Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20030224APPROVED 4/1/2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Monday at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey, and Acting Deputy Clerk Evelyn Cecil {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. Chair Brown called the meeting to order. She reported that Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis would be a little late in coming to the meeting. John Link introduced Todd Jones, the new Chief Informational Officer, and welcomed him to Orange County. 1. Fiscal Outlook Update Budget Director Donna Dean said that she told the Board at the retreat in January that she would bring back an update an where we stood after the second quarter sales tax in the middle of February. The first two quarters were very promising and the County received about $7 million in the first six months. She read the figures from the chart. The total projection for the additional'/ cent sales tax for the year is $1.8 million. Regarding other updates, the Budget staff has looked at other county revenues and expenditures and Orange County is very much on track with what was budgeted for this year. There are three major areas that the Board can focus on that were postponed last year - payand benefits initiatives, County and school capital funding projects, and replenishing the County's fund balance. Chair Brown asked about reinstating same of the capital projects and if all of them could be reinstated. John Link said that it was entirely up to the County Commissioners. He said that he could provide the Board with a revisited chart of original items. Donna Dean said that it amounted to about $925,000. Jahn Link said that they are meeting with the two school superintendents tomorrow, so they could ask them about their priority recurring capital projects that would have to be finished between now and the end of the year. Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis arrived at 6:49 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs said that his first reaction to this is to follow course with as few commitments as possible before we get into the budget process. This is especially important if merger of the two school systems is a possibility because there will be major tax implications. He would like to have as much money in the fund balance as possible. Donna Dean summarized the presentation for Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis. John Link said that his suggestion was that we look on the capital side and determine the priority items that need to be addressed between now and the end of the fiscal year. Commissioner Halkiotis asked Jahn Link if we were going to ask, "What kind of impact did it really have on you even though we cut back some of this recurring capital money?" He wants to know if it presented any undue hardships. He wants to see the overall budget priority list far the entire County and not just the schools. Chair Jacobs said that, to the schools' credit, they did their budgets to meet the County's need and restrained themselves from complaining because they knew the County could not do anything about it. John Link said that by April 21St they will come back with a total list of what was cut from the budget as it relates to capital, the hardships that were faced as a result of the cuts, and what needs to be addressed by the end of the fiscal year. Commissioner Gordon said that she remembers in the discussions about the cuts, that the commissioners had stated some priorities when things were cut from the budget. There was more than one meeting where it was discussed. She would like to have summaries of those discussions when the commissioners discuss the budget. Commissioner Halkiotis would like an understanding of haw the schools are spending their money and also he would like more detailed accounting of the non-departmental funding. Chair Brown said that the non-departmental funding report was in a packet. Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Gordon did not receive this. Donna Dean will make sure they get this report. 2. Employee Pay and Benefits Personnel Director Elaine Holmes made this presentation, which is incorporated by reference. John Link said that Elaine Homes and her staff have worked many hours day and night to come up with this information and he expressed appreciation for their work. Elaine Holmes said that the purpose of the work session tonight was for the County Commissioners to provide direction on employee pay and benefits. The Board's original planned directions for the current two-year cycle included the cost of living increase, in-range salary increase, continue the meritorious service awards, and carry out the classification and pay study. This was the original direction two years ago. The fiscal year 2002-2003 brought some fiscal challenges and the Board postponed the pay plan. The budget did not include funding far the four items as planned. The staff is recommending that the Board reconstitute its approach of looking at pay and benefits on a two-year cycle with 2002-2003 as the first year and 2003-2004 as the second year with focus on the classification and pay study implementation in the two-year period. She gave some history of the classification and pay study and the reasons behind it. The study was placed on hold in March 2002. The consultant recommends implementation of a new salary schedule providing for stronger entry rates and more competitive salary ranges and job classification for each position and salary grade assignment for each job classification in the new salary schedule based on current review. The next steps include reviews with department head and employees, completion of final report and presentation to the Board along with related analyses, review as the Board desires, Board adoption of new Classification and Pay Plan and Salary Schedule, and implementation of approved salary administration. The recommendation is to implement phase 1 of the study retroactive April 14t". Phase 1 includes implementation of new job classifications and salary schedule; move employees below new minimum up to new minimum; place employees in new range but off step, on step; and grant a one step {2.5%} service based increase. Elaine Holmes said that she has heard mare employee concern about pay and completion of this study than any other issue in her tenure with the County. She said that employees do understand and have been cooperative and supportive in a difficult year. Chair Brown made reference to attachment three and the number of employees making below $40,000. Commissioners Jacobs and Carey asked same clarifying questions which were answered by Elaine Holmes. John Link said that the staff was comfortable with the twa items under phase 1 in attachment four. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like to see some variations of phasing it in over a two to three year period. Commissioner Gordon asked for some clarification on the salary steps, which was provided by Elaine Holmes. Commissioner Jacobs asked for additional copies of the plan for the study. Elaine Holmes said that she could provide the handouts that the consultant spoke on in February, but they have not received the full report yet because the study is not complete. Commissioner Carey asked for a comment from Elaine Holmes on the steps that need to be completed and the time and cost. Elaine Holmes said that she estimates that they could bring the study back to the Board in two to three months. The original cost of the study for the consultant contract was $71,250. She does not anticipate any additional costs to finish the study. Chair Brown asked if the Board was interested in continuing this study and everyone agreed. Chair Brown verified that if the plan is fully implemented then the increase in cost is $2,500,000. Commissioner Jacobs asked how the hiring freeze figures into this and when it would be implemented. John Link said that it would be at the end of the fiscal year as opposed to the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Jacobs said that he recalls that the staff was supposed to come back to the Board if there were extraordinary circumstances or any emergency positions that needed to be filled. John Link said that they have addressed less than 10 positions that were critical during the hiring freeze. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was passible for the consultants to show quarter steps and Elaine Holmes said yes. John Link said that regardless of whether the Beard pursues attachment 4 or attachment 5, the one step that needs to be pursued as soon as passible is the one step (2.5%) service based increase for all employees. The study confirms that this needs to be done. Commissioner Gordon asked what exactly the Board was committing itself to -the plan the way the consultant proposed it or a modified version. John Link said that he has to sit down and talk with the department heads and staff and talk about the consultant's recommendations. Chair Brown clarified that the Board has agreed to go ahead with the pay and classification study. She is not hearing a solid response on deciding on either of the alternatives tonight. When the Board does decide on the implementation, then an active date needs to be determined. John Link said that the staff is recommending that the plan be made retroactive April 14t" The money is in the budget for this. Commissioner Gordon wants the study to go forward, but she wants to see it before she commits to it. She still has questions. Discussion ensued about the next steps. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the housing living wage and asked if all of the employees were above the housing living wage. Elaine Holmes said that she would look and see where the County stands on this. The housing wage for a family of four is $31,000. Commissioner Jacobs would like to see what positions are below this and haw long they have been in their jobs. Commissioner Gordon asked to get the information on the plan about two weeks before the Board has to decide. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 7, attachment 3 and the 8.1 °fo over three years. Elaine Holmes said that this is the total increase in permanent salaries once the study is fully implemented. This is the cost spread over three years. Jahn Link said that we need to make sure everyone understands that this is an average. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the housing living wage and if it could be projected out over the two years and how close we would get over two years in recovering all employees. He would like to get everyone up to the housing living wage by the end of the 27- month cycle. Chair Brown asked that the staff look at the meritorious service award and what it would look like to be put in every two years rather than every year. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the work session at 7:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 4115!2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA February 24, 2003 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, February 24, 2Q03 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordan Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Barhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and members Jay Bryan, Barry Katz, Craufurd Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel Preston, Howard McAdams, Maria Todd, and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Brown said that some items that were supposed to be addressed at the meeting last week (February 17tH) would be delayed. Item 9-a regarding the school systems merger will be delayed until March Stn. Also, items 5-a and 6-a will be addressed March St". The closed session will also be addressed on March Stn B. PUBLIC CHARGE- The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Board Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray chaired these items. 1. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Verbatim Minutes from audiatape of the Text Amendment regarding Outdoor Lighting. Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair, Orange County Planning Board: "The first item on the agenda is an Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment regarding Outdaar Lighting and we are going to hear a presentation from staff." Craig Benedict, Director, Orange County Planning Department: "My name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. Tonight we will be addressing four items. The first three items are amendments to our Zoning Ordinance. The last item is a subdivision amendment, which is very closely related to enforcement provisions that are noted in the zoning. So, we have items, actually the third and fourth items we'll be talking about tonight are enforcement provisions: One for subdivision and one for zoning. "The first item has to do with Outdoor Lighting Standards. Presently, the County has limited standards for outdoor lighting. I'll do a presentation talking about some new standards there. "The second item has to da with stream buffers. Presently stream buffers and streams are identified by U.S.G.S. maps. We are increasing the definitions we have for stream identification. a. Amend Article 6 to establish Outdoor Liahtina Standards Craig Benedict: "I will move my location now to the dais behind you and I will start off with the outdoor lighting "My staff will get the people who have signed in for the pu61lc hearing and 1 do understand that there are some people who do want to speak on a few of these items. "Since we do have two meetings wrapped into one tonight, we will move with all due speed and with all proper comment that we can as we go through these items tonight. The first item that we are taking a look at tonight is outdoor lighting standards. This is something that has been put together based on comments from both our Planning Board, from the citizens that see new developments come in the area, and from the Commission far the Environment who has also taken up this as something to examine. The one area that we are talking about presently is existing standards, which are just limited to our economic development districts. And even within the economic development districts, there are minor references to where the lights are located and things of that nature. We will talk about the proposed standards and we will talk about not just lighting but the amount of energy and energy conservation that is involved in lighting. And we will talk about what it means when you change regulations from one thing to the next. "Presently the only reference to asking for lighting standards in our present code is a section at the end of our implementation guidelines that says "and any other information that is necessary." And so we have asked for this information when we review site plans. Most rural subdivisions are not putting lighting in them so we are in no way asking for people to light rural subdivisions; but if they do, we want to make sure of the light spill is a minimum. And as I mentioned, economic development districts da have some standards there. The proposed standards do a few different things. The amount of light spill that comes in different areas of the county if the lighting standards are not appropriate can cause a certain amount of sky glow and it can damage the typical night sky that a lot of people enjoy. "This light pollution that I think a lot of people can attest to in the last five to ten years has been appreciable. And was even recognized last week on a foggy night when I was driving back from Carrboro and in the distance on Highway 54 you could see a major glow. I said that this could not be Burlington ar Graham. It was a small car dealership out in White Cross area, that looked like there was same sort of major sale going an there. "So even some small projects can have quite an impact upon the rural environment. Besides the businesses and residences, this light pollution can affect the enjoyment of the night, the dark sky, and enjoyment by the neighbors. You will also notice that driving conditions based on inappropriate lighting can also cause hazards while driving. And energy conservation, we just didn't want to limit it to light pollution, we understand that in our age of energy star housing where we are reducing the amount of energy necessary for housing, there is also a way of reducing the amount of energy for lighting and you have noticed the different color-coded lighting out there." "There are certain types of lighting that are high-energy cansumption. And what we are suggesting, at least at the public hearing stage, is the prohibition of mercury vapor lighting, which is, as we have analyzed, high-energy consumption. And there is a chart which we will go to next that gives an example of some of the lighting fixtures that are available and some of the costs that accrue to the people who pay the bill afterwards." "Now we also understand that the costs of the initial installation is part of the capital improvement and costs of providing these facilities, but also if you take a lank at the cast of the electric service afterwards, by reducing this long term electric cansumption, the need and dependency on sources of electricity could be brought down. "Also another initiative that we are taking a look at is where possible and where feasible and applicable, we are encouraging the use of solar lighting, and solar lighting technology which has over the last five years moved forward in leaps and bounds and we are interested in proceeding with some sort of solar lighting application at our building in Orange County. The lighting was knocked down in a storm a few years and we are still without signs and without lighting and sa we hope to have some new technology for solar lighting for the sign. This is just a quick chart of energy conservation -low pressure sodium, 35 watts, annual operating costs about $19.00, high pressure sodium -75 watt fixtures, about $30.00, middle halide- 100watt bulbs, $37.00 approximately, and mercury vapor -175 watts, $67.00. "So you can see almost 3'/2 times the cost of providing lighting with different types of fixtures and applications. Now there is a combination- it doesn't mean that you have to provide 3'h times as many lighting fixtures as low-pressure sodium to make the project work. This is just an example of what we have done in energy conservation analysis to make sure that future lights take that into consideration. We hope that the benefits abound and to improve driving conditions but still allowing far appropriate security for people that want to preserve their property, using conservation measures to reduce our dependency an electricity, using these solar opportunities, supporting the dark skies initiative so people can enjoy the stars out there. And also taking a look at lighting so that it is used for its intended purposes of security and invisibility and using crime prevention through environmental design techniques. So those are some of the positive consequences. "So that is in essence where we are going with the new amendments to our lighting standards. That is all for the presentation that Robert has tonight. We did recognize a note that came in from Duke Power that mentioned a few sections of our Ordinance. I just read this before the meeting and they said that some parts of the ordinance were good and they would like to work with us on some other parts that discussed such as the prohibition of mercury halide lights. We do have certain clauses about how this would apply to new development and things like that that we have been working with the industry and have been applying same of these new concepts with some new projects that have been coming an line an a volunteer basis. So we are optimistic that these are both functional and usable by the development community and by the electric contractors and by the power companies. If there are any questions for me that I will be able to field them, if not, there are some speakers that have signed up and we can move to that section. Chair Brown asked if they were going to get a response from the staff on all the questions brought forward by Duke Power. Craig Benedict said they would respond item by item before they go to the Planning Board. Commissioner Carey had a question about section 6.31.6H, regarding intrusiveness of lighting. He wanted to knawwhat non-conforming meant regarding sliding scale. Craig Benedict explained this. Public Comment: Mark Smith - OC Commission for the Environment. "Thank you for all the work you do every day doing this commissioner stuff. It is scary for me to look at your schedules. So does everyone have this in front of you? This is a presentation I prepared a while ago and gave to the Commission for the Environment and then to some people on the Planning Board and I guess originated the Ordinance you are seeing now and I am not going to go through the whole thing, it takes a little longer than I think is reasonable given that you've got like four sessions going for one. "But there is a lot of information in here about what light pollution consists of, the amount of waste, the environment impacts that are involved, security and safety issues, and a lot of things that Craig already touched on. I am not going to go over all that again. I think just for reference purposes, let's go ahead and flip to the pictures here, which Craig can put them up there too, the good, the bad, and the ugly. "I just want to give us all a {and I am going to apologize to everyone in the room here, you are going to go home looking at light fixtures, driving down the road now and moaning about bad lighting and good lighting, at least until we get this Ordinance implemented, not for the rest of your natural life hopefully}. So the first 3 of these basically give you an idea of what good basic lighting designs are. "And the idea with this Ordinance, as I am looking at it, is to just have good fixtures put in and it is a pretty simple matter; it is just an engineering, a technical fix. The idea is to have the light shining down on the things that you want to light up and not in your eyes, not creating glare and not creating safety and security concerns where you can't see what you are supposed to be trying to look at. And the way this works is that the first 3 pictures are called full cut-off fixtures. Basically they do not let the light go above the level of the fixture. And so for light pollution purposes that keeps the light, except what is reflecting off the moisture in the air, below the fixture off the pavement and keeps it from ending up in the sky and also saves you a whole lot of light, saves you a lot of energy. And so you have regular street lights here, go back a couple, and this is what you would want to put out in this parking lot instead of these acorns that basically emit light almost 360 degrees and just spray it up in the air. "The 3rd one which shows that even for a regular parking lot you can put a fixture in a box sa that if you are back far enough away from it is not in your eyes and all the light is going down. Then you have two options far a sign, either from above or these internally lit signs that work really well. Then there are the bad fixtures and there are many of them. "You can get the totally ugly effect, which you can get by driving straight back towards Chapel Hill, just as you come up over the hill. So, in the summation page, light pollution is a problem in mast places in this country where they do not have a comprehensive Ordinance and that includes Orange County. "So we have got a good start on the Ordinance. For this to actually be a success this is kind of like air pollution the light knows no boundaries, so getting the same things happening in other jurisdictions in the towns and at the university would be something I would want to motivate. So to the degree that we could get an ad hoc countywide working group for a little while working on this and try and get same uniformity on these things that would be great. "One thing just occurred to me, it is possible to even light ball fields and things that you would think would just have to create this big ball of light. With the right shielding you can make even ball fields and big facilities like that pretty tolerable in the neighborhood. So we can actually bring back the stars in town and that has been done in a lot of bigger cities where astronomers were being put out of business. And I know it takes a while for Ordinances and the lifecycle of these fixtures to go through, but as far as the state-of-the-art fixtures and light pollution approaches in all county facilities goes, I think that is something that can just be done by the people that are planning the facilities. "And I would really encourage that and the last thing that I want to ask far is that we get a referral an this Ordinance so that we can take a look at it officially for the Commission for the Environment. "And on a completely different topic, I was the recipient of an Orange County Arts Commission grant last year and there is a pile of these CDs aver there that were a result of that (five or six} and they are for you all. Thank you very much." Bill Walser. "Hi, I am Bill Walser, a resident of Orange County. I am a lifetime member of the International Dark Sky Association, which basically made the presentation. I am an amateur astronomer and I have a private observatory just off Dodson's Cross Roads where I do deep space imaging. It's a university quality facility and there are a number of other amateur astronomers in the area, who until just recently have enjoyed very dark skies. "As the staff said, the last five years have been brutal on the sky. I came in tonight to encourage you to see this Ordinance through to completion. It is very important right now in Orange County as the rural buffer zone is being heavily developed. It is such a simple problem to salve as Mark said. "The idea is simply to have people buy fixtures that light what they want lit. Yau look at these domes of light that half of the light is going up into space, that is just energy that is wasted. "The first night that Carrboro turned on their new Municipal home, I thought Carrboro was burning dawn from my little property, which is about 12 miles away because of the huge dome that it put up that was not there the night before. So I drove down the next day and immediately recognized what the problem was, at least Carrboro didn't burn down. "But that's why this is so important; it just takes a few lights with excess energy being wasted with this tremendous wattage going up into the air. This is particularly true during the summer season, where humidity is high in the air and you tend to trap all that light and the moisture and it produces these light domes which are as polluting as if you had put chemicals in the water to the air. Fortunately it is much simpler to solve this problem than it is a lot of types of pollution, because every major light fixture company in the country has fixtures that conform to a large number of these Ordinances. "And so it is not even a problem of shopping or finding the right thing. Every one of them makes conforming and non-conforming fixtures and it is just a simple matter for the architects to specify conforming fixtures and it saves the tenants a lot of money. So there are very few peaple who find a problem with it and the power companies are typically the only people wha find a problem with it and even those people are trying hard to be responsible about energy savings and it is a very tough argument for them. "You know in a lot of jurisdictions they make a quick retrofit and that is a big problem. Here, the Ordinance is not proposing a retrofit until the particular fixture needs to be replaced. So it is all just going forward and that is why it is so important with the development that is going on in the county. "So I felt like I needed to come forward and encourage all the people involved with this. And I have to say the staff of Orange County has done a remarkable job of research and lacking at Ordinances in other parts of the country and looking at the engineering aspects of it and looking at the basic common sense application of it without going either overboard or not having an effective Ordinance and I hope that in some form similar to the draft it will get eventually accepted. Thank you." Ron Osborne: "Thank you. My name is Ron Osborne, and I am here tonight representing Duke Power regarding the Ordinance. My position with Duke Power is that I am the Engineering Supervisor for the Durham, Burlington, Chapel Hill service areas that encompasses all of Orange County, most of Durham County, Alamance County, and parts of Guilford, counties to the north and south and everything. I wanted to lead off by saying that I am heartened by the actions the County is taking with regard to light pollution and light trespass and I think that this is something that needs to be addressed probably in most jurisdictions. I applaud Orange County far taking a look at it. "Duke's interest in this is to make sure that the Ordinance is simple to follow which will equate to compliance, which will equate to effectiveness. And to that end, and to the intent of trying to limit light trespass, the remarks that we have provided are geared toward that. Let me just say a couple of things because I appreciated the preceding speakers. "The first thing is that part of my business is to look at lights all the time whenever I'm riding down the road so I know how everybody feels when you start thinking about things and you start looking up. And I do see lights all the time that are creating problems. And it is relatively simple to fix them. And I think that the Ordinance can address that. "The other thing that I want to mention is because I found some common ground. I live in rural Alamance County, not far from what is called "Three College Observatory." I've been up there a couple of times with my children to observe the heavens, and the light pollution is a problem. It is getting worse, especially on a foggy night. The moisture in the air does cause a problem. And if you go out and look, you'll probably notice that some of the greatest offenders, unfortunately, are governmental agencies. You look at the highway lighting down I-85 and you look at the lighting over different municipalities. And it is going to be a tough issue to tackle unless municipalities and governmental lighting is included. And, again, I applaud Orange County because, based on my interpretation of the Ordinance, that has not been ignored. So, I think that is a goad step. "I mentioned seven things in the memo that was sent, which I will not go over again because you've gat them with you tonight, but I just wanted to mention a couple of highlights. "One is the Section 631.5, which refers to the submittal of plans and designs far lighting applications. This is of concern to Duke Power from the standpoint that, due to the volume of lighting and everything, it is going to be challenging for everything to be submitted and reviewed. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but the burden of the submittal and the approval process will fall upon the requesting party. And it would be up to a public utility like Duke Power since we would have to have that come in hand from the requesting party to us. That is not a service that could be performed under the current rate structure. So that translates into extra costs to a requesting party to have that submitted and brought to us, something that is approvable. Again, I don't think that Duke Power has a position on that. We are just making everybody aware that that is a direct action of the Ordinance that will take place. "A lot of lights that Duke Power puts in are situations where there is a farmer or somebody that has a convenience store or just somebody's gotten their own home and they want a light installed. Duke Power supplies lights under the North Carolina Utility Commission, which approves the light selection that is installed. And, currently, the guidelines we follow to put the lights up are fairly straightforward and our desire is that they remain so under the Ordinance. "The simplest way to do that is to make the foundational Ordinance the requirement of cut-off fixtures, which I think would probably address 90 percent of the light pollution, light trespass problem that we see today. The biggest irritant is the paint source of light that you see when you are outside looking at the light, and that light is not directed on the surface, it's directed out, and even a relatively small light from a distance will be an irritant just because of that point source that you can see. A cut-off fixture would address that and it is something very simple to do. "One caveat to that, to governmental agencies in that when you use cut-off fixtures, it requires more fixtures in a given area to illuminate the same surface such as a roadway. We first experimented with cut-off lighting in the Charlotte Metropolitan area over 20 years ago, and it has very many advantages, but one of its disadvantages is that often times it takes more lights in a distance to have the same uniformity ratio and the same illumination. "So, what that translates to is more cost for agencies requesting lights, DOT, municipalities, even private parties that want to illuminate a subdivision. I`m not saying that this is a bad thing. It is just a fact of life that will happen in many cases. "The other item I wanted to mention is the prohibition of mercury vapor. One thing to keep in mind on that is that, currently, that is the low-cost option as approved by the Utility Commission for most requesting parties. Mercury vapor is available in cut-off fixtures so the light pollution issue would be addressed but the cansumptian issue would remain. "One side note about the consumption issue: the rates for mercury vapor lights are a flat rate, it's not based on cansumptian, it is based on a flat rate. Mercury vapor fixtures are alow- costoption because it is less costly to install and it's less costly to maintain. The rates are set and they are based on the cost of the consumption, the cost of the facilities and the cost that Duke Power has to expend going out there and making a repair trip. Metal halide has more maintenance involved than the mercury vapor, even though it is more efficient. So there are some trade-offs. It's not a linear comparison that can be made sometimes. "The other thing is that the electricity that is used for lighting at night is really not wasted energy. I know that is hard to comprehend sometimes but the power system that Duke Power and the other utilities use to generate electricity is designed to address peak loading situations which occur during the daytime. We have to build that generation whether we use it or not. And at night when the load is down, we've still got that generation available at really no extra cast. And using it far illumination actually offsets the cost during peak times. It's kind of like building a four-lane road to get to Kenan Stadium but you only need it ten times a year, but you've got that road there and it would be nice if you could use it every day of the year and offset the cost of it, and that is haw lighting is viewed. And again the flat rate and the maintenance cast are considered in what the Commission approves for us to build. "In closing, I would like to say that Duke Power, and I, myself, would be glad to continue the dialogue with the County and other interested parties. We appreciate the opportunity we've had so far. We look forward to getting an effective, and simple and, ultimately, workable Ordinance." A. Nicole Goading-Ray "Is there anyone who was not signed up to speak who would like to speak to this issue at this time? OK." Barry Jacobs "I would like to make some comments. First, unless I missed it, I didn't see anything in here about subdivision signs, which are basically advertising signs. We don't light our street signs. I don't see why we would allow the lighting of subdivision signs. "I would like to second Mr. Bryan's comment. I think it would be probably more in keeping with Duke Power recommendation to have a simple, cleaner way of lacking at fixtures on a periodic basis. I don't know how that affects the exemptions. C, if you are talking about publicly funded streetlights ar if you are talking about all streetlights. I'm not sure we have control over publicly funded streetlights, but we da have over privately funded streetlights. Probably the grossest light polluter in central Orange County is DOT's new interchange at Efland, which you can, I would think you could see from satellites going around the earth. And I would hope that when we get to the point that we have something adopted that we bring this to the attention of our Division Engineer and express our concerns because that's a real shame what they've done right in the middle of the County. "And another egregious example would be the bank as you are coming into Hillsborough on Old 86. I wonder if under 6.31.11 -Lighting On Buildings and Landscaping - if you could just review that section and think about that bank, and think if this Ordinance adequately covers the gluttony that's involved in the bathing of that building in unnecessary light all night. "And also, I would just like to suggest that on 6.31.9c: I think you want to say, "shall not exceed one hour after the end of the event." "Thank you." Moses Carey, Jr. "I heard one of the speakers speak and he was encouraging, he was admiring the way the existing lighting or amortization of existing lighting was dealt with in the Ordinance, but I heard someone, one of our Planning Board members ask about an Amortization Schedule rather than the way we've dealt with it in here. And I think I heard you speak favorably of the way it was dealt with in here. "Does any of the other speakers have any comments on whether one or the other of those approaches..." Nicole Gooding - Ray "If you could come to the podium to do that. I'm sorry." Ron Osborne: "Ideally, an amortized period of replacement would be the perfect world, that would be a wonderful thing. My personal feeling is that it is much more important to get a good ordinance on the books at this stage of our development. Given Duke Power's concerns, I don't see any of those issues that are not easy to work out. If you start reaching into people's pocketbooks and with fixtures that they've had over a number of years and pushing them, you're going to get some vocal opposition. To me it's much more important that we contain the growth of bad lighting in Orange County. Time will take care of itself. You know that the International Dark Skies made a huge effort in Manhattan, which most people would think is an impossible task and they didn't even do it by retrofitting. But what happens is that in Manhattan because of the aggressive retailing environment, facades are redone; often, store windows are redesigned; storefronts are redesigned, and every time it is renovated, it has to conform. Within ten years they did an unbelievable job of reducing vertical light pollution out of Manhattan. Of course, the problem is everything around Manhattan is still non-conforming. That was the reason I said that. Not that it would not be ideal to do that, but, my personal feeling is that it is very important to get this an the books and functional, and protect us from what could happen in a rapid developing period without any ordinance." Moses Carev. Jr. "Sa you don't think we have a perfect world here?" Ron Osborne "No." (Laughed} Moses Carev. Jr. "Thank you." Ron Osborne "If I can make a brief comment on your question, as well. The suggestion I would like to propose is that the Ordinance address all new installations initially, and, then, maybe be revisited in incremental steps to see, if, based on its efficacy, does it need to go back and revisit retrofitting. "The retrofitting issue is problematic from several standpoints. Number one is, just as it has been mentioned; it's going to get into someone's pocketbook. Someone's light goes out and then all of a sudden you inform them, `Oh, by the way, now we're going to have to up that, fixture or whatever. It's going to be an increased cost. I think the important thing to do would be to stop the bleeding based on the new installations. And, then, over time, I think that the grandfathered or the existing installations would probably be addressed, because eventually they do wear out. Eventually lightning strikes and things hit things. But what we would desire from Duke Power's standpoint is something that does not place an undue burden on the consumer and that can be done in an orderly and logical fashion. "You may have a situation, and it could be a municipality or a County agency or private party that has a whole system of lights. One light needs to be replaced. Because it's replaced and does not match the rest of the system, it could impact the, not only the esthetics but the illumination quality of that system. So, it needs to be looked at more carefully than just a wholesale retrofit that gets triggered. I would like to offer you that Duke Power wants to be a good steward of the system that we have, and we want to make sure that we are making the best decisions for the community because we live here, too. I look forward to the day, I live in southern Alamance County, I look forward to the day that Alamance County has some sort of ordinance, again, that is not reactive, but it is proactive. That is what I would hope that Orange County pursues. Barry Jacobs "May I ask Mr. Osborne a question? How much does it cost to install a shield on one of the sodium vapor street lights?" Ron Osborne "When you say a shield, there are two types. There's what's called a nemahead, which is what you see in most people's backyards. The bulb is in there vertically. And for years, things were done like paint the sides of them, or whatever. That's not proved to be very effective. Duke Power ceased the practice of doing that about five years ago. There are probably some of them out there, but it's just not very effective. Cost wise, I don't know what the cost of the actual material would be, but the cost of sending somebody out there and performing the work, especially if that cost is not passed on to somebody, which ultimately it would be, you're probably looking at a minimum of someone in the fifty to the one-hundred dollar range, by the time you assessed it, got the material, went out there and did the work and did everything like that. "Just to give you an example, we have a policy that if we relocate a pole, which involves going out there and having somebody take the fixture off the pale and put it on another pole; this is a flat rate of $268. And sometimes it's less than that and sometimes it's more, but that's kind of an average. So, it's not always cheap. The workforce that we have to utilize, they have to be experts doing what they're doing because moving a light is a relatively simple matter, but they've got to be prepared for all kinds of contingencies, so it's not always that cheap." Barry Jacobs "Thank you. I'd like to request that staff look into that. Piedmont Electric said that they would do that for nothing that the owner of the light had to request it, not the person whose house it's shining into. So, I would be very interested in knowing if it's different by utility or, maybe, I'm not using the correct term of arc, but that was the information that I got, and that would certainly influence whether I thought it was a reasonable thing. If it's going to be less reasonable, then, I might want to consider at least having it done for governmental entities so that their lights are phased out over a period of time, so that, at least the schools and the municipalities and the County phased out the lights that are polluting and take, and again, as we often say, lead by example. Nicole Gooding -Ray "Commissioner Halkiotis." Commissioner Halkiotis "I just wanted to make sure that Craig and the staff were certain to get same of the proposals out to the Chambers of Commerce an both ends of the County. I've been around this County long enough to know that I have seen laser shows for both advertising and entertainment, indoors and outdoors, and I've also seen a lot of search lights, from Chapel Hill Boulevard to Hillsborough and parts north and west. I think it would be just a good policy to get this before both Chambers to let the business community knave what's being proposed here." Nicole Gooding-Ray "Mr. Bryan." Jay Bryan, Planning Board Member "I have a couple of quick things. There are a couple of places in the Ordinance where it talks about cut-off features. And my suggestion would be that where it says "cut-off' it should be really full cut-off. That means that you don't let the light horizontal. I didn't see the term full cut-off so I'm not sure how this would apply but that's one suggestion. "The second one was that the lighting plan, for instance in other ordinances, show consideration for energy -efficient lighting and that kind of thing. That`s made a part of what's being required. "Thirdly, there wasn't anything about how you measure light, that is how the County, measures light and this could complicate the Ordinance by that, but there's nothing in there that defines that. Nicole Gooding -Ray "Ok, Ms. Price." Ms. Renee Price "People who spoke, whether they thought the issue was more the type of lighting, or whether it is the design of the light fixtures itself and, you know, which would actually achieve the lighting you want overall for the efficiency?" Ron Osborne "It makes sense. While I've got my thought train, I wanted to make one comment. Mr. Jacobs, in the attachment that Duke Power provided, there are the rate schedules offered by the Commission. There's a contract period on the lights which helps Duke Power recoup the investment and everything. If the light was replaced once that contract period for whatever the light is, and it varies depending on the type of light, was met, then that cost would be greatly reduced. What hurts is when the light has just been put up and then you've gat to ga out there because you haven't recouped your investment from the time spent. So, that is a factor in there "Regarding your question, it would probably be answered by the first two speakers from their concerns and their perspective. I would say that from Duke Power's perspective and my professional experiences that the type of light, as far as metal halide, mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium is a lot of times a matter of personal preference, esthetics, you know the color rendition. Each one is designed to do something differently. Of course the metal halide, the bright white light, is what looks the nicest but it is also the most expensive from the standpoint of maintenance, materials and equipment. "The light trespass issue is more of improper application or the use of fixtures that are not the cut-off fixtures because when the light projects below that fixture, it's not always shining down on the surface intended. It's also bleeding out to the side. And you can see a small point of light for miles away. Again, from the southern part of Alamance County you can see those lights for miles and miles even on a clear night when there is no moisture in the air. It's not the light that's being projected on the roadway. You could have the same type lights, same wattage and everything, but if you had the cut-off lens, it would be down on the roadway and not that paint of light that you see from miles away. I think it's the application, the type of fixture, that's the biggest offender." Ms. Price "And what about the efficiency? That is what I meant. Does it mean that we have several law wattages, I mean, would we have like a hundred low wattage light fixtures for a certain area. What would that cast as compared to having say a lesser amount of the brighter lights but with the proper shielding and if you don't have the domes. Ron Osborne "From a lighting design paint, you are usually better off having a lot of low wattage lights because that helps what is called the uniformity ratio. It's the ratio of the brightest area to the darkest area. But oftentimes if you are talking about more lights, that's more poles. You know that is more things for a car to run into, more pales sitting in somebody's yard, especially if it's a street project. The property owner buys rights, and very understandably doesn't want a pole in their front yard. Then you can't shift a pole fifty feet so it's not right in front of their house because then it throws out your uniformity ratio and your spacing. So, that's why there are a variety of fixtures and pole sizes and bracket lengths and everything else, because one size does not fit all. "To give you an example, on State highways, the Department of Transportation requires a lighting encroachment, just like they should. Any portion of light falling on the DOT highway has to be approved just like a pole sitting in a right of way would have. It's very hard to make one size fit all. So that's why there are a lot of varieties of different fixtures and lighting types and everything else. But the one basic common thread that can be addressed is the use of cut- off fixtures. It will impact adversely the spacing somewhat, but the gains from the elimination of that point source of light, being an irritant, from my experience, and I think the experience of like the City of Charlotte and other large municipalities is that it is worth it." Nicale Gooding - Ray "Ok. Are there any further questions?" "Is there a motion?" Chair Brown "I move that we refer this to the Planning Board and return it to the Board of Commissioners no later than May 20t" " Commissioner Gordon "I'd make that a motion and I'd add to refer to the Commission for the Environment, if it's the Board's pleasure. So it would read, `Administration recommends referring the proposed amendment to the Planning Board and Commission for the Environment far a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 20t", 2003." Commissioner Jacobs "And do we want to have the Commission for the Environment make its recommendation to the Planning Board or are we going to get two separate recommendations?" Commissioner Carev "I think we ought to have them make it to the Planning Board." Commissioner Jacobs "So do I. If that's your motion, then I will second it." Chair Brown "Motion and a second. All those in favor, please say `Aye.' VOTE: UNANIMOUS [END OF DISCUSSION ON THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE] b. Amend Article 6.23.7 Stream Buffers and Article 22 Definitions to broaden the methods far identification of streams that reauire stream buffers. The specific change is to include a provision allowing use of the Soil Survey of Orange County and field identification by County staff to identify streams subject to stream buffers. Anew definition for Water Feature is added as a part of the amendment. Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that this is a change from the existing zoning code that talks about the identifying streams. The streams are identified on United States Geologic Survey maps (USGS). The suggestion is to increase the opportunities to identify streams with two additional methods. The first method is to use the Orange County Soil Survey maps. The Department of Water Quality has also put together a certification program where people can identify streams or identify that something is not a stream based on a list of criteria. The recommendation is to add this provision to the zoning code so that when subdivisions are analyzed, they can take into consideration all of the aspects of a stream. It has also been a goal of Orange County to protect the headwaters because 85°~ of all areas drained in the County are headwaters. An implication of this provision is that there will be additional stream miles that will be protected. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Mr. Feathers has seen a copy of this and Planner Robert Davis said that he was aware of it. Commissioner Gordan would like to have an estimate of the impact of this provision. She wants to protect streams as much as possible, but she wonders what the impact would be on people's properties since so much of Orange County might be in this classification. There were no Planning Board comments. Public Comment There was no one signed up to speak to this item, but Chair Gooding-Ray asked if anyone would like to speak. Robert Nichols, a retired dairy farmer, said that he went to the Planning Department today to ask about this provision. He said that Craig Benedict said in the presentation that the stream buffer would be from 130-170 feet. On his property this would take about 37 acres of his 175 acres. He would like to know what he can and cannot do with this property. He asked if he could harvest the timber. Craig Benedict said that if his property is a bona fide farm and forestry operations is what is planned for the property, then he would be following forestry regulations as sanctioned by the State and it would not fall under these zoning regulations. Bona fide farms are exempt from zoning regulations. Robert Nichols made reference to article 6.23.7 in the zoning ordinance and asked what this refers to. Craig Benedict said that article 6.23.7 gives a definition of blue line streams and it offers how to determine stream buffers. Chair Gooding-Ray made reference to 6.23.7 and read, "A stream buffer is an area of land adjacent to a stream or a FEMA identified flood plain, whichever is greater, except as permitted in article 6.23.7." She asked about the exception. Robert Davis said that the exceptions would be utilities, private road crossings, etc. Robert Nichols made reference to rainwater and said that this does not address rainwater. He said that there would be no financial cost to the public for this, but that he would have a large financial cost to take out 37 acres. He asked why his land could not be grandfathered. Chair Brown said that this provision would not apply to band fide farms. Commissioner Jacobs said that we should make it clear that this does not apply to bona fide farms. County Attorney Geoff Gledhill said that no County zoning regulations apply to bona fide farming operations. Commissioner Halkiotis noted that 17 years ago he and Commissioner Carey had the opportunity to protect Mr. Nichols' dairy cows when a former tax collector went after them as manufacturing units under the North Carolina Machinery Act. John Link said that the staff should respond to Commissianer Cordon's comment about full disclosure and that they pursue due diligence about the impacts on citizens. Under Section 2, where it says, "The stream buffer shall extend around the perimeter of all water bodies including ponds and lakes." He said that there may be someone without a bona fide farm that has 10 acres of land and they want to build a house and this will eliminate the possibility. This could affect small landowners. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissianer Carey to receive the Planning Staff's Recommendation and to refer the proposed amendment and to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the BOCG na later than May 20, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Amend Article 23 (Enforcement) to streamline the citation procedure for zoning violations, to establish procedural guidelines for violation notifications, to allow the Zoning Officer to process civil penalties. An increase in the civil penalty from $100.00 to $500.00 per violation is also a part of the amendment. 2. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Craig Benedict said that within this ordinance is how the County identifies with recurring violations and how to provide notices. The County still plans to have personal delivery with registered and certified mail. Civil penalties are suggested to increase from $100 to $500 per day. Presently the demand far payment occurs from the County Commissioners. The recommendation is that the demand for payment occurs with the staff and the courts. The definition of a violation and a violator has been enhanced. The attorney's office has worked closely with the zoning staff to examine the ways to bring violations to a faster conclusion that is fair with full notification and disclosure. He showed a procedural chart of the process of civil penalties. He said that presently there is a backlog of zoning compliance issues because they do not proceed past a certain paint and there is no expeditious manner to bring them to a conclusion. John Link assured the Board that before the matters are carried to court that the person involved will know exactly what is involved. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 23.2.2 and said that the person can be given notice in person or by certified mail. He would like to be assured that there is a personal documented visit first. He made reference to 23.2.3 and read, "a notice of violation is not required where a notice of the same violation has been issued to the same violator at the same Amend Section VII (Legal Status Provision), Sub-section VII-E (Penalties for Violationl, to identify the citation procedure for violations, and establish procedural guidelines for violation property within the previous two years." He asked if someone could have 700 days of $500 a day fines accrue and not get another notice. Craig Benedict said that if a violation is resolved and then the violation is reactivated within the two year timeframe, then a notice is not required to have the repeat violation. Geoff Gledhill said that the idea is that this is not a continuing violation, but the previous one had been stopped and the violator has later resumed the violation. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the appeal would now go to the Board of Adjustment. Geoff Gledhill said that the appeal of the zoning officer's determination has always been to the Board of Adjustment. The difference is that the County Commissioners demanded the civil penalties and this would now be at the staff level. Commissioner Gordon said that it might be possible to work in a visit by a person by giving the person an option. Commissioner Halitosis cautioned the Board of County Commissioners. He said that the Board has given up enough in this County. He said that giving away opportunities for appeal to paid staff is setting a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Carey made reference to 23.4.4 and said that this provides for the Planning Director to make decisions about settlement or mitigation of the civil penalty in instances where appropriate. He thinks it is important that we reflect in here that what we are after is compliance and not money. He would like the language to reflect that the County wants compliance because the objective is not clear. Craig Benedict agreed that this language should be added. Commissioner Gordan asked about the impetus for this amendment and if it was brought forward by the Planning staff. Craig Benedict said that they have had a difficult time in getting compliance on a variety of issues. There have been difficulties with definitions. The amendment is staff generated and the attorney's office also helped. Commissioner Gordon asked if there was a way in this process for someone to access the County Commissioners formally. Craig Benedict said yes and explained the process. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has watched Geoff Gledhill go after the biggest offender in Efland for years. He does not know what it will take to straighten this out. He does not see how this amendment is going to help the County. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the visit and said that all he was suggesting is that someone call first and make an attempt and leave a written notice to document that there was a visit. He said that he would feel more comfortable with 23.2.6 if it read, "The recipient of the notice of violation, correction order, or stop work order, or the owner of the property on which the violation occurs may submit to the Board of County Commissioners a written request far extension of the notice or order, specified time limit far correction of the violation. The zoning officer will recommend whether the time limit should be extended. The Board of County Commissioners will determine whether the violation cannot be corrected within the specified time limits for reasons beyond the control of the person requesting the extension." This would allow some opportunity for someone to come before the Board for an extension of time. Chair Brawn said that she thinks that this is protecting people who buy property in the County if their neighbors become collectors of junk. She is in favor of a good ordinance that does its job. People call her regularly about horrible things in their neighborhood. Commissioner Carey said that he understands that the staff is trying to wean the Board of County Commissioners from getting involved in each case. Renee Price is concerned from the jump in the fine from $100 to $500 per day. Craig Benedict said that the fines are allowed up to $500 and it does not have to be that high. The North Carolina General Statutes has allowed increases to provide some "teeth" in the ordinances. Chair Gooding-Ray said that it does not say "up to" $500 and this should be clarified. Craig Benedict said that the phrase "may impose" was used. He would agree to adding, "may impose up to $500" to further clarify it. There was no public signed up to speak to this item. Chair Gooding-Ray said that she is concerned about the issue of notice when there are multiple owners of a property that do not actually live on the premises. This will be discussed further at the Planning Board meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to receive the Planning Staff's recommendation and to refer to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no later than May 20, 2003. This includes both sections. UOTE: UNANIMOUS With no further items to address, the public hearing was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 411!2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING RESCHEDULED FROM February 17, 2003 February 24, 2003 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, February 24, 2003 at 7:3Q p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. This meeting was re- scheduled from February 17, 2Q03 due to inclement weather. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brawn, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. 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. Rescheduled Regular Meeting Monday February 24, 2003 From Monday, February 17, 2Q03 8:30 p.m. (Approximate start time following quarterly public hearing) Relocated from Southern Human Services Center 2501 Homestead Rd. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Ta F. Gordan Battle Courtroom 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Items in BOLD will be the first items considered following the end of the previously scheduled quarterly public hearing. Items in ITALICS have been delayed and are tentatively scheduled for the Board of Commissioners March 5, 2(103 regular meeting. This meeting began at 9:30 p.m., after the Quarterly Public Hearing. 1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA These were already made and will be heard on the March 5, 2003 meeting. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. CITIZEN & AUDIENCE COMMENTS a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Matthew Barton lives in Carrbaro and said that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School district discovered about a year ago that the 8Q-acre site that the Town of Chapel Hill had identified as a potential high school building site across the street from Southern Village was unusable due to streams and rock. Two other replacement sites have been identified -Rock Haven Road and Eubanks Road. To fix the immediate need for a high school site, he suggested that the Board direct County Planning and Environmental staff to perform a review of the impact of siting the next high school at Eubanks Raad versus Rock Haven Road, working with the Planning staff of the school district and the two towns. The due date should be in April, which is when the school district needs a decision, according to newspaper reports. This review should include location of the projected school population, traffic impact and potential injuries, time wasted by students and parents in longer bus or car rides, increased environmental pollution due to longer bus or car rides, better academic outcomes when parents are involved in a neighborhood school, health benefits from exercise due to increased walking and bike riding to attend a neighborhood school, and the need far sidewalks and bike lanes to accommodate such healthy modes of transportation. He further suggested that the Board direct the County Manager to explore funding alternatives for the extra costs associated with the Rock Haven Road site. Examples include an increase of $1,000 in the impact fee charged in the school district, use of existing bond capacity or bank loans, or use of projected growth and sales tax revenue. Etta Pisano urged the Board to help the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board to swiftly locate the much-needed additional high school in the south part of the County -ideally south of Franklin Street. She understands that there will be 1,500 high school aged kids living south of Franklin Street in the next five years. This issue needs to be addressed before the merger issue and the issues should be kept separate. She asked the Board to address the high school issue first. Margaret Campion said that she has formed no opinion on merger of the two school systems. She said that there is not a lot of time left to site the third high school in Chapel Hill-Carrboro. She agreed with the last two speakers. Leslie Lotina is one of the Co-Presidents of McDougle Elementary School. She shared a resolution that was passed in the February PTA meeting. In summary, the resolution states that the McDougle Elementary School PTA strongly supports the effort of the CHCCS Board to site the third high school in the southern end of town. Jay Bryan serves on a task force that is looking at the development of the Eubanks Road schooVpark site. He said that the County Commissioners set up a work group to look at a plan for this and this concept plan has come to his group with 77 acres allotted for a school site and 120 acres for a park. His understanding was that until difficulties came with regard to siting the other high school site in the southern part of the County, the intention of the school board was to locate a middle school and an elementary school on this site. He supports this as an idea. He asked the County Commissioners to confine the study to the 77 acres for a high school and keep the acreage divided. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered as the Board addressed the items an the agenda below.) 3. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon said that the Transportation Advisory Committee met and the conformity expires on February 28t" and the lapse will continue until August/September. Commissioner Gordon reported that on February 13`", there was a meeting of the Chapel Hill Township and Educational Campus group and they talked about functions. The Schools and Land Use Council met on February 19t", and they gat the information from Carrboro that they have some questions about middle school and high school funding. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the TTA retreat on February 19t". The cost of phase one now exceeds the revenue and they may need to look at new fare policies. Phase two includes the airport connection and 15-501, but there is a question about whether it should include 54/1-40. The point is that some board members think that phase two is yet to be defined. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Congressman Price. He said that the Board had atone point considered hiring an intermediary to lobby in congress on behalf of Orange County for federal funds and decided instead that the County Manager, Chair, and Vice-Chair would meet with Congressman Price and make some proposals based on some of the agricultural and community development needs. Congressman Price was able to secure almost $1 million in federal funds - $90,000 for a shelter for the Hillsborough Farmer's Market and $900,000 for water and sewer infrastructure for Buckhorn Road. Commissioner Jacobs reported that the 5`" Annual Agricultural Summit was held today and it was well attended. Commissioner Jacobs congratulated Dr. Rasie Summers because there was an unexpected quality control test on the Health Department and there was a good report. Commissioner Jacobs reported that there was a meeting last week about Fairview Park and the planning. There is a plan to move forward and they are involving the Health Department and the Public Works Departments of the two jurisdictions to see if there could be ca-location of Hillsborough's facilities. Commissioner Jacobs said that he requested from the Planning Director that our Transportation Planner go to Githens Junior High School Wednesday night for the NCDOT hearing about the 15-501 bridge over New Hope Creek. The Board passed a resolution supporting a widened, extended, higher bridge to allow for more wildlife access and less degradation of the water way. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he and Commissioner Jacobs met with the Manager, County Attorney, and Assistant Manager to deal with the local legislative proposals. There is a very detailed list. Commissioner Halkiotis said that it is highly significant that they met with Congressman Price and there was massive success with $990,000 coming to Orange County. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he met last week with a small group that is pushing a solar initiative. He is disheartened and he wants to see the Northern Center group called together quickly to move this project along. Commissioner Halkiotis reported that on March 6t" he and Commissioner Jacobs will meet with the Manager and NCDOT about some different issues. He said that a family member of his was almost killed last week at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 where atractor-trailer truck coming off the interstate did not stop for the red light. He said that something needs to be done to lower the speed limit on this road. 4. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT -none 5. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS a. Resolution of Appreciation for Tommy Thompson (Delayed to March 5, 20D3 regular meeting} The Board was to consider approving a resolution of appreciation far Tommy Thompson of the Red Clay Ramblers for his contribution to Orange County and American music. b. Resolution for Sale of 2001 Bonds and Refunding of 1993 Bonds The Board considered adopting a resolution formally authorizing the March 11, 2003 sale of 2001 referendum bonds and the 1993 refunding bond previously approved by the Board. Verbatim: Finance Director Ken Chavious: This is the final action that you will have to take related to our scheduled sale of the 2001 bonds scheduled for March the 11t" as well as the refunding bonds. We want you to consider adopting a resolution that will allow us to take all of these final actions going into the sale date. We have discussed this that the refunding bonds will be saving over a million dollars over the term of the bonds and over a $100,000 annually. And we expect that to fare very well with the rates on our new money sale as well. As a matter of fact, on Friday, I met with (in a conference call} the rating agencies last week and we have maintained our triple A rating with one of those agencies. Which is, considering everything we have gone through over the last two years, I am very pleased with us maintaining that rating which is going to give us an excellent interest rate. What this resolution does, it formally authorizes the sale of the 2001 bonds and the sale of the refunding bands; it formally pledges the County's taxing power to provide the payments far the bonds; it also authorizes me, in consultation with the LGC, to set the final payment schedule; it also approves a form of the official statement that you received under separate cover (it looks like this, has draft on it and has some blanks on it that we need to fill in) it makes the required continuing disclosure commitments. What that means is even after we receive the money we have to disclose to the FCC on an annual basis our financial condition and our ability to continue to pay those bonds. It also authorizes the county staff to complete the process of issuing these bonds. This resolution has been prepared by Bab Jessup who is here (our bond counsel}. I mentioned the financial impact, which is recommending that you adopt this resolution so we can get on with this bond sale. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Manager's recommendation which recommends that the Board adopt the resolution formally authorizing the sale of the 2001 bonds and the 1993 refunding bands, which is incorporated herein by reference. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Ken Chavious said that he would inform the Board as to the other ratings and he does not expect those to change. He will always inform the Board about the results of the sale an that day. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS a. Orange Gounty Arts Grants Recipients (Fal! 20Q2} (Delayed to March 5, 2003 regular meeting) The Board was to present grant checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Fall 2002 Orange County Arts Grants. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS -Wane 8. ITEMS FOR DECISION -CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve those items on the consent agenda below: a. Minutes The Board approved, with corrections as submitted by Commissioner Gordon, minutes from the following meetings: December 2, 2002 regular meeting and December 10, 2002 regular meeting. b. Appointments 1) Human Relations Commission The Board reappointed Maria Erlinda Fernandez and Kathie W. Young to a full first term to expire June 30, 2005; and Patricia Casper and Stanley Lee Foushee to a second term to expire June 30, 2005, to the Human Relations Commission. 2) Arts Commission The Board reappointed Leah K. Rode and Lynette Jeffries to the Arts Commission to second terms to expire March 31, 2006. c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Refunds The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference, which approves 130 motor vehicle property tax refunds requested in accordance with N. C. General Statutes. d. Property Tax Refunds The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference, which approves two property tax refund requests in accordance with N. C. General Statute 105-381. e. Property Value Change The Board adopted and authorized the Chair to sign a resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference, which approves the attached value change. f. Advertisements of Tax Liens on Real Property The Board accepted the report on unpaid taxes for the current year and set March 12, 2003 as the date far an advertisement of liens on real property as required by N.C. General Statute 105-369. r,~. Resolution Creatina a Special Board of Eaualizatian and Review The Board adopted and authorized the Chair to sign a resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference, which appoints a special board of equalization and review and establishes the recommended level of compensation for members of the E&R board. Further, the Board directed staff to recruit applicants for the E&R Board, with appointments to be made at a future Commissioners' meeting. h. Budget Amendment #8 The Board approved the budget ordinance and grant project ordinance amendments for the Department of Social Services, Department on Aging, Emergency Management, Human Rights and Relations, and Dispute Settlement Center, for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. i. School Adequate Public Facilities -Memorandum of Understanding Addendum This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda far separate consideration. L 2002-2003 Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) Contract The Board approved a contract in the amount of $10,000 with the Small Business and Technology and Development Center to continue support of small business development services as stated in the Economic Development strategic plan and authorized the Manager and the Clerk to the Board to execute the contract. k. Participation in the National Smallpox Immunization Plan and Protection for Participating Employees This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda far separate consideration. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA i. School Adequate Public Facilities -Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Addendum The Board considered approval of an amendment to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities {SAPF} MOU adopted on December 20, 2002 for the Town of Carrboro. The Town of Chapel Hill requested that the same addendum be adopted for Chapel Hill. Commissioner Jacobs said that we received a letter from Carrboro with some concerns about the SAPFO and he asked that this be included in the discussion on the 26t". The concerns were about high school capacity and the letter asked if the Board of County Commissioners would follow the model used with the middle school level in the Orange County system and suspend consideration of the capacity, consider merger, or find other ways to build capacity. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that he attended the February 18t" Carrboro work session and Carrboro had issues and questions. The outcome of the work session is the letter and the County staff will be meeting with Carrboro's staff about some technical implementation questions. In the short term we need to address where Carrboro is with this ordinance in order to move forward. Commissioner Gordon said that Roy Williford, the Carrboro Planning Director, was at the recent Schools and Land Use Council (SLUG} meeting, and he explained Carrboro's concerns. She said that she is not sure how the County Manager's office is going to address this because there is no money budgeted for the middle school in 2007-2008 in the capital improvement program. John Link said that he received a call today from a reporter and he did make a response. He said that we should put this response in writing for both Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The capital improvement plan identifies the major projects in outlying years. He said that 2007-2008 is beyond the short term financing plan we have for addressing any capital item. It does not mean that the CIP is not totally legitimate and that the planning process is not solid. He also told the reporter that since 1988 this Board of Commissioners and the citizens of Orange County have approved three bond issues, and using pay-as-you-go and State funding, we have addressed over $225,000,000 in school construction. He said that this demonstrates the ability of Orange County and the commitment of Orange County to fund those identified needs -school or County related. The citizens should be confident that Orange County would address the needs of the future. Chair Brown said that she went to the Chapel Hill meeting when the SAPFO was adopted and they had no such questions. She hopes that the questions from Carrboro do not delay the implementation of the SAPFO. Craig Benedict said that as soon as Carrboro's staff is satisfied with the questions then the mayor wants it back on the agenda. The SAPFO can be implemented as late as April with no problem. Commissioner Jacobs asked for something in writing as to where Hillsborough stands on the SAPFO. Craig Benedict said that their position was communicated last week at the SLUG meeting because there was Hillsborough representation there. The only topic area of concern was about Durham and Mebane. He said that he could prepare some responses about how Durham and Mebane were considered during the development of the SAPFO. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the SAPF MOU addendum for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. VOTE: UNANIMOUS k. Participation in the National Smallpox Immunization Plan and Protection for Participating Employees The Board considered authorizing the County's participation in the smallpox immunization of essential County employees in response to recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's smallpox immunization program, and to provide specific protection noted in the recommendation for any employee who may experience illness as a result of the vaccine. Commissioner Jacobs read from the abstract, "The selection of the employees is at the sole discretion of the Director and is not subject to appeal by any employee." He asked if this means that if an employee does not want to be vaccinated that they have an option. Health Director Rosie Summers said that it is entirely voluntary, but by position, the designation is up to her. The individual employee has the option to participate or nat. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey that: 1. The Health Director, or her designee, identify those County employees for whom immunization is recommended under Stage I of the Federal immunization program. The selection of such employees is in the sole discretion of the Director and is not subject to appeal by any employee. 2. If an emplayee who is so selected elects to take the vaccine, and, as a result of taking that vaccine, becomes ill and requires medical treatment, the County will reimburse such employee any reasonable medical charges paid by such emplayee as a deductible or co-pay amount required by the County's health insurance plan, unless such deductible or co-pay amount is payable by workers compensation insurance or another health insurance policy. Subject to the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act, N. C. Gen. Stat. 97-1 et seq., determination of whether an illness is the result of taking the vaccine is in the sole discretion of the Health Director or her designee and is not subject to appeal by any employee. 3. If an employee who is so selected elects to take the vaccine, and, as a result of taking that vaccine, becomes ill such that absence from work is required, the employee shall be granted additional sick leave days for such absence, up to seven days {which coordinates with the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act benefit waiting period). Subject to the North Carolina Worker's Compensation Act, determination of whether an absence is the result of taking the vaccine is in the sole discretion of the Health Director or her designee and is not subject to appeal by any employee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA a. Establishment of Board Goal to Examine Possible School Merger {Delayed to March 5, 2003 regular meeting) The Board was to consider establishing a formal Board of Commissioners' goal that would call for the examination of the implications of merging the Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro school systems. b. Process for Efland-Cheeks Park Phase II The Board considered approving a process to begin the planning and design for Efland- Cheeks Park Phase II, and appointing an Efland-Cheeks Park Conceptual Plan Review Committee, as outlined in the Park Facility Process (PFP) report of Jan. 27, 2003. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that on January 27`" they presented the last iteration of the Park Facility Planning process report to the Board and an action plan memorandum was included for some park projects that could move forward at this time. The Efland-Cheeks Park Phase I I was one of the suggested projects to move forward. The community group is still active and they are interested in participating in Phase II. Funds are already identified in the bond sale for this project. The staff is proposing that they move forward with soliciting people who are interested in serving on a Concept Plan Review Committee. The groups could be ready to report back before the summer break. The recommendation is far the Board to approve the mission and process for the park, fix the membership of the Concept Plan Review Committee, and authorize staff and the Clerk's office to begin recruitment. Commissioner Jacobs made two suggestions about the proposed committee. Instead of saying a member of Habitat for Humanity, he thought we were trying to get someone from Richmond Hills. He also suggested having an Efland-Cheeks Elementary PTA member. Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Carey have already volunteered to serve on this committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed mission and process for Efland-Cheeks Park, Phase II; fix the membership of the Concept Plan Review Committee (Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Carey); and authorize staff to begin recruitment for the Concept Plan Review Committee, to be appointed in March. This also includes the changes as suggested by Commissioner Jacobs above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Major Subdivision and Rural Buffer Notification and Flexible Development Amendments The Board considered an amendment to the County's subdivision regulations to allow flexible development guidelines to be applied in the rural buffer zoning district, enhance the notification procedures by requiring that an informational sign be placed an major subdivision proposals in the County's planning jurisdiction, and increasing, at the concept stage, the percentage of lots that requires soil analysis. Craig Benedict summarized the information in the agenda. The new proposal requires notification and a neighborhood information meeting on all subdivisions within the County's jurisdiction, and it also includes a sign to be posted an the property announcing that a subdivision is in process. Also, flexible development has been added to the rural buffer in two of the mechanisms -conservation cluster option and the estate option. Another area that is suggested to be changed is the percentage of sails that must be checked to see the feasibility of septic systems. The suggested change is from 15°10 to 50% to find out if soils are suitable. This investigation should be done during the concept plan stage. Commissioner Gordon verified that the change in percentage applies to all lots and not just the rural buffer. She also verified that the flexible development changes were for major subdivisions. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board of County Commissioners could still choose the option for flexible development after the Planning Board. Craig Benedict said yes, to his knowledge. He deferred to the County Attorney. Geoff Gledhill said that his recollection is that there is an appeal to the County Commissioners from a decision about whether ar not the option is flexible or conventional. This decision is made at the preliminary plan stage and it can be appealed by the owner of the property to the Board of County Commissioners. If the County Commissioners do not like the option selected, he thinks that the response is to send it back to the Planning Board to start over again. Commissioner Jacobs said that as someone who has criticized the rural buffer for failing to provide any open space, he would like to congratulate staff on its creativity and responsiveness. He thinks this is a big improvement. He said that he believes that we are being responsive to the citizens that the Board has heard regarding the rural buffer. The citizens have repeatedly said in recent years that they want the rural character to be preserved in their area and they want open space. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Brown to approve the amendments to the subdivision regulations to 1) allow flexible development guidelines to be applied in the Rural Buffer Zoning District; 2} enhance the notification procedures by requiring an informational sign to be placed on major subdivision proposals in the County planning jurisdiction prior to Neighborhood Information Meetings; and 3) increase, at concept stage, the percentage of lots that requires a sail analysis by a soil scientist. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Appointments 1) Human Relations Commission The Board considered two appointments to the Human Relations Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Mr. William T. Hendrickson to an At-Large position for a full term to expire June 30, 2006; and to appoint Mr. Daman Seils to the Carrboro position to an unexpired term to expire June 30, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2) Agricultural Preservation Board The Board considered one appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board for the Bacon- Johnson Voluntary Agricultural District. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Donald N. Johnson to the Bacon-Johnsan Farm VA District, for a term in accordance with Section IV.B.2 of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3) Arts Commission The Board considered one appointment to the Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Ms. Bonnie Bledsoe Fuchs to an At-Large position on the Arts Commission to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10. REPORTS a. Report from the Joint Orange Grove Road Transportation Group The Board was to receive a report from the Joint Orange Grove Road Transportation Group. Postponed 11. APPOINTMENTS -none 12. MINUTES -none 13. CLOSED SESSION- deferred until March Stn "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney an the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143- 318.11(a)(5). 14. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board