HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-20-2011 APPROVED 11/1/2011
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
September 20, 2011
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey,
Interim Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All
other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda
There was a proposed addition to the agenda —Item 8-c, Resolution Authorizing
Application to the Local Government Commission to Issue up to $17 million in General
Obligation Refunding Bonds.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to add this item to the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Pelissier said that staff has recommended that Item 5-f, Property Value Change,
be pulled from the agenda tonight.
Items at the County Commissioners' places:
White- Item 4a- powerpoint slides -Presentation by the Consul General of Mexico to
North Carolina
Yellow— Staff responses to Items 5-j and 8-b to Commissioner Gordon's questions
Pink-Item- 12a--Revised Membership listing for Advisory Board on Aging
White — deer line map from Bonnie Hauser for Item 8
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda
Tish Galu read a prepared statement:
"I came to the work session last week because firefighters are essential to the safety of
all in our community, but their safety is just as important. My father was a paid firefighter for 30
years. He risked his life everyday because he was willing to go where others would not. He
was trained and skilled in his work. Our family was proud of his work and commitment to our
community. It is inconceivable that our local officials would knowingly place him or any other
fire fighter in danger because of equipment failure —which is addition to the dangers he faced
every time he was on duty.
As I listened to the leaders of the rural and Chapel Hill fire departments speak about 8-26
second radio outages, I found myself in tears. Then angry.
Just Imagine: Mayday! Mayday! Please Help!
WAIT 26 seconds
That's 26 seconds. Imagine if we were in a burning building? Hurt or bleeding? or worse?
Please show us your commitment to the safety of the citizens of Orange County and the
committed volunteers and professionals who keep us safe. The Fire Chiefs have fully
explained the problems, it is now up to the county to have a plan to fix the EMS call center and
dispatch system and viper communication — and while you're working on it, please go find the
money to fund it.
Please don't confuse this with the many topics on your plate. Please don't include this in your
advocacy for more taxes or confuse it with other priorities for economic development or
schools. Please place this at the top of your list of basic, critical services that every citizen
assumes that the county is providing. Unlike parks, recycling, and county buildings and other
important things that you manage —this time it is a matter of life or death."
Stan Cheren from JoMac Road read a prepared statement:
"I'm Stan Cheren —Tonight I'm speaking for the Jo Mac Road community—which is one of the
communities that's been affected by the change in insurance guidelines. This year, many of
my neighbors faced large increases in their homeowner's insurance premiums. Apparently
there are new insurance rating practices which place more weight on the ISO fire insurance
categories. Many of us are in a category 10 —which means "no coverage" because our homes
are more than 6 miles from the primary fire station.
As you might imagine, people panicked. Our first reaction was to switch to the Carrboro Fire
Dept—which is four miles away. We assumed a small increase in the fire tax was trivial
compared to the large increase in our insurance premiums. Of course we knew nothing about
fire coverage — and quickly learned that we— like every home in the county— are under a
mutual aid agreement— and in case of fire, Orange Grove, White Cross and Carrboro would all
both be dispatched - But under the new guidelines, Department of Insurance only recognizes
our primary fire department which is Orange Grove.
Orange County Voice put us in contact with the Orange Grove Fire Department. Chief
Holmes and Mr. Waddell responded immediately. They initially tried to fix our insurance rating
by placing us in the Carrboro insurance district. Given the mutual aid agreement, it wouldn't
impact service. Carrboro refused to switch insurance districts without changing the tax
districts.
Orange Grove now has plans to build a new fire substation to fix the problem. Assuming you
approve it, they will complete it within 12 months. This will place our community within the 6
mile limit with an insurance classification of 9s.
Thank you for listening — I hope you'll take away several key messages.
• First, special thanks to Chief Holmes and Mr Waddell for responding quickly and
decisively to our issue. The new substation is the right fix and will help most of the
neighbors in the east end of their insurance district. We hope that the North Chatham
Fire Department will find a similar solution for the areas south of Chapel Hill which are
also classified as category 10
• Second, please ask the county planning department to expedite the permitting of the
new substations for the Orange Grove Fire Department
• Third, please ask Carrboro for a temporary switch in insurance classification. If you
raise it in your October meeting. Because of mutual aid, it should not cost Carrboro
anything and it will save us a lot of money in the next year. You can revert to the
original classification as soon as our substation is built.
Thank you"
Steve Graf read a prepared statement:
"As you heard last week, it appears that our fire departments are not consulted in new
development whether it's individual properties or major new development projects.
To assure fire protection for a home or community, our rural fire departments need to know
about water sources, private roads and signage, and other things that are critical to service
delivery. If a new development is built, the developer should bear some responsibility to
assure that the new community can be protected from fire and medical emergencies.
With the Department of Insurance's rules on insurance coverage and distance from the fire
station, it's critical that our fire departments know where to put future stations and substations.
As we all now know, under the DOI's new rules, large sections of the county are now in
category 10 -"not covered". Our rural fire departments appear to be working to make the
improvements needed to get everyone covered.
What we are asking from the county and your board is to help our fire departments plan for the
future.
This one's easy and doesn't cost much. Please ask the planning department to review the
county's new Unified Development Ordinance and propose language to assure that every new
development is reviewed and formally signed off by the fire department who will be responsible
for protecting it. Hopefully the review from the fire departments can be performed in parallel
to other reviews and not bog down the permitting process.
As part of the review ask the fire department to provide comment on whether new facilities or
equipment will be needed to cover the development. You can ask developers to fund all or
part of the costs as part of your"conditional approval".
We believe that you fully understand this issue and hopefully agree with our suggestion.
Please take this action so that the UDO changes can be proposed during the next quarterly
public hearing.
Thank you."
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Planning Director is here tonight and there may be
some inexact information out there. He asked Craig Benedict to address these questions.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there is a process with all developments and
they consult development committees, which are made up of and include the Emergency
Services Director and the Fire Marshal. He said that they can create additional communication
with the volunteer fire departments if needed but they do get sign offs from emergency
personnel as part of the development process.
Marilee Metique read a prepared statement:
"My name is Marilee McTigue and I'm a long-time resident of rural Orange County.
Last week's work session was a wakeup call for many of us about the state of emergency
services in Orange County. We hope you agree that there are two important, but separate,
parts of this function:
• First, the county's Emergency Services Department
• Secondly, the eight rural fire departments and others that service the unincorporated
parts of the community under contract with the county.
It became abundantly clear in last week's meeting that two of the county's emergency services
- VIPER and 911 dispatching - are dangerously broken and this impacts the delivery of mission
critical, core public safety services throughout the county. Complex and expensive fixes will
be needed to correct VIPER radio outages and new capabilities will be required to improve a
cumbersome card dispatch system. As you know, the problems the county is facing with
VIPER are being experienced by many other communities across the country so it is important
to note that we are not trying to blame anyone for the past. We are where we are, and now we
must move forward to correct the situation expeditiously.
We left last week's work session uncertain about the county's next steps and we will feel more
comfortable if you would immediately take the following actions:
1. Direct the county staff to urgently develop a plan — including costs, phasing and milestones
- to correct the VIPER system and improve the dispatch systems. In the interest of
communication, please invite the other community stakeholders to review and approve the
plan as a prerequisite to your signoff.
2. Secondly, while the county staff is working on the plan, please work urgently, in parallel, to
find the capital necessary to fund it. This is not about preparing for the 2012/2013 budget year
—this is about finding the necessary capital right now! Here are some ideas for you to
consider:
• Delay the planned improvements to the solid waste convenience centers, the recycling
programs, and the geothermal upgrades to the county's buildings. While potentially
worthy programs — do they rise to the level of core, mission critical, public safety
needs? I don't think so.
• Also, since the selection of a site for the Southwest library has been delayed, consider
reallocating this year's capital budget to emergency services.
• Next, take a hard, comprehensive look at the county's real estate portfolio — and sell
unutilized or underutilized real estate. We're not talking about the lands legacy
program's parcels — but rather parcels that are vacant or are not used for county
business.
• And, please reconsider before you allow the county to put pressure on the towns for
more tax money. Town residents already pay county taxes -just as rural residents do.
We'd hate to see Chapel Hill and Carrboro shift to the UNC 911 call center as a knee-
jerk reaction to increased costs.
We understand that the county's operating budget is extremely tight and that difficult decisions
have been made. However, these improvements are, for the most part, capital budget items,
and there is money available in the current capital plan for them. And please don't turn this
into a tax increase argument. By reprioritizing the capital plan you can fund these urgently
needed public safety projects without increasing taxes.
We need your laser focus on Emergency Services — right now— as a critical priority. It's a
matter of life and death —for both county residents and the emergency personnel who put their
lives on the line daily to ensure our safety.
Thank you."
Bonnie Hauser from Orange County Voice read a prepared statement:
"Thank you for giving our fire departments a voice last week. It was a good first step in
rebuilding the county's relationship with these outstanding, community-based organizations.
As a next step, please give the fire chiefs some breathing room so that they can develop their
strategic plan working with UNC. Their systems work well today and, as you now know, they
are effectively preparing for the challenges of the future. Unlike the critical issues affecting
your call centers, the fire chiefs are dealing with routine issues such as insurance ratings and
standards of service. They also plan to look at their own organizations and options to
standardize the fire tax rate.
Last week, you heard that trusts have been violated and, unfortunately, gestures from the
county are now met with suspicion. If you truly want to rebuild these relationships, we
encourage you to work with the fire departments at arm's length — similarly to the way you work
with the school boards, or towns or other organizations that you do not directly control.
Certainly, if you have questions, ask them. If you'd like a progress report, ask for one. If you
want help with your own planning, invite them. Open communications would be a welcome
change from the rumors that are now swirling about the county's hidden agendas.
There is no indication that the rural fire departments are broken — but if you have concerns or
questions, please raise them. Our chiefs need to hear from you.
You can also help by referring citizen comments or complaints to the fire chiefs. Make it
county policy. Put contact information for the fire departments on your website.
That way, the chiefs can properly explain service, safety and other matters -- and how they
relate to the fire tax and insurance premiums. They will certainly mention hundreds of selfless,
well trained volunteers plus the land, water and other assets that have been generously
donated to secure our communities and keep costs in check. Every community is different—
but with the proper explanation, citizens will realize that their fire tax is a bargain.
We realize that our fire departments are not perfect— but they are effective guardians of our
communities. They exemplify dedication and service that money can't buy.
We are honored to stand with our fire departments. Please stand with us and add rebuilding
the county's relationships with the fire departments to your list of priorities. Please start with
"thank you" and "how can we help?"
Thank you."
Susan Walser spoke on behalf of TICNC, which is the Tick-Borne Infections Council of
North Carolina. The goal is to educate the public on ticks, tick-borne illnesses, and protecting
yourself from ticks. After the State budget cuts, many State employees have lost their jobs,
which included all NC DENR, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources involved
in tick research and educational programs. She said that a lot of the information that was
collected by this department was going to be thrown away, but TICNC was able to obtain the
information. She spoke about the importance of checking for ticks, etc. She brought some
samples of brochures from TICNC.
Lamar Chapman made reference to the comments about the 911 communications and
fire departments. He asked the people that spoke to this to please stay for the rest of the
meeting because the rest of the agenda relates to it regarding deer hunting with dogs.
b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
request staff to make periodic reports, monthly or on a six-week schedule, on the status of
efforts between various fire departments and those departments in the County considering the
insurance situation for homes outside of the six-mile limit.
There was no vote.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Presentation by the Consul General of Mexico to North Carolina
The Board received a special presentation from the Consul General of Mexico, Carlos
Flores Vizcarra, in reference to consular services in North Carolina and the consular I.D., the
most widely expedited document by the Consulate.
Carlos Flores Vizcarra, Consul General of Mexico to the Carolinas, lives in Raleigh and
said that he is an ambassador and his mission is to assist the Mexican communities with things
such as documentation and other types of community programs. He made a PowerPoint
presentation.
• Overview
• Consular Services
1. Consular Assistance and Legal Affairs
2. Community Outreach
3. Documentation and Civil Registry (vital records)
4. The "matricula consular"
Overview
• Opened in November of 2000.
• Circumscription includes North and South Carolina.
• Serves an estimated 900 thousand people of Mexican origin in the Carolinas.
• According to 2010 US Census Bureau, the Hispanic population in North
Carolina more than doubled in the past ten years. From 2000 to 2010.
• The Consulate General has 40 employees and staff
o Consular Assistance and Legal Affairs
o Documentation and Civil Registry
o Community Programs
o Consul General"s Office
1. Consular Assistance and Legal Affairs
Deals with immigration authorities (DHS-ICE); the coroner's office; hospital's case managers
and prison authorities, in situations involving Mexican Nationals.
Services:
• Program of Legal Assistance (P.A.L.E.)
• Assistance to Mexicans that are hospitalized.
• Assistance to Mexicans detained in county, state or federal prisons. (year
calendar prison visits)
• Repatriation of human remains.
• Repatriation of Children.
• Locate Mexican Nationals through the Consular Network.
Among other services.
Community Proqrams
In charge of promoting strategies, integrating programs, gathering proposals and
recommendations from communities and organizations in order to elevate the standard of
living of Mexican communities living abroad.
Proqrams:
- Education (plaza comunitaria & credit transfer document)
- Health (Health Window & Binational Health Week)
- Sports (Soccer Tournament)
- Culture (Literature and performing arts)
- Community Affairs (Hometown associations)
- 3x1 Program. Matching funds investing in Mexico
DOCUMENTATION
The Consulate General of Mexico offers multiple services to Mexican communities in the
Carolinas:
- Consular ldentification (Matricula Consular)
- Mexican Passport
- Birth Registry/Double Nationality/Vital Records (for children born in the USA when one
of the parents is Mexican born).
- Registration of household items. Repratiation to Mexico
Among other services.
THE CONSULAR ID (matricula consular)
- Issued only to Mexican Nationals who live abroad.
- It is meant to certify that the bearer is a Mexican National living abroad.
- Mexican consulates in the U. S. expedite the Matricula, only to those Mexican
nationals residing in the circumscription.
- More than 6 million valid Matriculas Consular of Security I.D. Cards have been issued
Evolution: Different Types of Consular ID's (various pictures)
Current version. Digitalized photo. Biometrics Encrypted. Machine readable.
SECURITY FEATURES
- Mexican documents issued by Consulates through SIAC are in conformity with
security standards for official US documents.
- The Matricula Consular is constantly evolving technologically in order to enhance its
security.
- A visible "Advantage" seal which is a variable color, tamper proof, Optical Security
Device, used to mark the ID photograph, and is solely manufactured by a U. S.
provider. No one else in the world has access to this technology or design, which
makes counterfeiting the ID highly improbable. This feature is used by the U. S.
Government in several high security documents such as FBI badges.
- The latest evolution in the system is the introduction of "biometrics."
- Fingerprints, height, weight and general data of the applicant go into the database,
backed by root documents.
- SIRLI (Sistema de Identificacion de Restos y Localizacion de Individuos). It serves to
locate and identify Mexican nationals reported missing.
- Visible and hidden security provisions to avoid falsifications.
- Supported by a centralized system to avoid duplication and confirm the authenticity of
required document information.
- Validated against the Stop List Database
- Robust verification procedure of nationality and identity.
- The procedures and requirements were homogenized to those of the Mexican High
Security Passport System.
- The matricula is a document that is digitalized and produced with advanced
technology.
- The matricula ID is made of Teslin Blanks
- Teslin is a waterproof synthetic material that works well with an inkjet printer, laser
printer, or thermal printer. Teslin is used widely in the production of drivers' licenses,
voter ID cards, and other forms of identification card.
- It counts on a format PDF417 is a stacked linear barcode symbol format used in a
variety of applications, primarily transport, identification cards, and inventory
management. PDF stands for Portable Data File.
- PDF417 symbols can link to other symbols which are scanned in sequence allowing
even more data to be stored.
- The International Civil Aviation Organization, a Quebec based group, developed
standards for Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTDs), for passports and visas.
These MRTDs make it easy for automated systems to scan a travel document. If a
country decided to check all visitors against a known criminal's database, automatically
finding the information with a computer would be much faster and less prone to error
than if the immigration agent had to type the information in by hand.
Purposes of the Matricula Consular AS Program:
To establish accurate identification and proof of nationality before agencies in the U. S., as
well as other institutions. It also helps the bearer of the document to pursue business
transactions.
Establish accurate I. D. for:
- Appearances in court
- Enrolling children in school
- Visiting inmates in prison
- Obtaining services for American born children
Who is entitled to have a Matricula Consular?
ALL Mexican nationals living within the consular circumscription that meets the following
requirements....Consulate General of Mexico in Raleigh, comprising the two Carolinas.
Requirements for issuance of a Consular ID
- Proof of Mexican Nationality with any of the following documents: Birth Certificate,
Certificate of Mexican Nationality, Certificate of Naturalization, or Passport
- An official photo I.D.: Military Service Identification Card (Cartilla Militar), Electoral I.D.,
Mexican Passport, expired Matricula Consular, or with an official I.D. issued by the local
U.S. authority (e.g. driver's license, green card or INS permission, school record, police
clearance report with a cancelled picture, U.S. passport or state ID).
- Proof of residency in the USA (A contract or receipt of payment for services or utilities
such as water, electricity, gas, phone service and rent, etc.)
- Consular interview
Positive Impacts
Mexican Government Interests
- To identify its citizens and their locations
- To connect Mexican nationals to family members if necessary
- To notify their next of kin in cases of emergency
U.S. Security Concerns
- Identify those Mexican nationals living in the USA
- Where are they from?
- Where do they live?
- Ability for law enforcement officers to recognize and identify Mexican nationals
- A clear tool for fighting crime
What is the Matricula, and what it isn't
- The "Matricula Consular" does not determine migratory status, but it is increasingly
accepted for different services such as; banking (the issue of remittance/cost is very
important) and also different city services.
- This document has evolved into a multipurpose identification, which serves the
purpose of making daily livelihood better for the user, as it also contributes to U. S.
homeland security purposes.
- A good number of Mexican Nationals pay their taxes with an ITIN number obtained
through the Matricula Consular.
FINAL COMMENTS
- Undocumented Mexicans are not eligible to obtain any American official ID.
- The question being: is it better for law enforcement agencies to positively identify
foreigners, in this case Mexican Nationals, or not?
- To this day, the Mexican consular network in the U. S. has expedited more than 5
million matriculas, over the past 8 years.
- The high security matricula program is intended to encourage Mexicans in the USA, to
stop using fraudulent ID's.
- The technology that supports the matricula program was adjudicated to an American
company based in Florida, through an international bid.
- If in the future, changes occur in USA immigration law, providing a path for
regularization, the database of the matricula could be of significant importance.
- The matricula allows parents of American born children to identify themselves while
enrolling their kids in school.
- The matricula is accepted by banking and financial industries, in order to market their
products and services to the undocumented.
LEGAL BASIS
The 1964 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, subscribed by most countries in the
world, including Mexico and U. S., states in its 5th Article that; "Consular Offices are entitled to
issue identification documents to its Nationals for Consular Protection purposes."
The practice of consular registration is recognized by international law. Consular posts of
every country around the world provide this service.
All the matriculas consulares are issued for a period of 5 years. By 2007, matriculas, issued
as of March of 2002, have continuously expired, thus a process of renovation has been taking
place. The MCAS incorporate cutting-edge technology, holograms and other embedded
designs to prevent its forgery. The MCAS has 13 security features.
Chair Pelissier said that the Sheriff has been in the audience to hear the presentation
and she thanked him.
5. Consent Aqenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from August 22, 2011, as submitted by the Clerk to
the Board.
b. Appointments — None
c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 57
requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds, in accordance with NCGS.
d. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
values related to twenty-four (24) requests for property tax release and/or refund in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
e. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board will consider four (4) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad
valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year.
f. Property Value Chanqe
This item was removed from the consent agenda.
g_ National 4-H Week in Oranqe County Proclamation
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
h. Bid Award: Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste
The Board awarded bid number 281 to White's International Trucks of Greensboro, North
Carolina for the purchase of a Hook Lift Truck at a delivered cost of $177,158; and
authorized the Purchasing Agent to affect the purchase award.
i. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budqet Amendment #2
The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2011-
12 for Department of Social Services, Human Resources, Visitors Bureau, Health
Department, Register of Deeds, and Sportsplex Fund.
i Emerqency Services Station on UNC Campus
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
k. Policy for Charqinq Efland Sewer Customers with Wells
The Board approved the interim policy change until a more permanent solution can be
studied and developed.
I. Conditional Use (CU) Application (Rezoninq and Class A Special Use Permit) —
Habitat for Humanity— Extension of Public Hearinq Adjournment
The Board extended the adjournment of the public hearing to October 4, 2011 to receive
the Planning Board recommendation.
m. Voluntary Aqricultural District Desiqnation: Maple View Farm
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
6. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda
g_ National 4-H Week in Oranqe County Proclamation
The Board considered approving a proclamation recognizing the week of October 2na
through the 8th, 2011 as National 4-H Week in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to
sign.
Commissioner McKee said that this is National 4-H WEEK and it deserved more than a
consent item. He read the proclamation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve the proclamation recognizing the week of October 2nd through the 8th, 2011 as
National 4-H Week in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation on
behalf of the Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Proclamation
National 4-H Week in Orange County
WHEREAS, 4-H youth across the nation are leading efforts to solve problems in their
communities and make a difference for their futures; and
WHEREAS, 4-H is the largest youth development organization in North Carolina and
the largest in the nation with over six million participants; and
WHEREAS, 4-H in North Carolina claims 218,669 youth members and 21,413
volunteers, while Orange County's 4-H program numbers more than 140 members and
more than 35 volunteers and with over 2,700 youth reached through school-enrichment
programs in both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools; and
WHEREAS, 4-H as part of the NC Cooperative Extension System of NC State
University and NCA&T State University is a program where youth learn through
opportunities that provide them hands-on experiences in 4-H's mission mandates of
science, engineering and technology; healthy living; and citizenship; and
WHEREAS, 4-H has connected youth and their communities with the innovative
research and resources from our nation's 106 land-grant universities and colleges for
more than 101 years;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby
proclaim October 2-8, 2011, as National 4-H Week in Orange County and urge the
people of the County to take advantage of the opportunity to become more aware of
this special program that enhances young people's interests in their futures as part of
Orange County 4-H Youth Development and to join us in recognizing the unique
partnership between the County and the state University System.
This the 20th day of September 2011.
i Emerqency Services Station on UNC Campus
The Board considered approving the location of an Emergency Services emergency
medical services (EMS) station on UNC Campus to provide enhanced service delivery to the
UNC Campus and Chapel Hill area and authorizing the Manager to sign.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners have an email before them
that included her questions about this item and staff response. Her email is incorporated in
these minutes by reference. She wanted clarification of the Manager's recommendation and
asked if this is just executing agreements or deciding where the substations are going. Her
suggestion is that they should recommend passing this first part of the recommendation, but
for the second part to ask for the Attorney and Manager to come back with more clarifying
language.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Gordon and said that he also wanted
to bring up the subject as it relates to the respect and the South Orange Rescue Squad. He
said that he knows that the South Orange Rescue Squad has some concerns about Orange
County's entering into this agreement. He would like to suggest, and he has talked to the
Emergency Services Director, that this be revisited in a year and give the rescue squad an
opportunity to make comments about changes that will make it more effective.
Commissioner Gordon said that the motion could be to authorize the County Manager
to sign the UNC Substation Agreement and any amendments or renewals to that agreement
and ask the County Manager and County Attorney to bring back more precise language for the
negotiations and signatures for the Emergency Service Substations.
John Roberts asked if the purpose of that motion was that the Manager not be
permitted to engage in negotiations without consent of the Board of County Commissioners or
without informing the Board or whether it was that the Manager not be authorized to select a
location for a site for a substation without the consent of the Board.
Commissioner Gordon said that she has no objection with the Manager having the
authority to negotiate but she did not think the language was precise.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Manager should have the authority to negotiate the
potential sites without having permission of the Board. He said that if the purpose is to be
clearer on this language, then he does not have a problem. He is not comfortable with the
Manager not having the authority to enter into negotiations without consent of the Board.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he understood Commissioner Gordon's point to be that
the language needed to be clarified to authorize the Manager to negotiate, but that it should
come back to the Board of County Commissioners to locate the substations.
Commissioner Gordon said that this is very close to what she meant.
John Roberts said that the Manager could negotiate a site and then present the site to
the Board of County Commissioners for approval, and then the County Commissioners could
veto the site if they did not like it. Commissioner Gordon agreed.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is not entirely clear to him when siting substations is
policy and when it is operational. He thinks that there needs to be some clarification on these
two different situations.
Commissioner Foushee said that it would seem to her that this is an operational issue
that comes before the Board as a recommendation. If there is a policy conflict, then the Board
has the opportunity to discuss it as an item.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
authorize the County Manager to sign the UNC Substation Agreement and any amendments
or renewals to that Agreement.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner McKee said that he does not want to hamstring the staff in the day to
day operations.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee
to forward the second bullet to the County Attorney to differentiate between the Manager's
authority to negotiate and the Board of County Commissioners' authority to approve the
location of Emergency Service Substations.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to ask staff to report back within one year after consulting with the South Orange
Rescue Squad and the University of North Carolina as to any adjustments or concerns that
may be necessary related to this agreement.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Gordon thanked the Board for listening to her concerns and she said
that she never intended to take away the operational duties of the staff but wanted clarification
concerning policy decisions made by the Commissioners.
m.Voluntary Aqricultural District Desiqnation: Maple View Farm
The Board considered an application from the Nutter family to certify Maple View Farm
as qualifying farmland within the White Cross and Cane Creek/Buckhorn voluntary agricultural
districts and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he asked to pull this item to recognize the program and
to recognize the Nutter family. This family has been a leader in land conservation, supporting
public education, and economic development.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to certify 382 acres of Maple View Farm as qualifying farmland, designate it as a participating
farm within White Cross and the Cane Creek/Buckhorn voluntary agricultural districts, and
authorize staff to finalize and the Chair to sign the Conservation Agreement.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Public Hearinqs
a. North Carolina Department of Transportation Rural Operatinq Assistance
Proqram (ROAP) Grant Application for FY 2011/2012, and Approval of Budqet
Amendment # 2-A
The Board conducted a public hearing for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) grant; to approve the annual FY
2011/12 ROAP grant application and certified statement; and to approve Budget Amendment
#2-A and authorize the Chair and County Manager to sign.
Orange County Transportation Administrator AI Terry made this presentation. He
requested that the Board approve the application in the total amount of $180,949 and approve
the Budget Amendment#2-A to include the additional $45,561 in ROAP funds in OPT's
budget.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve the application for Rural Operating Assistance Program funds totaling
$180,949 for FY 2011/2012; authorize the Chair and County Manager to sign the Certified
Statement of Participation; and approve Budget Amendment#2-A to include the additional
$45,561 in ROAP funds in OPT's budget.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Reqular Aqenda
a. Huntinq Deer with Doqs: Update and Action Plan
The Board received an update on Hunting Deer with Dogs legislation with
recommendations and action steps to the Board that can be taken during the upcoming
hunting season.
Annette Moore gave background information on this item. Last year, the County
Commissioners asked the Legislature to enact local legislation prohibiting hunting deer with
dogs. It went to Committee of the General Assembly and it stayed in Committee. This is back
at square one with statewide legislation that preempts Orange County from enacting local
legislation. The General Assembly did do something and enacted a Landowner's Protection
Act, which provides that sportsmen need written permission dated within the past 12 months,
signed by the landowner or lessee. Hunters must carry written permission on their person and
if a hunting club has leased the land, hunters must have a copy of their hunt club membership
with them and a copy of the landowner's permission given to the club. This was enacted June
23�d. Animal Services is looking for more things that can be done in addition to this.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto said that there has been concern in the past
about the reporting process, and so staff has updated this process, and he reviewed this
process. He said that the Sheriff's Department had 11 calls in northern Orange about hunting
that involved dogs in 2010 and Animal Services had two specific calls last hunting season
about hunting deer with dogs. He said that the Wildlife Resource Enforcement Officer
indicated that he had received no calls specifically about hunting deer with dogs last year,
although he had numerous calls about other forms of deer hunting.
Bob Marotto reviewed the options for public outreach:
- Distribute informational brochures and post public awareness flyers throughout
northern Orange County
- Run paid advertisements in select newspapers raising awareness of the importance of
"rights, responsibilities, and reporting"
- Develop a billboard advertisement for the billboard at the northeast corner of Highways
70 and 86 in Hillsborough.
Because the number of complaints received about hunting deer with dogs is far less
than the number of complaints received about hunting in general, the focus will
continue to be on hunting as a whole. Nonetheless, staff has identified several action
steps to continue the collaboration of the past hunting season during the 2011-12
hunting season. These are:
- Action Item 1: Coordinated Complaint-Making and Responses: The Communications
(911) Division of Emergency Services will coordinate with the Sheriff's Department to
receive and dispatch resident complaints in order to ensure timely and effective field
services responses.
- Action item 2a: On Saturdays during the deer hunting with dog season, the protocol
for the on-call Animal Control Officer will be redefined to include stray dogs identified as
hunting dogs
- Action Item 2b: Saturday Scheduling of an Animal Control Officer (ACO): As an
alternative to Action Item 2a, the BOCC could direct staff to schedule an Animal Control
Officer on Saturday at a location in the northern part of the County.
- Action Item 3 WRC Involvement: The WRC help publicize as well as enforce written
permission laws as they apply in Orange County.
Commissioner McKee said that even though there were listed that there were eight
stray dogs of the Hamlin family, there were only two complaints regarding hunting deer with
dogs.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Lamar Chapman said that he has more questions than comments. He said that with
everything that is going on in Orange County with 911 communications, etc., he wonders if the
system should be overloaded with more calls about dog hunters. He said that he wants to
know how many of the 11 calls were ticketed. He said that he would like the numbers of the
wildlife officers and people involved so that when they come in the woods and harass him, he
can call 911 and have the same rights as everyone else. He said that he has rights and they
are being infringed upon. He said that there are more important things then spending money
on an issue like this. He asked how the County is going to distinguish between pet dogs and
hunting dogs. He said that he has his dogs in Person County so that he does not have to deal
with Orange County. He said that animal control in other places allows owners to pick up their
dogs from animal control at a reduced fee or none at all. Orange County requires the full fee
of $140 per animal. He said that he leases land that is on two sides of the road and his dog
has been picked up for crossing the road between these two properties. He does not think this
is fair. He said that some of the information in staff reports was not correct. He asked how
many dog hunters were involved in the discussions. He is willing to be a part of this.
David Honeycutt is a resident of Cedar Grove and he asked the County Commissioners
to ban hunting deer with dogs in northern Orange County. He said that he has had to call 911
because of hunters and dogs on his property. He said that it seems to be a public health and
safety issue. He said that he had hunters in his horse pasture and dogs on his property. He
asked the County Commissioners to support the recommendations of the outreach program.
Jennifer Honeycutt said that she is one of the 911 calls. She verified that there have
been hunters in the horse pasture in 2010. When they confronted the hunters, the hunters
said that they were from Smithfield and that they did not know about the dogs. She said that
they nicely asked the hunters to leave, but the hunters insisted on staying to retrieve the dogs.
They then called 911, but the hunters left and no one was ticketed. She asked the County
Commissioners to ban deer hunting with dogs in Orange County. She said that during hunting
season, her grandchildren cannot go out into the yard because of the guns going off and she
has to move her horses to different areas.
Steve Hamlin said that he is opposing the ban on hunting with deer. He spoke about
the hard economic times in the country right now. He said that this proposal is outrageous
because the County is proposing to spend $6,600 on public outreach.
Dave Hughes is opposed to the ban on hunting with dogs.
Earl Brown said that the key phrase tonight is wasteful spending.
Bonnie Hauser read a prepared statement.
"Thank you for continuing to work on a ban of dog deer hunting in Orange County. As
you know, your board voted unanimously twice to ban dog deer hunting in Northern Orange
County. Unfortunately, our legislators have been unable to get laws passed. We appreciate
the progress the county has made —and hope you will continue to work with us to secure an
outright ban in Orange County.
Here's some background.
o The dog hunting line is 70 years old. In the 1940s, the legislature drew the dog deer
hunting line. (handout) Areas west of the line are controlled by the Wildlife Resource
Commission. Areas east of the line are controlled by the legislature. The WRC banned
dog deer hunting in the areas under its control.
o The line ran along I-85 and initially cut Orange, Durham an Alamance in half. In the 1979,
Alamance County secured a countywide ban; Durham did the same in 2001. Chatham and
most of Wake County was always west of the line.
o When the line was drawn in the 1940s, the county population was somewhere between 30-
40,000 residents— now it's four times that.
Your action in 2010 was the first time that we know of where Orange County attempted to
secure a ban. If you recall, staff inet several times with the public and there was much public
comment to the board. People said that
o Hunters illegally shoot from the road
o Dogs trespass and disturb people and livestock
o Guns are fired onto private property and several residents complained about
damage to property and livestock.
You decided that northern Orange County is now too densely populated to safely allow dog
deer hunting and sought a ban as part of your legislative agenda. Despite Senator Kinnaird's
efforts, the county was not successful. We were unprepared for the dog hunting lobby.
• Over 85% of North Carolina's population lives west of the line — so most of our
legislators don't understand dog deer hunting.
• There's a strong and well organized lobby— led by Joe McCleese —that's protecting
dog hunting rights in North Carolina and keeping our legislators in the dark.
o Citizen comment at the legislature will be needed to counter the influence of the
lobbyists. We're ready
Special thanks to Commissioner Foushee who has been instrumental in getting us this far.
And to Sheriff Pendergrass and his team for stepping up their efforts to curtail loitering, firearm
and other laws that the dog hunters are violating. Things are better.
Thanks also to Senator Kinnaird for bringing a local bill to the senate. We're disappointed that
Representative Faison has not taken action in support of the county's wishes.
So tonight—in addition to pursuing the county's educational proposal, please vote to continue
to pursue an outright ban on dog deer hunting in Orange County as part of your legislative
agenda."
Senate Bill 35
"Orange County: No Deer Hunting with Dogs"
Orange County is seeking a countywide ban on hunting deer with dogs. Legislative
action in the 1940's, banned dog deer hunting in the southern half of Orange County.
The legislature extended the ban for all of Alamance County (1979) and all of Durham
County (2001). Orange County now wants to extend the ban to the northern section of its
county which is vulnerable to hunters from other counties and a single small hunting
club in the northern-most tip of the county.
Given increases in population and density, Orange County leaders feel that they can no longer
reliably protect private property and resident safety from dog deer hunters. The ban is widely
supported throughout northern Orange County. A small hunting club in the northern tip of the
county opposes the ban. Orange County fully supports deer, fox, rabbit and other forms of
hunting.
The county's decision to seek the ban is based on a thorough examination of the issue which
included community meetings and public hearings.
• County officials, the sheriff, animal control and NC Wildlife Resource Commission held
community meetings with the dog deer hunters and northern county residents.
• Two public hearings were held where residents and dog deer hunters gave testimony
• The primary issues were damage to private property and public safety from firearms
discharged near private homes. The hunters that oppose the ban did not offer a solution
to these dangers.
In the winter of 2010, the county commissioners voted unanimously to seek a ban for county-
wide ban for dog deer hunting. The board seated in December 2010 reaffirmed this
commitment and unanimously voted to include the dog deer hunting ban in the priorities for the
2011 legislative agenda.
This is a local property rights and personal safety issue and unrelated to important discussions
that are occurring with regard to hunting elsewhere in the state.
Marilee McTigue read a prepared statement.
"Hello, my name is Marilee McTigue. And I live in rural Orange County.
First, I would like to thank you for continuing to address this matter of Dog Deer Hunting in
Orange County. And I encourage you, and all the staff of Orange County, including the sheriff
and animal control, to take a proactive role to ensure the safety and quality of life of our
citizens.
As an active community participant in Orange County, I have talked with folks from the
northern half of the county, I have seen their written statements, and I have watched the
county try to deal with the issue of Deer pog Hunting.
While I feel very lucky to live on the western side of the Dog Deer Line, it makes me very upset
to know that our neighbors and fellow Orange County Citizens that live on the other side of the
line are saddled with these continuing problems of safety and disrespect for their individual
property rights.
I personally respect an individual's right to hunt on their own land, public game lands,
and land where they have written permission from the owner. But I also respect an individual's
right to restrict these activities on their own land. Unfortunately, deer, and the dogs that chase
them, can't read the "no trespassing" signs.
I know that many of our neighbors in Northern Orange County have dealt with threats to
their land, animals, and even their own safety, every hunting season. I know that some of
these people are so affected by these threats that they won't speak out. So I am here to
speak for them. And so, I ask you, as our elected government officials, to continue your work
to solve this problem. Thank-you."
Steve Graf said that he lives in Cedar Grove and he thanked the County
Commissioners for trying to find a solution. He said that he is here to talk about the memo
from the county attorney's office in reference to this issue. He read a prepared statement:
• Thank you for continuing to work on the issue of dog deer hunting in Orange County. I
have read the proposal from county staff and I would like to ask that you consider
implementing all the suggestions.
• I have read the county attorneys memo that states that a local ordinance must have
legislative approval because it pre-empts GS113. I have also read GS 153 that state: "A
county may by ordinance define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions
detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the
county; and may define and abate nuisances."
• I also noticed that part of GS113 that wasn't quoted in the memo reads as follows: Nothing
in this section is intended to invalidate local legislation or local ordinances which exercise
valid powers over subjects other than the conservation of wildlife resources, even though
an incidental effect may consist of an overlapping or conflict of jurisdiction as to some
particular provision not essential to the conservation objectives set out in this Subchapter.
In particular, this section does not repeal local acts which restrict hunting primarily for the
purpose of protecting travelers on the highway, landowners, or other persons who may be
endangered or affected by hunters'weapons or ammunition or whose property may be
damaged.
• So, I ask, is dog hunting in North Orange County essential to the conservations objectives
of the WRC?
• Should a statute meant to protect the safety of a community be subordinate to a statute
meant to regulate sport? Safety/Health/Welfare vs Sport
• The memo assumes that GS 113 takes precedence. And therefore the only question is
Pre-emption. I would like to suggest that the question of Precedence needs to be asked.
• I would like to ask the commissioners to consider asking the district attorney for an opinion
on the following question:
Does GS 153 take precedent over GS113 in matters where the health, safety, or
welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the county are affected by acts that
would otherwise be controlled by GS113? Specifically, the county has found, through
extensive research and public hearing that the safety, welfare, and property rights of its
citizens are being negatively affected by dog deer hunting. Can Dog Deer Hunting be
controlled by local ordinance in order to protect the safety, welfare, peace and dignity of
the residents of Orange County?
• What can it hurt to ask this question? If the Attorney General's opinion is that Orange
County can make a local ordinance without legislative involvement it will save a lot of time
and effort on everyone's part.
• I would like to remind the board that there were 27 people shot during last year's season.
Only 1 person was shot outside dog hunting areas. I have been shot at by dog hunters
and heard the shot whistle past me and my then 10 year old boy. For those of us in the
line of fire, this is no trivial question to ask.
Thank-you."
Norma White is from northern Orange County. She said that if the hunting club is
upset about the money being spent, then they should know that it does not need to be spent if
they would follow the rules.
Joshua Chapman is from Cedar Grove. He said that he has always hunted responsibly
and no one has ever set foot on land without permission. He opposes the ban.
John Roberts said that he sent an email last week that responded to some of these
assertions and the attorney general has given two opinions about regulating hunting with dogs.
Both opinions include that the legislature that preempted local regulation on hunting in the
state.
He said that the County Commissioners may consider again asking the legislature for authority
to regulate this activity. Absent of this authority the Board cannot take any action to regulate
hunting with dogs.
Commissioner McKee said that the two hunting clubs - Caldwell and White Oak- were
specifically mentioned in the abstract. He said that he would not mention this if those two
clubs were not mentioned specifically. He said that this past spring Caldwell Hunting Club
helped the Fayetteville area with supplies after the tornados. He is not familiar with White
Oak, so he cannot speak to this club.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that this Board is on record for asking the legislature for
authority to ban hunting dogs in Orange County with deer, but absent of this authority, the
Board of County Commissioners does not have the authority to regulate. He said that to
spend all of this money on hunting deer with dogs would be counterproductive. He said that
he can support the idea of providing brochures or flyers in the area where the hunting occurs.
He said that a billboard would just exacerbate this issue further.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she appreciated everyone that came out tonight
and she encouraged the hunters to hunt responsibly. She agreed with not using the billboard
option and maybe the information could be put on the website.
Commissioner McKee said that he supported the idea of flyers and putting information
on the website but not for spending money on a billboard. He is sure that there will be
legislative approval eventually.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked all who were in attendance and the respectful
conversations they have had. He thanked the staff for trying to work within the framework that
the legislature dictates. He said that he is in favor of the brochure and the flyers. He said that
there are a couple of grammatical mistakes in the brochure. He said that there is also a fairly
large deletion. On page 4 at the top, it says specifically that, "Orange County residents are not
required to post their property as a condition of requiring written permission to hunt." That is
not in the brochure but came up in discussions previously. He thinks it would be really
informative to property owners because it is a property owner issue. He said that many people
that support hunting rights also support private property rights. He asked that this be changed
in the brochure.
Commissioner Foushee said that Commissioner Jacobs made most of her points and
she said that the Board of County Commissioners went through a thorough process prior to
voting to take this to the legislature. She offered her gratitude for the respect shown by the
speakers. She said that this is not a hunting issue, but an issue about property rights and
safety. She agreed with the County Commissioners about promoting safety as it relates to the
flyers, but she is also going to continue to seek local legislation to ban hunting deer with dogs
in Orange County.
Commissioner Gordon said that she agreed that it is a property rights and public health
and safety issue.
Chair Pelissier said that she supported having a ban on hunting deer with dogs. She
said that the landowner's protection act will hopefully help them regarding safety.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to authorize public outreach Option 1, including website information and the additional
information from Commissioner Jacobs, as well as Action Items 1, 2a, and 3.
Public Outreach Option 1:
- Distribute informational brochures and post public awareness flyers throughout
northern Orange County
- Action Item 1: Coordinated Complaint-Making and Responses: The Communications
(911) Division of Emergency Services will coordinate with the Sheriff's Department to
receive and dispatch resident complaints in order to ensure timely and effective field
services responses.
- Action item 2a: On Saturdays during the deer hunting with dog season, the protocol
for the on-call Animal Control Officer will be redefined to include stray dogs identified as
hunting dogs
- Action Item 3 WRC (Wildlife Resources Commission) Involvement: The WRC helps
publicize as well as enforce written permission laws as they apply in Orange County.
Commissioner McKee asked how the Animal Control Officer would determine a dog
was hunting or just running through a yard. Bob Marotto said that it would depend on the
information that was available from the complaint and who made the call.
Commissioner McKee said that he had concerns, but he would support the motion. He
read the third paragraph of page 4, "because there are no complaints received by hunting deer
with dogs is far less than the number of complaints received by hunting in general, the focus
will continue to be on hunting as a whole." This concerns him.
Commissioner Foushee called the question.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Pelissier said that the action items do not involve any additional County funds.
b. Interlocal Utility Aqreement w/ Durham (Eno EDD Transition Area) — Water
& Sewer
The Board considered approving an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and
the City of Durham for construction and Operation of Water and Sewer Facilities in the Eno
Economic Development Area of Orange County and authorizing the Manager to sign.
Craig Benedict presented this item. This is a utility agreement for water and sewer
services. This is a multi-department effort. He showed the area on several maps. The area of
the interlocal agreement is consistent with the Water and Sewer Management Planning and
Boundary Agreement and is also a subset of the Durham Urban Growth Boundary. The
agreement has been reviewed thoroughly by both attorneys. He said that Commissioner
Gordon had some questions during the agenda review of this, and her questions and staff
answers are incorporated in these minutes by reference. The abstract includes Exhibit A,
which is the specific map.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Exhibit A and asked if staff had any proposal
about how to deal with the areas designated for utility service that are not within the utility
service boundary as they go forward with the Land Use Plan.
Craig Benedict said that this would be the next conversation with the City of Durham.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 8 of the agreement and said that the
County has talked for years about how to use some of the allocation acquired from Jordan
Lake as a negotiating tool with Durham regarding the fees for costs in the EDD. The argument
was made a few weeks ago that the County needed to have the Jordan Lake allocation so that
it can service the Eno Economic Development District and the Buckhorn Economic
Development District. He said that he does not see any reference to the possibility of deferring
some of the capital costs by providing water to Durham that it might not otherwise be able to
acquire.
Frank Clifton said that the City of Durham looks at this as a very small project and it
does not see it as an issue. This would be a moderately-sized development in the City of
Durham for the EDD.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item 4 and asked if Orange County was
incurring capital costs. It was answered yes, Orange County is incurring capital costs. Orange
County is also pursuing an allocation. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this subject has been
broached with the City of Durham for an allocation.
Frank Clifton said that Durham already has an allocation sufficient enough that the
million gallons does not make a difference. This is not a priority for the City of Durham. The
City is willing to move this utility construction forward at the County's expense, but the million
gallons means nothing to the City at this time.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does represent one of the landowners in this area
but does not think it will affect his decision on this item. He is in support of this agreement. He
said that two of the parcels that are not included in the service boundary—the two large
parcels to the west of the boundary included within the Durham Urban Growth Area — both of
those are currently developed as mobile home parks and none of the land is good for serving
with septic systems, which is what exists now. He would like to consider including those areas
as being eligible for public services so as to better provide good sewage capability. He
suggested making the land use plan consistent with the actual land uses that are occurring
here, which would make those properties eligible for extension of services.
Frank Clifton suggested looking at the Urban Growth Boundary and over the next year
or so see if it makes sense to change the boundaries to be consistent with that.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham for
construction and Operation of Water and Sewer Facilities in the Eno Economic Development
Area of Orange County; authorize the Manager to sign the Agreement and all amendments or
renewals in the future; and direct staff to begin working with Durham to develop a project
proposal and present the proposal for Board consideration at the earliest opportunity following
approval by Durham.
Commissioner Jacobs said that several of the County Commissioners initiated this
process and the people who owned the parcels have been incredibly frustrated with the lack of
movement on the part of Orange County government and wanted to work with the County on
this to try and move this forward. This is trying to be responsible to the needs of people that
own property in Orange County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Resolution Authorizinq Application to the Local Government Commission
to Issue up to $17 million in General Obliqation Refundinq Bonds
The Board considered approving a resolution authorizing application to the Local
Commission to Issue up to $17 million in General Obligation Refunding Bonds to refund the
2004A&B General Obligation Bonds.
Financial Services Director Clarence Grier introduced this item. He said that this would
save approximately over$1 million and not the $846,000 as listed in the abstract. There would
also be an annual savings of $70,000. Over the next 15 years, approximately $2.9 million in
debt service will be saved over the next 15 years. One thing that has also happened is that
the 2005 A&B is also eligible for refunding, which would be an additional $30 million. This is
requested to be amended for the 2005 A&B, which would save approximately $300-500,000 in
debt service, which would bring the total savings up to $3.5 million in debt service savings.
Time is of the essence because this must be done by October 15tn
A motion was made Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the attached resolution authorizing staff to proceed with an application requesting the
Local Government Commission's approval to issue up to $20 million of refunding bonds for the
purpose of refunding the 2004 A&B General Obligation Bonds of the County; and authorize
Davenport and Company, LLC to serve as Financial Advisory and the firm of Sanford
Holshouser, LLP, represented by Bob Jessup, to serve as Bond Counsel; with the addition of
the 2005A&B General Obligation Bonds.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9. Reports - NONE
10. County Manaqer's Report - NONE
11. County Attorney's Report -NONE
12. Appointments
a. Advisory Board on Aqinq —Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to appoint Thelma Perkins to a second term ending June 30, 2014 and Leo Allison to a second
term ending June 30, 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area
Advisory Committee.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Amy Jeroloman to a first term expiring January 30, 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Joanna Lelekacs to a first full term ending March 31, 2013.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Oranqe County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointment
The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Parks and
Recreation Council.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
appoint Allan Green to a first full term ending March 31, 2014 and Bryant Warren to a first full
term for Hillsborough Township ending March 31, 2013.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13. Board Comments
Chair Pelissier made reference to the Informational Items and said that the Board has
not been receiving a follow-up action item for some time, but what is being done now in
response to petitions from one of the County Commissioners or the public is that the letter that
is written back from the Board will now be included in the packet to make sure that everyone in
the public can see the response to the petitions.
Commissioner McKee - none
Commissioner Gordon made reference to an email she sent to encourage everyone to
participate in Try-Transit Week. This is the week and on Thursday it is National Car Free Day
and all bus passengers ride free. She highlighted some items that came up in the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Advisory Committee
meeting. She said she sent information about the Triangle Regional Transit Program to the
Commissioners via email. The website is www.ourtransitfuture.com.
Commissioner Yuhasz— none
Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a story in the News and Observer today
about deficient bridges in N.C., and 13 were in Orange County. He would like to see a listing
of these bridges. He said that last spring the Board adopted something about an annual report
that the Board requires of itself and he would like a listing by the end of the year of these
reports. He suggested asking departments for the various deadlines that each has for
reporting back to the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the Community Home Trust had its Gala a couple
of weeks ago and raised $21,000 towards affordable housing projects.
Commissioner Foushee — none
Chair Pelissier— none
14. Information Items
• September 8, 2011 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Letter from Chair on Board Petition —Agriculture Support Enterprise Provisions
• Letter from Chair on Board Petitions — Eno River Capacity Use Agreement and Water
Quality Monitoring at County Line
15. Closed Session-none
16. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board