridges meet within the next few days and develop, as a first step, the amount of funds that the School Board would like the Board of Commissioners to consider approving which would allow all the grading to be completed at one time. He could present those findings at the next County Commissioners meeting Commissioner Jacobs said that a similar situation exists with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Systems Smith Middle School and Carrboro's request to collocate a park. He feels that the Board of Commissioners need to look at what should be done with the $2.3 million dollars that has been set aside for just these purposes. The County Commissioners need to determine if they are ready to release funds for recreational purposes. If funds are going to be appropriated, it would need to be done during this budget cycle. Commissioner Jacobs offered to work on this project to bring a proposal to the Board for discussion. This would be based on standards already identified for school sites with the added element of how to deal with recreational opportunities or other opportunities, such as senior centers. Q \19990504A.a 5 Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Brown work together to develop a proposal for the Board to discuss. The consensus of the Board was to have Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Brown work on this and bring back a recommendation to the Board for discussion. b. Resolution and Modification Agreement to Refinance installment Purchase - McDougle Elementary School The Board considered adopting a resolution and modification agreement authorizing the refinancing of an installment loan with NationsBank to reduce the interest rate by 1.12 percent. Finance Director Ken Chavious reported that an installment purchase had been entered into with NationsBank to finance the McDougle Elementary School. This was the first undertaking of this kind that the County had pursued as it relates to a school project. The County borrowed $9.6 million dollars for a 15-year period at 5.71 % interest. This 5.71 % loan was the only debt the County had that was above 5%. He asked NationsBank to consider refinancing at a more favorable rate which they agreed to do. The new rate is 4.59%. This does not extend the term of the loan but it does save the County approximately $60,000 per year in interest costs and $600,000 for the term of the loan. This is a very simply procedure and does not need to be approved by the full Local Government Commission. Staff will review it and the Local Government Commission will sign off on the modification agreement. Commissioner Halkiotis thanked Ken Chavious for his initiative in saving money for the citizens of Orange County. He mentioned that if this was done in the private sector, Chavious would be eligible for a financial reward. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that the County does not do enough to reward this type of behavior. He challenged the Manager to look again at the possibility of creating a Countywide program that would reward staff who made these types of contributions. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution as stated below: Resolution Regarding Modification Agreement for McDougle Elementary Financing WHEREAS: In January, 1995, Orange County entered into a financing arrangement with NationsBank for the construction of McDougle Elementary School. The Finance Director has secured a proposal from NationsBank to reduce the interest rate on the financing from 5.71% to 4.59%. The Finance Director distributed at this meeting a draft dated April 23, 1999, of a Modification Agreement (the "Agreement") to carry out this reduction. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, as follows: 1. The Board determines that the County shall enter into the Agreement. The Chair and Vice Chair of the County's Board of Commissioners, or either of them, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement, and the Clerk to this Board (or any assistant clerk) is hereby authorized and directed to affix the County's seal to the Agreement and to attest the same. 2. The Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, which is hereby approved, with such changes as may be approved by the Chair or Vice Chair, such officer's execution to constitute conclusive evidence of such officer's approval of any such changes. The Agreement in final form, however, must provide for a nominal annual interest rate (in the absence of default or change in tax status) not to exceed 4.59%, and for no extension of the financing term or increase in the outstanding principal balance of the financing. QA19990504.doc 6 3. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to hold executed copies of the Agreement, and any other documents authorized or permitted by this resolution, in escrow on the County's behalf until the conditions for the delivery of such documents have been completed to such officer's satisfaction, and thereupon to release the executed copies of such documents for delivery. This authorization and direction is hereby specifically extended to authorize the Finance Director to approve changes to any documents (including the Agreement) or closing certifications previously signed by County officers or employees, subject to the limitations of paragraph 2 and provided that such changes shall not substantially alter the intent of such certificates from that expressed in the forms of such certificates as executed by such officers. The Finance Director's release of any such document for delivery shall constitute conclusive evidence of such officer's approval of any such changes. 4. All County officers are authorized and directed to deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the consummation of the contemplated transactions. All other actions of County officers in furtherance of the purposes of this resolution are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 5. All other resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. This resolution shall take effect immediately. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Older Americans Month and Senior Center Week Proclamations The Board considered proclaiming May as Older Americans Month and the week of May 9-15 as Senior Center Week. Jerry Passmore, Director of the Department on Aging, introduced Janice Tyler, Senior Centers Administrator and Florence Soltys, Chair of the Advisory Board on Aging. Ms. Tyler distributed a list of activities planned for Senior Center Week. Professor Florence Soltys, Chair of the Senior Citizens Board, said that there are over 13,000 senior citizens in Orange County and that this number is growing at a rapid rate. Over the next 20 years, the senior population in Orange County is projected to grow by 140%. She thanked the County Commissioners for adopting the Proclamation for Senior Center Week and invited them to participate in some of the activities during the month. Many senior citizens have contributed much to the County. It is important to honor them by providing the services that they need. She thanked the Board for adopting as a goal the Master Aging Plan for Orange County. They will be looking at all functional levels within the County. She mentioned that there is a coalition of public and private community groups that includes Orange and Chatham Counties. This coalition will participate in the planning for the Master Aging Plan. They will be using University students on this project as well. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the two proclamations as stated below: PROCLAMATION SENIOR CENTER WEEK WHEREAS, Local communities support over 10,000 Senior Centers in the United States, and, WHEREAS, Orange County has recognized the importance of Senior Centers and has provided leadership in the development and operations of such facilities in the County, and, WHEREAS, Senior Centers affirm the dignity, self-worth and independence of older persons by facilitating 0:19790504. d.c their decisions and knowledge, and enabling their continued contribution to the community, and, WHEREAS, Encouraged and supported by the Older Americans the Senior Centers function as service delivery focal points, help older persons to help themselves and each other , and offer opportunities to become physically mentally challenged, emotionally supported and socially involved, and, WHEREAS, The month of May has historically been proclaimed Older Americans Month, and communities across the country are giving special recognition to older persons and the role of Senior Centers in serving them, NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby PROCLAIM the week of May 9 through May 15, 1999 SENIOR CENTER WEEK AND, further, do call upon the people of our community to honor older Americans and the Senior Centers that bring together activities and services to their benefit. PROCLAMATION OLDER AMERICANS MONTH WHEREAS, According to the latest population figures, there are more than 13,000 persons over 60 years of age in Orange County, and WHEREAS, The President of the United States has declared May as Older Americans Month; and WHEREAS, Orange County is proud of the older adults who live here and wishes to show appreciation for what they contributed to their County, State and Nation; and, WHEREAS, All Orange County citizens enjoy the fruits of older persons and their labors and are inspired to continue to make Orange County a good place in which to live; and, WHEREAS, Orange County also wishes to set aside a special month for recognition of the older segment of its citizenry; NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, join the Governor of North Carolina and the President of the United States in PROCLAIMING May, 1999 OLDER AMERICANS MONTH AND, further, do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our older Americans. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Information and Referral Awareness Week This item was presented for the Board `s consideration and approval of a Proclamation to recognize May 9-15 as Information and Referral Awareness Week. John Link stated that Tom Dugard, President of the Triangle United Way, has asked each County to Proclaim Information & Referral Awareness Week for May 9-15. This is to recognize that Information and Referral is an important link in connecting agencies and assisting them to deliver the services necessary for our citizens. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Q:\19990504A.a Proclamation recognizing the week of May 9-15 as Information and Referral Awareness Week in Orange County. ORANGE COUNTY A PROCLAMATION FOR INFORMATION AND REFERRAL AWARENESS WEEK WHEREAS, information and referral agencies work to affirm the dignity, self-worth and independence of individuals by facilitating their decisions and actions, tapping their experiences, skill and knowledge, and enabling their continued contribution to the community; and WHEREAS, information and referral agencies function as a point of entry, helping individuals to help themselves and each other, and offering service or access to community services as needed; and WHEREAS, special recognition should be given to information and referral agencies and their role in serving individuals throughout Orange County; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby proclaim May 9-15, 1999 "Information and Referral Awareness Week" in Orange County, and commend this observance to our citizens. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. A Resolution Regarding Civil Discourse in Orange County Commissioner Brown indicated that she was presenting this Resolution after having incorporated comments County Commissioners made regarding this Resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve this resolution as stated below and to send said resolution to all advisory boards and to each elected official in Orange County, for their consideration. A Resolution Regarding Civil Discourse in Orange County WHEREAS, it is the duty of local governments to be representative of the people; and, WHEREAS, in a democracy, at times there is constructive disagreement among people; and, WHEREAS, there are ongoing discussions about the future of this county, but all citizens are working together to create effective public policy that serves the needs of the community; and, WHEREAS, in a democracy, the fullest expression of diverse opinions and free discourse is the essence of civil debate; and, WHEREAS, divergent opinion that focuses on issues is welcome and necessary; and, WHEREAS, free speech does not encompass incitement to violence against people or slurs against the ethnic, religious, racial heritage or sexual orientation of other people; or reference, provocation, Q \19990504A.a or threats of violence against any citizen; and, WHEREAS, violation of the limit of free speech is ultimately destructive to the democratic process; and, WHEREAS, we, the elected and appointed officials of (--)range County will set examples for the population at large in pursuit of these democratic principles. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we adhere to the principles outlined above, agree to abide by them, and call on all citizens of Orange County to conduct themselves in accordance herewith. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Proposed NCDOT 1999-2000 Secondary Road Improvements Program This item was presented for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation 1999-2000 Secondary Road Improvement Program. Mike Mills, Division Maintenance Engineer, introduced Chuck Edwards, the Orange County Maintenance Engineer and Tommy Dyer, District Engineer for Alamance and Orange County. He indicated that the 1999-2000 secondary road allocation is anticipated at $1,398,626. He noted that this would allocate the remainder of the secondary bond fund. He then reviewed the items listed on the Road Improvement Program which were included in the agenda item. Billy Morgan, a resident of Hatch Road, stated that Hatch Road is a dead-end road which is 3110 of a mile long. There are 10 houses located on this road and it is used by many cars and trucks each day. The road is very narrow and is being used by trucks going to and from a warehouse on that road. He asked that this road be paved as soon as possible. He also mentioned that his wife and neighbor both have health problems and the dust bothers them. He was informed by Mike Mills that the road will be paved next summer or early fall. Mr. Mills indicated that this years program is scheduled to be completed in late summer or early fall of the year 2000. Grady Fullerton, a resident of Hatch Road, spoke in support of paving this road. Darrell Stephenson, a resident of a new community off of High Rock Road, asked that High Rock Road be moved up on the priority list. He said that many new developments have been added in the last several years and the road is dangerous because of the increase in traffic. He understands that the right-of- way issue has been resolved. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Mills if he could share any information about why someone is - cutting out chucks of pavement on Old 86 and Smith Level Road and re-paving that portion. Mr. Mills said that Old 86 is on the resurfacing program to be completed sometime this year. Prior to resurfacing any area that has failed or is distressed certain portions must be dug out and filled in with a full-depth of asphalt. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Turkey Farm Road residents who were opposed to paving their road had changed their minds. He also asked about a safety hazard on Jones Ferry Road west of University Lake. He said that there have been times when the road is wet or icy and motorists have slid off the portion O:U9990504A.a 10 of the road where there is no guardrail. He asked that Mr. Mills explore installing a guardrail and communicate back to him in writing regarding his findings. Commissioner Jacobs also mentioned a citizen concern about an unsafe situation at the intersection of Mt. Willing Road and Buckhorn Road. He asked about a railroad crossing off of Old 10 at a private road leading out of the Byrdsville Mobile Home Park. He said that this is a significant safety hazard. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there have been several major accidents at the intersection of Mt. Willing and Buckhorn Road. Trains have struck cars and severely injured citizens three or four times within the last ten years. He asked what had to happen before Southern Railroad could be asked to install stop-arms. He asked NCDOT to look into this or to team up with the County to approach Southern Railroad. Mills said that as a result of one citizen's request they investigated this intersection and installed oversized stop signs on Mt. Willing Road as well as stop-ahead signs. A more recent citizen complaint was received on January 4th in which they requested 4-way stop signs and a reduction in speed limit. That investigation has not been completed. He agreed to respond to the County Manager within the next month. With regard to the question about the railroad crossing he indicated that he could pass along the name of the contact person with the railroad. He stated that NCDOT does not have any jurisdiction in this matter. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that as the tractor-trailer trucks have been diverted out of downtown Hillsborough onto Hwy 70 it has caused a lot of stress on Hwy. 70. There are trucks speeding and making U-turns at the Eno Fire Station. He asked NCDOT to be alert to increased traffic and consider ways to improve the traffic flow and increase the safety for those traveling that road. Chair Gordon asked if NCDOT was planning to pave any of the subdivision roads. Mills mentioned that there are six or seven roads left in the subdivision category, however, their traffic counts are very low. NCDOT will be focusing on the rural roads rather than on subdivision roads. Commissioner Jacobs mentioned that Moorefields Road could be paved immediately if it were paved in the existing right-of-way. He indicated that he would be happy to work with Mike Mills to do that. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed NCDOT 1999-2000 Secondary Road Improvement Program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. ITEMS FOR DECISION -CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. b. Child Support Enforcement Attorney Contract Renewal The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a contract with Coleman, Gledhill and Hargrave in the amount of $35,000 to provide legal representation. After Federal Financial Participation, the County's cost of providing this representation is $11,900. c. Property Tax Refunds The Board approved three requests for refund of property taxes as listed below: NAME ACCOUNT# AMOUNT Freeland, Theodore Hatton Jr. E69506 $ 36.44 Dixon, Robbie Jean F68317 $ 140.57 Honda Lease Trust F25675 $ 315.22 d. Petition for Addition - Deerfield Trail in Chapel Hill Township Q \19990504A.a 11 The Board approved a petition from NCDOT to add Deerfield Trail in Chapel Hill Township to the state-maintained secondary road system. e. Contract for Archeological Survey of St. Mary's Road Corridor The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign a contract with L.F. Stine in the amount of $6475.96 to conduct an archeological survey of the St. Mary's Road corridor. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes After a brief discussion it was agreed by consensus that the minutes will be distributed to all Board members at the same time and will be presented no later than 30 days from the meeting date. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approved the minutes from its Oct. 13, 1998 work session and February 22, 1999 Quarterly Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA a. Proposed Amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Related to Implementation of the Facilitated Small Area Plan The County Commissioners considered proposed amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance related to the Proposed Facilitated Small Area Plan for the Northern Study Area. Planning Director Craig Benedict mentioned that the Northern Study Area originated in 1992 and reports were presented in 1996, 1997, and 1998. He stated that there were three primary issues that need to be discussed. They are listed below. ¦ PRIMARY ISSUES ¦ County Involvement in the Development Review Process. A letter from the County Attorney was mentioned and is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. ¦ Conditional Use Process (Section 15-141.2 (b) (g) (2) (4) ¦ Master Planning Process (Section 15-141.2 (g) (1) (2) (3)(5)(6) ¦ Office/Assembly (O/A) District (minimum size) (Section 15-36(11) ¦ Village Mixed Use (VMU) Districts ¦ Density ¦ Location Craig Benedict stated that the Board of Commissioners is being requested to make a decision as to whether the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance is consistent with the Northern Study Area Plan. Those areas of consistency were presented at earlier meetings. The exceptions were those mentioned above. A subcommittee has incorporated suggestions and comments from prior Board of County Commissioners meetings. The subcommittee's report is included in the agenda packet. This report includes three primary issues and eight separate recommendations. The first issue pertains to whether or not the master plan process allows the County to have full review from start to finish of the entire process for Village Mixed Use. In the original wording, the Town of Carrboro had the potential during the Conditional Use Process of amending the Master Plan. The subcommittee has recommended deleting that language. New language is being recommended which would state that any modification of the Master Plan would be a re-consideration of the rezoning and would come back in front of the Board of Commissioners. Also, the subcommittee suggested criteria so that any impact that would increase traffic, number of units or decrease open space would be considered significant impact which would bring the item back before the Board of County Commissioners. Also, there is an opportunity in Carrboro's Code at this time, that when a project is first brought forward, the applicant meets with the Carrboro staff on an informal basis. It was suggested by the subcommittee that Orange County become involved early in the process, prior to an application being presented. At that point, staff from each unit of government and the applicant could discuss issues that are important to the incorporated residents and the Q \19990504A.a 12 Board of County Commissioners The second area had to do with Office-Assembly and the Conditional Use permit. Office Assembly is a district that exists in Carrboro that could be located within the Town or in the Northern Study Area. If an application were received for the Northern Study Area, it would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. The rezoning to Office Assembly District would be a legislative decision under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. A special district was created by the Northern Study Area that was to be more appropriate for this area and that was the Office-Assembly-Conditional Use. That district does not differ too much from the Office-Assembly except for two issues: 1) architectural standards were included that would have it look closer to a residential look, and 2) it limited the total amount of area in the Northern Study Area to 25 acres. The final issue was what a Village Mixed Use (VMU) would look like. The subcommittee recommended a minimum of four-acres per tract and a maximum of 25-acres in the Northern Study Area. Also, only one Village Mixed Use should be approved at any one time, so that the effect could be evaluated before the next VMU proceeded. Lastly, what a Village Mixed Use should look like was at issue. This district could be up to 200 acres in size. It is being recommended that the projects be phased so that before 80% of a project is complete it would be reviewed. After the review, the next project could start. As an example, if a Village Mixed-Use project came in at between 50 and 100 acres, 80% would have to be completed before another one could start. Another issue had to do with the location of the density in a VMU development. The subcommittee recommended that if there are 60 acres of buildable land, the density cannot be spread to adjacent open space land. The subcommittee also suggested reserving a section for Transfer of Development Rights, although they did not recommend wording at this time. In order to facilitate incorporating all of these suggestions into the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance, the amendments were written as specific as possible so that Carrboro could somewhat easily incorporate them into the text of the amendment. The subcommittee suggested reserving the opportunity to present their nine recommendations in order to see the effect of changing the language in the implementing ordinance. The comprehensive recommendation includes a request that Carrboro incorporate the aforesaid recommendations into the text of their land use ordinance and resubmit to the County Attorney and Planning Director for review by May 13, 1999. This would allow enough time for review and consistency determination so that a Board of County Commissioners meeting can be held if necessary. Commissioner Brown asked about including some commentary on annexation for both the Assembly-Office and the Village Mixed Use. She stated that if these are proposed and adopted, Carrboro should annex both Assembly-Office and Village Mixed Use. It is important that they agree to supply the infrastructure and not leave it to the County to provide. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the Board of Commissioners could indicate that they desire annexation to happen but the County Commissioners could not require a linkage between the zoning and the annexation. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Carrboro could be asked if they agree with the principal of annexation of Village Mixed-Use developments and Gledhill said that Carrboro could be asked that question. John Link said it might be more pertinent to ask Carrboro to develop a report on the viability of annexation. Commissioner Brown asked if viability of annexation could be a part of the Conditional Use Application. Q \19990504A.a 13 John Link said that there could be reference to viability of annexation as a part of the process Geoffrey Gledhill said that the Office-Assembly-Conditional Use proposal would be more problematic because they will be small and not practical annexation targets. Commissioner Brown commented that the subcommittee had discussed contiguous open space and greenways to assure that Office-Assembly development did not block contiguous open space or greenways. Craig Benedict stated that the implementing Ordinance does not require open space in Office- Assembly, however, if there is a primary or secondary conservation area it must be preserved, especially in the Office-Assembly were it is a conditional use requirement. Commissioner Brown referred to the facilitated meetings held earlier in the Small Area Planning process. In those meetings it was clear that the neighborhood residents did not specifically address the enlarged commercial aspect of this plan. They talked about small commercial and village sectors. The concept of having a larger commercial area results in a much higher density and a larger non-residential area than had been discussed. She indicated that she would vote for this plan but wants the Board to understand that it is more dense than what the residents discussed. The review of the Board of County Commissioners at every level seems adequate and is very important as a means of protecting the Commissioner's constituents. Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the recommendation is as stated in the agenda packet material in Item 7a, plus the recommendation on the green sheet having to do with the Village Mixed Use district, the Transfer of Development rights and the Viability of Annexation. The Board of County Commissioners' strong preference is that the Village Mixed Use be annexed and that Carrboro respond in principle to that concept and their annexation as the Village Mixed Use come up A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the proposed amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance related to implementation of the facilitated small area plan as presented consistent with the subcommittee and administration comments noted in the agenda plus the recommendations as listed on the green sheet which is herein incorporated by reference. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Consolidated Housing Plan Annual Update/1999 HOME Program This item was presented so that the Board of commissioners could consider approving the 1999 Consolidated Housing Plan Update and proposed HOME Program activities for 1999-2000. Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes reviewed the plan as included in the agenda. She stated that this resolution was being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval of the 1999 Consolidated Housing Plan Annual Update as well as approving the proposed HOME Program Activities. In March the Board held a public hearing to receive citizen comment regarding the Update and to develop the HOME program design. She reviewed the resolution that outlined the proposed HOME program design. The Orange County HOME Consortium is scheduled to receive approximately $437,000 in federal housing program funding. There is also available approximately $20,000 in program income for a total of $457,000. The total local government match is $98,328 of which Orange County's share is $41,297. A copy of this Resolution is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. In response to a question, Tara Fikes reported that all of these homes will be aligned with the County's long term affordability standards. She also stated that the Scarlett Drive project, Meadowmont and Habitat for Humanity will return to the Board of County Commissioners for Impact Fee reimbursement. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the recent request of the Legislative Delegation for funding for the Urgent Repair Program. He asked if a response to that request had been received. Geoffrey Gledhill stated that HB 1053 requesting $60,000 has been introduced and is still being Q \19990504A.a 14 considered. Tara Fikes indicated that if the General Assembly were to approve HB 1053, that money would be in addition to the existing $60,000 Housing Rehabilitation Funds for the Urgent Repair Program. She mentioned that the $60,000 in Housing Rehabilitation Funds-Urgent Repair Program could be reallocated by Board action if the Board chose to do so. The federal funds will be used for homes that need a few repairs in order to be brought up to the Housing Quality Standards. Homes that need extensive repairs would not be repaired with these federal funds. Ms. Fikes mentioned that the Orange Community Housing Corporation plans to ask the Housing Finance Agency for additional money because they have less stringent guidelines for the use of this money. She mentioned that the $147,625 included in the Resolution would be used to repair all of the code violations in an individual residence. The repair of these homes is based on a series of priorities, with the first priority being indoor plumbing. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt the resolution approving the 1999 Consolidated Plan Annual Update and to approve the proposed HOME Program activities for 1999-2000. Commissioner Brown mentioned that she was interested in the repair and standardization of individual, one-room residences and asked if there was a recommendation for that type of housing. Ms. Fikes indicated that one-room residences are eligible under the HOME program but there are no immediate plans for this type of housing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Proposed Public Hearing Advertisement - May 24, 1999 Planner Karen Lincoln presented for the Board's consideration of approval the advertisement for items proposed for the May 24 Quarterly public hearing. Lincoln indicated that both of the Zoning Atlas Amendments were to rezone property from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the AS District was to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. The first proposal is to rezone 2.8 acres {121,968 5F} in Cheeks Townships. The second proposal is to rezone 10.01 acres in Cedar Grove Townships. Lincoln stated that the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee has been meeting since December to consider amendments to the Flexible Development provisions. The proposed amendments address those concerns. Planning staff has also proposed several amendments to clarify other provisions within the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision Regulations. Chair Gordon referred to the Notice of Public Hearing and suggested that a sentence be added to both the Zoning Atlas amendments. The suggested sentence would read "The purpose of the AS District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts." A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the advertisement for the May 24,1999 quarterly public hearing, with the additional sentence mentioned above. Commissioner Jacobs said that he supports this motion, but considers the modifications to the Flexible Development regulations to be a stopgap measure. He asked that these modifications be viewed as a stop gap measure and that these regulations be carefully reviewed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS QA19990504A.a 15 d. Telephone System Upgrades This item was presented by Pam Jones, Director of Purchasing and Central Services. She asked that the County Commissioners consider upgrades to the County telephone system in the amount of $98,684 to improve service and achieve Y2K compliance. This will also provide a higher level of service to the public by allowing them the option of dialing directly to a department without routing through the automated attendant. The current telephone system was installed in the spring of 1990. During the Y2K inventory process, it came to staff's attention that the software version presently operating our telephone system will not operate after December 31, 1999. The cost of the upgrade to mitigate this problem is $82,684. The cost of this upgrade will be funded through the use of existing funds in the Central Services Budget Commissioner Jacobs asked about after-hour voice-mail for employees. Pam Jones indicated that employees with voice-mail currently have after-hour voice mail. The upgrade does include the option where you can type in the last name of the employee and the system will automatically connect to their extension. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the expenditure of funds for the Y2K upgrade for the phone system in the amount of $82,684 and to endorse the Direct Inward Dial (DID) proposal, approve the associated costs in the amount of $16,000 for installation and authorize staff to move forward with implementation VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Value Engineering - Possibilities for County-funded Projects This item was presented by John Link so that the Board of County Commissioners could discuss the results of the investigation into ways to ensure that construction and major renovation projects funded by the County are properly designed to meet both County and School needs within available resources. He mentioned that he met with a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Halkiotis and Brown, Pam Jones, and Paul Thames. They discussed the criteria, process and outcomes that could be achieved through the use of value engineering. The committee presumed a threshold of $100,000 that would trigger a project being included in the value engineering. That threshold is the amount at which advertised, sealed bids are required for construction and/or renovation work. The three issues which were deemed important by the subcommittee are listed below: 1) Outcomes must be articulated in advance of any value-engineering initiative. 2) The second critical element to initiating value engineering into County funded projects is identification of the process by which value engineering is carried out. 3) The third element critical to ensuring the success of value engineering is to discuss steps that the Board could approve to enhance our resource management abilities in light of the potential savings this initiative should yield. This report, in its entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Commissioner Jacobs spoke in support of value engineering and in particular he supports pursuing the amended procedures to allocate funds for capital projects. He also supported applying the same standards to County government that are being applied to other units of government. He stated that the threshold was too low at $100,000. He does not feel that significant savings will be achieved at a threshold of $100,000 and that it should be set at $500,000. He also suggested looking at what the school or county staff could continue to manage, such as providing inspections or dealing with warranty issues, in order to keep the cost managed. He wants to be sure that the schools are more involved in the decision-loop and feels the schools should have an opportunity to comment and/or object early in the process. Commissioner Carey spoke in support of the value-engineering concept. He would like to have the project use $100,000 as a starting point. After the project is evaluated that figure could be changed. He also felt that the lines of communication need to be strengthened so that the other elected officials have sufficient input early in the process. He said that the means of evaluating the effectiveness of value engineering should not be based only on financial savings but also lifecycle cost savings. Commissioner Halkiotis said that originally the threshold was $3 million dollars which would have Q \19990504A.a 16 effectively eliminated all County projects. There are a significant number of projects in both school systems which are around $100,000. He does not want this project to create an adversarial role between County government and the school systems. He envisioned this value-engineer sitting down with the appropriate staff and discussing how the project was being planned and where savings were anticipated. The Board of County Commissioners does not need to become a review board hearing appeals from other units of government. The process needs to be streamlined, practical and realistic. Chair Gordon asked where long-term costs were being factored into this project. John Link's memorandum which was included in the agenda packet refers to life-cycle cost analysis of critical components. She stated that life-cycle costs is an element that she wants to see in this project. John Link said that this could be listed on page two, section one, as one of the bullets. He also mentioned that staff shared the concern about the $100,000 threshold and they had added the phrase "unless waived by the Board" because staff felt that there are some projects that are not candidates for value- engineering. For example, carpet replacement would not be a candidate for value-engineering. Chair Gordon suggested adopting the recommendation on page four and incorporating the changes as listed above and place on the May 18th agenda with the overall plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the following motion with the inclusion of the changes mentioned in this discussion and return with a final recommendation no sooner than May 18, 1999. ¦ Confirm that the value-engineering concept will be pursued for all County or School projects involving new construction or major renovation projects, heretofore defined as those with a project cost exceeding $100,000, unless that threshold is waived by the Commissioners. ¦ Provide direction regarding the accuracy or desirability of the outcomes listed; and cite any additional outcomes that the Board may wish to include. ¦ Provide feedback regarding additional elements that are deemed critical in the value-engineering process and that should be included as the scope of work for the consultant is formulated, ¦ Confirm that the County should pay for the services and request that the Manager includes it in the County's Capital Investment Plan. ¦ Provide feedback regarding the Board's desire to pursue amended capital funding allocation procedures and if so to direct staff to prepare amendments to the Capital Policy for consideration by the Board at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Commissioners would be asked to waive particular projects or if certain categories would be waived. He also asked if he could see a list of the projects that would be $100,000 and up for the County. He still has a concern that paying for value-engineering for $100,000 projects may not create a significant cost savings given the cost of the value-engineering itself. He also wanted energy-efficiency to be specified as a category of value-engineering. Pam Jones indicated that the Board of County Commissioners would have the option of looking at projects for value-engineering if staff wanted to waive the process. Staff would make recommendations based on certain criteria. Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that the subcommittee could meet again and discuss thresholds. Commissioner Carey felt that the threshold should stay at $100,000 for now because there is value in the dialogue that occurs. Even if it comes back with a recommendation for a waiver, the objective will be accomplished. Commissioner Brown said that she saw this value-engineer as an "owner's representative". She could not imagine that the Schools would be antagonistic to this. This is really a gift to them and it is important to Q \19990504A.a 17 the taxpayers in the County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS REPORTS- NONE BOARD COMMENTS - Comments were made earlier in the meeting. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT -NONE APPOINTMENTS- NONE MINUTES- NONE. CLOSED SESSION - NONE ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, a motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting. The next meeting listed on the approved meeting calendar is scheduled for May 11, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Q \19990504A.a