Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-24-2012 APPROVED 3/13/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING January 24, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. 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 Managers Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker(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. 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda The Chair went over the items at the County Commissioners' places: - Yellow sheet - a petition from the public - Blue sheet—staff response to Commissioner Gordon's questions for items on the consentagenda - White sheet—additional information for item 8-c, Next Steps: Northern Human Services Center - Pink sheet— revised listing of the Emergency Services Work Group, item 12-b PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 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 ChairNice 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. Neil Alderman was with Pay W Commercial in Chapel Hill and he is working with solar companies that are looking to put solar equipment on buildings and farms. There are no zoning regulations in the County on this issue. He wants to petition the Board of County Commissioners to consider this and to help them in the process. There are several sites that he is working on now. Steven Petersen spoke on a petition to form a resolution supporting amending the U. S. Constitution. He has lived in Chapel Hill for 16 years and he runs a business. He said that it is sad to see so many people's financial situation going downhill. It is outraging to him to see how special interests drive the politics at all levels of government with little thought as to what is best for everyday people. He said that the decision Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court held that money was the essentially the ' same as free speech and that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people. This decision paved the way for targe corporations and wealthy individuals to buy influence through outspending the opposition. He said that the people with the most money should not drive the elections. Since this decision, the only way for the democracy to affect the will of its citizens is through a Constitutional amendment. There � are versions of the amendment floating from both houses of congress. Many local governments have supported this amendment. He asked that Orange County add its voice. Pete Brown has been a resident of Orange County for nearly 30 years. He also supports this petition and reiterated some of the same ideas as Steven Petersen. He said that the hope is that the resolution will be adopted. Carol Hay read a prepared statement. She said that she has lived in Orange County since 1991 and she has been a part of two family businesses that closed as a result of the increase in power of corporations to eliminate the competition, including her grandfather's gasoline shop in South Carolina and The Intimate Bookshop in Chapel Hill. "Corporations Are Not People The word corporation does not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Since 1886, when personhood under the 14�h Amendment was granted to corporations by the Supreme Court, this "right" has been extended to include (and this list is not exhaustive): 1St Amendment protection of free speech - Which was extended to supersede workers' rights to freedom of association - Then to include advertising - Then to include political contributions when money was declared equivalent to speech 4th Amendment search and seizure protection 5th Amendment protections - Of due process - Against taking private property for public use - Against double jeopardy 7tn Amendment right to jury trial in a civil case In contracts, since September 11, 2001, the rights of actual people have been reduced, restricted, annulled, and ignored: The President can: - Order the killing of any citizen suspected of terrorism or of supporting terrorists, in violation of the 4tn 5cn 6m and 8th Amendments - Order the indefinite detention of any citizen accused of terrorism, in violation of the 6th Amendment - Decide whether a citizen will be tried in federal court or military tribunal, in violation of the 5th Amendment - Order surveillance of citizens without probable cause, in violation of the 4tn Amendment The federal government "can claim secret legal arguments to support secret [court] proceedings using secret evidence," "in violation of the 4�n 5tn and 6th Amendments. The federal government and its CIA employees can torture suspected terrorists, in I violation of treaties to which the U. S. is a party, and of the Nuremburg Principles of war crimes and human rights. � The federal government can transfer anyone, even U. S. citizens, to other countries for purposes of torture. All of these abuses can be applied to innocent people, even people in this very room. None of us has any legal protection against them. In light of the fact that corporations have exponentially increasing influence in the outcomes of our elections, and therefore in the control of our government, and in light of the bailout of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, I ask you to begin to help redress this gross subversion of human rights and democratic government by supporting a Constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech." Chair Pelissier said that this matter will be referred to the agenda review process. Peggy Misch read a prepared statement. "Re: Property Tax Bill Wording 2010 `Past Due after' vs. 2011 `Past Due Date' I come before you today to remind you that I would like further consideration from you from what I think is an error on the county's part that could be addressed in an equitable fashion. If you recall, I read my 2011 Property Tax Bill as the last day the payment could be paid without penalty was January 6, 2012. Because of the rewording on the revised 2011 billing with the `Past Due Date 1/06/2012' instead of the 2010 billing of`Past Due After January 5, 2011', I used January 6 as the final day of payment without penalty. Thus, on January 6, 2012, when I paid the full amount of tax billed me; I received a charge of interest due of$85.45. I note that January 5 has not always been the cut-off date; the 2007 Property Tax bill was worded `Past Due After January 7, 2008', the year I paid my bill in full on January 4, 2008. Jenkins Crayton kindly responded to my email after taking time to explain matters to me over the telephone on January 6, 2012. It is interesting to note that Mr. Crayton stated, "while we don't survey taxpayers for the reasons they pay their taxes on January 6th, we know that in 2011, 173 tax bills were paid on January 6th compared to 67 in 2010.' Could it be that at least some of those additional `late' payers were misled by the wording on the tax bill, just as the surprised taxpayer in line after me this year? Mr. Crayton indicated to me he was interested in hearing about any suggestions for improving the tax bill for 2012. I had suggested DELINQUENT 1/06/2012. However, I believe if there is room, a better wording might be Current Charges Past Due After January 5, 2012, similar to that of Duke Energy. My appeal to you is twofold: 1. Clarify the wording for the 2012 Property Tax Bill (and the Vehicle Tax Notice) 2. Forgive the interest charged on January 6, 2012, when the full Property Tax Bill payment was made. Thank you for your consideration." Chris Weaver said that he wanted to speak on the scheduling of the tax referendum. He has only been in Orange County for a year and he is amazed about this process. He said that the '/4-cent sales tax did not pass when there was a record turnout last year, but then it was rescheduled for an off year. He sees this as being a forced handling of the people of the County, and especially his district. He is worried because there is another attempt to get a Chapel Hill Transit tax put on soon. He hopes that this is put on the November election when everyone is there rather than the May primary when not as many people will be there. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions bv Board Members NONE 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations a. OWASA Annual Update Presentation The Board received a presentation and information from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority on the recent activities. OWASA Board Chair Gordon Merklein introduced OWASA Executive Director Ed Kerwin and Orange County appointee to the OWASA Board, Terri Buckner. He reviewed the information on their abstract. The three initiatives are the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement; Rogers Road Community; and Forestry Management. Water and Sewer Manaqement, Planninq and Boundarv Aqreement On December 9, 2010, the OWASA Board adopted a resolution to clarify certain language in the 2001 WSMPBA so that the Agreement cannot be interpreted as a constraint on access to OWASA's Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation. Hillsborough and Orange County adopted resolutions on March 14, 2011 and March 15, 2011, respectively, that would apply OWASA's requested text change for those jurisdictions as well. The Chapel Hill Town Council had originally approved OWASA's request on February 28, 2011, but on April 25, 2011 reconsidered its previous action and rejected the text change. On June 9, 2011, the OWASA Board resolved to adopt and maintain a policy to purchase water from other communities or obtain water from its Jordan Lake storage allocation only after first declaring a Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage— provided that Carrboro and Chapel Hill approve the previously requested WSMPBA clarification. At the October 20, 2011 meeting, the OWASA Board discussed its June 9, 2011 policy resolution regarding water purchases during drought and the importance of securing permanent access to our Jordan Lake water supply allocation without the constraints of language presently contained in the WSMPBA. The Board was in agreement to modify its June 9th position and I adopted a resolution stating that: "OWASA shall only purchase water from other communities or obtain water from its Jordan Lake storage allocation during periods of increased drought risk after it has declared a Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage per OWASA's State-approved Water Shortage Response Plan and OWASA's Water Conservation Standards as incorporated therein." At the January 12, 2012 meeting, the OWASA Board will discuss a Proposed Drought Response Operating Protocol (DROP) which describes the procedures (including water purchases) and criteria that OWASA will use for making water supply and demand decisions during an extended drought. At the meeting, the Board will also discuss the timing of when OWASA should initiate a request to the North Carolina Environmental Management commission to convert our Jordan Lake water supply Level II allocation (future) to Level I (active). The agenda materials for the January 12, 2012 meeting can be found at: http://www.owasa.orq/about/board-meetinqs.aspx. Roqers Road Communitv OWASA continues to work closely with the County staff (and other local governments) to provide information regarding the provision of water and sewer services to the Historic Rogers Road area. We have developed technical information and cost estimates for various conceptual layouts and have provided lists and maps of properties and existing water and sewer infrastructure in the vicinity. Since the October 4, 2011 meeting where the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved funding for providing water service to certain properties within the Historic Rogers Road area, OWASA staff have worked closely with Orange County staff to establish streamlined procedures so that eligible property owners can request and receive the intended benefit. Working within the parameters of the State Statutes and our policies and founding agreements, we will continue to support this important initiative. Forestrv Manaqement Pursuant to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (WRC) forestry management plan for OWASA's 490-acre Cane Creek Wildlife Mitigation Tract, 25 acres of declining quality Virginia pine were clear-cut, and 25 acres of hardwood forest were thinned during the fall of 2010. The 25-acre clear-cut was replanted with loblolly pines in January 2011, as prescribed by the WRC plan. All operations were conducted according to forestry management best practices; however, our plan protects substantially larger buffer areas than required by existing regulations. We will complete the phased implementation of additional forest management measures on this property in the coming years in compliance with conditions of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit that allowed construction of the Cane Creek Reservoir. Upon the recommendation and guidance of the WRC and North Carolina Forest Service, OWASA also commissioned development of a draft plan for sustainable management of our remaining forest lands. We hosted a community meeting in November 2010 to present and receive comments on the draft plan prepared by our consulting forester, and we received extensive comments from citizens, local elected boards, several State agencies, and others. We will make presentations and receive comments from the local elected boards before the OWASA Board considers formal action on a management plan for our remaining forest lands. Commissioner Jacobs asked if he was misinformed that OWASA was going to withdraw from the WSMPBA. Gordon Merklein said that this is an option that the board does not consider until it is a last ditch effort. The focus is working with the towns to get the agreement in place and not to try to predict what may happen there. Commissioner Jacobs asked for a heads up before this discussion. Gordon Merklein said that it would be a very public process. Commissioner Jacobs said that when they originally signed this agreement, they had wanted to recruit Mebane and Durham to participate. Commissioner Gordon said that she hopes that the agreement is kept. Chair Pelissier agreed. b. ABC Board Update Presentation �'� The Board received a brief presentation from Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board representatives on recent ABC Board activities and operations. Tony Dubois, General Manager of the ABC Board, said that he and Ron McCoy, the Finance Director were here tonight and their Chair Keith Cook is under the weather tonight. He said that there is a really good working relationship between the County and the ABC Board. He said that the mission of the board is to serve the County responsibly. He said that all of the board members, including him and the Finance Director, have gone through the Ethics and Responsibility training for the State. There is currently a partnership with the Durham Technical Community College Orange County Campus and CAI (HR firm in Greensboro) to give management and customer service training to all employees. There is also a partnership with the Town of Hillsborough Police Department. There is now ABC law enforcement in the community for the first time. He said that there are negotiations with the Town of Hillsborough to purchase the property on Valley Forge Road for administrative offices and a warehouse. Ron McCoy, Finance Officer, said that he has been at this position since March. He made reference to the annual report on pages 24-25. He said that the sales have increased and the profitability has increased. Orange County consistently runs in the top 10 of all the agency boards in the State. The sales in 2011 increased 3.62% over the previous year and continue to grow. The increase in sales has outpaced the rest of the State by about 1%. Regarding challenges, there are some expenses such as a proposed office and warehouse relocation. The board has planned for these expenses and everything should go well. There has also been a great increase in taxes. There has also been a substantial increase in the costs of healthcare provided for retirees. He said that this board far exceeds the State requirements and they intend to continue this. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the report and asked about the mixed beverage only location. Ron McCoy said that this is attached to the Carrboro location and they just sell to the restaurants. c. Affordable Housinq Performance Report The Board received the Annual Affordable Housing Performance Report from the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Housing, Human Rights, and Community Development Director Tara Fikes presented the 8t''Annual Calendar and Annual Performance Report. This calendar contains a report of the local affordable housing accomplishment as well as the Human Relations activities during the 2010-2011 fiscal year. During that fiscal year, a little over$1,000,000 in federal, state, and local funds were spent to assist in the construction of 68 new units, including 58 rental units at The Landings at Winmore in Carrboro. These funds were also used to assist in the repair and acquisition of 39 existing dwelling units. d. Proclamation: "Human Relations Month" The Board considered officially proclaiming the month of February as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Tara Fikes introduced the HRC Chair Barbara Marotto who presented this item. HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that in order to achieve justice and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to create an atmosphere where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated, and therefore continue to promote the ideal of social justice for all; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has diligently served Orange County since 1995 and remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity and understanding throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's Civil Rights Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, veteran status and familial status; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange County residents, as individuals, to take a stand against social injustice and continue to work together to make freedom, justice, and equal opportunity available for all; and WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made thus far towards equality and leading the challenge for equal opportunity using all the means at our disposal; NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim February 2012 as "HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH" in Orange County and challenge residents to promote the ideology of social justice for all by celebrating and encouraging multiculturalism in the County and encouraging all residents to embrace diversity in Orange County. This the 24th day of January, 2012. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the month of February as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorize ', the Chair to sign. ', VOTE: UNANIMOUS I I !, e. Resolution Rectardinq Proposed Amendment to the NC Constitution That Defines Marriaqe The Board considered adopting a resolution voicing opposition to the proposed amendment to the NC Constitution that defines marriage and thereby promotes discrimination and authorize the Chair to sign. HRC Chair Barbara Marotto said that the HRC was given the task in part to make recommendations concerning problems in the field of human relationships and ways to promote goodwill among groups in the County irrespective of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry and national origin, sex, affectional preference, disability, age, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance. She said that the HRC looked at the upcoming Amendment 1 that will be on the State ballot in May. After much thoughtful discussion, the HRC recommends that the Board take a position against this amendment. She said that the amendment writes discrimination into the State constitution. She said that this is not the gay marriage amendment, it is the amendment that has marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. She said that this amendment would take away rights and privileges for people who are in civil unions and domestic partnerships. Among other things, this amendment would deny people the opportunity to make decisions in emergency life or death situations. A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT#1 THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE MAY 8, 2012 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PRIMARY BALLOT WHEREAS, Amendment #1 will appear on the May 8, 2012 primary ballot asking voters to decide for or against a North Carolina constitutional amendment that provides that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State"; and WHEREAS, Orange County adopted social justice goals of which one goal is to foster a community culture that rejects oppression and inequity, thus the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color, religion or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age, military services; disability; and familial, residential, or economic status; and WHEREAS, Orange County along with its local municipalities has adopted the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance with the purpose and policy to promote the equal treatment of all individuals; prohibits discrimination in Orange County based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, familial status, and veteran status; to protect residents' lawful interests and their personal dignity so as to make available to the County their full productive and creative capacities, and to prevent public and domestic strife, crime, and unrest within Orange County; and WHEREAS, Amendment#1, if approved by the voters, would prohibit marriage between people of the same gender, and further prohibit the recognition of any other form of domestic legal union; and WHEREAS, Amendment #1, if approved by the voters, would be inconsistent with Orange County's commitment to equal rights and opportunities for its residents and employees and would impact the County's and its local municipalities' domestic partner registry and benefits; NOW, THEREFORE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners re-affirms its commitment to social justice, equal rights and equal opportunity for all residents of Orange County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners opposes the proposed Amendment #1 that will appear on the May 8, 2012 North Carolina primary ballot. This the 24`' day of January, 2012. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger adopting a resolution voicing opposition to the proposed amendment to the NC Constitution that defines marriage and thereby promotes discrimination and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said that in the abstract it says on October 13th that the HRC approved this resolution for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. At least a month later, he recommended that the Board consider doing this same thing. He said that surely someone on the staff knew that the HRC had adopted it and sent it forward for the Board's adoption. He was asked to survey other governments and find out what language they had used in their resolutions. He asked to send this resolution to media outlets in Orange County. 5. Consent Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 15, 17, 21 and December 13, 2011 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments— None c. Motor Vehicle Propertv Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 83 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds. d. Propertv Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to seventy-six (76) requests for property tax release and/or refunds in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. e. Applications for Propertv Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved nine (9) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year. f. Extension of Tax Listinq Period for 2012 The Board approved extending the period for which property is listed for taxes to February 29, 2012. g_ Professional Services Aqreement—Tourism Advertisinct bv Clean Desian The Board approved the proposed professional services agreement for tourism marketing and advertising with Clean Design; authorized the Chair to sign the agreement; and approved the funds to be encumbered out of 2011-2012 Visitors Bureau budget as originally approved. h. Citizen Participation Plan for Housinq/Communitv Development Proarams The Board approved the Citizen Participation Plan for use in the implementation of federal and state housing programs. i. Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan The Board adopted a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan for Orange County. i Adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution for Chaael Hill Carrboro Citv Schools Elementarv#11 The Board adopted a reimbursement resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing the County to reimburse itself and Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools for non- general obligation bond project expenditures incurred for the construction of Elementary #11, and to schedule a public hearing for February 7, 2012. k. Approval of a Lease Aqreement between Chapel Hill — Carrboro Citv Schools and PTA Thrift Shop Manaqers, LLC The Board approved a lease agreement between Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools and PTA Thrift Shop Managers, LLC for the lease of office space. I. Lease/License Renewal Aqreement—Alternate Dailv Landfill Cover The Board approved the renewal of the lease/license agreement for alternative daily cover materials with LSC Environmental Products, LLC and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement renewal. m. Expiration of Option to Purchase Hillsborouah Commons The Board officially declined to exercise the Option to Purchase the Hillsborough Commons Shopping Center on Mayo Street, Hillsborough as presented in the 2008 lease. n. Agreement for Countv Co-Holdinq of Conservation Easements with the Eno River Association The Board approved the agreement regarding the co-holding of conservation easements with the Eno River Association, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorized the signing of said agreement by the Chair and Clerk. o. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule for Upcominq Item This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. � Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondarv Road Svstem The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained System to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the subdivision road in Piney Mountain Phase II subdivision; and recommended the Department of Transportation accept the road for maintenance as a State Secondary Road. � Roadwav Status of Woodkirk Lane and Petition for Addition to State Maintained Svstem The Board made an affirmative finding that the redevelopment of Woodkirk Lane into a public road is consistent with the provisions of Section 7.8.1 and,7.8.2 of the UDO as recommended by staff; and recommended sending the application to NCDOT for addition to , the State Maintained Secondary Road System. r. Correction to Ordinance 2011-036—Class II Kennels/Ridina Stables This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. s. Interqovernmental Aqreements The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the listed agreement and any amendments or renewals of those Agreements. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 6. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda o. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule for Upcominq Item The Board considered process components and the schedule for a Planning Director initiated item for the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. Commissioner Gordon made reference to her comments and staff responses, as shown below. She said that the scope of this amendment started out as being narrow. She is concerned about the wide range in the scope of this amendment. UDO Amendment Could you explain how Objective LU-1.1 is related to the proposed UDO amendment? This objective refers to coordinating the location of higher intensity/high density residential and non-residential development with, among other things, adequate supporting infrastructure, while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This objective refers to coordinating the location of higher intensity/high density residential and non-residential development with, among other things, adequate supporting infrastructure, while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. Michael Harvey said that the original rationale for choosing this particular item was for the provision of services. He said that the Board could add in the form that the proposed amendment, which was suggested at the November 21St dinner meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board, is supported by the Services and Community Facilities Goal of the Comprehensive Plan as well as objective PSP-7 through PS-9, all dealing with the management and deliberation of local emergency services, economic development and communication efforts. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the Amendment Outline and direct staff to proceed accordingly. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) r_ Correction to Ordinance 2011-036—Class II Kennels/Ridina Stables The Board considered adopting a revised Ordinance amending the UDO to correct a staff error. Commissioner Gordon said that this has been presented by staff as a correction. She pulled it to vote against it because she does not agree with the ordinance the way it is worded. Following are her comments and staff responses: C/ass ll Kennels P/ease clarify the meaning of the text shown in red. It appears to mean that all of this text in red is to be changed, in addition to what was changed on October 18, 2011. A/so, please provide a copy of the following attachment for the October 18 meeting, along with any other material needed to show what the BOCC approved on October 18. Attachment 5— UDO Ordinance Amendment—ltem 7-c on the October 18, 2011 BOCC Agenda. With respect to kennels, staff is asking the BOCC to readopt a corrected ordinance amendment, which is why all changed text is denoted in RED. The only change from October 18t" document, as denoted in the January 24tn abstract, is to Section 3 of the Adopted Ordinance, specifically the method of denoting the various general use zoning districts where Class I kennels are allowed. Staff had erroneously used the letter `B' to denote the various general use zoning districts where this type of use was allowed. The result of the error was that it had changed the permitting process for Class I kennels from permitted by right(i.e. an asterisk "*") to a Class B Special Use Permit(i.e. `B'). Attached is a copy of what was acted upon by the BOCC on October 18, 2011 for reference purposes as requested. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to I adopt the corrected Ordinance amending the UDO as detailed by staff. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) 7. Public Hearinqs a. Oranqe Co. CDBG Proqram — FY 2010 Scattered Site Housinq Rehabilitation Proqram Amendment The Board received public comments regarding a proposed amendment to the County's FY 2010 Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant for the Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program and considered approving a resolution authorizing submission of the formal contract and authorizing the Chair to sign subject to final approval by the County Attorney. Tara Fikes said that this public hearing is for the proposed amendment to the County's 2010 Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant for Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation. In October 2011 the County was invited to participate in Phase 2 of the State's Community Capacity Building Program as a lead county in its efforts to expand this program statewide. The State created this program to provide small towns and counties the resources and tools they need to access community development resources. Four counties were identified to participate in this program — Buncombe, Edgecombe, Orange, and Yadkin. The State will provide an additional $600,000 in CDBG funding that will be used to further the capacity of the County in the areas of education, technology, and services. The State would like the County to do this in partnership with the North Carolina Sustainability Center. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner McKee expressed appreciation for the work that this department does for people in need. � A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the resolution authorizing submission of the formal amendment document and authorize the Chair to sign the amendment documents on behalf of the Board and approve the execution of a legally binding commitment with the NC Sustainability Center by the Chair of the Board upon the approval of the County Attorney's office. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. North Carolina Communitv Transportation Proqram (CTP)Administrative Grant Application for FY 2012/2013 The Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina community Transportation Program grant application by Orange County Public Transportation for FY 2012/2013, considered approving the grant application, adopting a resolution, and authorizing the County Attorney to complete the necessary certifications and assurances. Transportation Administrator AI Terry said that he is here to present the annual CTP grant application for the administrative portions to operate the Orange Public Transportation. This is for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and is in the amount of$185,897. This is $300 more than what was received this year. The State has asked that transportation keep a flat budget. NO PUBLIC COMMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2012/2013 in the total amount of$185,897 with local match of$27,885; approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program Resolution and annual certified statements of participation; authorize the County Attorney to complete the necessary certification and assurances; and accept and budget the receipt of the CTP grant, once awarded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reqular Aaenda a. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for the Brooks Farm; and Approval of Budaet Amendment#5-C The Board considered a resolution to approve the purchase of and acceptance by Orange county of an agricultural watershed protection conservation easement for the Brooks farm, and authorize the Chair and Clerk to sign subject to final approval by the County Attorney; and approve Budget Amendment#5-C. Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw made a presentation and introduced Gail Hughes from the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District and Curt Schleming, who directs land conservation for the Eno River Association. He also introduced Dennis and Linda Brooks. Rich Shaw said that the farm is approximately 119 acres divided into two parcels —one along Ben Johnson Road and one along Dimmocks Mill Road. He showed some pictures of the farm. The cost for this project would be about $655,000, with the County's share being $325,000. Conservation Easement Brooks Farm Orange County Lands Legacy Program Eno River Association • Conservation Easement Brooks Farm • Ben Johnston Rd • Rocking "B" Saddle Shop • Beef cattle • Pasture • Streams Conservation Easement: ➢ Perpetual easement ➢ Rights of privacy ➢ Right to farm ➢ Agricultural buildings/structures ➢ 2 future home sites ➢ 1 future subdivision Funding partners: ➢ Orange County ➢ Eno River Association (Healthy Forest Grant) ➢ Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative ➢ State of NC (CREP). ➢ Town of Hillsborough ➢ Landowner donation • CREP Project • Fencing (8,000 ft.) • Buffer restoration • New water sources • Riparian buffer easement (State) • Brooks Farm Conservation partnership: Dennis and Linda Brooks Orange County Eno River Association Orange Soil &Water Conservation Healthy Forests Initiative Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative (Raleigh) Town of Hillsborough NC Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program USDA Farm Services Agency Commissioner Jacobs said that this is this first time Hillsborough has partnered financially with Orange County on a conservation easement. Commissioner Gordon thanked the Brooks family for their generous donation and also thanked staff who had been working on this project. Commissioner Gordon pointed out her comments and questions on the blue sheet, shown below: 8-a Conservation Easement Questions about the Warranty Deed Page 7 of the agenda materials (page 1 of the deed)—First paragraph Reference is made to the easement which is granted by Dennis and Linda Brooks....and Orange County....should that be....TO Orange County....? Staff and the County Attorney agree that this is an improvement. We will change ', the "and Orange County" to "to Orange County". I Page 7—last paragraph, line 4 This line says:......surveyed for Orange County D.E.A.P.R...... That should be......Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, parks and Recreation (DEAPR).... This language references the title of the plat. The plat identifies Orange County D.E.A.P.R., so no chanqe recommended. Page 7—/ast paragraph, line 5 The plat book and page numbers are blank. Should these numbers have already been filled in? The referenced plat will be recorded along with the deed of conservation easement. Those blanks will be filled in by the closing attorney prior to recording the easement. No chanqe recommended. Page 11 —third paragraph (right after"1. Grant of Conservation Easement....'). The second sentence says: Grantors promise that he will not perform.....should that be revised? Staff and the County Attorney agree that this is an improvement. Staff will clarify by changing this to "Grantors promise that they will not perform...." (Note: it seems odd that the deed refers to the two individuals as the "Grantors,"but refers to Orange County and the Eno River Association as the "Grantee.') "Grantee" is defined on first page as meaning both Orange County and the Eno River Association. No chanqe recommended. There are notes in bold concerning changes. Should these changes have already been made? The bolded language serves as reminders to staff and County Attorney to make final technical edits once more information is available. The Manager's Recommendation to the BOCC allows for these final technical edits to be made following BOCC approval. No chanqe recommended at this time. Page 16—last paragraph Why does the deed allow any kind of road to be constructed without written permission? This language ailows unimproved farm roads (i.e., unpaved, no gravel) to be constructed without permission of Grantee. This is a standard allowance for agricultural conservation easements. The County has no interest in approving the locations of farm roads. No chanqe recommended. Page 20(second paragraph) and page 21 (second paragraph) There are blank spaces in these paragraphs. Should these spaces have already been filled in? These blanks will be filled prior to recording the easement document, once we are sure of the exact percentage of funds contributed by each of the parties. Page 21 —second paragraph—bottom of the page (address of the Grantee) The first grantee is Orange County DEAPR. That should be Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. This is just a mailing address, so using the abbreviated name of the department should suffice here. The full name of the department is used elsewhere in the easement document. No chanqe recommended. � Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 20 where there were blank spaces in the agreement. In the middle, it references Orange County and the Eno River Association being entitled to 55% of the net sale proceeds. She asked if the 55% was being divided between the two grantees. It seems that it would be clearer if it specified the percentages for each entity. Rich Shaw said that there are other partners as well. This would have to be sorted out if there was a termination of the conservation easement. The math has not been done yet. Commissioner Gordon asked that the Attorney work this out and suggest something. John Roberts said that it would be addressed. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the resolution and conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about February 28, 2012, and approve Budget Amendment#5-C; with the two changes that staff has agreed to and that the staff will clarify the language on page 20, and on page 21, the first Grantee will be re-specified as Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier thanked the family and suggested that the Board of County Commissioners send a thank you letter to all of their partners in this conservation easement, including the Town of Hillsborough. Rich Shaw said that this project would be the last of the $3 million that the Board of County Commissioners set aside for these easements. b. Charqe of the Emerqencv Services Workproup The Board considered a recommendation for the Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup. I Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that this is for the Board of County � Commissioners to approve the charge for the Emergency Services Work Group. This was I discussed at the County Commissioners' December 13th meeting. Later this evening, the Board will appoint the at-large citizens to this group. He summarized the information as shown below. PURPOSE: To provide to the Board a recommendation for the Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2011 the Board of Orange County Commissioners met to discuss with staff several issues and recommendations to enhance the delivery of emergency services. Staff presented: 1) Review of the VIPER Original Design and Implementation and Strategies to Improve Coverage and Capacity; 2) E911 Center Improvement Plan; 3) Discussion with the Board of County Commissioners Regarding Plans to Improve the Emergency Medical Services Delivery System; 4) Review of Fire Department Issues Relating to Fire Protection Districts, Fire Insurance Districts and Fire Tax Districts as Related to Property Insurance Ratings; and 5) Summary of Financial Implications to Provide Emergency Services Coverage, Capacity and System Improvements. On December 13, 2011 the Board directed staff to bring a plan back for consideration that established a workgroup to provide recommendations for Board action to improve overall public safety service levels and improved fire insurance coverage for County homeowners. The workgroup, as directed by the Board, will consist of inembers from the volunteer and municipal fire and rescue group, two municipal law enforcement senior officers, a representative from the Sheriff's Office, the Emergency Services Director, Medical Director, two County Commissioners, and two citizen volunteers. The citizen appointments for the Emergency Services Workgroup will be addressed in Agenda Item 12-b of this meeting. The Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup will be to provide recommendations to the Board on how to best improve Public Safety and the Emergency Services delivery system in Orange County. The recommendations will include a review of available alternatives, the financial impact to the County, and an implementation timeline for the following divisions that are an integral part of the Orange County Emergency Services delivery system: 1. VIPER system improvements. 2. Solutions relating to Fire Protection Districts, Fire Insurance Districts and Fire Tax ', Districts. I 3. System improvements for EMS Ambulance response times including but not limited to equipment, staffing, facilities and/or a strategic plan to define data elements for meaningful analytical data as related to ambulance response time and to discuss and review that data. 4. Improvements for the E911 Communications Center including but not limited to technology, equipment, staffing, training and/or a strategic plan. 5. Com are Oran e Count Emergency Services to similar sized counties in North p 9 Y Carolina, including but not limited to staffing, equipment, technology, infrastructure, performance and costs. 6. The Fire Departments' Strategic Plan. The Board of County Commissioners requested a timeline for the Emergency Services Workgroup. There are many unknowns regarding the direction of the Workgroup, but the charge and the timeline will be the first items discussed by the Emergency Services Workgroup and will report back to the Board on February 7, 2012. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approval of the Charge for this Workgroup will have no financial impact on the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the proposed Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup, and give direction to staff as to changes in the Charge. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important to note that one of the things that the County is looking at for dealing with system improvements for EMS ambulance response times is meaningful and analytical data. He suggested adding this to item #3. Chair Pelissier suggested making this a separate item —the data elements. Commissioner Foushee said that she does not disagree with Chair Pelissier but the point that Commissioner Jacobs made makes it easier for the group to consider that data within the scope of the charge. She would not want to see it separated. She would like to see#3 reworded such that it includes discussion and review of analytical data as it relates to response times. Chair Pelissier agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the proposed Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup, and give direction to staff as to changes in the Charge; with the inclusion of listing Michael Talbert as facititator of the work group and adding the recommendation for meaningful data to be included in item #3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Next Steps: Northern Human Services Center The Board considered information about community efforts regarding the disposition of the Northern Human Services Center; and to provide direction to staff on next steps. Asset Management Director Pam Jones and Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director David Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation. Northern Human Services Center Next Steps Tonight's Purpose: - Review status of project discussions - Review ideas from informal small group - Consider two concepts or"options" as basis for future input - Review and approve public input process, including community meetings Background: - Existing Building constructed 1950, 1957 (addition) - Building costs over$100,000/year to maintain, limited usage - CIP includes funds in FY 2012/13 to remove structure Options Considered - Option 1: remove classroom wings, leaving only gymnasium and cafeteria - Option 2: remove entire structure and replace with approximately 10,000 s.f. recreation facility Option 1 Considerations - Expensive maintenance will be needed: o Roof replacement o HVAC replacement o Plumbing improvements— infrastructure and development of new restroom facilities o Window replacement for energy efficiency in both gym and cafeteria - Missed opportunity to orient structure for optimal daylighting and solar energy - Retains portion of old school building Option 2 Considerations - Built for intended purpose , - Greater energy efficiency opportunities: ' o Orientation of building takes advantage of solar and daylighting opportunities; o Materials used and systems would conform to the County's energy goals ■ Opportunity for geo-thermal HVAC system - Greater flexibility in site design/parking, etc. - Flexibility in types of building uses Establishing a Project Framework - Estimated 10,000 s.f. facility - Multipurpose areas for activities such as: o Basketball or similar activities o Community meetings or similar activities ■ Could also include a separate small meeting room o Family reunions - Amenities: o Warming kitchen facilities o Restrooms o Staff office o Stage for speakers/performers NHSC Informal Discussion - Informal "check-in" with small group of area residents held to discuss: o Process of citizen engagement o Conceptual ideas of future activity types o Community needs Discussion — Possible Key Areas - Offer County services in some manner - Meeting room/community center - Potential Emergency Services station - Limitations of property use Proposed Timeline and Public Input January 24, 2011 — Report to BOCC on Proposed Public Outreach Plan (including draft survey) and recommended options to BOCC February, 2012—staff refines the two options for project, creates conceptual (bubble) drawings, and implements public outreach Early March 2012 — Public Open House held to review site overview (limitations) and brief history, proposed options, receive feedback, and distribute survey March-April —further distribute survey to those not present; collect survey results April 2012 —staff uses open house public input, analysis and survey results to further develop plans for the options May 15, 2012— project option plans and draft recommended option presented to BOCC for initial review prior to Public Input Session June 2012 — Public Input Session held to review recommended plan, as modified by BOCC, � receive community feedback (CIP confirmation of whether initial deconstruction/demolition is a '�� project for FY 12-13). � August 21, 2012 — BOCC decision on recommended project September-November— preliminary planning and design work associated with project November 2012—permits acquired for deconstruction/demolition as per project decision and funding December 2012 —deconstruction/demolition as per project decisions and funding, informal information session held for public prior to activity December 2012-?—final grading, seeding, and site stabilization accomplished, to awit next steps of project Commissioner McKee said that he was glad to see preliminary public comments and he would not want the County Commissioners to deconstruct this building until they have a concrete plan of action for this site. Commissioner Foushee agreed. She said that it would be hard for her to move forward on the proposed options until she has heard from the public in that area. Commissioner Hemminger said that she agreed that they do need a plan and to spend $100,000/year for upkeep now is not sustainable. She would like to deconstruct this entire building at some point and build a new facility that is energy efficient, but she still wants to have a plan in place before making any decisions. She said that the current building is not a user- friendly place. She would rather see a new structure that can last for a very long time and is more efficient. Commissioner Jacobs said that this seems like an open process. He said that he , understands that the County Commissioners do not think about this as an energy efficient � building, but there might be other public entities that may be interested, like a charter school. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner McKee but he does not think that it is wise to leave this facility empty and maintain it without any use. He would like to have a plan to have it deconstructed no later than 2013 when all activities cease out there. He wants to make a commitment to its replacement as soon as possible. Commissioner Gordon said that when the County Commissioners think about their CIP, they need more input from the community. There are a number of unfunded projects already in the CIP and there is no plan to raise taxes. There needs to be a plan that fits into the overall CIP. Frank Clifton said that the County is spending more than $100,000/year in heating and cooling. He said that one of the limiting factors of this facility is the septic system. The sizing of the facility is the limit, unless the County is willing to spend $800,000 additionally to build a septic field. He said that with the large amount of money being spent there to heat this building, the price range to build a new building is about $2.6 million. He said that now is a good time to finance a project like this. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to have staff begin the public process, move forward with a plan to make a decision, come back with more information, and keep on the timeline that would allow operations to cease there at the end of the calendar year. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Resolution Reauestinq Representation on the Burlinqton-Graham Metropolitan Planninq Orqanization Transportation Advisorv Committee The Board considered approving a resolution to request County representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization. Planning Board Director Craig Benedict said that this is a resolution requesting representation on the Burlington-Graham MPO. He said that the MPO did put forth an invitation in the 90's but the Board of County Commissioners was not interested at that time, so they have invited Orange County again. He said that staff has been meeting with the MPO over the past few months and this item would be to agree that Orange County should have representation on this board. The County should send this resolution back to the MPO and then Orange County would be added to the member list. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve a resolution to request County representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING REPRESENTATION ON THE BURLINGTON-GRAHAM METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, ongoing cooperation has fostered continued dialogue regarding many aspects of planning in the area of western Orange County near the City of Mebane; and WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is in part located in Orange County and its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction is also in part located in Orange County; and WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is a member of the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization extend into Orange County; and WHEREAS, cooperation and communication amongst neighboring jurisdictions, governments and planning organizations are important facets of effective government; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2011 the chair of the Burlington-Graham MPO Technical Coordinating Committee extended an offer to Board of County Commissioners' Chair , Bernadette Pelissier to facilitate Orange County formally joining the Burlington-Graham MPO; and WHEREAS, the Burlington-Graham MPO, the City of Mebane, the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro MPO and Orange County will soon be conducting a discussion regarding Metropolitan Area Boundaries; and WHEREAS, such representation is in the best interests of the residents of Orange County; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that Orange County requests representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Update on Trianqle Reqional Transit Proqram —Alternatives Analvsis and the Locallv Preferred Alternative The Board received additional information on the Triangle Regional Transit Program — Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and identified any remaining information that may be required for the Board. Craig Benedict said that he was just going to give an overview of this item. He said that the Triangle region has an overall regional transit plan and some of the facets include the potential for a 'h-cent tax for a fixed route system and additional bus enhancements. Orange County's part of the program is very closely connected to Durham County. He gave an overview of the types of questions regarding the Orange County Transit Plan Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative: • Ridership • Commuter patterns/corridors • Corridor Study • BRT/LRT Decisions • Economic Development/Financial • Better land use patterns Craig Benedict said that the MPO will be voting on the alternatives analysis and the locally preferred alternative, and he hopes to give guidance from the Board on what would be the answer to those two purposes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Glenn Wilson said that he is from northern Chapel Hill and he has some questions. He said that Triangle Transit holds the issues that need to be evaluated such as how much it will cost, who will be the riders, etc. He said that the C-1 through Meadowmont has a greater cost than C-2. He said that there is no potential for economic development in Meadowmont because it is already fully developed. Chair Pelissier said that, from the December 8th work session, there was a timetable proposed. She suggested making a decision about whether to put the 'h-cent sales tax on the ' ballot in November. She made reference to the list of questions and asked the County Commissioners how they wanted to proceed. She suggested asking Triangle Transit staff to I make comments on the alignment (C-1 vs. C-2), discuss the technology, and economic development potential. Wib Gulley, Triangle Transit Attorney said that the staff has not had time to analyze the questions from the Board of County Commissioners that were sent to them late Friday. Patrick McDonough said that they put out the alternatives analysis last summer and have received numerous comments from citizens and public entities. There is a preference for C1. He gave background on the transit demand. Frank Clifton said that he and the Chapel Hill Town Manager have had many discussions about these routes. He said that the greatest potential benefit for Orange County in economic development is along 15-501 and not on a short section of NC 54 that is in Orange County. Chair Pelissier asked the Triangle Transit staff if 15-501 could be considered and how that would affect the County's application. Wib Gulley said that they take the Manager's recommendation seriously and the 15-501 corridor has come up for years. Every time it comes up, there is a technical analysis about transportation demand. He suggested that the County Manager invite the Chapel Hill Town Manager to discuss this further. Commissioner Yuhasz said that, if this happened, this is an investment that all of Orange County will be making in transportation. He sees the NC 54 corridor being the most beneficial from a strictly transportation standpoint to those people who are traveling in that corridor. He is not sure that this particular corridor would provide the greatest benefit to all of Orange County. He said that the County Commissioners need to look at this as a transportation project that is going to be funded by all of Orange County and not just a certain portion of it in that part of the County. Commissioner McKee said that he is content to wait for replies to these written questions in the abstract because staff has not had sufficient time to answer. One of his concerns has been that the County seems to be facing an artificially imposed time frame. He said that this is one of the major decisions that this Board will make in the next decade and that the citizens will be funding for years to come. He said that some of the cost estimates he has seen are higher in Orange County than in other areas. He does not believe that a '/2-cent sales tax will pay for the County's portion going forward. He said that it seems that they are trying to meet a deadline instead of looking at the intricate parts of the project in detail. Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit is about three years along in this process and a decision point. He said that it is not accurate to say that they are strung up by a timeline. He said that they have tried to make it as clear a process as they could. Commissioner McKee said that he did not mean to imply that it had not been a public process and a long process, but that they have to think about the citizens of Orange County and the funding burden that will fall on them until there are more definitive answers. Wib Gulley said that in Durham County they approved the referendum in 2011 and they asked Triangle Transit to hold off until the Orange County agreements are in place. Commissioner Hemminger said that she agreed with many of the comments of Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz. She said that she has to look out for how the citizens in Orange County get to the major points and how they would use this system. She wants to know why 15-501 was taken off and why BRT was put as a footnote instead of a bigger issue. She said that if she had to pick between C-1 and C-2, then she would want to know where people would park to get on this transit, etc. Commissioner Gordon asked how long it would take Triangle Transit staff to provide written responses back to the County Commissioners. Wib Gulley said that some questions answered will certainly raise other questions and February 7th is the meeting to do that. Chair Pelissier said that February 7th is the only meeting where they would be able to receive this and the County Commissioners need to give direction to Commissioner Gordon on how to vote. It would be useful to have some information available in the agenda packets. It was agreed that the information could be sent electronically by February 2"a Chair Pelissier made reference to the balancing of the regional versus the local transit needs. She said that they have to remember that this really is a regional transit plan. She said that much of the costs will be borne by the federal and state governments. She would like Triangle Transit to address this. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the creation of Triangle Transit was to have a regional entity to look at regional transit, but the problem is that there is no plan for regional cost sharing. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful if the plan was refined to include a different cost sharing proposal and suggested that value capture be considered. She asked if the cost-sharing was the biggest hurdle, and if so, then they need to talk about that and solve it. Patrick McDonough asked if cost-sharing with UNC has been considered and it was answered no. Commissioner McKee said that they should consider cost sharing with all the entities. f. Update Report on Reformulated Economic Development Advisorv Board The Board received a report on proposed actions for the creation of a new advisory board to support Orange County's Economic Development activities, and provided direction as needed. Economic Development Director Steve Brantley presented this item. He showed the new Economic Development website on the screen. He summarized the report: Proposed Purpose, Composition and Function of Orange County's Reformulated Economic Development Advisory Board Purpose of Reformulated Economic Develoament Advisorv Board The purpose of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board (Board) will be to work cohesively with the County's Economic Development staff and their economic development partners to position Orange County as a competitive location for business opportunities. Process for Creation of New Economic Development Advisorv Council A selection process will be developed in conjunction with the new advisory board guidelines recently discussed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) to ensure the selection of candidates that will be actively engaged in furthering the County's economic development program. Orange County Economic Development staff will work with their Economic Development partners (Chamber of Commerce, other area Economic Development practitioners, and local business leaders) to identify potential Advisory Board members. It is anticipated that the selected members will serve no more than two 3 year terms. Specific, time-limited task forces may be created, either from Board members or from informed County citizens, to study specific issues. It is anticipated that the formation of the Board will coincide with the initiation of the Quarter cent sales tax proceeds, which are expected to start accruing mid-2012. Appointments to the Board could start as early as Spring 2012, with initial membership limited to 5 to 9 individuals. Meetings would be held at least quarterly. Composition of New Economic Development Advisorv Council Advisory board member would ideally have a direct or indirect background in economic development, and be actively involved in promoting business. Candidates should either live in Orange County, have invested in Orange County, or have a direct economic development interest in Orange County. Representatives from the following sectors would be targeted for inclusion into the initial Board composition: - Members of the County's core business communitv, including banking, construction, manufacturing, architecture, real estate, legal, development, utility management, etc. - The advisory board should ideally include one person who represents aqriculture; - An individua� actively involved in entrepreneur activities; - An individual representing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, preferably involved in the development activities, such as planning for Carolina North, or on the foundation side of business development; - The tourism sector represented by an individual involved in retail and/or hospitality - At some point in the future, someone representing Duke Universitv land assets in Orange County could be included Potential Functions of the New Economic Development Advisorv Council Although the activities of the Board will be dependent on specific project and department needs, several activities anticipated to be performed by the Board include; - Meet with prospective clients, and be involved with select economic development endeavors; - Participate and advise in discussions, evaluations, and decisions on appropriate economic development uses of the proceeds from the quarter cent sales tax; - Craft, analyze and promote economic development initiatives; - Identify and review potential new markets; - Assist in planning economic development policy; - Actively engage in stimulating community discussions on economic development issues; - Assist with the small business loan program; - Set priorities on the location and type of infrastructure (water, sewer, fiber) for the County's Economic Development Districts; - Help determine how Orange County might partner with the towns on economic development initiatives; and - Assist and advise on the recommended areas suitable for economic development and commercial nodes. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the first paragraph and asked if there would be a formal acknowledgement of the role that the Chambers of Commerce should play in developing the Economic Development Advisory Board. Commissioner Foushee added her support for Commissioner Yuhasz's comment. She ' said that the chambers should have some official recognition. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with trying to be more specific to include the chambers and to also include agriculture. He said that if they do include groups like the chambers, part of the charge is that they are there to represent the entire County and not a specific chamber. He I said that it is important to articulate that they stipulate that they operate within their parameters of the Orange County Land Use Plan. Commissioner Hemminger is supportive of the chambers' involvement through connectivity. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to make sure that this is integrated with the land use plan and grounded in Orange County. She said that maybe not every member should be a resident of Orange County but that most should, rather than just have an economic development interest. She preferred to have staff refine the proposed process and to come back to the BOCC for approval. John Roberts said that the EDC will be governed by the boards and commissions policies and his staff will be working with boards and commissions to develop specific board policies. Frank Clifton made reference to the Chambers and said that there are some issues with a lot of the businesses not being in Orange County. He has discussed with the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce the idea of creating a Business Council that is countywide. Commissioner Foushee said that her comments as related to the relationship between the Board and the chambers was not to have the directors on this board but to move forward with an established relationship with both chambers. She said that to move forward without any significant recognition of the partnership sends a message to the chambers that she does not want to send. Commissioner Yuhasz and Chair Pelissier agreed. Commissioner Yuhasz said to also reach out to the Alamance County Chamber members that have an interest in Orange County. Chair Pelissier said that she liked the potential functions and she suggested that she would like to see the membership at about 8-9 members. Commissioner Gordon said to direct staff to work with John Roberts's office. 9. Reports a. Update on Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 Water and Sewer Utilitv Design The Board received an update on the progress of the Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 utility design for economic development. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the County is four to five months away from having the sewer system that will service the Buckhorn EDD. 10. County Manaqer's Report Frank Clifton said that the last couple of years the system in place for filling positions has generated about $2 million a year in employee payroll savings. He said that from 2005- ; 2009 the workman's compensation claims averaged over$1 million a year. For the last two and a half years, the average was $300,000 a year. He commended the staff for this. 11. Countv Attornev's Report John Roberts said that in 2009 the General Assembly granted counties statewide the authority to appoint the chair of the local ABC Board. No one has mentioned doing this, but this became effective this past October. This authority now rests with the County Commissioners. The current ABC Board Chair's term will expire sometime in the spring. 12. Appointments a. Oranqe Countv Arts Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Ms. Andrea Riley to an At-Large Position on the Arts Commission with a term ending March 31, 2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Oranpe Countv Emerqencv Services Workaroup—Appointments ' The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Emergency Services Work Group. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to appoint Ms. Mary Parrish to the Emergency Services Work Group. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Ms. Jane Cousins to the Emergency Services Work Group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to appoint Commissioner McKee as the Chair of the Emergency Services Work Group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Human Relations Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission (HRC). A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Ms. Ashley Tittemore to an At-Large Position on the HRC with a term ending in September 30, 2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Orange Countv Nursinq Home Communitv Advisorv Committee— Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Dr. Mary Ann Peter to an At- Large Position on the Orange County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee with a term ending June 30, 2013. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 13. Board Comments Commissioner Jacobs said that he attended a joint meeting of the Environment and Agriculture Steering Committees of the NCACC today and they discussed fracking. People are being taken advantage of tremendously. He will be bringing this up as a Board member petition soon. Commissioner Jacobs reminded people of the parking deck code for the Orange County free parking spaces — 1201#. This is good until the end of the month. Commissioner Yuhasz said that meetings are being set up to discuss OPC changes. This should happen sometime in February. He said thank you to all staff for saving Orange County taxpayer's money. Commissioner Gordon said that she attended the NCACC Environment Steering Committee meeting by conference call today and they received a lot of good information on water resources. The information on fracking indicated that there are many potential problems. Commissioner Hemminger said that she attended the Work Force Development meeting and there was a presentation on a new product for job seeking. Fourteen states have signed onto the product. Commissioner Foushee— no comments Commissioner McKee said that he took part in the tour of the justice facility yesterday and he noted that the front doors need attention. Chair Pelissier made reference to fracking and said that in December she was contacted by the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club asking about endorsing some sort of resolution expressing concerns about fracking. She has not heard back about a resolution. She would like to express some concern. 14. Information Items • December 13, 2011 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 15. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to go into closed session at 10:55 p.m. for the purposes of: "To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant." NCGS § 143-318.11(a) (3). To approve and open closed session minutes. "To discuss matters related to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations," NCGS § 143- 318.11(a)(4). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to reconvene into regular session at 11:55 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p. m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board