HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 01-29-2001APPROVED 5115101
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
January 29, 2001
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Monday, January 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners
Margaret W. Brawn, Moses Carey, Jr. Alice Gordon, and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Manager Rod Visser 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
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL
RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS.
1. SOLID WASTE DISPOSITION OF C & D: REUSE, DISPOSAL, ORDINANCE
John Link said that there are two items far the Board's consideration. One is the disposition of
C&D waste. The staff has offered three approaches in the form of resolutions for the Board to
consider. The other item is related to the Solid Waste Ordinance that would deal with regulating
solid waste materials.
Rod Visser said that most of the background information is not new information, but
information that the County Commissioners have previously received. There are three alternate
resolutions. The first resolution would state that the County is not going to pursue an additional C&D
landfill after the current landfill is filled up in the early summer of 2002. The second resolution
indicates that the County is going to pursue some type of C&D disposal capability beyond the
summer of 2002 in Orange County. The third resolution is that the County is going to pursue a C&D
disposal site at the Eubanks Road site. He made reference to the C&D task force recommendations
and said that the primary recommendation had to do with the creation of an ordinance that would
deal with regulating recyclable materials.
Commissioner Carey asked if the adoption of an ordinance would require the County to have a
means for disposing of the C&D waste and Rod Visser said that that was part of the conclusion of
the C&D task force.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to add some additional "Whereas" statements to
resolution C. He suggested an additional point that says, "Whereas, a broad based citizen's task
force that included members of the construction industry recommended to the Board of County
Commissioners to support increased regulation and related infrastructure far recycling and recovery
of C&D waste." He said that part of the thinking of the group was that the Caunty needed to be
mare aggressive if it is going to meet the 60°~ goal. The ordinance is one way to get people's
attention to not impact small projects that individuals were doing, but to capture the construction
industry. The task farce also thought that there might be some ways to generate some related
revenue.
Commissioner Gordon asked when the County will reach capacity and it was clarified that it
would reach capacity in 2002.
Cammissianer Brawn made reference to the three resolutions in the agenda and asked what
the County would do if the Commissioners chose the first resolution, which is to not pursue an
additional C&D landfill after the current one is at capacity.
Solid Waste Manager Gayle Wilson said that the C&D waste could be put in the solid waste
landfill, which would cause that to fill sooner {probably two years earlier}. Another option would be
to develop some kind of C&D transfer station. This process would have to start immediately. A third
option would be to develop an education process for C&D disposal.
Rod Visser said that one of the concerns is the loss of $800,000 in C&D revenues. The
County will need to look at other revenue mechanisms.
Gayle Wilson said that an November 1St, the draft C&D ordinance was presented. The County
Commissioners' questions focused an reasonable and necessary instances in agriculture and
forestry when burning is the best tool to use. The short answer to this issue is that there are
instances when burning is the best tool. Staff has been working with the attorney and others in
agriculture and forestry and they all agree that the ordinance should be revised to accommodate
some instances of burning in the agricultural community.
Chair Halkiotis asked about the burning at Orange-Alamance. He asked that someone check
this out because he thinks they may be in violation.
Cammissianer Brown made reference to page 19 where it says a homeowner can burn yard
trimmings if they live in the unincorporated areas of the County where pickup is not available. Also,
at the bottom of the page, it says, "In the municipalities in extraterritorial jurisdictions the Orange
County Fire Marshall or Town Fire Marshall is responsible for regulating burning. Burning permits
can be issued but issuance is extremely rare, especially because bush and leaf collection is
available." She said that collection was not available in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Commissioner Carey made reference to page 21 and said that he supports the suggested
changes. He also asked about the level of enforcement staff would have once the burning
ordinance is put in place. Gayle Wilson said that the level of enforcement would be based on the
receipt of complaints rather than traveling the County looking for violations. Initially, there would be
one staff person.
Rad Visser said that one of the recommendations from the C&D task force was the creation of
a Materials Recycling Handling Specialist.
Gayle Wilson said that, based on the ordinance as it is currently written, the department would
be issuing permits and licensing haulers of C&D material. Combined with enforcing the burning
ordinance, he would see adding one additional person to work with the enforcement of the
ordinance. The staff person would focus 80°~ of their time on education until the ordinance
becomes effective and after that, the person would focus 40% of their time an education and 60% of
their time on enforcement.
Commissioner Brown asked if this ordinance was going to clarify the confusing issues.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that the ordinance would apply to all parts of Orange County, which is
not in the incorporated areas of the municipalities. Also, the County would need to parallel their land
use ordinances with this ordinance.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Geoffrey Gledhill how the C&D ordinance would work overall
within the municipalities as far as complying with the disposal of C&D waste. Geoffrey Gledhill said
that the municipalities would need to adopt the County's ordinance or have one of their own.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 19 under "Current Regulatory Environment"
where it says that the forest service allows open burning without permits between the hours of 4:00
p.m. and midnight. He asked if this was by state regulation or by general practice. Environment and
Resource Conservation Director David Stancil said that the fires must be out by midnight. They
allow burning between these hours because winds are less at that time.
Several clarifying questions were answered satisfactorily by the staff.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important to state that the County is not in the business of
siting a landfill without being aggressive about recycling and regulation.
Cammissianer Gordon asked what the staff would like the County Commissioners to do. She
feels that the staff should go through and use their best judgment an how the ordinance should be
amended and bring it back to the Commissioners for approval. She would like to see that air quality
is addressed an days that are worse. She asked about private haulers and what mare they would
have to do as a result of this ordinance. She would like her questions answered in writing. She
made reference to page 9, #3, and what should be done with regulated recyclable material. For #5,
she said that it should say, "other legal means." She asked about the meaning of "assignable" in #8.
On page 11, section 5, #2, she suggested indexing the $50,000 or having some kind of regular
review because of inflation. On page 12, she asked about the appeal process and asked if there
could be a further appeal. On section 6, #2, she asked if there should be criminal penalties for
violations and said that it seemed extreme that a person would have to go to jail for 30 days. Far
section 7, definitions, she suggested saving some words and defining them up front rather than
repeating so much. On page 19, "biologicals" needs to be defined. For #32, "rubble" needs to be
clarified. On page 15, #40, she asked why it was only small dead animals and not large dead
animals. For #42, the Solid Waste Advisory Board, she would like to have language to keep it
current. Language could be added to the Solid Waste Management Agreement to say, "as
amended from time to time." She made reference to the definition of "vehicle means" and said that it
did not actually make sense.
Chair Halkiotis asked why violators of the ordinance were treated as criminals. Geoffrey
Gledhill said that all Orange County ordinances have criminal penalties.
Gayle Wilson said that the overall theme of the ordinance was to treat everyone the same.
Equal enforcement was also the main theme. He feels that the ordinance can be revised to make it
more acceptable to all citizens.
Chair Halkiotis said that it seems that the citizens of Orange County have been the best
enforcement tools for violations. He feels that the educational part of this ordinance is very
important.
Commissioner Carey made reference to page 21 and the chart for items #3 and #4 and asked
if that means that if we prohibit foresters and farmers burning that herbicides will be used more to
accomplish the same objective. It was answered that herbicides would most likely be used in the
place of burning.
Commissioner Carey feels we should look at the prohibited activities and determine same
standards. He feels we should have some "no burn" days but that a process needs to be developed
for haw to go about it.
Gayle Wilson said that the staff has thought about ways to amend the ordinance to include
some of the options. As far as the enforcement, they have not thought about any type of broad-
based field type of enforcement. The enforcement process has centered primarily on responding to
complaints.
Commissioner Brawn wants the ordinance to have clarity and to be easily understood by the
citizens. She feels that there are a lot of things that can be done through the education piece, such
as alternatives to disposing of the materials other than by burning. She supports the third resolution,
which is to pursue a C&D disposal facility at the Eubanks Road site.
Commissioner Carey supports Commissioner Brown's recommendation for resolution C. He
asked that the staff bring back a revised ordinance for the County Commissioners to adopt, which
would include same clarity on some of the things on the chart such as how a "no burn" day would be
declared.
Commissioner Jacobs said that while he supports resolution C, he feels that it would be
important to separate the educational component for the construction project and the disposal
component as it relates to burning. He said that the EDD work group has talked about air quality
issues in relation to drive-in windows. He feels that if we have general guidelines and the citizens
become aware of them, most of the professionals will readily abide by them.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brawn, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt
resolution C, with the following changes: 1}this facility will be part of a master plan for Eubanks
Road; 2) add, "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners is committing to a 61 °~ waste
reduction goal by the year 2006;" 3} add, "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners believes
the siting of any construction and demolition landfill must be accompanied by an aggressive
regulatory and recovery program;" and 4) add, "Whereas abroad-based citizens' task force that
included members of the construction industry recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners support increased regulation and related infrastructure for recycling and recovery of
C&D waste."
John Link said that the staff would revise the resolution and try to bring it back at the next
meeting. Commissioner Brawn will work with the manager to develop the language.
There was no vote because the staff is going to bring it back.
Cammissianer Jacobs said that part of the communication process needs to be that we
communicate with the residents on Eubanks Road immediately with what the County is doing. Once
the ordinance is adopted, we need to share with the residents an Eubanks Road that we are taking
their neighborhood into consideration.
2. UPDATESIAPPOINTMENTS FOR CAPITAL NEEDS ADVISORY TASK FORCE
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint
the following individuals to the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force:
Florence Soltys as representative of the Advisory Board on Aging, Keith Cook and Susan
Halkiotis as representatives of the Orange County Board of Education, Theresa Williams and Roger
S. Waldon as representatives of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, Patrick Sullivan as
representative of the Orange County Recreations and Parks Advisory Council, Hervey McIver as
representative of the Commission for the Environment, Bill Strom and Kevin Foy (alternate) as
representatives of the Town of Chapel Hill, Allen Spalt as representative of the Carrboro Board of
Aldermen, and Eric Peterson as representative of the Town of Hillsborough. The term ending for all
of the appointments is Spring 2001.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Commissioners will consider the at-large appointments and the Cammissianer
appointments at the next meeting.
Commissioner Gordan asked for a list of the information that will be provided to the members
of the task force so that if there is other information, the Commissioners can let the task force know.
She also requested a list of capital projects and approximate needs in Orange County government;
both CIP projects and those not funded should be included.
3. COMMUNITY COLLEGE TASK FORCE REPORT AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION
John Link summarized the information in the agenda. He said that this work session was
another opportunity for the Board to continue discussions on the possibility of a satellite campus of
Durham Technical Community College in Orange County. Estimates of operational costs were
included in the report. He recognized Barbara Baker, Vice President of Durham Technical
Community College.
Barbara Baker introduced Dr. Bill Ingram, Senior Vice President and Chief Instructional Officer
of DTCC, and Cynthia Carter, Chief Financial Officer of DTCC. She made reference to the state
bond money and said that it was designated by the General Assembly to Durham Technical
Community College and DTCC has designated the money to Orange County. She said that the
money must be committed by the end of the fiscal year and must be used by June 30, 2006. All of
the money allocated to Orange County must be matched. She said that not much of the money
would be available during the first three years of the six-year period. She anticipates that
construction could begin in 2004 or 2005.
John Link said that if the County acquired the property that the cost of the property could be
counted toward the match.
Cynthia Carter prepared a line item budget for a proposed 30,000 square-foot facility with
operating expenses in the amount of $422,145. This amount is not adjusted for inflation.
Commissioner Brown asked some clarifying questions that were answered satisfactorily by
Barbara Baker. She verified that DTCC would be responsible far the building construction.
Commissioner Gordon would still like to see the pros and cons of co-location with the new
Orange County High School, Cedar Ridge High School. She feels this site would be accessible to
all areas of the County. She said that this was a substantial endeavor far Orange County to
undertake.
Chair Halkiotis said that one of the major drawbacks with the new high school site was the fact
that the community college would need at least 20 acres, which would allow for expansion, parking,
and the impervious surface ratio.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the 20 acres and why sa much was needed. Barbara
Baker said that the task force was taking expansion into consideration. If the high school site were
used, there would be no room far expansion. Commissioner Jacobs verified that 2Q acres was not a
mandate.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the facility was located close to an industry, how the curriculum
would be designed in relation to what the training needs might be. He asked to what extent DTCC
would try to accommodate the training needs of an employer.
Dr. Bill Ingram said that the advantage of being located near an industrial center was that it
enables DTCC to provide some specific training as well as general training. He said that the needs
of the industries change and employers want people that can work together in teams and have good
general skills. The hands-on training can be provided by the employer. He does envision same
specialized training programs in health care.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if Orange County would have additional representation on the
Durham Tech Board of Trustees if a satellite campus were opened in Orange County. Barbara
Baker said that this is something to be discussed.
Commissioner Jacobs supports a community college in Orange County because even with law
unemployment, a lot of the people are under employed. He would like to know more about the
ongoing annual cost.
Commissioner Carey asked who appoints the members of the Board of Trustees and Barbara
Baker said the County Commissioners of the home County, the school board, and the Governor.
Commissioner Carey feels that the location of the Durham Tech branch in Orange County is an
open topic. He too was initially excited about the possibility of co-locating but as he learned more
about the needs, he realized that the Board needs to think more broadly. The County
Commissioners need to have that discussion. He suggested asking the staff to bring back a
recommendation far a process on appointing a small group to analyze potential sites and to make a
recommendation on the criteria to use.
Chair Halkiotis said, in conclusion, that he supports the idea of a satellite campus of DTCC in
Orange County. He said that it was really important for people to understand that there is going to
be a four million dollar in-kind match by the County. He said that this was like creating another
school system in the County. Orange County is making a contribution and an investment far the
future. He feels that the County Commissioners need to further discuss this issue.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the programming at the satellite campus. Dr. Bill Ingram
said that Durham Tech has approval to offer 35 different associate degree programs. Those
approvals come with them to Orange County. DTCC has entered into an agreement with Alamance
Community College to share resources for similar programs.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to have same sort of sense about what would
be offered at the branch in Orange County and some kind of analysis of how this would work with
Alamance County. She would also like to see a transportation piece on haw the students would get
from Orange County to other campuses. She would like for the staff to look at the statutes to see
what the rules are for a satellite campus.
Barbara Baker said that English as a second language would be a big program in Orange
County as well as classes in basic skills similar to those offered at the Skills Development Center.
Dr. Bill Ingram made reference to the transportation issue and said that the main campus was
on a TTA route, and the northern Durham center was recently added to a Durham Area Transit
Authority route, which is accessible through TTA. He cautioned the Commissioners not to try and
create another school bus system, but to locate the facility near public transportation.
John Link asked what an Intent to Proceed would mean for the County. Barbara Baker said
that an Intent to Proceed would mean that the County was committing to a permanent site for a
community college satellite campus in the County.
The Board agreed to ask the Manager to coordinate with the staff of DTCC to answer some of
the questions raised by the County Commissioners.
4. PLANNING GOALS PRIORITIZATION -QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Director Craig Benedict summarized the information in the agenda packet. The final
adoption of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is in the final stages. School Impact
Fees will be addressed in February as will Planning and Building Fee revisions. He said that he
feels that it is a priority to look at the Efland area, the Buckhorn EDD, and the Upper Eno area in
looking at the land use in that area. He would also like to address the comprehensive plan in
November 2001. One of the last areas they will work on this year and on into next year will be a
unified land development code. He asked the County Commissioners for their ideas on what they
think is a priority for the Planning Department after the EDD issues.
Commissioner Gordon would like to see the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan pulled
back into the plan, like the transportation element and other elements. She also asked if the Orange
County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro school sites were also a planning priority. Craig Benedict said that
the school sites were ongoing.
Commissioner Gordon asked for a presentation about hiring additional staff or consultants to
complete the comprehensive plan. Craig Benedict said that he has been in discussions with the
Manager and the Personnel Director about the possibility of hiring a Special Projects Planner to
jump start comprehensive planning efforts. He has also considered using interns. He said that
there would still be a lot of work done by staff even with consultants.
Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to put a higher priority on FiscaUService Impact
Analysis, Environmental Impact Analysis, the ERCD and Recreations and Parks piece, and
transportation.
Commissioner Jacobs asked for dates for the unified land development code. He said that
Coordinated Planning with Mebane was more likely than Cooperative Planning with Mebane. He
would like to focus on Efland/Buckhorn EDD Small Area Plan and the Upper Ena Study.
Craig Benedict distributed a draft Upper Eno Community Outreach schedule where information
will be presented to the public.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Upper Eno Study and TDR and said that there
were much simpler processes than TDR to address mitigation issues. He said that it was highly
ambitious to project that some of the issues will be resolved by May.
Commissioner Brown made reference to the payment-in-lieu and asked what basic data was
needed before they could start working on this. This was added back on the priority list.
Commissioner Brown is also interested in the Efland/Buckhorn EDD Small Area Plan and the
Upper Eno Study. She thinks the County has an obligation to protect the Upper Ena watershed.
She thinks that it would be very important to move ahead with the critical area of the Eno watershed.
Craig Benedict will work out a new timeframe to bring information forward about water
extension policies in the Efland area.
Commissioner Carey said that the Commissioners should justify their decisions to the public
about the minimum lot size outside the critical area of the Upper Eno. The public needs to
understand what the degradation is going to be for different models.
Chair Halkiotis agrees that the public should have a clear understanding of the degradation.
He also agrees that the Efland/Buckhorn EDD Small Area Plan and the Upper Eno Study are very
important, but he also thinks it is very optimistic to think that it will be ready by May.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to a joint meeting with Hillsborough in March and said
that it might be a good time to bring up the notion of having them buy into being one of the
sponsoring utilities in the Upper Eno, because this is far Hillsborough's benefit as well.
5. PRESERVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The issues with Hillsborough are related to water and sewer and the issues with the County
are related to traffic, affordable housing, open space, etc.
6. HAMPTON POINTE REZONING
This is a 58-acre commercial project within Hillsborough's jurisdiction. They are suggesting
500,000 square feet of retail development. This 500,000 square feet wauld generate approximately
23,000 trips of retail traffic. This is very high intensity.
There is a meeting with Hillsborough an Wednesday, January 31St. Commissioner Gordon can
not attend this meeting. She would like the Commissioner to convey her regrets to Hillsborough.
7. ORANGE COUNTYIHILLSBOROUGH COURTESY REVIEW
This agreement can serve as an informal guide for cooperation with Hillsborough and Orange
County with projects in EDDs or in and around the Hillsborough area. This is a first step toward a
cooperative review of areas that are of mutual interest.
Commissioner Gordon said that she had a few changes to the agreement. She said that it was
really not a joint planning area. She suggested same changes, which were noted by Craig Benedict.
8. SIGN TRANSLATION PROJECT - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' GOAL
Postponed
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn
the meeting. The next meeting on the regular meeting calendar will be held on February 7 at 7:30
p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, CMC