Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-04-2011 APPROVED 12/5/2011 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services Building in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Steve Yuhasz and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Earl McKee COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey, Interim Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (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. Commissioner Yuhasz called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. He said that Chair Pelissier was not able to attend the meeting. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Commissioner Yuhasz asked that the Board add item 5-m, Adoption of Bond Order Authorizing General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the Maximum Amount of$47,000,000 to refund Public Improvement Bonds Issued in 2004 and 2006 and Approve a Resolution Regarding Publication of Bond Order. - Pink sheet was related to item 7-a, Conditional Use Application, Tinnin Woods - Green sheet was related to item 7-b, North Carolina Tomorrow Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Orange County as Part of the Seven County Triangle J Council of Governments A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to add item 5-m to the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda (THREE MINUTE LIMIT PER SPEAKER— Written comments may be submitted to the Clerk to the Board.) None. Petitions/Resolutions/Proclamations and other similar requests submitted by the public will not be acted upon by the Board of Commissioners at the time presented. All such requests will be referred for Chair/Vice Chair/Manager review and for recommendations to the full Board at a later date regarding a) consideration of the request at a future regular Board meeting; or b) receipt of the request as information only. Submittal of information to the Board or receipt of information by the Board does not constitute approval, endorsement, or consent. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) None. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Scott Huler, 2011 Piedmont Laureate The Board heard a brief selection from creative nonfiction writer Scott Huler, the 2011 Piedmont Laureate, during October (National Arts & Humanities Month). Staff representative for the Arts Commission Martha Shannon introduced Scott Huler, 2011 Piedmont Laureate. She said that October is National Arts and Humanities Month. This is the third year the Piedmont Laureate program was sponsored by the Orange County Arts Commission, the City of Raleigh Arts Commission, Durham Arts Council, United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County, Alamance County Arts Council, and Johnston County Arts Council. Throughout the calendar year, Scott Huler will be presenting public readings and workshops throughout the area to expand the appreciation of literature in the Triangle area. Scott Huler read a brief selection. b. Recognition of Pink Campaign Sponsors The Board recognized local business partners who were major contributors of money, goods or services to promote Breast Cancer Awareness through the Emergency Services Pink Campaign. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that for three years now, Emergency Services has committed to getting the word out about breast cancer awareness. This month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and EMS staff is wearing pink shirts. He thanked all supporters from the business community: - Southern Season - Sports Endeavors - Mincey's Graphics - Total Exposure Designs - PHE, Inc. - Carolina Recording Systems, Inc - Vietri, Inc. - Carolane Propane Gas, Inc. - Southeastern Emergency Equipment - Piedmont Electric Membership Coop 5. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from June 21, August 23, 30 and September 13, 2011 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments — None c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board accepted the report reflecting the 13 motor vehicle property tax release/refunds requested in accordance with the NCGS; and approved the refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference. d. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to five (5) 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 approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to three (3) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year. f. Refund of Overpayment of Tax/Revenue Stamps The Board approved a refund of$136 for overpayment of tax/revenue stamps to Sharon Kapeluk. g_ Applications for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#2-113 Related to School Capital Project Ordinances The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the applications for NC Education Lottery Proceeds; and approved Budget Amendment#2-B receiving the Lottery Funds and the amended School Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on the State's approval of the applications. h. Purchase of Three Ambulances and Approval of Budget Amendment# 2-C This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. L Grant Submittal to the Golden Leaf Foundation on Behalf of Piedmont Grown The Board authorized Economic Development staff to serve as the primary contact for full development of a $148,500 grant proposal to Golden Leaf Foundation for Piedmont grown programming. L Intergovernmental Agreements The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the above listed agreements and any amendments or renewals of those Agreements. k. Emergency Services Station Location Selection Authorization This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. I. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2011 The Board amended its regular meeting calendar for 2011 by changing the time of the Board of County Commissioners Work Session on Thursday, November 10, 2011 from the original scheduled time of 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. —4:30 p.m. The daytime meeting will be held at the Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, in Chapel Hill. m. Adoption of Bond Order Authorizing General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the Maximum Amount of$47,000 to Refund Public Improvement Bonds Issued in 2004 and 2005 and Approve a Resolution Regarding Publication of Bond Order The Board adopted the Bond Order for the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the maximum amount of$47,000,000 to refund Public Improvement Bonds issued in 2004 and 2005; and adopted the Resolution Regarding Publication of Bond Order, which is incorporated by reference. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 6. Items Removed From Consent Agenda h. Purchase of Three Ambulances and Approval of Budget Amendment# 2-C The Board considered purchasing three (3) ambulances from Excellence Incorporated of Madison, Alabama to add to the existing fleet of four (4) Excellence ambulances, which were purchased in 2010. Commissioner McKee said that he is concerned that this much money is being spent on ambulances. He made reference to the decision points in the purchases of the prior ambulances where it mentions medium duty chassis and it also mentions heavy duty chassis on page 6. He said that there is a big difference in structure as well as cost. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca explained the differences between the chassis. He said that these chassis that they will be purchasing have a better braking ability and are much better. The current chassis are breaking down at a terrible rate. Basically, extra heavy duty means medium duty. Commissioner McKee asked if there could be a greater discount for multiple units. Frank Montes de Oca said that he would ask about additional discounts. PUBLIC COMMENT Bonnie Hauser from Orange County Voice thanked the County for acting so quickly in replacing the ambulances. She asked that the Board not approve the purchases until it has had a chance to really examine whether these are the right vehicles for Orange County. She said that many are questioning whether this is a good service fit for the County. These vehicles are large and cumbersome on the narrow roads and driveways that are found throughout Orange County. The real issue is that there are instances where the ambulances cannot reach the patient. Frank Clifton said that these ambulances are being purchased on a piggy back process. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the plan — how many ambulances the County has, how many it is buying, what is the strategy, etc. He is hesitant to do things piece meal. Frank Montes de Oca said that the County started with eight ambulances and two were destroyed. Nine are needed in the fleet. The overall plan is to stabilize the fleet. He said that reboxing is cheaper because a full vehicle does not have to be purchased, so other vehicles will be reboxed. Commissioner Foushee asked about the lack of ability of newer units to access narrow driveways. Frank Montes de Oca said that there are some places that cannot be accessed, which is why the first responders and firefighters are accessed. Sometimes the crews will have to walk. This is the nature of rural areas. Commissioner McKee asked why the older units were not reboxed to a heavier chassis and Frank Montes de Oca said that the older units are not well built. Commissioner McKee said that his concern is the cost. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to authorize Emergency Services and Asset Management Services and Financial Services to proceed with the immediate plan to purchase three ambulances from Excellence, Inc; approve financing up to $574,484 plus the use of$110,573 in insurance proceeds to purchase the three ambulances; and approve Budget Amendment#2-C for $42,884 for the additional financing to cover the cost of the ambulances. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner McKee) k. Emergency Services Station Location Selection Authorization The Board considered authorizing the County Manager to select and negotiate the location of Emergency Services substations. Commissioner Gordon said that the issue of emergency response times is really important. She thinks that it is important for this process to be transparent for the public. She said that the second bullet should say, "the contract with the substation site shall be placed on a regular County Commissioners' meeting agenda for approval," so that it would be a transparent process. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to authorize the County Manager to negotiate the location of ES substations, which negotiations the Manager shall report to the Board prior to concluding the negotiations; and that the contract with the substation site shall be placed on a regular County Commissioners' meeting agenda for approval (amended language). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Public Hearings a. Conditional Use (CU) Application — Tinnin Woods The Board received the Planning Board recommendation to close the public hearing, and consider a decision on the Tinnin Woods Conditional Use application. Planner Michael Harvey made this presentation. This is a continuation of a public hearing adjourned on May 23, 2011. He made reference to information contained on pages 48-50 of the agenda packet. This was an abstract that was inadvertently included in the packet and should be disregarded. This is not being considered as part of the deliberation. He reminded the Board that this is a Joint Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Hearing involving a rezoning and a Class A Special Use Permit. Under the SUP, the Board will be making specific findings of fact on the projects compliance with the provisions and standards of the UDO. • BACKGROUND • Presented at May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing, • 28 lot major single-family residential subdivision, • Conditional Use Application — requesting rezoning (R-1 to R-8 CU) and approval of site plan for project, • Requires issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. • MODIFICATIONS: • The applicant has modified the layout of proposed lots near identified wetland areas, • The applicant has complied with requests from the County for a larger cul-de-sac and turn around areas, • Hydrants have been located in accordance with Fire Marshal's request in coordination with the Efland Volunteer Fire Department, • Additional pedestrian open space access areas have been added • REVISED SITE PLAN: • PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: • Reviewed at their July 7 and September 7, 2011 regular meetings, • Recommended approval of the rezoning petition and issuance of the Class A Special Use Permit, • Recommended imposition of approximately 72 conditions on the project, which the applicant agreed to. • ACTING ON APPLICATION: • Attachment 9 of abstract contains the Planning Board's recommended findings on the Special Use Permit, • The Planning Board has offered their justification for each finding using evidence entered into the record during the public hearing(s), • Their six recommendation areas are broken down as follows: FINDINGS: • Section 2.2 and 2,7 of the UDO — standards concerning submittal requirements (i.e. application components) for a Class A Special Use Permit RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: The Planning Board found there was sufficient evidence entered into the record to make the affirmative finding as detailed within Attachment 9 FINDINGS: • Section 2.9.1 of the UDO — standards concerning submittal requirements for a Conditional Use application (i.e. correct form, narrative, environmental documents, summary of utility services, etc.) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: The Planning Board found there was sufficient evidence entered into the record to make the affirmative finding as detailed within Attachment 9 FINDINGS: • Section 3.8.4 of the UDO — standards concerning location of Conditional Use Districts RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: The Planning Board found there was sufficient evidence entered into the record to make the affirmative finding as detailed within Attachment 9 FINDINGS: • Section 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the UDO— standards concerning review and approval of subdivisions (i.e. submittal requirements, design requirements, SUP requirements, etc.) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: The Planning Board found there was sufficient evidence entered into the record to make the affirmative finding as detailed within Attachment 9 FINDINGS: • Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: — Sewage disposal facilities, — The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and — The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: The Planning Board found there was sufficient evidence entered into the record to make the affirmative finding as detailed within Attachment 9 FINDINGS: • Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO : • (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare; • (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and • (3) The location and character of the use will be in harmony with the area and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: REQUIRED ACTION: • If the BOCC elects to approve, then the following action is required: — Approve the rezoning petition (Attachment 7) adopting the findings detailed therein, — Approve the Special Use Permit findings (Attachment 9) making a motion on each individual Section (i.e. Section 2.9.1 ; 2.2 ; 2.7; etc.) affirming the Planning Board's Recommendation — Approve the application for a Conditional Use request, which includes the approved Special Use Permit (with conditions) and the rezoning petition. REQUIRED ACTION (continued): • If the BOCC elects to deny, then the following action is required: — Adopt the resolution denying the rezoning petition (Attachment 8), — Deny the Special Use Permit (Attachment 9) based on the fact that the rezoning was rejected, and — Deny the Conditional Use permit application as submitted by the applicant REQUIRED ACTION (continued): • The BOCC could table action on the application to allow for further discussion, • NOTE: If the public hearing is closed additional testimony from staff, the general public, and the applicant will not be allowed. If the BOCC requires additional time to deliberate and ask questions, staff would recommend that the public hearing be adjourned to a date/time certain for additional review. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation, 2. Deliberate further on the application, 3. Close the public hearing, 4. Review and approve the Resolution of Rezoning Approval contained within Attachment 7 of the abstract, 5. Review and approve the Special Use Permit contained within Attachment 9 of the abstract, including the imposition of recommended conditions, and 6. Approve the Conditional Use Application Michael Harvey: I would like the Board to enter into the record all of the items of this abstract, all of the attachments, the revised site plan, which was delivered to you last week, as this is the basis for partially making your decision. The applicant is here this evening and will be able to answer any questions you may have. I am obviously here to answer any questions you may have, as is the County Attorney. Once you close the public hearing, Planning staff and the applicant are not to be allowed to address this Board. If this Board takes action to deny this request, then you move to adopt a resolution that we provided in Attachment 8. There are findings included indicating that the applicant has not met their burden and establishment of facts indicating that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. You will deny the special use permit in one single motion, based on the fact that the rezoning has been rejected and therefore they have not met their burden. The final act will be to deny the conditional use permit application as submitted. It should be noted that the Board could table this application and allow for additional discussion. The point I want to bring up to you at this juncture is that, if the public hearing is closed, additional testimony from staff, the general public, and the applicant will not be allowed. So if it is your intention to table this application, I would suggest that you adjourn the public hearing to a date and time certain. That way you can reopen the public hearing and staff and the applicant will be able to answer questions at that time. Commissioner Yuhasz: I think we want to start with questions from the Commissioners. We've all had an opportunity to study this agenda item and look at the site plan. Are there any questions from any members of the Commission? Commissioner Jacobs: I have a general question. My general question is, understanding that sidewalks were an issue in this subdivision, why is staff having us discuss our policy on sidewalks two days from now, after we decide about this development rather than prior to deciding about this development when the Commissioners have already identified sidewalks as an issue for this development. Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. We are in the process of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan that we identified a glitch between urban development and County areas. In County areas, the Department of Transportation is responsible for roads and if there were sidewalks, they would be responsible for sidewalks. DOT policy is that they do not, on a regular basis, do sidewalks, so we're left in a lurch. How do we ask for sidewalks in an urban area under County jurisdiction? That is something that is going to be discussed this Thursday night in a work session. Yes, it is two days' difference. We had hoped to try to bring that information forward. There are some options, but they're not all clear. For example, it does say that if you put sidewalks on private property it would have to be maintained by a homeowner's association. In the Homestead Road area, under County jurisdiction, not yet annexed by Chapel Hill and Carrboro, we were able to do a four-party agreement— County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and DOT— and kind of transfer that responsibility back to the municipal governments for maintenance of those roadway areas. Those options are not available to us at this time. From a professional standpoint, I think sidewalks in an urban setting, such as this Efland intensity area, are something that we should encourage. I do not have the answers to bring it to the service right. But it will be discussed more at length on Thursday. Commissioner Jacobs: Thank you for all of that information, but you still didn't answer my question, which is why that discussion is coming after this discussion, when we knew this discussion was going to include the issue, which the Planning Board also identified on whether or not this subdivision should have sidewalks. It isn't logical. It's not a logical progression. We're asked to make a decision, which the Planning Board wrestled with, and then have a conversation about how we might have addressed an issue just like this in just this area. I'm just struggling with how we planned it that way. Craig Benedict: I would have enjoyed having the sidewalks discussion at the September work session. It did not come to fruition at an earlier work session during the review of this. The earliest available work session was October 6th. That's how it got out of the sequence. Commissioner Yuhasz: My understanding is that the Planning Board recommended the sidewalks if this particular developer was not going to be obligated to put them in and to maintain them. Is there anything that would preclude a third party, whatever the unidentified third party was, that would put in and maintain the sidewalks. Is there anything that would preclude that from happening within the DOT right-of-way if this project was approved? Craig Benedict: The only clause I'm familiar with is DOT would permit an encroachment agreement that they want some sort of governmental entity to be responsible. So maybe there is a third party we don't know about. Ultimately, if that third party is not a governmental entity, we're going to have to be the cosigner for that. Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to clarify, there's nothing that would prevent us from doing that in two months or two years from now in this area if that was the decision that this Board came to. Is that correct? Craig Benedict: That's correct. Commissioner Yuhasz: We had an item before us. Were there any other questions of the staff? Seeing none, I think we need to give the public an opportunity to speak. Are there any members of the public, I see that no one has signed up. That being the case, I think that we would move to close the public hearing, if there was a motion to do so. Public Comment None. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hemminger: I just want to say that I appreciate all of the changes and updates. It's a much better plan. Michael Harvey: Before you close, may I beg your indulgence? As you are making decisions on this, please remember as you're going through the various sections of Attachment 9, if there are specific items you have questions, if you close the public hearing, I can't respond to any condition if you have a question on it or a finding if you have a question on it. I also ask, within your deliberations, that you recognize that the applicant, while they agree with the conditions, has requested some word-smithing changes. For the record, staff has no concern or problem with the word-smithing changes and asks that if you do take affirmative action on the petition, you do so consistent with the applicant's request to modify the conditions and staff will correct those as suggested. Commissioner Yuhasz: It's not clear to me how we move forward with making a decision on this item while the public hearing is still on. Maybe the Attorney can answer that question. John Roberts: If there are specific items that you have questions about, I think it's best that you ask Michael about it before you close the public hearing. After you close the public hearing, if there are additional questions as you go through the motions, I'm still permitted to give you advice. Michael Harvey: I wanted to see if anybody had any questions about the findings. I could answer them now. Commissioner Yuhasz: I think that was the purpose of the question, and I saw that there were no questions about the findings. Let's be clear on the changes that have been requested by Habitat. Where would those be incorporated? Michael Harvey: Under the conditions contained in Attachment 9, there are approximately 74 conditions. They have provided specific numbers of conditions where they'd like to see word changes. What you would essentially be doing, again, if your motion is to approve, would be to approve the conditions as recommended by the Planning Board, with the word changes as suggested by the applicant. Now what I would also further say and in consultation with the Planning Director, you have a recommendation before you from the Planning Board concerning sidewalks. There are obviously going to be decisions concerning the sidewalks and further discussion. That is the Planning Board's recommendation. County staff cannot take a position on the final disposition of said condition as stated on this letter, which is going to be entered into the record by this Board as to the validity of this statement or the correctness of this statement. All we can ask you to do is accept that you've been provided by the Planning Board in terms of the recommendation. Commissioner Gordon: I want to hear what the Attorney says too. At some point we have to enter into the record all of the materials in this abstract. What would be the implications if we don't close the public hearing and go through and try to make these findings and then close the public hearing at the end. Usually we don't do that. I guess I would ask the Attorney if we were concerned that maybe folks might have a question that would come up but we could not get an answer as the hearing was closed. John Roberts: You do violate the process if you don't close the public hearing. Normally, and this is not just Orange County, Board of Commissioners that are having this type of hearing close the public hearing before they conduct their deliberations because deliberations are not the point where you want public input. It's the Board exclusively that conducts the deliberations. That's the reason for that. Commissioner Gordon: So I guess the question that could come up is when you get into these changes. I think you've made it clear about the word changes suggested by the applicant, and that is on this sheet. But exactly how you handle the sidewalks or exactly how you handle word-smithing, I'm still not clear. So I guess I still have those questions. Michael Harvey: From my standpoint, there are two issues —the word-smithing is easy from my standpoint. Staff has no objection to the corrections or to the grammar suggested by the applicant. You could recommend to approve the 74 conditions with the changes requested by the applicant as articulated with the October 4, 2011 letter as agreed to by staff. That satisfies that issue. With respect to the sidewalks, you have a recommended condition by the Planning Board that essentially states that they encourage the development of sidewalks within the right-of-way so long as the applicant is not required to install them or absorb the expense for them and that the homeowner's association that will be formed will not be required to accept perpetual maintenance or upkeep costs. That is for the Board to determine how to proceed. I will also add, however, that all conditions with this type of permit are required to be mutually agreed to, and if you modify one of the conditions, the applicant has to agree with it. Commissioner Gordon: Can I just follow up. Please clarify the process if the applicant can't agree to it and we've already closed the hearing. Commissioner Yuhasz: Let me ask a question. Are there any issues involved in this application and the findings of the Planning Board other than the sidewalks that are concern to any of the Commissioners? There were none. John Roberts: That's a good way to handle that. My comment is just going to be on the sidewalks. I think you may want to have some discussion on that issue. Right now what the applicant has agreed to is either no sidewalks or sidewalks constructed and perpetually maintained by a third party. Staff can't take a position on that, but I think we could ask staff the question if any third party has stepped up and volunteered to perpetually maintain the sidewalk. That would mean it's the County. If the County is not intending to perpetually maintain these sidewalks and construct them, then the applicant has agreed to accept no sidewalk as a condition. So if you wanted to strike condition #15 on page 124, you'd be fine. Commissioner Yuhasz: I think that that question is the question that we are going to discuss on Thursday. As the Planning Director said, whatever decision we make on that can be accepted at a later date. Frank Clifton: I might offer this issue, not knowing how the Board will discuss or pursue this issue when you go into the work session. We don't maintain sidewalks anywhere else in the County except on County properties. This condition that you've got as part of this subdivision, during your considerations, you can act on this with a reservation that if the Board in the future moves to develop a sidewalk plan of some kind, that you would pursue that as something you could do. I think the issue you're going to have is, throughout the County, this is going to be very difficult. It's a whole new program for County government. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are associated with it over a long-term issue. In this case, they have no plans to put sidewalks in, so basically they are saying that if some third party wants to put them in there and maintain them, they're ok with that. While you might be able to require some private developer to do that and maybe have a homeowner's association as part of the maintenance, it appears that there is somebody else that doesn't seem to exist yet that the Planning Board makes reference to as a possible entity to maintain sidewalks. I think that as you address this contingent on some policy the Board may adopt in the future with regards to these issues. I want to caution you on the basis that I'm sure that a lot of people would like to have sidewalks all over the County if the County got into the sidewalk business. I'm not aware of any areas in the County that have sidewalks unless the developer has put them in. I know the County doesn't have any maintenance program and I know the DOT is moving away from maintaining sidewalks except in heavily urbanized areas. As you know, the DOT and the State has offered new opportunities to help fund maintenance of roads and other associated infrastructure along the right-of-ways. They haven't required them yet, but I think that's something that they are moving towards. It's a very complicated issue, obviously. I don't think we have an answer for the question, but it's a question that this Board has to answer and decide if the County wants to dedicate a program of maintaining sidewalks. You're not going to find a third party except where a homeowner's association or some type of fund exists where the developer puts it in to make sure they are taken care of. Commissioner Yuhasz: Is anyone on this Board inclined to require the developer to put sidewalks in and maintain them? Commissioner Jacobs: No, but I am inclined to leave this language which the developer has agreed to, because in the absence of a conversation about what the Board of County Commissioners might want to do about sidewalks, we would want to leave ourselves the opportunity if we find a sidewalk or some other third party that wants to bestow money to do either the installation or maintenance, we would like to treat this developer like any other developer in that sense. I just want to be clear that there would be an opportunity to put in sidewalks if someone came up with the money. Is that correct? We don't have to reserve anything? It's already essentially stipulated that DOT doesn't object to having it in its right-of- way? Michael Harvey: DOT will require essentially a third-party encroachment agreement, which they have indicated they will allow. This condition does not stop the ability of sidewalks being installed. Craig Benedict: If I could add, one option in the search for sidewalk fairies, is that you could do a special assessment district that meets state laws. This district develops a plan and we develop construction costs plus maintenance costs. I want to make sure whatever we approve here doesn't preclude those options that will be discussed by Perdita Holtz this Thursday night. So, I think that what it says in here that they will not be responsible for construction or maintenance costs. In the future we cannot let them out of that because we don't know if it covers this property and other properties. Whatever motion that we have we need to make sure that we leave that opportunity for us to examine those options. Commissioner Yuhasz: Thank you for that clarifying statement. Commissioner McKee: I'm not so sure I'm as confident now as I was the other night. This thing reads, "installation,construction, and perpetual maintenance shall be assumed by a third party," and it specifies either the County or DOT. It doesn't name any other potential third party or even allude to the fact that there could be another sidewalk fairy. Is there anything in this wording that can in any way put Orange County in the sidewalk business. Because that it my concern. I don't want Orange County to become the sidewalk provider for the County—to private developers, to non-profit developers, or to anyone. John Roberts: In that particular wording, if you strike that wording, no, absolutely not. If you change the wording to, "any third party," that would be fine. The wording in itself does not bind Orange County in any way to constructing sidewalks. It says, "if a sidewalk is constructed and maintained by third parties....." If is not going to be a guarantee that something's going to happen. Commissioner McKee: That's not how I'm reading it; I'm reading it as installation, construction, and special maintenance shall be assumed by a third party. I'm on page 124, 15. I'm not trying to nitpick this thing, I just don't want to come up either a year from now or another board come up 15 years from now and finding out that we have missed something and we are suddenly in the sidewalk providing business. John Roberts: If you look at the last sentence, "if agreements cannot be reached on installation, construction, and perpetual maintenance costs, no sidewalks will be provided." That right there clears the County. The County would have to have an encroachment agreement with DOT before it could do any sort of sidewalk construction. I'm comfortable that it does not bind Orange County to any future constructing sidewalks out there. But, to make you comfortable, if you just delete, "Orange County or DOT" after "third party", you should be fine. Commissioner Gordon: Just in terms of clarity, I think it would be better to strike "either the County or NCDOT." A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to strike "Orange County or NCDOT" from the submitted language under this condition, consistent with the County Attorney's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Michael Harvey: Since you have modified the application, I would request that you ask the applicant to come forward and articulate for the record her approval of the revised condition, so that it's on the record. She has been sworn from the public hearing. Susan Levy: Susan Levy, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity. Yes we would agree with that change in condition. Commissioner Jacobs: Just a point, what I think is clarification. We want to have a condition that here that precludes Orange County from assuming responsibility for sidewalks certainly up front. We are saying that we don't want to require this particularly developer to have to provide sidewalks for this particular development. But we don't want to say that we want to preclude all developers from having to provide sidewalks in all developments if Orange County is not going to provide the sidewalk. I actually think the language that Habitat suggested is clearer in that regard because it is very clearly specific just to this development. If it's clear that's what we're doing and that we're not saying to other developers that this is a blanket statement. I just want to be clear that's what we're doing. Michael Harvey: All major subdivisions, all conditional use special use permit applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. They are not based on what you've done in other subdivisions. So, for example, if you had not required Ashwick but you're going to require Tinnin Woods, the fact that you didn't require for Ashwick is not material to the discussion because each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Jacobs: So, it's not sidewalks, it's this particular development's sidewalks. Commissioner Yuhasz: I think then, if there are no more questions about conditions from any of the Commissioners. I think we need a motion to include all of this information in the record. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to include all of the attachments, except pages 48-50, into the record. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon: In this discussion, when we get to this item 15, we could either put this condition in or not, we just can't change it. Commissioner Yuhasz: That's correct. Vote on closing public hearing (motion made above) VOTE: UNANIMOUS Consideration of rezoning: A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Resolution of Rezoning Approval contained within Attachments 7 and 8 of the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Special use permit findings, by section: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve and adopt the Planning Board's recommendations on section 2.9.1 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve and adopt the Planning Board's recommendations on section 2.2 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 2.7 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 3.8.4 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 5.15.6 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 7.14.6 of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 5.3.2(8) related to the method and adequacy of the provision of sewage disposal facilities; the adequacy of policy, fire, and rescue squad protection; and the adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. John Roberts: One more bit of specificity on these general standards that are in 5.3.2(A)(2), which are on page 114 and 115. If you could, state those three in their entirety for the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve and adopt the Planning Board's findings for section 5.3.2(A)(2) of the UDO, including: the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare; the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and the location and character of the use will be in harmony with the area and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS John Roberts: The findings should be done now. The last thing to do is approve the special use permit subject to the conditions that the Planning Board recommended that you want to include. Commissioner Yuhasz: We have a list of conditions, we've modified condition 15 on page 124 and we have been instructed that if we change any of the conditions that we need to have the applicant's approval and that we can no longer speak to the applicant, which puts us in a position of approving the conditions as written and amended or not. Would we be able to eliminate? John Roberts: You can eliminate 15 because the applicant has already consented to that. My perspective is that if you eliminate other conditions, some of which may benefit the applicant, but you would need to get the applicant to give written agreement to that. Commissioner Yuhasz: We have already had the opportunity to discuss the conditions and there were no objections raised other than 15, so I don't think at this point we are likely to have problems with any of the conditions. John Roberts: If you could, when you approve this, refer to the page numbers 115-124 of the agenda packet as outlined in those conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the recommended conditions from the Planning Board as located on pages 115- 124 of the abstract with the change that has already been requested and accepted by the applicant; and approve the special use permit subject to those conditions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for the changes that were made to this development. He said that it was very clear that the Efland Fire Department was consulted and made recommendations regarding the sufficiency of fire protection. He encouraged Habitat to look next time at clustering a development if there is a wooded lot as opposed to a conventional layout. b. North Carolina Tomorrow Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Orange County as Part of the Seven County Triangle J Council of Governments The Board conducted a public hearing to receive public input regarding submittal of a Grant Application through the NC Department of Commerce. Interim Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert introduced this item. This will be an economic development strategy for the Triangle J region and each region in the State will be doing the same thing. The amount of the grant will be $50,000 and the award has to be to a local government. The grant application is due on November 10th and there will be considerable assistance from Triangle J in filling out the application. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to close the public hearing and direct the staff to move forward with the application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Regular Agenda a. Rogers Road Area Mitigation Options And Landfill Closure Impacts The Board received from County staff a comprehensive response to requests for the County to design and implement a mitigation plan to address impacts perceived to have been created by the proximity of the Orange County Landfill in relation to the historic Rogers Road Area. Frank Clifton presented this item. He showed some pictures of the Rogers Road area. • Board of County Commissioners • October 4, 2011 • Landfill Volume 50,000 Tons/Yr Tipping Fee Annual Increase 10% Tipping Fee Increased Revenue 2011/12 $57 $ 250,000 2012/13 $62 $ 500,000 2013/14 $68 $ 800,000 2014/15 $74 $ 1,100,000 2015/16 $81 $ 1,450,000 1/31/17 $89 $ 1,080,000 Total $ 5,180,000 Potential Funding Available for Rogers Road Community Revenues from Increases in Tipping Fees 7/1/11 — 1/31/17 $ 5,180,000 Fund Balance Applied $ 750,000 Available Resources $ 5,930,000 • Area Tipping Fees • Alamance County $38/Ton • Caswell County $45/Ton • Durham County $42.50/Ton • Person County (Private) $30/Ton • Chatham County (Private Transfer Station) $72.12/Ton • Questions These numbers are based on 50,000 tons a year, and last year the tonnage declined by 5,000 tons. Frank Clifton said that raising landfill revenues by 10% each year will NOT cover the post-closure costs plus the Rogers Road improvements. The cost to add water service to this area would be $4 million and the cost to add sewer would be $8 million. He said that he had a discussion with the Assistant City Manager in Durham and Durham is willing to have a longer term agreement with the County to accept the County's solid waste flows at whatever volume is needed. He read the recommendations, as follows: 1. Direct staff to initiate the Water Service improvements as outlined. Further refinement of those estimates, engineering and construction would be scheduled accordingly and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds be the source of funding for these projects. The Board of Commissioners would approve each project and OWASA would be the contract administrator. 2. Authorize the Dump Sites clean-up program as proposed. Solid Waste Enterprise Funds would be the source of funding for this effort. Solid Waste Staff will oversee the work and monitor the contractors authorized to perform to activities. 3. Recognize and authorize appropriate annual increases in the MSW tipping fee. Increases will occur in accordance with financial projections that support the proposals outlined above and closure and post closure financial obligations. The current agreement allows a 10% annual increase. The current rate is $57 per ton MSW. 4. Select an appropriate closing date for the landfill as a functioning operation. The estimated closure dates as proposed in the attachments and discussed earlier in this abstract are approximate in nature. As the landfill ages solid waste compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a variable. The Board has the option to extend the life of the landfill and add closure and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit extension, and the landfill is scheduled to close in the spring of 2013. If the Board chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it will need to direct staff to file the appropriate permit applications. 5. Encourage the Towns through conversations with elected leadership to become more involved in the future of the Rogers/Eubanks Road neighborhood. The improvements not eligible for funding via the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (Sewer, community development activities, etc.) can be addressed via other revenues sources. The longer the landfill stays open the greater savings the Towns experience in waste transportation costs to a MSW landfill or transfer station elsewhere. The Towns and County could jointly address these issues collectively to lessen the financial burden upon any one government. 6. Convene a meeting with the Towns to discuss the future of MSW in Orange County. There has been a limited municipal response to taking future MSW to the City of Durham's MSW transfer station. Alternative MSW disposal options being pursued by the Towns thus far have not produced viable results. A new interlocal agreement is necessary to address both future MSW disposal and closure and post-closure costs and liability. Frank Clifton said that no formal direction is being asked of this Board, although something in the form of direction needs to be established soon. He said that there is a 60- acre tract of property that was acquired by the Landfill Fund. This is an asset for solid waste and could be sold to help with the financial issues. He reminded the Board that the area west of Rogers Road is within the corporate limits of the Town of Carrboro. The areas east of Rogers Road are part of the planning jurisdiction for the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that there is a need for political leadership to come together. PUBLIC COMMENT Robert Campbell from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association said that the Rogers Road community has been dealing with solid waste issues since the landfill siting in 1972. In addition to toxic waste, there has been truck traffic, odors, and other impacts in this area. He said that this community wants the quality of life to be restored. He said that they appreciate the county offering to run a water line through the community, but this was not part of the original request. Most of the families cannot afford the connection fee for water. He asked the County Commissioners to do the right thing and close this landfill. Barbara Hopkins (was not present) and Kathy Kaufman with Justice United spoke in her place. In addition to water and sewer the mitigation request asks to clean up the illegal dump sites, provide startup costs for the community center, and buffers between the landfill and the community. The buffers need to be sufficient to hide the mound of trash on the other side. She said that an Executive Director needed to be hired. Stan Cheren is a long-time member of RENA, who is proudly joining forces with Justice United and Orange County Voice. He said that there is a moral obligation to close this landfill now. He said that this toxic landfill has operated for 40 years at the direct expense of a single community. He said that the mitigation is a small gesture on an enormous debt and it is payback time. It will still take years and years before the health and vitality of the community is restored. Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that they are proud to join forces with RENA and Justice United. She said that they appreciate that the County is getting its arms around the economics of the landfill. She said that the County has a substantial legal and financial obligation association with this landfill whenever it closes. She asked that the County please consider some alternatives to increasing tipping fees. She asked the County to disconnect the discussion on tipping fees and extending the life of the landfill and begin to find other ways to fund it. Stephanie Perry spoke for Justice United's coalition of 26 member organizations representing thousands of citizens in Orange County. She said that there are so many questions that must be answered before this can be moved forward. She said that they ask that they finally call an end to the burdens placed on this community. She asked the County Commissioners to call an end to the burdens placed on the Rogers Road community. Steven McCraw lives in the Fox Meadow neighborhood. He said that he moved to Orange County a year ago from Wake County. He asked the County to please extend water out to the community because his drinking water contains arsenic. Will Raymond said that a lot of the costs from OWASA are tabletop engineering estimates. He said that this does not cover the costs of connecting people to the system. He said that it would be good to build the service, but it would be horrible not to be able to connect to it because of costs. Commissioner McKee said that he has heard that about half of the historic homes (pre- 1972) are already on the water system. He asked how many more of the homes could be added to this existing structure. Frank Clifton made reference to Attachment 4 and said that the charts give a physical street address and connection costs. This attachment only includes costs for water and not sewer. Michael Talbert pointed out the homes on a map that are hooked onto the water system. Commissioner Hemminger said that part of her concern is that if this is done out of County funding by itself in Chapel Hill's and Carrboro's jurisdictions, she feels strongly that this is a landfill issue coordinated for hooking up water. It is something that everybody has paid into. She does not want to set a precedent of coming into jurisdictions and doing this. Frank Clifton said that the County already spent $600,000 out of the Landfill Fund. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 66 and asked who prepared these options, with advantages and disadvantages. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilsons said that it was prepared by the consultant. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is inappropriate to count public involvement as a disadvantage to any kind of process. This is repeated in this document. He wants to be clear that public involvement is an advantage and not a disadvantage. He wants people to be able to feel that the participation is valued. Commissioner Foushee pointed out that this comment has been made before when this document first came out. The Board asked that these comments not be included in any other of the documents related to processes. Frank Clifton said that the statements are appropriate, but he thinks that the consultant meant that there is a public hearing process that is required for one step versus another one. Commissioner Jacobs asked when the Ieachate liner was breached, which he heard from the public comments. Gayle Wilson said that he is not aware of that happening. Commissioner Jacobs said that when water was provided to the Rogers Road neighborhood, there were extended conversations about whether or not there was a causal relationship between Ieachate from the landfill and water quality in the neighborhood. Staff said at that time that the monitoring well showed that there was no contamination. Gayle Wilson said that this is correct. Commissioner Jacobs asked if that was still the case. Gayle Wilson said that this is still the case based on the routine and ongoing monitoring program. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a significant difference between how the County regards Rogers Road water and sewer and how it regards Fox Meadow and other subdivisions and what the obligation is as a unit of government, as the landfill may or may not relate to the need for water and sewer. He said that a lot of these issues require the County to have a meeting with the other governments. He suggested having a government assembly instead of an Assembly of Governments so that people know it is something new. He suggested that it be reiterated that the Greene Tract would be maintained as open space. Orange County has committed to this. Also, what will be spent from the General Fund versus the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund should be discussed with the towns. He also wants to talk about joint approaches to waste disposal. He also thinks that there should be a discussion about levels of contamination because people are convinced that the landfill has contaminated the water. This needs to be addressed for all of the governmental officials to hear. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. She said that she would like to separate the remediation process from the landfill closing and everything else for just a moment. She said that she has been on this Board for about seven years and the Board committed itself to direct staff to come up with a plan for remediation. She said that the one thing that the County Commissioners have always known is that this process will be expensive. The residents of Rogers Road have been told for 40 years that it will cost a lot of money to do this. The County has to be careful how this is done. She said that knowing that it is going to be expensive does not preclude the County from moving forward. She thinks that the commitment made publicly back in April is a commitment that should be honored. She wants to provide water to the historic Rogers Road neighborhood initially and pay for those connections for the remaining families in that area as the County said that it would do. She also does not want to continue talking about keeping the landfill open beyond 2013. Commissioner Foushee said that the towns need to come to the table soon to talk about the next steps. The longer this is put off, the more expensive it becomes. She wants to talk closure as soon as possible. Her preference is to close the landfill by 2013. Commissioner McKee agreed and said that he is not willing to wait to hook up the remaining homes to the water system. Commissioner Hemminger agreed and said that she is not willing to wait on this either. She wants to hook up the remaining homes and clean up the illegal dump sites. Then there can be discussion of the remaining things on the list. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with all of those actions. He added that, before meeting with the towns, there is no reason that the County cannot make it known that the intention is to close the landfill in 2013. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the remaining homes could be hooked up now as well as the cleaning of the illegal dump sites. Commissioner Yuhasz asked when the landfill would reach capacity if no changes were made and Gayle Wilson said April or May 2013. Jeff Kinges asked to speak. He spoke about the contamination of the water. Frank Clifton said that there is agreement with the towns, so there is not an issue there at all. There is an issue of going from the property line to the house. John Roberts said that there are a couple of issues regarding going from the property lines to the houses. The first being, North Carolina local governments cannot spend public taxpayer dollars for private benefit. Once you cross a property line and go to a house for an actual connection and pay for that, that is a private benefit and the individual Board members could be personally liable for those expenditures. Commissioner Foushee said that she knows this, and this is why she said that the County needed to identify another source for this, just as another source was identified for the CDBG funds for the nine homes that already received this. Commissioner McKee said that he is not sure that each homeowner will want to tap on and it should be left up to them. Commissioner Yuhasz asked to go through each recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to: 1. Direct staff to initiate the Water Service improvements as outlined. Further refinement of those estimates, engineering and construction would be scheduled accordingly and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds be the source of funding for these projects. The Board of Commissioners would approve each project and OWASA would be the contract administrator. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said that there was also an issue that a lot of the houses may not be able to easily use higher water pressure without having a plumber come in and upgrade the house. There was discussion about talking to a plumber about giving a group rate. The Board was told that this could not be done. He added that the same issue will come up on Buckhorn Road because water and sewer is being brought to the property lines of a low- income, elderly, minority community that was passed over by Mebane ten years ago. These people have also been waiting and also cannot afford to connect to the system. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to: 2. Authorize the Dump Sites clean-up program as proposed. Solid Waste Enterprise Funds would be the source of funding for this effort. Solid Waste Staff will oversee the work and monitor the contractors authorized to perform the activities. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to table the following item: 3. Recognize and authorize appropriate annual increases in the MSW tipping fee. Increases will occur in accordance with financial projections that support the proposals outlined above and closure and post closure financial obligations. The current agreement allows a 10% annual increase. The current rate is $57 per ton MSW. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested having staff to do some analysis of the various increases. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner McKee said that he is reluctant to put more work on the staff to bring something back since the Board has not made a decision about when to close the landfill, which directly relates to whether tipping fees are increased. The next recommendation is as follows: 4. Select an appropriate closing date for the landfill as a functioning operation. The estimated closure dates as proposed in the attachments and discussed earlier in this abstract are approximate in nature. As the landfill ages solid waste compresses with time. An exact date the landfill will reach permitted capacity is a variable. The Board has the option to extend the life of the landfill and add closure and post closure actions. County staff has not yet sought a permit extension, and the landfill is scheduled to close in the spring of 2013. If the Board chooses to extend the life of the landfill, it will need to direct staff to file the appropriate permit applications. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to direct staff not to seek a permit extension and inform the municipalities that, in so doing, the landfill will close in the spring 2013. Commissioner McKee said that he continues to be reluctant to set a 2013 closing date because without a transfer station, the options are limited. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has similar sentiments, but the Board could always direct staff to extend the permit, but he is trying to give staff direction. Commissioner Hemminger asked if Commissioner Jacobs wanted to change the motion to say that the "intention" is to close the landfill in 2013. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would agree if the seconder is ok with it. Commissioner Gordon said that she has some of the same sentiments as Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Hemminger. She thinks that it makes sense to close the landfill as soon as possible, but she wants to make sure that it is done responsibly. The other point is doing it in a collaborative manner. Commissioner Jacobs repeated the motion: to direct staff not to seek a permit extension and the intention is that the landfill will close in the spring of 2013. Commissioner Foushee agreed. Commissioner Gordon wants to make sure that there is discussion with the towns. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee) A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to invite the municipalities to attend a government assembly no later than February 4, 2012 to discuss issues related to the Rogers Road solid waste and other related topics. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Gayle Wilson said that the Board of County Commissioners has full authority to close the landfill whenever it likes. Commissioner Hemminger asked that the Board get a quick update on the methane gas project. Gayle Wilson said that it should start up around the first of December. Commissioner Hemminger encouraged RENA to apply for the County grant proposals for non-profits and also to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public School Foundation. 9. Reports None. 10. County Manager's Report Frank Clifton said that Willie Best has retired and the County will hold a reception on Tuesday, October 11th at 3:00 p.m. at the West Campus Office Building. 11. County Attorney's Report None. 12. Appointments None. 13. Board Comments Commissioner Foushee — none Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Jacobs — none Commissioner Hemminger— none Commissioner Yuhasz— none Commissioner Gordon said that Triangle Transit has experienced an 18% increase in ridership over fiscal year 2010. 14. Information Items • September 20, 2011 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Letter from Chair Regarding September 20, 2011 Public Petitions 15. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to go into closed session at 10:33 PM for the purposes of: "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). "To consider and approve the unsealing of closed session minutes." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner McKee and seconded by Commissioner Foushee to reconvene into regular session at 11:01 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner McKee and seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Steve Yuhasz, Vice Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board.