Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-01-2012 - 5aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 1, 2012 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Baker, 245-2130 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as listed below: February 7, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting February 21, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting February 23, 2012 Joint Meeting with Town of Hillsborough March 15, 2012 Board Joint Meeting with Social Services Board (5:30pm) BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as presented or as amended. 1 - DRAFT MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING February 7, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Additions or Changes to the Agenda White sheet — PowerPoint presentation for item 4-c, Resolution Acknowledging February 28, 2012 as Spay Neuter Day USA in Orange County, and Community Spay and Neuter Program Presentation Blue sheet — update to item 5-i, Amendment to Orange County Code of Ordinances Regarding Weapons Yellow sheet— update to item 5-I, Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2012 Pink sheet — update to item 7-c, 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CP-2011-05) Efland Area White sheet — update to item 8-c, Orange-Durham County Corridor, Triangle Regional Transit Program —Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative Decision PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments Matters not on the Printed Agenda Chair Pelissier pointed out someone that was signed up to speak regarding the train station and she asked him to speak on the transportation item and he agreed. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the JPA Public Hearing at the end of March and said that he has requested having someone make a presentation about what is involved in creating the Joint Planning Agreement and explain how they arrived at the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). Someone else could explain how the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement relates to the JPA and the rural buffer. There are only two elected officials left that were involved in that process and there are no Planning Directors or Managers left that were involved. This would be for educational purposes. This will be referred to the agenda review process. 2 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations Orange County Arts Grant Recipients The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Orange County Arts Grants. Martha Shannon, staff support for the Orange County Arts Commission, gave out checks. In the fall 2011 grant cycle, the Orange County Arts Commission received 19 grant requests. They awarded a total of $23,251 in County funds for arts projects proposed by nine non-profit organizations, five schools, and three individual artists. Recipients: Attendees: A.L. Stanback Middle School - Michele Johnson ArtsCenter- Jeri Lynn Schulke Christ Church Preschool - Barb Wallace & Debbie Arena Franklin Street Arts Collective dba FRANK Gallery— Barbara Tyroler Free Spirit Freedom Institute & Gallery (fiscal agent Hillsborough Arts Council) — Renee Price Friends of the Carrboro Branch Library— Nerys Levy, Anne Pusey Grady A. Brown Elementary School PTA— Rachel Monschein Hillsborough Elementary School - Keri Frank, Jon Cocoran Historical Foundation of Hillsborough & Orange County— Brandie Fields Kristi Vincent Johnson - Jeri Lynn Schulke McDougle Elementary School PTA- Michele Melet Preservation Society of Chapel Hill - Tama Hochbaum Susan Simone - Susan Simone WCOM-FM - Ernie Hood Sean Wellington - Sean Wellington Women's Voices Chorus— Dr. Allan Friedman, Shelley Hedtke b. NC 10% Campaign — Helping to Build North Carolina's Local Food Economy The Board received a presentation from the Center for Environmental Farming Systems at N.C. State University on the NC 10% Campaign to help build North Carolina's Local Food Economy. Teisha Wymore, State Coordinator, NC 10% Campaign, Center for Environmental Farming Systems, North Carolina State University, made this presentation. This is a local foods initiative that is founded by the Center for Environmental Farming Systems and funded through Golden Leaf Foundation. It was launched in July 2010. The intent of the campaign is to track the demand for local food in North Carolina. This is done through partnerships and through the 3 website. The partnerships make this a success. The goal of the 10% Campaign is to encourage consumers to commit 10% of their existing food dollars to support local food producers, related businesses and communities: Promotes NC farmers, foods, communities, and businesses Educates consumers, decision-makers and the media Collaborates with the many influential organizations already in the field and those just bloom North Carolinians spend $35 billion a year on food. If individuals spend 10 percent locally, about $3.5 billion would be available for the local economy. Cooperative Extension is the keystone partner in every community to make this work. Mike Lanier said that Orange County has been pursuing alternatives to the niche that tobacco used to have. He said that marketing and selling of local foods to local consumers is growing. In Orange County, it increased from $28,000 in 1997 to over $600,000 in 2007. He said that local marketers who sell to local consumers have a larger profit margin. There has been discussion about making a policy about restaurants purchasing locally. This campaign is a good way to start this. Chair Pelissier said that the Board could discuss how to participate in the future. She said that she would like to participate. Teisha Wymore said that 293 people in Orange County are part of the campaign. Commissioner Jacobs said that Triangle J Council of Government adopted a resolution endorsing the campaign. He suggested asking staff to look at some of the other resolutions and bringing something back. This will be referred to the agenda review process. C. Resolution Acknowledging February 28, 2012 as Spay Neuter Day USA in Orange County, and Community Spay and Neuter Proaram Presentation The Board considered designating February 28, 2012 as "Spay Neuter Day USA" in Orange County and received an update on the County's Community Spay and Neuter Program. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced this item along with Dr. Kris Bergstrand, Chair of the Animal Services Advisory Board and Sarah Fallin, Program Coordinator from Animal Services. He made a PowerPoint presentation. Animal Services Spay Neuter Program Making sense &saving cents in Orange County! What It Is & How It Works Targeted Spay/Neuter. Identifying a segment of the community with a critical need for spay/neuter services (working with Department of Social Services and AnimalKind) Offering low-cost spay/neuter options to those identified populations that would otherwise not spay and neuter their pets There has been a reduction in the numbers of kittens and puppies brought to the shelter after instituting this program Benefits &Observations Animal Service Operations Controls costs Makes staffing numbers work Bringing People Together Partnerships Common ground Community Effort! 4 Modeling Public Policy Self-funded program Demonstrable results NCACC 2010 Program Award Promoting Responsible Pet Ownership Kris Bergstrand, Chair of ASAB, read the resolution. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 2012 SPAY NEUTER DAY USA RESOLUTION WHEREAS, cats and dogs provide companionship to and share the homes of thousands of individuals in Orange County; and WHEREAS, spayed and neutered animals are less likely to have certain health problems or exhibit certain undesirable behaviors that can create community-wide problems and use community resources; and WHEREAS, the problem of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers of Orange County hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through animal control and sheltering programs aimed at coping with unwanted and homeless cats and dogs; and WHEREAS, humane societies and shelters throughout the country have to euthanize approximately four million cats and dogs each year, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, due to the lack of critical resources such as money, space, and good adoptive homes; and WHEREAS, the Animal Services Advisory Board and the Animal Services Department have made correcting pet overpopulation a priority, and prepared Managing Pet Overpopulation: A Strategic Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, the County has established a Community Spay/Neuter Fund to address the issue of pet overpopulation in the County; and WHEREAS, spaying and neutering cats and dogs, among other animal companions, has been shown to drastically reduce overpopulation; and WHEREAS, Animal Services has partnered with AnimalKind and the Department of Social Services to offer"low cost" and "no cost' spay and neuter through The $20 Fix in Orange County; and WHEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations, national and local animal welfare organizations, and private individuals work together each year to ensure the spaying or neutering of thousands of companion animals through "Spay Neuter Day USA"; and 5 WHEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations, national and local animal welfare organizations, and private individuals have joined together again this year to advocate and support the spaying and neutering of companion animals on "Spay Day USA 2012"; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, declare February 28, 2012 as "Spay Neuter Day USA" and call upon the people of the County to observe the day by having their own cats or dogs spayed or neutered or by sponsoring the spaying or neutering of another person's cat or dog. THIS THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2012. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to designate February 28, 2012 as "Spay Neuter Day USA" in Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS S. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 21 (7:30pm) and December 5, 2011 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. Appointments— None Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to thirty-six (36) requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to forty-7 (47) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to two (2) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property The Board accepted a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute 105-369; approved the Order setting the lien sale advertisement date for March 14, 2012 and authorized the Chair to sign the Order. NC State Firemen's and Rescue Squad Annual Certification Roster The Board approved the certification roster and authorized the Chair to sign the certification documents. Orange County Arts Commission Annual DCP Renewal with NC Arts Council The Board authorized the Orange County Arts Commission and staff to apply by the March 1, 2012 deadline for annual Designated County Partner renewal with the NC Arts Council in order to receive state Grassroots Arts Program funds for Orange County. Amendment to Orange County Code of Ordinances Regarding Weapons This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — February 27, 2012 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Intergovernmental Agreement The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the above listed agreement and any amendments to renewals of that Agreement. 6 Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2012 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Boards and Commissions—Commissioner Assignments The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the Board of County Commissioners have chosen to serve as agreed upon at the January 31, 2012 BOCC work session and as incorporated by reference. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 6. Items Removed From Consent Agenda L Amendment to Orange County Code of Ordinances Regarding Weapons The Board considered amending the Orange County code of Ordinances and prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on certain Orange County property and authorizing the Chair to sign. John Roberts said that this is a proposed amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances Section 18-151 and 152. In the current code, weapons, etc. are all prohibited from all County property. In July last year, the State enacted a statute that withdrew the authority of counties to ban weapons from county property. The Board of County Commissioners then passed a resolution opposing this statute and this ordinance amendment is actually less restrictive than what has been law in Orange County since 1995. The only changes in the amendment are the definitions of recreational facilities and the locations of which recreational facilities where concealed weapons will now be banned. He said that it does not include lakes or greenways. He said that the City of Winston-Salem attempted to restrict from lakes and greenways and is being sued. This is only a recommendation. Public Comment Alex Arab is a 20-year resident of Orange County. He said that he is coming in opposition to any additional laws to ban guns in Orange County because it does not make sense to him. He referred to a book, More Guns, Less Crime, and said that this book tells statistically that when there are more bans, then there is more crime. He said that he and his daughter are concealed carriers. He said that not everyone has the police nearby if something goes wrong. He said that the Board of County Commissioners represents everyone. He said that there is not a smaller minority in Orange County than gun owners. Chris Weaver said that when he first found out about this, he then looked at the state law. He said that this is all county property and all weapons, which includes pocketknives. He asked who the ordinance amendment was for. He said that it is for the law-abiding citizens. He said that this protects the criminals if they pass this amendment. He said that this is not going to work and it would not do anything to stop criminals. Jason McDonald is a resident of Orange County for six years. He used to live in Chicago and they could not own a handgun in the city limits. He said that he applied and received his permit in North Carolina to own a handgun. He said that they all need the proper training. He said that a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen should be able to take place in parks, etc. He said that a handgun allows a 110-pound woman to match up to a 250-pound man. Commissioner McKee said that his concern was that this was on a consent item and he thought it should have been on the regular agenda. He thought that it warranted a more extensive public input. He does have a question about whether some of the parks and greenways should be reconsidered because of the isolation of some of the trails. John Roberts said that there are no greenways in these proposed areas and he deferred to Dave Stancil about the greenway in Twin Creeks. Commissioner McKee asked about the difference between trails and greenways and Dave Stancil said that Twin Creeks is the only greenway. Commissioner Yuhasz raised the question of pocketknives and said that there needs to be a distinction between pocketknives, which people regularly carry. He said that carrying pocketknives is a fairly common behavior. He wants to revisit the section on knives and come up with a definition that would exclude pocket knives or fishing knives. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Sheriff had commented on this ban. John Roberts said that the State defines a pocketknife that is closed and 4° or shorter. He said that he discussed this with the Sheriff last week, who did not express any concerns. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested excluding pocketknives as defined by the State from the action of this ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner Yuhasz made a reasonable point about the definition of pocketknives and it should be put in the ordinance. John Roberts said that he could bring it back until he verifies the size of the knife. Commissioner McKee said that he would prefer that this be brought back as a regular agenda item. He asked that a listing of the parks and mileage of trails be brought back to the Board. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to distinguish parks based on locations, such as exempting the concealed ban in larger parks and not in smaller parks where the isolation is not so likely to occur. Commissioner McKee agreed. Commissioner Foushee said that if they are going to isolate particular areas then it should be done at every park. Frank Clifton said that generally you go to crowded areas to go through isolated areas. This needs to be considered. Commissioner Hemminger asked what the County's partners are saying such as Durham County regarding Little River Park. Commissioner Foushee said that this item needs to be pulled for further review and brought back to the Board as a new agenda item on the regular agenda and not the consent agenda. Commissioner Yuhasz asked staff to invite interested parties to participate in looking at what they proposed before it comes back to them. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board needs to talk about the pros and cons of this issue. She said that they should invite everyone that wants to participate to be involved in this revision process. It should be a public input process. Commissioner Jacobs said that the majority of the parks listed have trails except for the Sportsplex, recreation center, and soccer center. He said that he has no interest in revisiting the whole ordinance. He said that he is a gun owner, but having a gun in public places around children or in a meeting room is a whole different story. The Board agreed to bring this item back as a regular agenda item and to look specifically at the parks and not the entire ordinance. L Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — February 27, 2012 The Board considered the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for February 27, 2012. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has a process concern. He asked Planning Director Craig Benedict about the changes to the parameters of the Eno Economic Development District. Craig Benedict said that this includes modifications to the land use plan and zoning and they are consistent with what was discussed regarding the Eno Small Area Plan. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this was the design that the residents that participated thought as the final outcome and Craig Benedict said yes. There will also be a community outreach meeting on February 22"d Commissioner Jacobs said that his concern is that if he lived in that area, there is a public outreach meeting one week and then a public hearing the next week, and after that the ship has sailed. He does not like doing things this way. He asked why there is such an accelerated pace. Craig Benedict said that any comments will be collected on the 22"d, and if there is any interest in moving the application as submitted, then it can be discussed at the public hearing. Because of the consistency with the plan over the last few years, the residents were interested in moving forward because it has taken a couple of years to get to this point. This area is part of a utility service area and land use and zoning needs to be in place to support that public investment. 8 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he appreciated Commissioner Jacobs' concerns and the explanations that Craig Benedict gave are the reasons for this. He does not want to make a habit of shrinking the timeframe for the Board's consideration and the public input, but it makes sense in this case. Frank Clifton said that this is only the quarterly public hearing and there will be no action at that time. Commissioner Gordon said that Commissioner Jacobs made good points. Commissioner Jacobs said that since the members of the community are amenable to this, then he can live with it, but he does not want to continue with this kind of pace for things like this without a proper public process. Chair Pelissier said that the concerns can be addressed and the public hearing can be extended if needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the proposed February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing legal advertisement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS I. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2012 The Board considered two changes to the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2012. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this item was pulled because the change will be from the Link Government Services Center to the DSS Offices rather than to the Southern Human Services Center. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to amend the BOCC regular meeting calendar for 2012 by: changing the location of the May 24, 2012 Budget Work Session from the Link Government Services Center to the DSS Offices. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to amend the BOCC regular meeting calendar for 2012 by: changing the location of the February 14, 2012 Work Session from the Link Government Services Center to the Southern Human Services Center. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Public Hearings a. Orange County Consolidated Housing Plan Update The Board received comments from the public regarding the housing and non-housing needs to be included in the Annual Update of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County and proposed uses of 2012-2013 HOME funds. Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes introduced this item. In May 2010, the County developed this five-year consolidated plan, which details the housing needs of very low income, low income, and moderate income families and special population groups in addition to outlining the strategies and plans for addressing those needs. Every year, the communities are required to reassess the needs of the community. This public hearing provides an opportunity for the public to provide input into the Annual Update. The public is asked to comment on the proposed uses of an estimated $383,485 in 2012-2012 HOME funds. Organizations that are interested in applying for the funds must do so by February 29th. The application is available on the County's website as well as the Town of Chapel Hill's website. The HOME Program Review Committee will be making recommendations for funding in late March. This year, HUD has indicated that there is an expected reduction of allocation of HOME funds. The $383,485 is about a 51% reduction from last year. Public Comment: Mary Jean Seyda, Operations Director for CASA, a non-profit agency that develops and owns affordable rental apartments, said that she is also a member of the Orange County Partnership to 9 End Homelessness. She said that two weeks ago she did an outreach with the Partnership to find homeless people and to survey their medical needs. She was inspired by the volunteers and they found that there is a hidden community within the community of camp sites, and many were medically vulnerable. Among those that she met, there was a pregnant mother, someone on a heart monitor, and a double amputee. She said that she supported the plan but would like to see the Board of County Commissioners prioritize affordable rental housing for extremely low income persons. She advocated for rental subsidies. Robert Dowling is the Executive Director of Community Home Trust. He said that they implement the exclusionary home trust and there are 194 homes in their listings. He said that all of the 30- 40 homes they will be building and selling in the coming months will need subsidies. He said that he is aware of the reduction in HOME funds. Community Home Trust will be asking for$150,000 in HOME funds again. They have used HOME funds in the past for operations and they will be requesting $20,000 this year for operations instead of $30,000. He said that the Community Home Trust has increased its housing stock by 40% since early 2009, and there is another 20% increase planned in the next 15 months. Susan Levy, Executive Director of Orange County Habitat for Humanity, said that 2011 was very productive for Habitat in Orange County. Habitat has been able to continue to build homes in Orange County for residents between 30-60% of the area median income. There have been some creative partnerships with UNC, UNC Health Care, Orange County Schools, and the faith communities. They continue to use volunteers to keep the costs as low as possible. In 2011, more than 5,000 volunteers gave more than 20,000 volunteer hours building homes and serving communities. This year, Habitat paid a total of $277,618.83 in property taxes. Habitat has built close to 215 homes throughout Orange County using HOME funds. They will be seeking HOME funds this year of$50,000. Victor Glover is CEO of Fathers on the Move, Inc., which is a non-profit trying to work with fathers coming out of incarceration. They have a relationship with Child Support Enforcement and Probation and Parole. They are trying to find transitional housing and jobs for these men coming out of incarceration that are also fathers. He asked that the home that they are trying to build for these men be included in the consideration of HOME funds. Dolores Baily, Executive Director of EmPOWERment, Inc., said that she was with the Board when they started working on the consolidated plan. She said that she has been working with people that need affordable rentals. She said that Section 8 vouchers are not accepted like they once were with rentals. She said that she is voting for more dollars for affordable rental housing. Commissioner Jacobs said that, as the County continues to increase better relations with Durham and Mebane, he would like to talk to the governmental entities about affordable housing opportunities. Tara Fikes said that she has not had discussions with these entities to date. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a meeting last week with some representatives with Duke about the Eno EDD, and the representatives were talking about how this area would be great for multi-family housing. He thinks that governmental entities are going to have to bind together more as the funding decreases. b. Public Hearing on the Financing for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Elementary #11 and Other County Capital Projects and Refinancing of Existing Obligations The Board conducted a public hearing on the issuance of approximately $25.5 million in alternative financing for Elementary School #11 for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools, for other County capital projects and to refinance existing obligations, and consideration of related resolution supporting the County's application to the Local Government Commission for its approval of the financing arrangements. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Clarence Grier said that the purpose of this is to listen to public comments for the issuance of approximately $25.5 million in alternative financing for Elementary School #11 for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools, issuing $3.3 million of financing for other County capital projects, and to refinance existing obligations. The Local Government Commission is in favor of the financing arrangement. This refinancing would result 10 in a debt service savings of approximately $3 million over the next 15 years. The final financial plan will be brought back at the February 21St meeting. The financial impact for the school and the County projects is approximately $513,000 for the first fiscal year, 2013, and after that, it is $1.75 million through 2021. The savings for the refinancing of $50 million is about $200,000 a year over the next 20 years. Commissioner Gordon clarified that the amount should be $21.5 million. This will be changed in the resolution. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Resolution supporting an application to the Local Government Commission for its approval of a financing agreement for the County — for Elementary School #11, for other County capital projects and to refinance existing obligations WHEREAS-- Orange County has previously determined to carry out the acquisition and construction of a new elementary school for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro school system, often referred to as "Elementary #11," and to finance the costs of this project by the use of an installment financing, as authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Board of Commissioners has also determined to fund approximately $3,500,000 for additional County capital projects, including approximately $3.0 million for improvements to solid waste convenience centers and just over$500,000 for the purchase of three ambulances. County staff has further advised the Board that because of generally low borrowing rates, the County may be able to save money by refinancing a variety of the County's existing installment financings. The Board believes a single installment financing for the new school, the additional County projects and to carry out refinancings would be in the County's best interest. This financing will require approval from the North Carolina Local Government Commission. Under the LGC's guidelines, this governing body must make certain findings of fact to support the County's application to the LGC for its approval of the proposed financing arrangements. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the County makes a preliminary determination to finance approximately $21,500,000 to pay capital costs of the proposed new elementary school and $3,500,000 to pay costs of the other County projects described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board approves additional financing as appropriate to carry out beneficial refinancings of existing County obligations, with the amount of this financing currently estimated as not to exceed $50,000,000. The Board will make a final determination to proceed with the financing, and to approve financing terms and conditions, by one or more subsequent resolutions. Likewise, the Board will establish a maximum amount to be financed by a later resolution. Some financing proceeds may be use to reimburse the County for prior expenditures on project costs, and some proceeds will be used to pay financing costs. 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners makes the following findings of fact: (1) The proposed projects are necessary and appropriate for the County under all the circumstances. The County has worked with Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board to develop a plan for financing school facilities, of which the currently-proposed elementary school is a part. The ambulances and convenience center improvements will improve services to County residents. (2) The proposed installment financing is preferable to a bond issue for the same purposes. As the elementary school will be a discrete facility, it is particularly suitable for installment financing. The amounts to be financed for other County projects are relatively small, and it will be cost-effective for the County to combine that financing with the larger school financing. As the financings that are proposed to be refinanced are all installment financings, it is most appropriate to carry out the refinancing as an installment financing. The County has no meaningful ability to issue non-voted general obligation bonds for this project, and the County has no previously-authorized bonds for these projects. The projects will produce no revenues that could support a self-liquidating financing. The County expects that in the current interest rate environment for municipal securities that there will be no substantial difference in interest rates between general obligation bonds and installment financings for this project. The County maintains a balance in school construction financing between voter-approved bonds, pay-as-you-go funding and installment financing, and the Board believes that under the circumstances installment financing is the preferable vehicle for Elementary#11. (3) The estimated sums to fall due under the proposed financing contract are adequate and not excessive for the proposed purpose. The County will closely review proposed financing rates against market rates with guidance from the LGC. All amounts financed will reflect either approved contracts or previous actual expenditures. (4) As confirmed by the County's Finance Officer, (i) the County's debt management procedures and policies are sound and in compliance with law, and (ii) the County is not in default under any of its debt service obligations. (5) The County estimates that the maximum tax rate impact of paying debt service on the financing for the new elementary school will be the equivalent of approximately 1.14 cents per $100 of valuation. Given the County's need for the new school, the Board believes that such a tax rate impact is reasonable under all the circumstances. The County estimates that the tax-rate impact of the additional financing for County projects will be negligible, especially since solid waste enterprise revenues will help pay debt service on the financing for the convenience center improvements. Any refinancings will reduce the County's debt service obligations. (6) The County Attorney is of the opinion that the proposed projects are authorized by law and are purposes for which public funds of the County may be expended pursuant to the Constitution and laws of North Carolina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: 12 (a) The Finance Officer is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps toward the completion of the financing, including completing an application to the LGC for its approval of the proposed financing. All prior actions of County representatives in this regard are regard are approved, ratified and confirmed. (b) This resolution takes effect immediately. ***** *** * * ** * **** A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the issuance of approximately $25.5 million in alternative financing for Elementary School #11 for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools, $3.3 million for other County capital projects and to refinance existing obligations, and approval of the resolution supporting the County's application to the Local Government Commission for its approval of the financing arrangements. The motion was revised to state $21.5 million instead of $25.5 million for Elementary School#11 for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. VOTE: UNANMOUS c. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(CP-2011-05) Efland Area The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a County-initiated amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map affecting approximately 47 acres near Efland and Brookhollow Road, along the south side of McGowan Creek (areas are currently classified as Agricultural Residential and proposed for 10-Year Transition). Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri made this presentation. He said that this is the Planning Board's recommendation. He showed a map with the location of the parcel suggested for amendment. The public hearing on this item was held November 21, 2011. The draft minutes are included in the packet. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of this amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. This amendment has been proposed to maintain consistency between the County's land use plan and engineering design work that is occurring in this area. He made reference to the pink sheet, which was the resolution. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the owner of this property is a client of his and it has been determined that he would have no direct benefit from this action and he will be obligated to vote on it. NO PUBLIC COMMENT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CP-2011-05 WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendments to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map, as established in Section 2.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to reclassify approximately 47-acres from Agricultural Residential to 10-Year Transition (CP-2011-05) , and WHEREAS, the amendment area is near Efland and Brookhollow Road, along the south side of McGowan Creek, and Interstates 1-85/40, and WHEREAS, the parcel is identified as follows: Parcel Identification Number PIN Acres 9855-10-8205 146.92 13 and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Land Use Element Map amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and is internally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: Land Use Overarchinq Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. Objective LU-3.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map. Objective LU-3.8: Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the revision of County policies and regulations. Housinq Overarching Goal: Opportunity for all citizens of Orange County to rent or purchase safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing. Housing Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement and Map. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the Land Use Element Map, provided in Chapter 5 of the Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as described herein. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve a County-initiated amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map affecting approximately 47 acres near Efland and Brookhollow Road, along the south side of McGowan Creek (areas are currently classified as Agricultural Residential and proposed for 10- Year Transition). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 11 of the minutes and the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group that had suspended working on design guidelines. There are plans to have them on the May Quarterly Public Hearing and it is not a forgotten project. He wanted to clarify where this stands. Planner Perdita Holtz said that they are meeting shortly as staff to discuss items for the May Quarterly Public Hearing. At this point, it is still on there as a template. d. Amendments to 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text(CP 2011-06) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to certain sections of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Special Projects Planner Shannon Berry said that this item was heard at the November 21, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing. No members of the public spoke to the amendment at that time. 14 Based on the discussion at the public hearing, there were two changes made in the packet. LU 3.1 and 3.6 were revised. Attachment 2 reflects the amended text. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Gordon said that when the Comprehensive Plan was originally passed, there was discussion about the definition of the transition area. She said that the 10 and 20-year transition area should not be deleted. This was discussed extensively when the Comprehensive Plan was originally passed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 45 and the language about the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Transition Area. This should also not be deleted. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve Attachment Two with the amendments of keeping the language about the transition areas. Commissioner Yuhasz asked staff to comment on these changes and why the phrases about the transition areas were stricken. Shannon Berry said that the language on page 45 was not deleted but only moved to page 44. Commissioner Gordon withdrew that part of her motion. Shannon Berry said that, with regard to the Commercial Transition Activity Node, the language that says, "within the 10- or 20-year transition," this was deleted because the 10-year transition and the 20-year transition are also land use classifications. They are mutually exclusive. Based on how it appears on the map, one could not have another land use within another land use. The commercial transition activity node is separate from the 10-year and 20-year transition activity node. Commissioner Gordon said that the language defining transition areas should be picked up and not deleted. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the original land use plan from 1981 did allow the overlaps and said the 10- and 20-year transition areas are the areas that were intended to have urban style growth. On top of that transition area, there were commercial industrial activity nodes. In the new comprehensive plan, the land uses are independent. Commissioner Jacobs said that theoretically, there could be a node in the middle of the rural buffer at the intersection of 1-40 and New Hope Church Road because it does not say anything about water and sewer, it just says near a major transportation route. He thinks that Commissioner Gordon is trying to qualify it in a way that it is logically consistent with what was mentioned for the transition areas. Commissioner Gordon suggested picking up some of the language from page 18, and she read, "land located at major road intersections or near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail or other commercial uses." On page 53, it should say the same thing. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would not want to preclude the possibility of having commercial activity along the interstate. This would require action by the Board of County Commissioners. He does not want to tie the hands of future Boards. He prefers leaving this as it is and relying on the Board of County Commissioners to make appropriate decisions as to where transition nodes should and should not be located. Commissioner McKee said that his concern is to not to eliminate the possibility of commercial development along the interstates. His point is that there are intersections on these interstates that do not have sewer and water, but should be available for low-impact commercial activity. Discussion ensued about the language. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought that Commissioner Gordon was trying to make this clear and not to have a debate on it. He suggested calling the question. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict if he was firm in the conclusion that the language about 10- and 20-year transition areas could not be kept. Craig Benedict said yes. He said that it would be appropriate at this time to discuss where public utilities could be planned. Commissioner Gordon clarified that she wants to keep the language that she read regarding the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node, which was related to water and wastewater services. Commissioner Gordon restated her motion: Approve Attachment Two, with the changes as stated, which add "land located at major road intersections or near major transportation routes 15 that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail or other commercial uses." This would be on page 18 and page 53. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Vote on Commissioner Gordon's motion: VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner McKee) Commissioner Jacobs asked that staff be encouraged to take into account some of the other concepts that were referred to about alternative construction of activity nodes. e. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text(UDO/Zoning 2011-06) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance. Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item. She said that this was heard at the Quarterly Public Hearing, and there was no public comment, but several County Commissioners made comments and these are summarized on pages 2-3 of the abstract. As a result of these comments, staff made two revisions to the proposed amendments. The first was to revise the definition of "research facility" to provide greater clarity. This is on page 111 of the packet. Regarding the question about architectural design controls for Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6, staff is proposing that the existing architectural design standards for economic development districts be amended to apply to all of the nodes that are subject to the proposed changes in those two sections. On pages 78-82, it has the revised language. NO PUBLIC COMMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon suggested some additional language and Perdita Holtz said that this would be appropriate. This language is, "manufacturing and processing operation of large finished products, which have limited impacts on surrounding properties." Such uses will include but not be limited to the following: heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles and related components, automotive, farm, and construction machinery, and commercial building components." Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is too limiting if it is limited to the lot. It would be more appropriate to limit it to the zoning district. He said that it is very difficult to determine what an adverse impact is. John Roberts said that "adverse or limiting" impacts are very subjective and can leave the County open to lawsuits to anything involving any kind of impact. He cautioned about the lack of specificity. Frank Clifton said that if the Board wants to go with zoning districts, it is a policy decision on potential impacts. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like staff to spend time reviewing this more closely. Chair Pelissier suggested bringing back this section and approving the remaining parts. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY 16 WHEREAS, Orange County would like to more strongly encourage quality, non-residential development in its designated growth areas while balancing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the environment, and WHEREAS, County staff has conducted a review of development regulations contained in the Unified Development Ordinance and it has been determined that some development regulations limit development potential in growth areas intended for economic development, and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and terminology used therein have necessitated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance in order to ensure consistency, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-341 and Section 1.1.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has found the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached pages. [Excepting the definitions of Industrial, Light; Industrial, Medium; and Industrial, Heavy which are to be considered further at a subsequent meeting]. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to close the public hearing and adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within Attachment 2, except the three definitions on page 109 and ask staff to come back with appropriate language for those three definitions. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz) 8. Regular Agenda a. Timeline for the Emergency Services Workgroup The Board considered approving the timeline for the Emergency Services Workgroup. Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that on December 13, 2011 the Board of County Commissioners formed the Emergency Services Workgroup. On January 24th, the members were appointed. The workgroup has been moving forward and had its first meeting on January 31St. The result of that meeting is that the workgroup will meet every two weeks until some of the priorities are under control. There are six different functions of the charge that the workgroup will work on: VIPER system improvements Solutions relating to Fire Protection Districts, System improvements for EMS Ambulance response times including but not limited to equipment, staffing, facilities, and/or a strategic plan Improvements for the E911 Communications Center including but not limited to technology, equipment, staffing, training and/or a strategic plan 17 Compare Orange County Emergency Services to similar sized counties in North Carolina including but not limited to staffing, equipment, technology, infrastructure, performance, and costs The Fire Departments Strategic Plan A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the timeline for the Emergency Services Work Group. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to #3 and response times and said that it still does not mention appropriate data. Michael Talbert said that this was an oversight. Commissioner Jacobs said to add this to the charge. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon asked the Board of County Commissioners to switch item 8-c with 8-b and the Board agreed. b. Follow up: General Policy for Board of County Commissioners Advisory Boards The Board was to consider approving the draft Board-approved General Advisory Board Policy and authorize the Chair to sign. DEFERRED (this item was deferred after the conclusion of item 8-c, due to the lateness of the hour) C. Update on Triangle Regional Transit Program — Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative Decision The Board received additional information and questions on the Triangle Regional Transit Program-Alternative Analysis (AA) and the locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The Board was also to approve a recommendation providing guidance to Commissioner Gordon, the representative on DCHC-MPO Transportation Advisory Committee JAC) and to Chair Pelissier, the representative on the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Wib Gulley and Patrick McDonough with Triangle Transit made this presentation. BACKGROUND: Last year(May 19, June 7, Nov 15 and Dec 8) the BOCC held meetings (both work session and regular meetings) regarding the Triangle Regional Transit Program (TRTP) and the localized Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP), which is also known as the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBARIP). The Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the Triangle Regional Transit Program projects in the Durham- Orange, Durham-Wake and Wake County Corridors were completed in July 2011. The findings and recommendations developed through the AA process are contained in three reports: (1) Transitional Analysis—9/24/10, (2) Purpose and Need Report— 12/9/10, and (3) Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report—7/2011. Each report covers an alignment plan and profile information about the attributes of different technologies [i.e. Light Rail (LRT), Bus Rail Transit High and Low (i.e. BRT-H & BRT-L)], cost estimates, travel time, traffic analyses, and assessment of station's capacity for potential transit oriented development. A recommendation from Triangle Transit and their consultant URS for the most appropriate initial fixed guideway transit investment, known as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for each corridor, is also included on Page 3-46 of the last report. In July 2011, the multivolume reports for each of the corridors (i.e. Durham-Orange and Durham-Wake) were posted along with all of the other information generated through the AA process: www.ourtransitfuture.com. 18 In late August, 2011, as a result of ongoing technical evaluation, public involvement and discussions with government agencies, the MPOs and other key stakeholders, an Addendum was prepared for each of the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports. This additional information is also posted on the aforementioned project web site. Triangle Transit has stated that the LPA must be approved by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) by mid-February 2012 to make the deadline for federal New Starts applications (mid-August 2012). At its November 15. 2011 meeting the BOCC received a presentation on the Triangle Regional Transit Program —Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and the BOCC identified additional information for upcoming work sessions. Since the December 8t' 2011 Special Transit Work Session, county staff has met with a majority of the Commissioners and compiled a list of questions concerning the Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative. The questions are organized into general categories including ridership, commuting patterns, the preferred corridor (including Orange County economic development potential) and technology (i.e. LRT vs. BRT) and submitted to TTA on Friday afternoon, January 20, 2012 for their responses for the January 24, 2012 regular BOCC meeting. TTA was not able to respond in writing at that time but pledged to have answers by noon on Thursday, February 2, 2012. In the absence of a response, Orange County staff makes the following comments: Attachment A, Questions Regarding the Orange County Transit Plan as it Relates to the Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative and TTA responses received Thursday 2/2/12 at 5:OOpm. Staff will comment on this latter information prior to the meeting. NEW BUSINESS The agenda item relates to the following: Transitional Analysis Report of 9/24/10 Purpose and Need Report of 12/9/10 Volume1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report of July 2011 prepared by consultant URS prepared for Triangle Transit The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and AA include intertwined 3 facets that are specific to the Durham-Orange County Corridor and Study Area: The end points of the corridor The approximate alignment within the study corridor The technology of the fixed guideway meaning light rapid transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT high or low) and/or in some cases commuter rail (e.g. between Durham and Wake) Staff comments are as follows regarding the 3 aspects which are linked by number to the aspects: End points The suggested corridor is known as Durham-Orange Alternate 4 (D-O A4) which is a 17.4 mile length between UNC Hospitals and Alston Avenue which is east of Duke and Durham downtown. The approximate cost is $1.4 billion or over$80 million a mile. The other alternates are shown in Attachment B, all with mobility, socio-economic, land use and financial rankings. Staff believes these end points of D-O A4 are appropriate because of the strong employment anchor UNC hospital and university at the southern terminus within Orange County. 19 Durham-Orange Alternate 6 is another corridor segment that ranked well. This corridor is 10 miles from Gateway (east of Blue Cross-Blue Shield) to Alston Avenue estimated at $750 million dollars (9/24/10). However, this alternate does not enter Orange County. Alignment Orange County staff agrees that the alignment near the southern terminus of the corridor near UNC should be UNC(D) station. The alignment would allow for future LRT or BRT expansion to the west into Carrboro. Other alignments closer to UNC hospital created more dead-end scenarios, (Attachment C) Orange County staff notes that two alignment options near and east of the Friday Center known as C-1 (through Meadowmont) and C-2 (along the south side of NC 54 past future Hillmont) are both challenging alignments from environmental, cost and traffic standpoints. C-1 has invoked strong community concerns, as well as from DENR, in regards to the traversing of Jordan Lake federal environmental lands. C-2 would be preferable to move forward since it parallels NC 54 right-of-way. (Attachment D) NC 54 is scheduled to be widened within this transit program planning horizon and fixed guideway corridors or lanes should be part of design and highway investment. The farther this NC 54 alignment can continue further to the east towards 1-40 and Durham County based redevelopment opportunities at Falconbridge Shopping Center, the greater potential to reduce traffic on NC 54 by creating a travel mode shift from car to LRT, if the corresponding park and ride (P&R) lots can be created. If the appropriately sized P&R lots cannot be found in this corridor, then BRT is a better alternative to pick up passengers in the 1-40/751/Southpoint and/or NC 54/Woodcroft park and ride areas with direct transport to UNC area via the protected and reserved BRT fixed guideway or mixed where necessary corridor. Irrespective of the challenges noted with alignments C-1 and C-2, Orange County staff believes that another alignment should also be studied within the existing corridor study area. The study area presently includes socioeconomic data and traffic data along US 15-501 which could be an alternate route between Hamilton Station area (roughly Fordham and NC 54) and Gateway Station. This research may be a prudent alternate knowing the risk assessment plan (part of the New Starts application) and upcoming draft environmental impact study (DEIS)/NEPA review often values alternate proposals to achieve a balance of mobility, environmental, economic development, land use, financial and community inputs and aspects. In any event, whether C-1 or C-2 is eventually approved for LRT or BRT, this 15-501 analysis could be used to support future public transit investments within Orange County. These investments could provide both economic development return, additional retail service opportunities and public transit for nearby citizens and businesses within Orange County. Bolstering the need to analyze 15-501 is the attached monograph prepared by Orange County staff from information noted in the URS Purpose and Need Report of 12/9/10 (Attachment E1 & K As a comparable note, the section of US 15-501 within Durham County has a planned corridor alignment that is parallel but offset southeasterly from 15-501 within neighborhood and business areas. This alignment has been requested to be analyzed and possibly moved closer to right-of- way of 15-501. Technology— (Whether LRT, BRT— High or BRT—Low) 20 This aspect is very complex because there is variation in some aspects but not in all cases. The following general comparisons can be made (not necessarily in order of importance). Capital Costs LRT— $1.4 Billion BRT— high $960 million [*This number has been asked to be re-examined since the Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2001) and other FTA sources (2009) would translate to $13.5 million a mile average or $250 million] Average Speed LRT— 29.6 MPH BRT— high 26.7 MPH End to End Travel Time LRT— 35 minutes BRT— high 39 minutes Storage Yards and Maintenance Facilities LRT— Yes New BRT— high No Existing Bus Facilities could be expanded Ridership 2035 LRT— approximately 11,700 boardings BRT—high approximately 5,700 with another 11,900 riders on other buses using BRT guideway (aka Interlining) for expediency which furthers the use and investment in the BRT guideway, for a total of 17,600 boardings. 2035 Daily System-Wide Transit Trips LRT— 140,500— 141,600 BRT— high 142,800 (Note: This may be another measure to contrast with the interlined criteria) Traffic Impact Rating LRT— High Performing BRT— high High Performing Expansion Potential Ratings LRT— Medium Performing BRT—high High Performing Orange County staff differs on this subject in comparison to the URS analysis on page 3-17 of the Alternatives Technical Report. Flexibility is the hallmark of BRT because of lower costs, more flexible engineer design alignments and extensions into other corridors (for example MLK to Carolina North, 15-501 to support economy in Orange County and NC 54 to address high commuter travel pattern into Orange County from south Durham and western Wake and Orange County out to RTP. Image LRT— High Performing BRT—high High Performing** 21 Orange County Staff research from recent FTA publications agrees with conclusions drawn therein that BRT-H with all of the amenities of LRT offer comparable benefit and experience and accordingly offers a higher ranking than URS. ** Ability to Influence/Economic Development and TOD LRT— High Performing BRT— high High Performing ** Orange County staff believes investment and implementation can be faster, as permanent and less speculative than LRT especially when LRT could take 15 years to analyze and put into operation. Capacity LRT— High Performing BRT— high High Performing Operating Costs LRT— > 2000-2500 Passengers per peak hour LRT may have cost efficiencies BRT— high < 2500 BRT is less BRT Cost savings with 800 PAX/HR of approximately 20% The Durham-Orange Corridor is projected to operate with BRT better operating efficiency levels. Environmental Air&Wetlands LRT— Medium Performing depending on source of electric which is coal at this time BRT— high Medium Performing however most BRT new orders are hybrid electric BRT can be routed to be less invasive to off corridor (right-of-way) environmental areas. Summary FTA 2009 publications (see link: http://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html) note and Orange County staff agrees that a community should match the technology with the need based on land use and the ability to financially build and maintain. BRT-High is such a system that is complementary to these precepts in the BRT ability to remain flexible to changing conditions and locational needs including the exponential rate of green technologies. Although Orange County and the municipalities are expected to grow in population and jobs over the long term planning horizon (25t years), the estimates do not create high intensity skyscraper urban environments because of the limitations with other natural resources such as water and the costs of public services. (Attachment F) Additional Supporting Maps—(Attachments G. H, I, J) Resolution/Orange County Staff Recommendation — Attachment K is a draft resolution for the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee's consideration at its meeting tomorrow, February 8, 2012. Orange County staff is recommending changes, as shown in red, "tracked changes" format. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This action, although not the approval of a financial plan or 'h cent referendum, begins a process outlining a potential financial commitment by local (Durham and Orange Counties) state and federal governments of$1.4 billion and an ongoing Y2 cent sales tax commitment from Orange County residents. 22 Orange County's commitment to fund the transit program can only be through voter approval on November 6, 2012 or later after the legal requirements of a referendum are set earlier in the year. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the additional information; 2. Discuss and ask questions; and 3. Identify any additional materials that may be required to provide guidance to Commissioner Gordon, Orange County MPO representative on the Transportation Advisory Committee, for a proposed vote on February 8, 2012 by the DCHC MPO TAC and to provide guidance to Chair Pelissier for the Triangle Transit Board meeting on February 22, 2012. DECISIONS 4. Proceed with Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) study area known as Durham- Orange Corridor Alternate 4 from endpoints UNC to Alston Avenue (17.4 miles — $1.4 billion). NOTE: If FTA review suggests a shorter segment, the BOCC reserves the right to reanalyze its decision. 5. Proceed with LPA alignment and station suggestions of: a. UNC(D) which could allow potential future extension to the west to Carrboro b. Proceed with C-2 (Friday Center along NC 54 easterly past proposed Hillmont; aka George King Road alignment). NOTE: Extend easterly as close to 1-40 for another potential P&R station if Leigh Village P&R is suppressed in NC 54 Corridor Plan. c. Consider whether a detailed study and report for a possible third alignment consistent with the Alternatives Analysis for US 15-501 from Hamilton Station to Gateway Station is warranted. (1) This alternate alignment provides another option to avoid the environmental challenges noted in C-1 and C-2 corridors along NC 54 and the federal wetlands and would bolster economic development opportunities within Orange County which would be the source of the countywide financial commitment. (2) Incorporate findings of this study into the development of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which is in progress, so that this study may inform the 2-3 year New Starts application process with the most current data and community/local government mindset. 6. Proceed with the submittal of LRT in the Durham-Orange Corridor A-4 noted above at this time. The New Starts application process will include iterations of improving the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) Durham-Orange Corridor transit proposal. It would be prudent to analyze options if federal and state funding was not available in the short/mid-term and/or what alternative transit `safety-net' solutions could be considered to make the application or amended application more viable including ongoing implementation measures. NOTE: Over the next few months, the NC 54 Corridor Plan, the requested 15-501 Alternatives Analysis, and the development of an Orange County Transit Plan Core and Enhanced Program may support the need for BRT High in one or both corridors (NC 54 and US 15-501). This information will be critical over the next six months as the Risk Assessment Phase of the New Starts Application is prepared to include financial sustainability and environmental impact. In any event, BRT could be part of a complementary corridor development to support LRT. This may be in addition to BRT that is in the draft OCTP financial plan in the MLK Boulevard corridor of Chapel Hill. PUBLIC COMMENT Art Mines read a prepared statement. Dear Board of Orange County commissioners and Hillsborough Town Board Members; RE: Support for Y2-cent Public Transit Tax to include the Orange County Public Train Station We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Hillsborough Town Board to support using a portion of the proposed %-cent transportation tax to fund a rail station for Orange County in Hillsborough to access the current passenger trains that already pass through Orange 23 County. This will have far-reaching benefits obtainable within one to three years by bringing passenger rail services as well as connecting existing and planned bus services, to serve our entire county. Because we want to help you make the tax referendum work, we ask both the County Board and Town Board to communicate their mutual approval of this to each other as soon as possible, and subsequently to the public when promoting the upcoming tax referendum. We also plan to promote this on a grassroots level. Orange County and Davidson County are the only counties along North Carolina's current passenger rail line where the train does not stop. Davidson County may soon add a train station, leaving Orange County as the only county without access to one of the fastest growing train services in the Southeast. One of our local residents was recently heard saying, "It's like having a super-highway passing through our county with no exit in our county." We trust you will unite with your colleagues to continue your support for the Orange County Train Station as a joint venture between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough, for the reasons listed on the following page. We thank both the Orange County Commissioners and the Hillsborough Town Board Members for all their continued support towards this train station effort. Let us know how together we can help encourage the passage of this referendum. Support for Passing the %-cent Transportation Tax — Benefits of Orange County Train Station in Hillsborough The train station in Orange County/Hillsborough benefits the citizens across the entire county to access the existing 6 passenger trains that travel through Orange County daily. Hillsborough is in the geographic center of Orange County making the planned train station accessible to all of our seven townships. A passenger train station in Orange County/Hillsborough, as a new transportation service, supports economic development and transit-oriented development. The train station can be achieved in 1-3 years. Relatively little needs to be done to open the train station (platform, modular station). Cost estimates for Phase 1: temporary train stop with covered permanent platform and modular station = $2 million. Phase 2: permanent train station = $5-6 million. Does not include road infrastructure, but does include sufficient parking for both Phases, on the land already purchased. A train station in Orange County supports tourism, one of the major economic drivers for our county. Our own train station located adjacent to existing bus routes will easily connect to UNC, its hospitals in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough (in 2015); the Orange County campus of Durham Technical Community College; and sporting, cultural events and festivals in Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. These train-bus connections will serve residents, tourists, students, alumni, commuters, and area businesses. Our schools will be able to take students on trips without running their own buses or contracting bus services. Many school systems throughout North Carolina already take students by these trains to museums, historic sites, and cultural activities. In the future, connections to planned expanded bus services will enable access by train to education and jobs. This would provide opportunities for people who are currently underserved, including rural residents, students, and unemployed residents. An increase in ridership of the Orange County 420 buses and the Hillsborough Circulator buses. Both of these run in close proximity to the land already set aside for the train station. Expanded bus services will therefore include access to/from Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Mebane and rural Orange County from/to the train station. Potential significant cost savings to Orange County with a reduced need to transport people from Orange County to multiple locations for medical appointments throughout Durham. The 6 existing trains already stop in Durham. The land for the train station has been purchased and is waiting for infrastructure so the train can stop where it already passes by six times a day, with more trains planned in the next year. 24 The train station will provide access one of the fastest growing existing passenger lines in America. A train station in Orange County provides an alternative to cars, reducing congestion, pollution, and parking problems. The train station has already received the support of the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, as well as their respective business communities, the University of North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and you, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Hillsborough Town Board. Amtrak's and NCDOT's speedy approval of a train station in Hillsborough in 2007 included a positive cost-benefit analysis. Earlier estimates for the Cary station far underestimated the current actual usage. Transportation planners in Raleigh have explained that given current trends, this is likely to repeat itself for any other new train service in the region. In other words, Hillsborough's station could expect greater usage than originally estimated. Passage of a county-wide referendum is more likely to succeed when some benefits can be realized in the short-term. Holly Reid said that she is one of the residents interested in supporting a transit tax. She is convinced that regional transit is the best way to meet the projected growth in the Triangle. She has signed the letter that was read above. She said that there was some confusion with the term .commuter rail." Her request is not to fund more commuter rail service with this sales tax, but to access the current passenger service that passes through the County six times a day. Orange County is one of the two remaining counties within the existing corridor without a rail stop. The other is Lexington County. She said that having trains stop in Orange County would help economic development. John Wilson said that some of the important issues should have been addressed by Triangle Transit's July 2011 Alternatives Analysis but they were not. He said that the 15-501 alignment is reasonable and should have been included in the Alternatives Analysis. He said that Triangle Transit's 2010 Fordham Boulevard White Paper was not part of the Alternatives Analysis and was not made available to the public for comment, and does not satisfy the FTA's Alternatives Analysis guidelines. Regardless, the White Paper makes the case that the 15-501 alignment should have been included in the Alternatives Analysis. He said that the Alternatives Analysis also did not involve state resource agencies with known interests in critical natural areas. He encouraged the County Commissioners to not put this sales tax on the ballot until and unless they are comfortable with the information and alternatives that have been provided and until everyone's voices are heard Glenn Wilson agreed with John Wilson's comments. Damon Seils is from Carrboro. He said that the Locally Preferred Alternative is a product of years of study, numerous public presentations, and thorough consideration by town and County staff, local elected officials, and regional transportation bodies. There has been some discussion about studying various transit enhancements for 15-501. He said that he is confident that all parties can work together to study this separate issue. He said that the issues with 15-501 should not prevent the Board from sending this to the next stage in the process. Harry Johnson is a UNC School of Law student and he is part of a coalition of UNC-Chapel Hill students who urge the County Commissioners to put this transit tax on the ballot in November. He has lived in Orange County for three years and he cannot wait for better transit and rail service in Orange County. He said that improved service on 15-501 should be encouraged, but should not hinder this process from going forward at this time. He said to focus on the plan that has been approved by Triangle Transit for the past seven years. Stewart Boss is also a UNC student and a part of a student coalition that supports the transit tax. He said that he is from Charlotte where there is transit and light rail and he has seen that it can work. He feels that the proposal has been fairly studied and he would like to see it come for a public vote in November. Jeffery Greene is a resident of the Orange County section of Meadowmont. He supports the draft LPA recommended by the MPO's Technical Coordinating Committee last month. He said 25 that investing monies into a rail line is an unquestioned positive. He said that this should not be difficult to implement. Jeff Schmidt is a resident of Cedar Grove. He made reference to the resolution in the packet and said that light rail transit has a greater potential to promote economic growth. He gave an example of Indianapolis, which just passed a transportation plan, which included significant rail. He said that the resolution needs to be modified to include significant additions to bus transportation from here to Durham County. He said that asking for another tax increase would not be good at this time. Ted Triebel lives in Caldwell. He said that the issue is funding support. He referred to an article in the News and Observer on February 1St that indicated that local dollars should be a sure thing before proceeding. He said that there needs to be some clarity before this moves forward. Chair Pelissier said that tonight the only decision before the Board is to vote on the locally preferred alternative. She said that the full plan would come back before the public for comment in the near future if they decide to put it on the ballot. The entire plan does involve buses as well as the potential light rail. Next week there will be a work session to discuss these issues related to the plan. Craig Benedict said that the resolution is from the Durham-Chapel Hill MPO. The words in red are wording that Orange County staff heard at the TCC but this wording was not incorporated into the MPO-TAC resolution. Over the last few days, the MPO staff understands that this is language that Orange County may want. He made reference to page 7, which lists decision points. Commissioner McKee asked to go back to the slide, "What are the New Starts Criteria?". He said that he remembers hearing that while the bus would be about four minutes slower in the trip time than the light rail and less costly, the tipping factor was the increased economic development that would be generated by the light rail. However, on January 24th, he heard a definitive statement that this is not an economic development plan, but it is a transit plan and it is if they are mutually exclusive. He said that this is confusing. Patrick McDonough said that the key thing here is moving people and there are some economic advantages to this. The transportation benefits are also very strong. Regarding economic development, the goal is to make it a win-win-win situation. The overall line that is recommended is the one that maximizes economic opportunity. Commissioner McKee said that there are constant changes in this proposed plan and that concerns him. He said that unless and until things are tightened down, he does not want to ask the voters to have a perpetual Y2-cent sales tax. Patrick McDonough suggested that next week at the work session that the County Commissioners bring particular items of concern. Chair Pelissier said that no one thinks that the County will approve a plan without the interlocal agreements in place. She said that the plan is only the starting point, costs may go up and down, and other components can change over a 20-year span of the plan. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the LPA and said that the BRT meets the same criteria as LRT. The only thing that is significantly different with LRT is in the economic development aspect of the project. He said that he does not prefer this recommended alignment. Commissioner Gordon said that what will be voted on tomorrow at the DCHC-MPO TAC meeting is the LPA. Triangle Transit is asking for a definite decision to submit the New Starts application in August. She asked what decision points needed to be made for tomorrow's vote. Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit is not asking the Board to make a decision, but the MPO, which is made up of elected officials, will make the decision. If the decision is not made by tomorrow, then it will not be possible to get the New Starts application ready by August and another year is lost. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 14 and said that one of the points that the staff is asking the Board to vote on has to do with advancing the third alignment. Page 14 addresses that point, but he asked for an analysis of proceeding now with the detailed report for a third 26 alignment for 15-501 and a point that was made by a member of the public that Triangle Transit did not follow federal standards. Wib Gulley said that the suggestion that Triangle Transit has not followed the FTA's process is factually wrong. It is based on a misreading or a partial reading of the federal regulations. Patrick McDonough said that within the 15-501 corridor itself, there is more growth projected than on NC 54. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was anything to preclude the County Commissioners from an additional study of 15-501 subsequent to this. Patrick McDonough agreed. He asked if Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro had already made decisions about this and Patrick McDonough said yes. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to allow Commissioner Gordon to proceed and vote for decision points 4, 5 and 6 on the revised copy of decision points. 4. Proceed with Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) study area known as Durham- Orange Corridor Alternate 4 from endpoints UNC to Alston Avenue (17.4 miles — $1.4 billion). NOTE: If FTA review suggests a shorter segment, the BOCC reserves the right to reanalyze its decision. 5. Proceed with LPA alignment and station suggestions of: a. UNC(D) which could allow potential future extension to the west to Carrboro b. Proceed with C-2 (Friday Center along NC 54 easterly past proposed Hillmont; aka George King Road alignment). NOTE: Extend easterly as close to 1-40 for another potential P&R station if Leigh Village P&R is suppressed in NC 54 Corridor Plan. c. Consider whether a detailed study and report for a possible third alignment consistent with the Alternatives Analysis for US 15-501 from Hamilton Station to Gateway Station is warranted. (1) This alternate alignment provides another option to avoid the environmental challenges noted in C-1 and C-2 corridors along NC 54 and the federal wetlands and would bolster economic development opportunities within Orange County which would be the source of the countywide financial commitment. (2) Incorporate findings of this study into the development of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which is in progress, so that this study may inform the 2-3 year New Starts application process with the most current data and community/local government mindset. 6. Proceed with the submittal of LRT in the Durham-Orange Corridor A-4 noted above at this time. Commissioner Gordon said that she still needs to know how this translates into her vote tomorrow. She made reference to page 34-35 (WITHOUT THE RED HIGHLIGHTING) and said that the decision points are not included in the resolution. She said that the decision points do not line up with the resolution. Commissioner Hemminger said that decision points 4 and 5 do line up. Chair Pelissier said that the proposed resolution does not contain information about the decision points. Wib Gulley said that all of the concerns are in the, "Be it Therefore Resolved," and the County Commissioners can ask Commissioner Gordon to say that they are in favor of C-2 and not C-1. Commissioner McKee said that this vote will set the County on a path of endorsing light rail without consideration for bus rapid transit and whether it can do the same thing more effectively. He is convinced that bus rapid transit will provide a regional solution to the transportation problems. He said that the light rail system is not a regional system because it would require people to change from bus to rail multiple times. He said that people will use the path of least resistance. He believes that this tax will never have an end point. Commissioner Jacobs said that the motion asked to proceed with the study of 15-501 concurrently even though Triangle Transit staff says that it would throw the process back 18-24 months. He cannot support this motion if it will derail the process immediately. 27 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants to understand more about 15-501 and explore it more, but not in the formal process. Commissioner Gordon clarified what the Board had decided:Approve #4 of the decision points; approve part of #5 (a and b only which involves carrying only the C-2 option forward); and #6, first line only. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that in the "whereas" statements on page 35 that C-1 be taken out altogether. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee) Commissioner Yuhasz said that his "no" vote is against this particular technology and this particular plan and not against transit. The approved resolution which Commissioner Gordon is to take to the DCHC-MPO TAC meeting on February 8, 2012 is given below. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE LOCALLY-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR THE DURHAM- ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT CORRIDOR February 8, 2012 A motion was made by TAC Member_and seconded by TAC Member_for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote, was duly adopted. WHEREAS, the Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAC) recommendations in May 2008 included rail transit extending from Raleigh to Durham to Chapel Hill; and WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel-Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) incorporated the STAC rail transit into the adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan in April 2009; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly approved the Congestion Relief/Intermodal Transport bill in August 2009 that enables local areas to fund public transportation through an increase in sales tax, car registration fees and special district property taxes; and WHEREAS, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) implemented the Triangle Regional Transit Program in 2010 to study the financial, ridership, environmental and public input aspects of regional bus and rail transit, and subsequently conducted a visioning process and Transitional Analysis to study rail corridors in Durham, Orange, and Wake counties, and WHEREAS, the TTA completed an Alternatives Analysis on the three highest-performing corridors that included the Durham-Orange corridor in July 2011 and issued an Addendum to the "Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report" in August 2011 which clarified that reasonable alternatives to the proposed alignments crossing the Little Creek and New Hope Creek areas will be studied; and WHEREAS, the TTA and the DCHC MPO have both conducted comprehensive public involvement activities, which included public workshops, public hearings and presentations to local elected boards, for the visioning process, Transitional Analysis and Alternatives Analysis; and WHEREAS, light rail transit technology has a greater potential to promote economic growth and focus transit-supportive development around station areas as compared to bus rapid transit technology; and 28 WHEREAS, alignment option A3 in the UNC station area is supported by the Town of Chapel Hill, UNC at Chapel Hill, and UNC Hospitals and would allow for future extension of the alignment to the west to possible destinations such as downtown Chapel Hill, downtown Carrboro and the Carolina North Campus; and 29 1 WHEREAS, the alignment option C2 is potentially compatible with the overall vision for the 2 transit corridor; and 3 4 WHEREAS, the ridership, costs, environmental impacts, community impacts, and impacts on 5 nearby roadway traffic of alignment option C2 needs to be further studied in the Scoping and 6 Preliminary Engineering/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PE/DEIS) phases before a 7 final decision is made on which alignment should be advanced; and 8 9 WHEREAS, alignment option D3 in the South Square station area would best promote transit- 10 supportive economic development; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative does not include a 13 recommendation for the location of a Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility and the 14 location of this facility will be further studied in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative will be followed by further study of 17 the alignment and station locations in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases when a final decision 18 is made on the remaining active options; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the substantive issues identified in public comments on the Alternatives Analysis 21 will be addressed in subsequent development steps such as Scoping and PE/DEIS; and 22 23 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning 24 Organization Transportation Advisory Committee adopts light rail transit technology on the 25 alignment recommended in the "Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report" dated 26 July 2011 with the modification that the C2 option be carried forward for further study in the 27 Meadowmont and Hillmont station areas as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Durham- 28 Orange County Corridor (as illustrated on the attached map), and that the DCHC MPO intends 29 to incorporate this LPA into the forthcoming 2040 Long Range Transportation 30 Plan to further inform this LPA, provided here on this, the 8th day of February, 2012. 31 32 33 34 d. Recommendations to NCACC Regarding Priority Federal Issues 35 The Board considered approving recommendations to the North Carolina Association of 36 County Commissioners on priority federal issues of importance to all counties. 37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to 38 approve recommendations to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 39 (NCACC) on priority federal issues of importance to all counties, and direct the Clerk to the 40 Board to complete the necessary forms and submit these priority federal issues to NCACC by 41 the February 10, 2012 deadline. 42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 43 44 9. Reports - NONE 45 46 10. County Manager's Report— NONE 47 48 11. County Attorney's Report— NONE 49 30 1 12. Appointments-NONE 2 3 13. Board Comments 4 Commissioner Yuhasz— none 5 Commissioner Gordon said that she would send an email. 6 Commissioner Hemminger—none 7 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Agricultural Summit is Monday at 8:30 a.m. at the 8 Big Barn in Hillsborough. He said that there is a parking space designated for people dropping 9 off books at the main library in Hillsborough. The code to get into the paid parking spaces is 10 1202#. He also asked the Manager to report back on why the Carrboro Cybrary is not labeled 11 the Orange County-Carrboro Cybrary since it is a partnership. 12 Commissioner McKee—none 13 Commissioner Foushee—none 14 15 14. Information Items 16 17 January 24, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 18 19 15. Closed Session -NONE 20 21 16. Adjournment 22 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger 23 to adjourn the meeting at 11:18 PM. 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 27 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair 28 29 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC 30 Clerk to the Board 1 ' I DRAFT 2 3 MINUTES 4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 February 21, 2012 7 7:00 p.m. 8 9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, 10 February 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. N.C. 11 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners 13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve 14 Yuhasz 15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers 18 Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff 19 members will be identified appropriately below) 20 21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 22 Chair Pelissier went through the additional items at the County Commissioners' places: 23 24 Yellow sheet (from Commissioner Yuhasz) —revision to item 4-a, Consideration of 25 Resolution Supporting an Amendment to the United States Constitution to Clarify that 26 Corporations are Not People and Money is Not 27 Pink— Motions related to item 7-a, Conditional Use rezoning and Class A Special Use 28 Permit—Carolina Friends School 29 White—submission by a citizen for item 8-c, Direction for a New Solid Waste Interlocal 30 Agreement and Transfer Station 31 32 33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger 34 to remove item 12-a, Recommendations for the Board of Directors of the Piedmont Food and 35 Agricultural Processing Center, and defer it to the March 13th meeting to clarify. 36 37 Commissioner Foushee asked if this was delayed would it delay the process for non- 38 profit status of this entity. John Roberts said that he does not think so. He said that Alamance 39 has appointed but Durham and Chatham have not, so it will not delay. 40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 41 42 PUBLIC CHARGE 43 44 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 45 46 2. Public Comments 47 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 48 Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that there is a 49 growing concern about the proposed routings of the Mountains to Sea Trails through Bingham 50 Township. The trails proposed through OWASA land are being routed through neighborhoods 2 1 and private roads, particularly Thunder Mountain and the Mount Mitchell communities. The 2 communities are concerned about privacy and safety. The County staff has been working with 3 the neighborhood groups to resolve this and they are hoping to work together to find alternative 4 routing that fulfills the goals of the trail without impending on communities. She said that there 5 needs to be transparency through the process to ensure that the project is truly a win-win. 6 7 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 8 These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda 9 below. 10 11 3. Petitions by Board Members 12 Commissioner Hemminger petitioned the Board to move the concealed weapon from 13 February 7th to a regular meeting so that the County Commissioners may openly discuss this 14 item again and also to receive public comment. 15 Commissioner Jacobs requested that at the next work session— March 15th—that the 16 County Commissioners have a brief discussion on protocols for constituting the Board of 17 County Commissioners' boards and citizen groups that do not conform to the customary 18 appointing procedures. This has come up in a few different ways recently. 19 Commissioner Gordon distributed a petition, as shown below: 20 21 Petition from Alice Gordon relating to the Orange County transit plan, 22 February 21, 2012 23 24 Currently, Orange County is considering a county transit plan which essentially utilizes 25% 25 local funding, 25% state funding, and 50% federal funding. 26 27 The purpose of this petition is to ask that the County also develop and consider a transit plan 28 which essentially relies only on local resources. The advantage of having such a plan is that 29 the voters, in considering a '/-cent sales tax referendum for transit, will know what the plan 30 would be if the County does not secure new state and federal funding for transit. 31 32 This "core" transit plan would utilize the new local funding sources, including the proceeds of 33 the Y.-cent sales tax and the vehicle registration fees. It could also include other revenues, as 34 appropriate. However, it would not utilize the 25% state and 50% federal funding that is yet to 35 be obtained. The core plan would describe which transit investments could be made utilizing 36 these local funds. 37 38 In contrast, the "enhanced" transit plan would utilize the 25% state funding and 50% federal 39 funding, as well as local funds, and it is essentially the Orange County transit plan that the 40 Commissioners have been considering for several months. 41 42 This petition requests that the Commissioners direct the staff to develop the draft core transit 43 plan outlined above, and that the Commissioners consider the core and enhanced versions of 44 the transit plan as part of their future discussion of the Orange County transit plan. The goal 45 would be to have the draft core plan ready in time for it to be placed on the agenda of the next 46 BOCC meeting at which the Orange County transit plan is discussed. 47 48 49 Chair Pelissier said that this has already been put in the agenda process. 50 3 1 Chair Pelissier said that on the last capital improvement plan there was discussion 2 about having a jail expansion. During the courthouse tour, Judge Buckner mentioned that there 3 are some ideas about how to reduce increases in the jail population. She would like to petition 4 the Board to consider asking Judge Buckner to come and give a presentation sometime in 5 March or April about the court system and how to reduce the jail population. 6 7 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations 8 a. Consideration of Resolution Supportina an Amendment to the United States 9 Constitution to Clarify that Corporations are Not People and Money is Not 10 Speech 11 The Board considered adopting a Resolution to Amend the United States Constitution to 12 Clarify that Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech and authorizing the Chair to 13 sign. 14 Commissioner Yuhasz submitted a revision to this resolution, which is shown below: 15 16 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 17 CONSTITUTION TO CLARIFY THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS 18 19 Whereas, government of, by, and for the people has long been a cherished American value, 20 and the people's fundamental and inalienable right to self-govern and thereby secure rights to 21 life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in the US Constitution and the 22 Declaration of Independence, and; 23 24 Whereas, persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include 25 clean air, clean water, safe and secure food, and; 26 27 Whereas, corporations are entirely human-made legal fictions created by express permission of 28 the people and our government, and; 29 30 Whereas, corporations can exist in perpetuity, can exist simultaneously in many nations at 31 once, and exist solely through the legal charter imposed by the government, and; 32 33 Whereas, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, and; 34 35 Whereas, corporations are not and have never been human beings, and therefore are rightfully 36 subservient to human beings and governments as our legal creations, and; 37 38 Whereas, interpretation of the US Constitution by the Supreme Court has endowed 39 corporations with Constitutional protections intended only for persons, and; 40 41 Whereas, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance, and; 42 43 Whereas, unregulated and excessive expenditures by corporations can pervert the election 44 process; 45 46 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners 47 commends to our elected Federal representatives and asks that they support the efforts being 48 made on behalf of the people of the United States to amend our United States Constitution to 49 establish that: 50 4 1 1. Corporations are not persons and are not entitled to the rights afforded to people by the 2 Constitution. 3 2. Contributions by corporations and other business entities to political parties, candidates, 4 and organizations for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of federal, state, and 5 local elections may be regulated. 6 7 Be it further resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners calls on other 8 communities and jurisdictions to join with us in this action by passing similar Resolutions. 9 10 This the 21 st day of February, 2012. 11 12 PUBLIC COMMENT: 13 Pete Brown said that the people of To Amend came here tonight to support and undo 14 the harm that this amendment will do. He said that they accept the resolution that 15 Commissioner Yuhasz recommended. 16 17 18 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 19 adopt the revised Resolution (from Commissioner Yuhasz) to Amend the United States 20 Constitution to Clarify that Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech and 21 authorize the Chair to sign. 22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23 24 5. Consent Agenda 25 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner 26 Hemminger to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: 27 28 a. Minutes 29 The Board approved the minutes from December 8, 2011 and January 26, 2012 as 30 submitted by the Clerk to the Board. 31 b. Appointments— None 32 33 c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds 34 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related 35 to 35 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS. 36 d. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds 37 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property 38 values related to eighteen (18) requests for property tax release and/or refund in 39 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. 40 e. Adjusting the Limits on the County Manager's Contracting Authority and Ratifying a 41 Manager Approved Grant Agreement 42 The Board authorized the Manager to sign intergovernmental service agreements in 43 amounts under$90,000; and authorized the Manager to sign intergovernmental grant 44 agreements regardless of amount as long as no expenditure of County matching funds not 45 previously budgeted and approved by the Board is required. Subsequent budget 46 amendments will be brought to the BOCC for revenue generating grant agreements not 47 requiring County matching funds as required for reporting and auditing purposes; and direct 48 the Manager and Attorney to provide a quarterly report to the County Commissioners 49 showing the type and amount of each intergovernmental agreement signed by the Manager; 5 1 and ratified the Manager's approval of the State Library of North Carolina Library Services 2 and Technology ACT EZ Grant. 3 f. Modification to By-laws of the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center 4 The Board modified the number of directors appointed to the Piedmont Food and 5 Agricultural Processing Center (PFAP) nonprofit through the by-laws adopted by the Board 6 in December 2011. 7 g_ Proposed Memorandum of Understanding for Caswell, Person and Orange Counties 8 for Future Library Services 9 The Board approved a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between Caswell, Person 10 and Orange counties to continue selective library services of the Hyconeechee Regional 11 Library system after dissolution on Julyl, 2012 and authorized the Chair to sign. 12 h. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#6 13 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2011- 14 12 for Carry Forwards, Library, Health Department, Health Department Grant Project 15 Ordinances, Piedmont Food and Agriculture Processing Center, Miscellaneous, and 16 Department of Social Services. 17 i. Legal Advertisement for Joint Planning Area (JPA) Public Hearing— March 29, 2012 18 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate 19 consideration. 20 L Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)Text Amendment— Industrial Definitions 21 The Board approved a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in 22 regards to definitions of Industrial uses. 23 24 VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 25 26 6. Items Removed From Consent Agenda 27 28 i. Legal Advertisement for Joint Planning Area (JPA) Public Hearing —March 29, 29 2012 30 The Board considered approving the legal advertisement for items to be presented at 31 the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Public Hearing scheduled for March 29, 2012. 32 Commissioner Jacobs said that he had requested that part of the JPA public hearing 33 that they have a brief presentation about the genesis of the Joint Planning Agreement and the 34 definition of the rural buffer and how it is affected by the Water and Sewer Boundary 35 Agreement. 36 Chair Pelissier said that this was discussed at agenda review. 37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger 38 to approve the Legal Advertisement for Joint Planning Area Public Hearing on March 29, 2012. 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 41 7. Public Hearings 42 a. Conditional Use Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit — Carolina Friends 43 School 44 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public 45 hearing, and making a decision on the Conditional Use (CU) and Class A Special Use Permit 46 (SUP) application(s) proposing the expansion of the Carolina Friends School. 47 The motions for this item were on the pink sheet. 48 49 Michael Harvey: Good evening. This is the reconvening of a public hearing, which began on 50 November 21, 2011, reviewing a Conditional Use Rezoning and Special Use Permit application 6 1 for Carolina Friends School, proposing adopting a master plan, proposing to develop a 2 recreational and new buildings on that property. It is important for the Board to remember that 3 as we continue to review this plan, and the items that have already been entered into the record 4 at the November 21St hearing, the items that we are going to be entering into the record this 5 evening. As a brief review, during the November 21S public hearing, the application, as 6 submitted by the applicant, included the formal application form, formal site plans, the required 7 maps and list of adjacent property owners was entered into the record. The applicant also 8 entered color renderings of the proposed structures, a traffic impact analysis and transportation 9 solutions, a biological inventory completed by the Katina Group, an environmental assessment 10 application, which staff has testified to that Planning staff, DEAPR, and the state determined 11 that there would be no adverse environmental impact as a result of the approval of the site plan 12 and the initiation of land-disturbing activities. In fact, it was argued that the Friends School 13 would actually be addressing existing environmental issues to protect the stream buffer. A solid 14 waste management plan was also submitted. There was a real estate assessment completed 15 by Ms. Geraldine Mason, who indicated that it was her professional opinion that the school and 16 the proposed expansion project would not have a negative impact on adjacent property values. 17 And of course we had a formal site plan submitted that included a detailed resource 18 management plan. 19 20 This evening what you have in your packet is a revised site plan. One of the key points I want 21 to remind this Board, a major question came up at the Quarterly Public Hearing as well as the 22 Planning Board was the location of the proposed ball field. You will note that the proposed ball 23 field has been moved approximately 90 feet from the western property line to address the local 24 citizens' concerns. You will also note that additional notes have been added to the site plan 25 indicating that no athletic field lights shall be erected as requested by the Board. We have a 26 revised solid waste management plan, which is Attachment 2 of your packet. We of course 27 have the draft minutes from the November 21St Quarterly Public Hearing, which is Attachment 4, 28 pages 15-25; the draft minutes from the January 4th Planning Board, which is pages 26-28; the 29 applicant's written responses to various questions as well as the approval of the recommended 30 conditions, which is Attachment 6, pages 29-36. I'll also call your attention that in that 31 attachment, there is a schematic of the proposed ball field relocation that was presented to the 32 Planning Board at their January 4th meeting. Attachment 7 contains additional correspondence, 33 specifically a memorandum from the Orange County Health Department and an email from the 34 North Carolina Department of Transportation approving the proposed driveway onto Mt. Sinai 35 Road with some recommended conditions. That appears on page 37-38. Attachment 8 is an 36 ordinance approving the rezoning division. Attachment 9 is an ordinance denying the rezoning 37 division. State law requires that we provide you both so that if you deny it, you can have the 38 ordinance either approving or denying. 39 40 Then last and certainly not least, Attachment 10 is the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact. 41 The Planning Board at their January 4th meeting, as via detailed from the script for you made 42 affirmative recommendations that the applicant had met all of their obligations for the 43 application of submittal, had submitted all of the necessary documents to prove that they had 44 complied with revisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, and they made specific findings 45 of fact with respect to compliance with the general standards of the ordinance as well as the 46 required general findings as contained within Section 5.3.2.(A)(2)a., specifically that the use will 47 maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Planning Board in their 48 alliterations determined the applicant had met their burden and based this decision on the 49 applicant's testimony at both the November 21St Quarterly Public Hearing and the January 4th 50 Planning Board meeting, that the application provided the necessary documentation linkage 7 1 denoting that it would adhere to this condition. The fact that the project had been approved by 2 the Fire Marshal's Office, Solid Waste, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and 3 Planning Staff, and most importantly, that there had been no public comments denoting 4 opposition to the 9roposal entered into the record or brought forth in a Quarterly Public Hearing 5 for the January 4 Planning Board meeting that refuted any of the applicant's claims. They 6 further made a motion that the project would enhance or maintain adjacent property values, 7 again, relying on the applicant's testimony at both meetings, the aforementioned real estate 8 appraisal assessments that were submitted into the record, and of course, most importantly, 9 that no evidence had been submitted to refute these claims. Last but not least, they made a 10 finding that the location and character of the school and the proposed expansion plan as 11 submitted would be in harmony with the area in which it was located; based again on the 12 applicant's testimony, based on the narrative submitted, and based on the fact that no 13 substantial evidence had been submitted to refute the applicant's claim. 14 15 The Planning Board has recommended approval with the imposition of 12 conditions, which are 16 located on page 71 of your abstract. These conditions require the applicant to apply for all 17 necessary permits. It also requires that the County Board of Commissioners approve a 18 resolution or ordinance submitting the zoning atlas as requested by the applicant. You will also 19 note that the North Carolina Department of Transportation, one recommended condition is that 20 the applicant goes through the appropriate driveway application process and that they adhere 21 to all requirements from the North Carolina Department of Transportation in terms of getting 22 that approval. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Tony Whitaker, is here this evening. The Planning 23 staff has recommended this item be approved and the Planning Board has recommended that it 24 be approved. So the Manager's recommendation this evening is that you convene the public 25 hearing, accept any additional comments, enter all of the evidence into the record that is 26 contained in the attachment, you close the public hearing, approve the ordinance contained in 27 Attachment 8 approving the rezoning of the property, and that you go through the process of 28 acting on the findings of fact that are detailed for you in the script. 29 30 31 Chair Pelissier: I want to note at this time that there is no one from the public who has signed 32 up to speak to this item, but I will ask if there is anyone who wishes to do so. There are none. 33 34 Commissioner Jacobs: I just wanted to understand since I was the one who brought it up— 35 on page 37 where we have the Memorandum from Tom Konsler with the Health Department 36 essentially stating that the wastewater treatment system will be inspected annually and that's 37 consistent with the County's Wastewater Treatment Management Program. My question is was 38 bringing this up as a condition superfluous, would it have happened anyway? I just want to 39 know for future reference to see what the parameters of the Wastewater Treatment 40 Management Program are. 41 42 Michael Harvey: My initial reaction is that would have happened automatically because that is 43 the standard policy of the Environmental Health Department. As indicated earlier at the 44 Quarterly Public Hearing, it is never a bad idea to impose or to reference conditions, especially 45 with a special use permit. 46 47 Commissioner McKee: I'd just like to express appreciation for the consideration that the 48 school gave to the ball field. 49 8 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 2 to close the public hearing. 3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 6 to approve attachment 8, An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as shown 7 below. 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 11 THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS 12 13 WHEREAS, Carolina Friends School has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning 14 Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance 15 (UDO), to rezone several parcels of property located at/adjacent to 4809 Friends School Road, 16 specifically parcels with the following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN): 17 18 1. 9892-21-1486 19 2. 9892-22-7252 20 3. 9892-21-6594 21 4. 9892-31-0894 22 5. 9892-31-5318 23 6. 9891-29-1739 24 7. 9892-33-5224 25 8. 9892-32-3662 26 9. 9891-29-7800 27 28 Totaling approximately 109.71 acres in area, located northwest of the intersections of Mt. Sinai 29 Road (SR 1718) and Friends School Road (SR 1719) as denoted on the site plan completed by 30 Civil Consultants, on file within the County Planning Department. 31 32 FROM: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer(PD-H-RB) 33 34 TO: Rural Buffer Conditional Use (RB-CU) 35 36 And 37 38 WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 39 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has 40 submitted sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the 41 intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not 42 limited to, the following: 43 44 a. The Land use Element Map. 45 b. Chapter 5—Land Use Element, including: 46 47 1. Land Use Overarching Goal. Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and 48 designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities 49 sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent 50 with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. 9 1 2. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, 2 consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of 3 life. 4 3. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental 5 conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and 6 community character. 7 8 And 9 10 WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably 11 necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. 12 13 BE IT ORDAINED by the Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning 14 Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcels Rural Buffer Conditional Use 15 (RB-CU) consistent with the applicant's request. 16 17 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published 18 ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. 19 20 SUP 21 22 PINK—add here 23 1. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee 24 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with 25 Section 2.9.1 Conditional Use Districts of the UDO as denoted on page(s) 44 through 26 48 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. 27 VOTE. UNANIMOUS 28 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz 29 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with 30 Section 3.8.4 Conditional Districts — Where Permitted of the UDO as denoted on page ' 31 49 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. 32 VOTE. UNANIMOUS 33 3. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner 34 Foushee to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance 35 with the specific standards for the submission of a Special Use Permit application as 36 outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the LIDO as denoted on page(s) 50 through 52 37 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz 41 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the 42 specific standards governing the development of Schools: Elementary, Middle, and 43 Secondary as detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO, as denoted on page(s) 53 44 through 67 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 47 5. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 48 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the 49 specific standards relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: 50 a. Sewage disposal facilities, 10 1 b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and 2 c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the 3 site 4 as detailed within Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO, as denoted on page 68 of Attachment 5 10 of the abstract. 6 VOTE. UNANIMOUS 7 8 6. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 9 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with 10 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO, specifically that: 11 The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located 12 where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. 13 (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following 14 already entered into the record: 15 • The applicant's testimony at the November 21, 2011 public hearing and 16 the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, 17 18 • The application narrative providing documentation on the provision of 19 water and wastewater treatment services to the project, 20 21 . The approval of the project by the Orange County Fire Marshal, Solid 22 Waste, NC DOT, and Planning staff. 23 24 • Further a lack of evidence submitted into the record indicating that the 25 applicant had not met their burden of proof. 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 7. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 28 affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section 29 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO, specifically that: 30 The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property 31 (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following 32 already entered into the record: 33 • Based on evidence presented at the November 21, 2011 public hearing 34 and the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, 35 • A letter composed by Ms. JoEllen Mason, a local realtor, providing an 36 analysis of the project's economic impact and that the proposed 37 addition(s) will not have a negative impact on adjacent property value. 38 • Further the Board made this determination based on a lack of evidence 39 submitted into the record indicating that the applicant had not met their 40 burden of proof. 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 8. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 44 affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section 45 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO, specifically that: 11 I The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will 2 be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with 3 the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or 4 in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County 5 Commissioners. 6 (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following 7 already entered into the record: 8 • Based on evidence presented at the November 21, 2011 public hearing 9 and the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, 10 • Further the Board made this determination based on a lack of evidence 11 submitted into the record indicating that the applicant had not met their 12 burden of proof. 13 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15 16 9. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee 17 issue the Special Use Permit and impose the 12 recommended conditions as detailed 18 on page 71 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. 19 20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 21 22 Commissioner Jacobs thanked those associated with the Friends School and the 23 responsive nature to the schools and to our staff. He also said that he was pleased to see the 24 Quaker Dome on the campus. 25 Commissioner Gordon commended the Friends School for the responsiveness to the 26 comments made concerning their application. 27 28 8. Regular Agenda 29 a. Adoption of the Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Limited 30 Obligation Bonds to Finance Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools Elementary#11, Other 31 County Capital Projects and Refinancing of Existing Obligations 32 The Board considered adopting the final bond resolution authorizing the issue of Limited 33 Obligation Bonds in the maximum amount of$75 million for the financing of Elementary School 34 #11 for Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools, for other County capital projects and to refinance 35 existing obligations. 36 Financial Services Director Clarence Grier summarized this item. On February 7, 2012, 37 the Board approved a financing plan for a new elementary school for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro 38 City Schools. Nothing has changed since then. The total amount financed for school 39 construction would be $21,500,000. The anticipated approval by the LGC is March 6th 40 Commissioner McKee said that he is supportive of the bond refinancing and the 41 proposal, but he has questions about the pricing and necessity of the ambulances for$531,000. 42 43 Resolution Providing Final Approval of Terms and Documents 44 for County's 2012 Installment Financing --for Elementary School #11, 45 for other County capital projects and to refinance existing obligations 46 47 48 WHEREAS-- 12 1 2 The Orange County Board of Commissioners has previously determined to carry out the 3 acquisition and construction of a new elementary school for the Chapel Hill —Carrboro school 4 system, often referred to as "Elementary#11," and to finance the costs of this project by the 5 use of an installment financing, as authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina 6 General Statutes. 7 8 The Board has also determined to fund approximately $3,500,000 for additional County 9 capital projects, including approximately $3.0 million for improvements to solid waste 10 convenience centers and approximately $500,000 for the purchase of three ambulances. 11 12 County staff has further advised the Board that because of generally low borrowing 13 rates, the County may be able to save money by refinancing a variety of the County's existing 14 installment financings. 15 16 The Board believes a single installment financing for the new school, the additional 17 County projects and to carry out refinancings would be in the County's best interest. This 18 financing will include the use of limited obligation bonds, which represent interests in the 19 installment payments to be made by the County. 20 21 The County's Finance Officer has made available to this Board the draft documents 22 listed on Exhibit A (the "Documents"), and a draft of an official statement providing for the 23 disclosure of information to prospective investors in the County's financing obligations. All of 24 these items relate to the County's carrying out the financing plan. 25 26 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, 27 North Carolina, as follows: 28 29 1. Determination To Proceed with Financing -- The Board confirms its decision 30 to carry out the proposed installment financing as described above. As part of this financing, the 31 County will refinance such existing County installment financing obligations as the Finance 32 Officer may determine. 33 34 2. Approval of Documents; Direction To Execute Documents -- The Board 35 approves the forms of the Documents submitted to this meeting. The Board authorizes and 36 directs the Board's Chair and the County Manager, or either of them, to execute and deliver 37 those Documents to which the County is a party. The Documents in their respective final forms 38 must be in substantially the forms presented, with such changes as the Chair or the County 39 Manager may approve. The execution and delivery of any Document by an authorized County 40 officer will be conclusive evidence of such officer's approval of any such changes. The 41 Documents in final form, however, must provide for the principal amount of limited obligation 42 bonds to not exceed $75,000,000 and a financing term not to extend beyond December 31, 43 2032. The collateral pledged to the repayment of the County's obligations under the Documents 44 must include the property associated with the new elementary school and may include any 45 portion, or all, of the collateral pledged to the repayment of obligations that are refinanced, as 46 the Finance Officer may approve. The amount financed under the Documents may include 47 amounts to pay financing expenses and other necessary and incidental costs. 48 13 1 3. Sale of Bonds; Approval of Official Statement — The Board approves and 2 appoints BB&T Capital Markets (a division of Scott & Stringfellow, LLC) as the underwriter of 3 the bonds. 4 5 The Board approves the draft official statement submitted to this meeting as the form of 6 the preliminary official statement pursuant to which the contemplated limited obligation bonds 7 will be offered for sale. 8 9 The preliminary official statement as distributed to prospective investors must be in 10 substantially the form presented, with such changes as the Finance Officer may approve. The 11 Board directs the Finance Officer, after the sale of the bonds, to complete and otherwise 12 prepare the preliminary official statement as an official statement in final form. 13 14 The Board acknowledges that it is the County's responsibility, and ultimately the Board's 15 responsibility, to ensure that the Official Statement in its final form neither contains an untrue 16 statement of a material fact nor omits to state a material fact required to be included therein for 17 the purpose for which such Official Statement is to be used or necessary to make the 18 statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 19 By the adoption of this resolution, the Board members approve the Official Statement as 20 materially correct and complete, and further acknowledge and accept their own responsibility 21 for causing the County to fulfill these responsibilities for the Official Statement. The Board 22 authorizes and approves the use of the preliminary official statement and final official statement 23 by the underwriters in connection with the sale of the bonds. 24 25 4. Authorization To Refinance Obligations with Existing Lenders— The Board 26 understands that for certain of the County's outstanding installment financing obligations, it may 27 be in the County's best interest to modify the existing agreements with the current lenders, 28 instead of refinancing those obligations through the issuance of the limited obligation bonds. 29 The Finance Officer, and all other County officers and representatives, are authorized and 30 directed to take all appropriate action to carry out such modifications and refinancings with the 31 existing lenders. 32 33 5. Authorization to County Manager and Finance Officer To Complete Closing 34 — The County Manager, the Finance Officer and all other County officers and employees are 35 authorized and directed to take all proper steps to complete the financing in accordance with 36 the terms of this resolution. 37 38 The Board authorizes and directs the Finance Officer to hold executed copies of all 39 financing documents authorized or permitted by this resolution in escrow on the County's behalf 40 until the conditions for their delivery have been completed to such officer's satisfaction, and 41 thereupon to release the executed copies of such documents for delivery to the appropriate 42 persons or organizations. 43 44 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Board specifically authorizes the 45 Finance Officer (a) to approve any additional agreements appropriate to carry out the plan of 46 financing contemplated by this resolution, including agreements for the custody or investment 47 of financing proceeds, appointment of additional underwriters and agreements for appropriate 48 professional services, and (b) to approve changes to any documents or closing certifications 49 previously signed by County officers or employees, provided that such changes do not conflict 50 with this resolution or substantially alter the intent from that expressed in the form originally 14 1 signed. The Finance Officer's authorization of the release of any such document for delivery will 2 constitute conclusive evidence of such officer's approval of any such changes. 3 4 In addition, the Finance Officer is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps 5 for the efficient and convenient carrying out of the County's on-going responsibilities with 6 respect to the bonds. This authorization includes, without limitation, contracting with third 7 parties for reports and calculations that may be required under the bonds, this resolution or 8 otherwise with respect to the bonds. 9 10 6. Miscellaneous Provisions -- All County officers and employees are authorized 11 and directed to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in 12 furtherance of the purposes of this resolution. All such prior actions of County officers and 13 employees are ratified, approved and confirmed. Upon the absence, unavailability or refusal to 14 act of the County Manager, the Board's Chair or the Finance Officer, any other of such officers 15 may assume any responsibility or carry out any function assigned in this resolution. In addition, 16 upon the unavailability of the Chair or the Clerk, respectively, any of the rights or responsibilities 17 directed to such officers may be carried out or exercised by the Vice Chair or any Deputy or 18 Assistant Clerk. All other Board proceedings, or parts thereof, in conflict with this resolution are 19 repealed, to the extent of the conflict. This resolution takes effect immediately. 20 21 22 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to 23 adopt the final bond resolution authorizing the issue of Limited Obligation Bonds in the 24 maximum amount of$75 million for the financing of Elementary School #11 for Chapel Hill — 25 Carrboro City Schools, for other County capital projects and to refinance existing obligations. 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 28 b. Orange County Landfill Closure Date 29 The Board considered making a formal decision regarding the specific date the Orange 30 County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill will cease accepting waste and initiate permanent 31 regulatory closure procedures. 32 Frank Clifton said that this issue has been discussed for many months and the 33 recommendation is for the board to set a firm date such as June 30, 2013, and this time would 34 allow the County to begin the closure process. The closure costs will be about $3 million and 35 the post-closure expenses are estimated to be $2,484,555. 36 37 PUBLIC COMMENT: 38 Spence Dickinson acknowledged the Board of County Commissioners' hard work and 39 said that he would like to know why the County is closing the landfill early. He said that he 40 knows there are problems with the area around Rogers Road and the Board of County 41 Commissioners is addressing these. He said that he does not see why they would move the 42 landfill somewhere else when it is working and has the capacity for a number of years to come. 43 44 Commissioner McKee asked Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson when the landfill would 45 actually be full as it exists now. 46 Gayle Wilson said that it is hard to be precise, but he would say that it would probably 47 last until mid-October or November of 2013. 48 Commissioner McKee asked if it would cause any hardship to keep it open until then 49 and Gayle Wilson said no. 15 1 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the estimate for closure expenses of$3.1 2 million. He asked how much was in the reserve fund to apply toward closure costs. 3 Gayle Wilson said that he does anticipate that this expense will be paid from reserves 4 and not debt financed. 5 Commissioner Gordon clarified that June 30, 2013 is the earliest that the landfill could 6 be closed. 7 Commissioner Jacobs said that this financial impact does not say they have any funds 8 available. He asked if there was $10 million in reserve and it was answered yes. 9 Frank Clifton said that the issue is that the State may change the rules and the amount 10 could change. 11 Commissioner McKee said that by deciding to extend the life of the landfill for a very 12 short timeframe took this off the table. He said that the downside for him is that it does not 13 allow for a timeframe to talk with the towns about the disposal of their trash. 14 Chair Pelissier said that the County has asked the towns for several years if they wanted 15 to collaborate with Orange County about the closure and the disposal of trash afterwards. 16 Everyone has known about this. 17 18 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner 19 Hemminger to approve the date of June 30, 2013 for the closure of the Orange County 20 Municipal Waste Landfill, direct staff to initiate any and all regulatory procedures for 21 implementing closure, and direct staff to notify Orange County Landfill account holders and 22 facility users of the imminent cessation of landfill operations 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 25 C. Direction for a New Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Transfer Station 26 The Board reviewed and discussed a new Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and a 27 Transfer Station Site based on the Solid Waste/Rogers Road joint work session on January 26, 28 2012. 29 Frank Clifton said that during the last joint meeting with the towns there was a 30 suggestion by Mayor Chilton to look at a site in the rural buffer and that was one of the sites 31 originally looked at in 2008. This site was deferred because it was not big enough. 32 John Roberts said that there is limited action to take right now with a new agreement 33 because it is not known what the towns are going to do. If the Board decided to pursue another 34 transfer station in Orange County, a new agreement would not be needed because it would be 35 a successor facility to the landfill and it would be treated like a landfill for the purposes of the 36 existing agreement. The agreement would have to be amended to get into more details about 37 recycling, etc. 38 Frank Clifton made reference to the agreements and said that, as a County, they need 39 to formalize their relationship with the City of Durham and its transfer station. It would be in the 40 best interest of the County to move forward. 41 Commissioner Hemminger asked who owned the property in the rural buffer. 42 Frank Clifton said that the rural buffer is a boundary and a zoning clarification. The 43 parcel is owned by an individual. 44 Commissioner Hemminger asked who could make the determination about it being 45 rezoned, etc. 46 Frank Clifton said that he thinks it is a joint planning issue where any decision that 47 occurs requires unanimous agreement between the three parties. 48 49 PUBLIC COMMENT: 16 1 Bill O'Neal lives at North Hill subdivision, which is located in the north rural buffer. He 2 presented a letter with signatures from six neighborhoods in the rural buffer, representing 3 approximately 450 homes and more than 1,000 residents that express opposition to locating the 4 solid waste transfer station on a tract of land within the rural buffer at the northwest corner of 86 5 and 1-40. It is essential to maintain Orange County as one of the most desirable places to live. 6 He said that the neighborhoods are committed to working with the County Commissioners to 7 find a better, long-term option that can work for all citizens of the County. He said that this 8 would be the first thing that people would see coming off the interstate. 9 Yvonne Maness said that she is opposed to this proposed site and she said she lives off 10 of Mt. Sinai Road and Falls of New Hope. She agreed with Bill O'Neal. 11 Barry Katz read a prepared statement: 12 "I'd like to begin by paraphrasing the comments Gayle Wilson, Director for the Orange 13 County Landfill, presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Board on August 11, 2010. Mr. Wilson 14 remarked that after a 6-year search for a new landfill within Orange County, several sites had 15 met the technical criteria, but the County Commissioners placed a greater value on the cultural 16 and social concerns of its residents when it rejected each and every one of these sites. An 17 overlapping 3 year search for a WTS site, also identified technically feasible sites but these 18 sites were rejected over many years, Orange County Commissioners have respected the 19 clearly expressed wishes of county residents versus a purely technocratic approach to 20 governance. Orange County has wisely chosen to use the Durham WTS for the foreseeable 21 future for its solid waste disposal. 22 Public speculation suggests that residents north of 1-40 have elected to use the Durham 23 WTS beginning in the near future, but that the municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have 24 yet to fully commit to using the Durham WTS. Recently, an elected official has publicly 25 suggested a site in the Rural Buffer, asserting undocumented claims of economic and 26 environmental efficiencies as a justification. However, there are certainly strong social and 27 cultural objections to the suggested site. The Commissioners have before you a letter signed 28 by the presidents of nearby Home Owners Associations representing more than 1,000 rural 29 Orange residents. The letter is supported by Orange County grassroots organizations: Orange 30 County Voice and Justice United, representing the sentiments of many thousands more of the 31 County's citizens. Furthermore, a number of traditional landowning families will be contacting 32 the Commissioners either personally or by letter expressing their objection to a WTS at the 33 suggested site. Other groups have already expressed their concerns to us and will add their 34 opposition to this site in the coming days. 35 1 would like to add a couple of other concerns regarding the suggested site. In all 36 likelihood it would be the 75,000 residents of the municipalities and the University currently 37 served by both public water and sewer who would be using a WTS at this site which is outside 38 the urban services boundary. I am in the middle of contacting waste transfer site managers 39 around North Carolina to discuss their arrangements and experience. This much I know, trucks 40 that carry wet solid waste to and from the stations are not always water-tight and they leak 41 material along the way, especially while idling at transfer stations. I know the Commissioners 42 have been assured that it is safe to run a WTS without water and sewer, but the EPA Bulletin, 43 "Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making", is quite clear about the need for 44 municipal services for a Transfer Station. Furthermore, at a December 7, 2007 meeting with 45 the Commissioners a solid waste consultant, Lynn Klappich, was absolutely clear to the Board 46 about the on-site necessity for public water and sewer. At one point, she was especially 47 concerned in the event of an on-site emergency such as a fire, where very large quantities of 48 water would run off-site and risk contaminating soil and groundwater. More than 1,000 49 residents depend upon that groundwater for all their household needs and the liability to the 17 1 Waste Transfer Station owners for poisoning this water would be great, indeed. [[Ms. Klappich 2 is currently a Solid Waste Team Leader at Draper Aden, an environmental consulting firm.]] 3 When the public suggestion of the 1-40/NC 86 site was raised, the mobile home park 4 adjacent to that site was ignored. In fact, these homes comprise a socially-rich Latino 5 community, comparable in size to the Rogers Road community in the early 70's when the 6 Eubanks landfill was constructed. Given this neighborhood's proximity to the suggested site, a 7 claim of environmental racism might be asserted,just as it was regarding the Rogers Road 8 community in relation to placing a WTS at the Eubanks landfill. 9 Development at key transportation nodes have uniquely important economic, aesthetic, 10 and social consequences. To its credit, Chapel Hill took its time to develop its eastern gateway, 11 where Meadowmont, the Friday Center and all the thoughtful and appropriate high-density 12 mixed-use projects have come to fruition. 13 The 1-40/NC 86 transportation node is THE NORTHERN GATEWAY to Chapel Hill. A 14 WTS at this node would add an industrial-type traffic flow to already busy and often congested 15 roads, causing substantial delays or disruptions for residents and commuters that in itself, has 16 economic consequences. It would be comparable to having a perpetual logging operation 17 spilling on and off a main traffic artery. 18 Looking ahead, there will come a time when Chapel Hill's ever-expanding population will 19 no longer be provided its high quality of life within the town's urban boundaries. The last great 20 development opportunities will lie at and just north of the 1-40/NC 86 northern gateway. It would 21 be a foolish squandering of an irreplaceable future asset to blight this area with a Waste 22 Transfer Station. 23 1 hope your legacy will be one that protects the land and citizens of the County against a 24 hastily, ill-conceived suggestion put forth in a moment of panic. We have had a looming solid 25 waste disposal problem for many years. The appropriate action for this 21St century problem is 26 a 21St century solution and not by out-moded landfills and transfer stations, especially at a 27 location that risks poisoning residential groundwater, may have a taint of racism, and 28 compromises long-term urban development. 29 1 urge the Commissioners to give no further consideration to the recently suggested 30 WTS site at the intersection of 1-40 and NC 86. Thank you." 31 32 Jennifer Johnson said that she has lived in Orange County for 20 years and she 33 opposes this waste transfer station. It should be in an industrial environment. 34 Thomas Linden said that he is concerned that by putting a transfer station at NC 86 that 35 it would be simply kicking the can down the road. He also does not want to transfer the 36 County's trash into someone else's neighborhood. He said that his solution is three-fold - 37 decrease the amount of trash they generate with a pay-as-you-go process, build a state of the 38 art waste-to-energy disposal system, and put such a plant at Carolina North. 39 Spence Dickenson said that he is opposed to having transfer station in the rural buffer. 40 He said that he is working with a man that works with N. C. State who said that there is some 41 funding to help set up local collection of food waste and turning it into compost. He said that 42 there should be better recycling and food composting in a high-tech County. 43 Christine Lee said that she agreed with other speakers opposing the siting of the 44 transfer station in the rural buffer. She said that this intersection of 1-40 and NC 86 is a prime 45 location and it should be an area of revenue generation and growth. 46 David DiFiuseppe stated his opposition to siting this in the rural buffer and he begs the 47 Board of County Commissioners not to do any type of feasibility study on this because of the 48 amount of opposition to this site. 18 1 Sally Council said that she does not live close to this site, but she wanted to voice her 2 opposition to this proposed siting. She said that there should be other 17-acre sites that are in 3 industrial areas and would be more suitable for this type of facility. 4 Nina Frankel said that she is also opposed to this siting in the rural buffer. The buffer 5 contributes to the quality of life of all residents. 6 Sharon Ryan lives in the Falls of New Hope. She said that she has lived in North 7 Carolina since the 70's. She implored the County Commissioners to not consider siting a 8 transfer station in the rural buffer. 9 10 Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of the Justice United Environmental Team. She said 11 that they are opposed to the waste transfer station in the rural buffer. She said that there are 12 better sites within the town limits of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. She said that the Durham 13 Transfer Station is not a good solution and the towns should explore their own options. 14 Carol Boggs said that she is just as committed to this opposition as the previous 15 speakers. She said that Chapel Hill is considered nationally as a jewel in many ways for its 16 excellence in education, community, etc. She said that you cannot recreate the beauty and 17 serenity of rural Orange County once change and growth overcome it. 18 Vikram Rao said that he represented HOAs and as a community they need to look at a 19 modern solution to this transfer station. He pointed out a petition that was signed by the 20 Presidents of multiple HOAs, which is shown below. 21 Betty Maltsby said that she served on every citizen committee in the 1990s when they 22 were siting a landfill. She said that it is important to be responsible for our own garbage. She 23 said that it is important to keep the process public. 24 Chris Weaver said that he agreed to oppose this and to implore the towns to take care 25 of their own waste. He agreed with solidifying the agreement with Durham and getting it nailed 26 down. He loves the idea of energy generation. 27 Susan Chandler said that the rural buffer is unsuitable for this purpose. She said that 28 this land is the gateway to the community. Protecting the rural buffer is the right thing to do 29 environmentally and philosophically. 30 Marilee Mctigue has lived in rural Orange County for 20 years. She lives ten miles away 31 from this site. She said that she attended the Assembly of Governments work session and she 32 was pleased that there was discussion amongst the groups, but she was shocked that 33 members of the Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen offered up a site outside of their 34 jurisdiction and within the rural buffer. She said that this is unacceptable. She said that the 35 rural parts of our county are not vacant lands for the municipalities to decide upon. She urged 36 the Board to reject this site tonight and to work collaboratively with the municipalities and UNC 37 to find a long-term solution that is acceptable to everyone. 38 39 40 The following are comments from citizens that were unable to attend the meeting. 41 42 From: Lisa Povsic fmailto:lisa.fink(aD_duke.edul 43 Subject: proposed transfer station 44 45 To Orange County Commissioners: 46 47 We are writing to you in regards to concerns over the proposed solid waste transfer station 48 proposed on the Northwest side of the 140/86 intersection. Our decision to move to a rural area 49 of Orange county several years ago was most highly influenced by the desire to be in a county 50 that valued it's natural areas and did it's best to protect natural resources and prevent urban 19 1 sprawl. We felt that our children would benefit more from being in a natural setting than living 2 in the city and attending Chapel Hill schools and we understood we were giving up "city 3 amenities"for a more rural setting. It was because of this that we chose our current homesite, 4 which sits less than a mile from the proposed transfer station site. While we understand that 5 this is a low population area, which might be ideal for such a site, we also understand the 6 proposed site to be in a rural buffer area and from our understanding this was deemed such 7 specifically to remain rural and not require urban services and to "buffer"the rural land from 8 projects like the proposed transfer station. This buffer area also sits very close to the Henry 9 Oosting Natural Area (Duke Forest and Triangle Land Conservancy) which was deeemed a 10 natural heritage site of regional significance according to the Inventory of Natural Areas and 11 Wildlife Habitats for Orange County in March 2005 as a result of the natural area inventory 12 conducted in 2001-2002. 13 14 We hope that the county continues to be known as a place that prides itself in protecting its 15 natural areas and decides against the proposed facility on a rural buffer area. 16 17 Please enter our concerns into the upcoming meeting minutes. 18 Sincerely, 19 Lisa and Tom Povsic 20 118 Woodkirk Lane 21 22 23 From Bill Harmon: 24 1 am sending a note concerning the county commission meeting on February 21 for locating the 25 waste transfer station (garbage facility) on highway 86 opposite Whitfield Road. 26 Because of prior obligations I will not be at the meeting which 1 just found out about yesterday 27 but would like my comments added to the meeting minutes. As a resident of this area (less 28 than a mile from the proposed site) I share the same concerns for this option that most 29 neighbors would share. They range from the possibility of better waste disposal options in light 30 of technological advancements, development infringements on communities as well as 31 associated effects from this proposal which negatively impacts those closest to the site 32 including traffic, smell and property value consequences. It's also troubling that less than one 33 air mile away we already have the county landfill and waste station on Eubanks Road to serve 34 the city and county. Geographically, it seems that the needs of the county would be better 35 served with an alternate site given the proximity of the current one. I'm sure anyone utilizing the 36 existing facility would agree. I am copying our commissioners on this matter for their own 37 consideration as well. Thank you for your service and immediate attention. 38 Sincerely, 39 William A. Harmon, Jr. CFP, RFC 40 41 Office: 919-968-1177 42 Fax: 919-869-1633 43 2210 Holly Circle 44 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 45 46 47 February 20, 2012 48 49 20 1 To: Orange County, NC Commissioners: Bernadette Pelissier, Pam Hemminger, Valerie P. 2 Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz 3 4 From: Michael Recny, Bill O'Neil, Ed Lowdermilk, Jack Olich, Mary Miller, Vikram Rao, and W. 5 L. Triplett 6 7 Re: Proposed Solid Waste Transfer Site location on the northwest corner if 140/NC 86 8 9 Preserving the beauty, integrity and character of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Rural Buffer is 10 absolutely essential to maintaining our town as one of the most desirable places to live and to 11 raise families in Orange County, NC. The Rural Buffer was created decades ago by visionary 12 Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County community planners who worked toward a common 13 goal of creating a buffer region to prevent unchecked urban growth and commercial sprawl that 14 has plagued other communities in NC. To their credit, Chapel Hill/Carrboro under the Joint 15 Planning Agreement have (to date) demonstrated a commitment to preserving Urban Services 16 Boundary by permitting only low density residential housing and no commercial development in 17 the Rural Buffer, thereby preserving the natural character and beauty of this precious 18 neighborhood resource. 19 20 However, Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton recently put forth a proposal to build an industrial sized 21 solid waste transfer station ("WTS") to serve the needs of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the rest of 22 Orange County within the Rural Buffer on a tract of land at the northwest corner of Interstate 40 23 and NC 86. 24 25 We the undersigned, who serve as representatives of six Orange County Homeowners 26 Associations which collectively represent approximately 450 properties and more than 1000 27 residents express our vigorous opposition to this proposal. Construction of a WTS on this 28 site would breach the integrity of the Rural Buffer and constitute a major violation of the 29 fundamental principles upon which this region was originally created, and successfully 30 maintained for the past 30 years. 31 32 Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to locate a commercial WTS in the 33 Rural Buffer on the proposed site that: 34 (a) has no municipal water or sewer service to adequately address the need to 35 sequester, treat and dispose of toxic chemicals/waste generated within such a 36 commercial operation; 37 (b) would destroy a tree-laden, highly visible tract of land that currently serves as a 38 pristine gateway between the Rural Buffer and Chapel Hill city limits, and 39 (c) places a major industrial operation in very close proximity to hundreds of homes and 40 thousands of residents who live within the Rural Buffer. 41 42 In addition to breaching the underlying integrity of the Rural Buffer with a commercial WTS 43 operation, thereare other significant environmental concerns which motivate our opposition to 44 this site, such as (but not limited to) the potential impact on watershed areas near the proposed 45 site from waste water runoff that could be contaminated with toxic chemicals escaping from the 46 site, and the potential contamination of personal and community wells that serve thousands of 47 residents living in close proximity to this site. 48 49 Therefore, we request the Orange County Commissioners immediately eliminate this particular 50 site from further consideration. Furthermore, we request that the Commissioners adopt a firm 21 1 policy that Orange County will not support ANY site for a potential WTS that would be located 2 anywhere within the Rural Buffer surrounding Chapel Hill/Carrboro. 3 4 We and the homeowners we represent are firmly united in our opposition to the proposed 5 NC86/140 site, and together we are fully committed to take whatever action necessary, including 6 legal means, to protect the integrity of the Rural Buffer in order to preserve the intent, character 7 and beauty of this precious region for decades to come. 8 9 We certainly appreciate that solving our County's future solid waste disposal needs is a difficult 10 and complex issue, and we are very willing to work together with our elected officials and other 11 stakeholders to identify more suitable, "21St-century" solutions that the entire community can 12 support. 13 14 15 Respectfully yours, 16 17 Michael A. Recny 18 President, Creek Wood HOA (representing 64 properties) 19 20 VikramRao 21 President, Stoneridge POA (representing 230 properties) 22 23 W. L. Triplett 24 President, Lockridge HOA (representing 30 properties) 25 26 Ed Lowdermilk 27 President, Falls of New Hope HOA (representing 92 properties) 28 29 30 Bill O'Neil 31 Vice President, North Hills HOA (representing 20 properties) 32 33 Jack Olich 34 President of Old Field Drive HOA (representing 7 properties) 35 36 Mary Miller 37 President, Woodkirk HOA (representing 8 properties) 38 39 40 1 am writing this letter to the Commissioners of Orange County, and also the elected leaders of 41 Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough. In simplest terms, I do not support a waste transfer 42 station in the Rural Buffer. As an engineer, I would like to share some potentially nontraditional 43 thoughts on this subject with you. 44 45 1. No professional industrial or process engineer would consider implementing an 46 "intermediate stage" process without knowing the final downstream or end state 47 processes for the future. A waste transfer station is an "intermediate stage" process. 48 22 1 2. In the case of Orange County, there are four basic categories of end state 2 downstream processes to consider for the desired future: 3 a. Landfill in Orange County 4 b. Advanced technology waste to energy process in Orange County 5 c. Landfill outside of Orange County 6 d. Advanced technology waste to energy process outside of Orange County 7 8 3. Two of these choices should have no need for a waste transfer station in Orange 9 County. They are the ones where the final process takes place in Orange County. The 10 other two might not need a waste transfer station in Orange County if the final process 11 was close to the population being served. Therefore, a waste transfer station is not a 12 logical proposal until the final "resting place" for our non-recyclable waste is defined. 13 Otherwise there is a good chance of a wasted investment and short and long term 14 consequences to the integrity of the Rural Buffer. 15 16 4. The challenge of developing an integrated plan for a County with the various issues 17 of population density, land use plans and transportation networks that exist here is 18 daunting. To many persons, an integrated plan means having one method that all 19 citizens utilize. Another view of an integrated plan is one where the differences that 20 exist are comprehended and alternate strategies are implemented so that the different 21 needs are met. I believe the latter method has a greater chance of success in our 22 County. 23 24 25 5. Although we are one County, there are two fundamentally different regions. One is 26 south of 1-40 and is comprised primarily of Chapel Hill, UNC, and Carrboro. The other 27 region contains Hillsborough and the unincorporated areas of Orange County. 28 Population density differences are a key factor of these two regions. 29 30 6. 1 have a strong belief that leadership has a responsibility for creating a compelling 31 vision. I have no leadership role within this County, but I'm willing to share my vision to 32 stimulate discussion. My vision for this County has three elements for implementation: 33 a. The current excellent recycling process is maintained and improved with a 34 benchmarking study to identify global best practices and then implementation 35 plans created to execute improvement. 36 b. An advanced technology waste to energy facility is implemented to serve the 37 area south of 1-40 at an appropriate location within the bounds of Chapel Hill, 38 UNC and Carrboro. The key stakeholders are Chapel Hill, UNC and Carrboro. 1 39 submit that Chapel Hill Transit and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system are 40 initiatives that recognize the existence of this "southern region". 41 c. A partnership is created between Hillsborough, Orange County and the city 42 of Durham to manage the non-recyclable solid waste of these areas. 1-85 is a 43 natural conduit for such a partnership. Through a true partnership, improved 44 processes could be jointly developed for the near term for improved standards at 45 the Durham waste transfer station and then the creation of a plan for a waste to 46 energy facility that would support Hillsborough, the unincorporated region of 47 Orange County and the city of Durham when appropriate. 23 1 2 7. 1 also believe that leadership must have the courage to make key strategic choices 3 and then figure out the tactics to implement those strategic choices. I believe that given 4 that there are only four basic choices to pick from for'the final "resting place", not a lot of 5 study is required to pick the strategy. Pick a strategy that is "right" for each "region" and 6 then figure out the implementation plan considering the environment, technology status 7 and costs consistent with adding value to our respective "regions". This is where some 8 study is required. 9 10 In conclusion, a waste transfer station should not be considered as a viable concept in any 11 location until a rational strategic choice is made for the ultimate processing of our non- 12 recyclable solid waste. There are effective strategies that would eliminate the need for any 13 consideration of a waste transfer station. 14 Thank you for considering my input into the discussion. If you have any questions about my 15 thoughts, I would be happy to respond to them. 16 1 would request that my letter be included in the minutes of your respective meetings on this 17 subject. 18 19 Ned McClurg 20 105 Woodkirk Lane 21 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 22 nedsmc(a)-gmail.com 23 24 25 Chair Pelissier asked for direction on the interlocal agreement. 26 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a group of elected officials that have looked at 27 the interlocal agreement. He said that until they find out what Chapel Hill is going to do there is 28 really not a lot to discuss with regard to a new interlocal agreement. He suggested holding this 29 in abeyance until the Town of Chapel Hill has done something. 30 31 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to have staff move forward with an 32 agreement with the City of Durham. 33 Commissioner Jacobs asked about Chapel Hill's timeframe. He thinks that the County 34 needs to put forth the question to the municipalities as to whether they are partners or not. 35 Frank Clifton said that he was told that Chapel Hill will not have a decision about solid 36 waste issues for about six months because they need to hire a consultant. He suggested 37 securing the County's future and then the towns could decide if they want to be partners. 38 Commissioner McKee clarified that his motion was to negotiate with the City of Durham 39 on behalf of Orange County for waste generated by Orange County. 24 1 Commissioner Jacobs asked Frank Clifton if he had any sense from Durham that they 2 would charge different if it was just Orange County versus the towns. 3 Frank Clifton said not at this time. The first priority is to have a destination and the 4 second priority is the cost. 5 Commissioner Jacobs made an amendment to the motion to direct staff to proceed with 6 Durham to accept Orange County's waste but also ask staff to similarly get cost estimates if the 7 current partners were to participate with the County. 8 Commissioner McKee accepted the amendment. 9 Commissioner Gordon suggested pursuing this agreement with Durham and having 10 staff come back with parameters. 11 Commissioner Jacobs wants to know if the County bundles trash with the municipalities 12 if it would get a better price. 13 Commissioner Hemminger seconded the motion. 14 15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16 17 18 Chair Pelissier suggested sending a letter to the towns letting them know that the 19 County is not negotiating on behalf of the towns. 20 Commissioner Foushee said that she wants to talk about the next steps. She said that it 21 is time for Orange County to have a real discussion about what happens to material solid waste 22 and to engage with the towns and UNC as to where the trash goes. She suggested that UNC 23 should be one of the partners. 24 Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is incumbent upon the County to find the right place to 25 put the trash in the County. He said that it is a problem that is not going away. 26 Commissioner McKee said that there is a mobile home park beside the rural buffer and 27 this is a neighborhood just as much as any of the other neighborhoods that are represented 28 here. He said that the County needs to be responsible for its own trash and they need to look 29 at options with their partners if they wish to bring forth a site on the town's property or UNC. He 30 is not willing to look at this rural buffer site for a transfer station. 31 Commissioner Gordon asked about the letter to the towns and what it would say. It 32 needs to be clear that the County will not be negotiating for the towns. She wants to leave it 33 open for the partners to join at any time. 34 Chair Pelissier said that the letter would say that the County would negotiate on Orange 35 County's behalf and they would want to know what the costs are to the partners and UNC. The 36 letter would ask the partners if they were willing to join in on the negotiations. 37 Commissioner Gordon said that before there could be any consideration of this site, it 38 would be only fair to have another comprehensive and deliberative process because that was 39 the type of process used when the Board was considering other sites. She said that she does 40 have grave concerns about this particular site. 41 Commissioner Hemminger echoed what Commissioner Gordon said. At this point, she 42 does not agree with the process because it has not been public. The process needs to include 43 the partners involved. She does not like the Durham Transfer Station option either, but it had to 44 be done. 45 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Mayor Chilton for making an attempt to be a leader. He 46 thinks that Mayor.Chilton has been diligent in trying to work on the solid waste issues. He does 47 disagree with the conclusion, but he appreciates his effort. He reminded the Board that 48 Commissioner Moses Carey, when he was the Chair in 2007, sent a letter to the Mayors of 49 Chapel Hill and Carrboro to solicit interest in participating in a solid waste disposal solution and 50 pointed out that it would be costly to not have a solution. There was never a response. He 25 1 reminded the Board that three of the County Commissioners had the privilege at their first 2 meeting having to decide about the transfer station. One of the parts of the resolution was to 3 say that the County would look for an environmentally sound, cost-effective alternative solution 4 to disposal of solid waste and to look for local and regional partners. He said that there will 5 have to be some decisions about moving forward. He thinks that there should be discussion to 6 ask staff to come back with some plan or some timetable to seek regional partners and look at 7 alternatives to shipping solid waste. He said that he is tired of municipal problems being solved 8 by putting them in rural areas. He challenged Mayor Chilton to come back with a site in 9 Carrboro. 10 Commissioner Yuhasz said that regional solutions do not eliminate the need for a 11 collection spot. 12 Chair Pelissier said that she thinks it is premature to say the County needs a waste 13 transfer station until they know what their partners are going to do. She suggested asking the 14 Solid Waste Advisory Board to look at alternative solutions. 15 Frank Clifton said that the County has been moving forward with solutions for solid 16 waste. The plans for redesigning the collection centers will compact all of the County's waste to 17 the point that it will reduce hauling costs and addresses the bigger picture of the urban garbage 18 trucks, etc. 19 Chair Pelissier encouraged the towns to go to a pay-as-you-throw system in order to 20 decrease waste. 21 Chair Pelissier asked for a motion on whether or not to pursue a transfer station. 22 23 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to 24 NOT pursue a transfer station at this site and to notify the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, 25 Hillsborough, and UNC by letter and to include in the letter that Orange County continues to be 26 open to collaboration on future sites. 27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 28 29 d. Direction for Historic Rogers Road Community Improvements 30 The Board considered requests from the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association 31 (RENA) and discussed issues from the Solid Waste/Rogers Road joint work session on 32 January 26, 2012, including the possible creation of a Historic Rogers Road Task Force. 33 Frank Clifton said that this is a follow-up to a prior meeting where the County 34 Commissioners discussed these issues. It was decided at that meeting that each entity would 35 appoint a task force. 36 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that the Town of Carrboro has made its two 37 appointments and the Town of Chapel Hill will be making appointments at its February 27tH 38 meeting. 39 40 PUBLIC COMMENT: 41 Stan Cheren spoke on behalf for the Justice United Environmental Team and RENA. 42 He thanked the Board for setting a date certain for closing the landfill. He asked that the 43 County Commissioners let them know when a progress report will be coming from the County. 44 He thanked the County Commissioners for securing the support from the Assembly of 45 Government for providing the community center for the Rogers Road community. This fulfills a 46 promise of recreation space once the landfill closes. RENA has nominated Mr. Robert 47 Campbell and David Caldwell to represent it on the task force. 48 49 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Foushee 50 to approve the following: 26 1 2 Composition of the Task Force—two members appointed by each Town, Chapel Hill 3 (will make appointments on 2/27/12) and Carrboro; two members appointed from the 4 County; and two members appointed from RENA ( David Caldwell and Robert 5 Campbell who were nominated from RENA.) 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 9 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner 10 Foushee to approve the charge of the Task Force to address sewer service to historic Rogers 11 Road area as defined by the previous water hook ups in this area and a community center and 12 to direct the task force to include how to pay for these recommendations, and direct task force 13 to submit an interim report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners by the end of 14 August. 15 16 Commissioner Yuhasz pointed out the difficulty in providing sewer service in an 17 economical manner while complying with all of OWASA's requirements for providing that sewer 18 service. Part of that should be a discussion with OWASA about adjusting some of the policies 19 for this service. Specifically, he is concerned about the requirement that all sewer service 20 should be gravity rather than to a pump station. 21 Commissioner McKee said that he has severe reservations on the sewer aspect 22 because it is not defined how large an area this is. Sewer service is generally a municipal 23 responsibility. This will move Orange County into providing sewer. There needs to be more 24 specificity. 25 Commissioner Foushee said that Commissioner McKee's comments should be 26 considered but what the task force brings back are only recommendations and they would not 27 bind the Board to do anything. She said that the County Commissioners need to be clear on 28 what is provided and how it is provided. She said that Commissioner Yuhasz's comments are 29 one point and what happens in the historic area is another point, and all of this is part of the 30 task forces' purposes. 31 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner McKee. 32 He does not see any reason why the group could not make an interim report to the boards so 33 the towns and County can address the concerns before the final report. 34 Commissioner McKee requested that the motion be withdrawn because he wants to 35 vote for the community center, but he cannot support adding the sewer. 36 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would not accept this as an amendment. Her 37 understanding is that the task force only makes recommendations and then the boards 38 eventually decide what to do. 39 Commissioner McKee said that the sewer system needs to be narrowly defined. 40 Commissioner Hemminger amended the motion to provide sewer only to the Historic 41 Rogers Road neighborhood. 42 Commissioner Hemminger repeated the motion: 43 44 The motion is to charge the task force to address the community center and sewer 45 service to the historic Rogers Road neighborhood as defined by the previous water hookups in 46 this area and to report back with an interim report by the end of August, with a final report to be 47 brought back before the Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012. 48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49 50 27 1 Utilization of part of the 104 acre Greene Tract for the Historic Rogers Road 2 Community: 3 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner 5 Hemminger to table this item until the task force brings back their recommendations in 6 December 2012. 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner Hemminger volunteered to serve on this 10 task force. 11 12 e. Modify the Urban Curbside Single Stream Recycling Collection Schedule 13 The Board considered a proposal to modify the previously authorized Urban Curbside 14 Single Stream Recycling Collection implementation scheduled for July 2012. 15 Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that at the January 26, 2012 Joint Work Session 16 with the towns, it was disclosed that the County staff was concerned about the financial risk 17 involved in the curbside recycling program. The single stream recycling collection proposal 18 would cost $948,500 to add the needed roll carts. The proposal now is to proceed with the 19 program without roll carts because of the financial considerations. 20 Commissioner Yuhasz said that this was discussed at the last SWAB meeting. He 21 asked about the feasibility of delaying the single-stream recycling for a year. He asked how 22 much revenue would be lost if there was comingling. Gayle Wilson said that it would be about 23 $100-200,000. 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to 25 not initiate single-stream recycling collection and stay with dual-stream, making temporary 26 adjustments to Walnut Grove that would allow the County to remain dual-stream for one year 27 until it is known what the Town of Chapel Hill will do. 28 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Yuhasz, Commissioner Jacobs, and Commissioner McKee); 29 Nays, 4 30 31 MOTION FAILED 32 33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 34 to authorize staff to proceed with implementation of single-stream recyclables collection within 35 the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough using existing 18 gallon bin receptacles 36 and negotiate a one-year contract renewal with the Waste Industries. Inc. for the collection of 37 recyclables within the Urban Curbside Recycling Program. 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 f. Follow up: General Policy for Board of County Commissioners Advisory 41 Boards 42 The Board considered the final draft of the Board-approved General Advisory Board 43 Policy and authorizing the Chair to sign. 44 Chair Pelissier noted that this has been discussed several times in work sessions. 45 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 4 (A-1-c) at the top and the definition of 46 domicile and said that the way this reads, a person would not have to live here. 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz that 48 all Board members shall be residents of Orange County and also shall maintain their domicile in 49 Orange County, and the Clerk shall confirm applicants shall maintain their domicile and their 50 residence in Orange County. 28 1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2 3 Commissioner Gordon made reference to item C-2 and said that it should say"members 4 shall be appointed from applicants" instead of"nominees." 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee 6 that item C-2 should say, "members shall be appointed from applicants..." 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee that 10 item J-1-a-ii should say, "Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall be elected by the advisory board 11 unless otherwise specified by the BOCC." 12 13 Chair Pelissier said that this does not apply to the ABC Board. 14 John Roberts said that all boards that this applies to will have an individual document 15 that will take precedence over this policy, and the Board of County Commissioners will be able 16 to address this in each individual policy. 17 18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19 20 Commissioner Gordon made reference to item B-5 and asked about the policy and if 21 that was a BOCC policy. 22 John Roberts said that this means unless the board's specific policy dictates otherwise. 23 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz 24 that this item should say, "unless the advisory board's specific policy dictates otherwise." 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26 27 Commissioner Gordon made reference to Section VIII, Quorum and Voting and said 28 that she is not sure about vacant positions not being counted when a quorum is present. 29 The Board decided to keep this language. 30 31 A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to add 32 language on page 3, Section Il, Duties, B, that the heading should say, "Primary 33 Responsibilities." 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to 37 approve the final General Advisory Board Policy with changes approved above. 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 John Roberts said that there are a lot of requirements in this policy that advisory board 41 members have to meet. He asked how the Board wanted this to be enforced. The Clerk will 42 verify a number of these requirements, but for violations, he needs some direction. 43 44 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to 45 direct the County Attorney to investigate any variances to the policy and to bring it back to the 46 Board of County Commissioners. 47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 48 49 50 29 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 2 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3 ADVISORY BOARD POLICY AND REPEALING THE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF ALL 4 PRIOR ADVISORY BOARD POLICIES AND RESOLUTIONS 5 WHEREAS, on November 10, 2011 the Orange County Board of Commissioners tentatively 6 approved a general advisory board policy document to govern the procedures of its advisory 7 boards; and 8 WHEREAS, the general policy document was needed because of a wide disparity between and 9 among the procedures of the multiple advisory boards reporting to the Board of 10 Commissioners; and 11 WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-76 grants to boards of county commissioners 12 the broad authority to organize county government, including the authority to "create, change, 13 abolish, and consolidate offices, positions, departments, boards, commissions, and agencies of 14 the county government, may impose ex officio the duties of more than one office on a single 15 officer, may change the composition and manner of selection of boards, commissions, and 16 agencies, and may generally organize and reorganize the county government...."; and 17 WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Orange County Board of Commissioners that a single general 18 policy document will benefit Orange County by limiting confusion for County staff members who 19 assist advisory boards in the performance of advisory board functions; and 20 WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Orange County Board of Commissioners that, in addition to 21 being governed by the general policy document, a specific policy document shall be developed 22 for each advisory board, which specific policy document together with the general policy 23 document shall be the sole controlling documents of the advisory boards to the extent those 24 documents do not conflict with statutes or ordinances governing the advisory boards. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County 26 Commissioners, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-22, adopts the general policy 27 document, Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board Policy, and repeals 28 any policy or resolution governing Orange County Advisory Boards to the extent those policies 29 or resolutions conflict with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board 30 Policy; and 31 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, it is the intent of the Orange County Board of Commissioners 32 that in determining whether there is a conflict between or among the terms of the general policy 33 document and any prior policy or resolution, staff may consult with the County Attorney who 34 shall take into consideration the intent of the Board of Commissioners in assisting staff in 35 resolving the conflict; and 36 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, upon the adoption of each subsequent board specific policy 37 document, which shall accompany the Orange County Board of County Commissioners 38 Advisory Board Policy, all prior policies or resolutions governing the Orange County Advisory 39 Board for which the specific policy is adopted shall be repealed in totality, save and except the 40 Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board Policy. 41 This the 21St day of February, 2012. 42 30 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner 2 Foushee to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution, entitled "Resolution Adopting 3 the Orange County Board of Commissioners Advisory Board Policy and Repealing the 4 Conflicting Provisions of all Prior Advisory Board Policies and Resolutions." 5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 7 9. Reports 8 a. NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study 9 The Board received a presentation from Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan 10 Planning Organization staff(Leta Huntsinger) on the NC54/1-40 Corridor Study. 11 Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced DCHC-MPO staff Leta Huntsinger, who 12 made a PowerPoint presentation. 13 14 15 NC 54/1-40 Corridor 16 Blueprint for Mobility 17 18 19 Land Use—Transportation Vision 20 The NC 54 Corridor Master Plan promotes location-efficient decisions to help lower combined 21 housing and transportation costs per household. It connects people and jobs, served by a more 22 energy efficient transportation network that enables more trips to be made by walking, bicycling 23 and transit. The plan defines target growth areas that help reduce sprawl in outlying areas. 24 25 Project History—August 2009 through November 2011 26 - Analysis 27 - Public review period 28 - Action plan 29 - Phase II Analysis 30 - Revised 31 32 Study Area — map 33 34 Public Involvement 35 What we heard from Phase I— Key Issues 36 - Superstreet 37 - Proposed flyover ramps 38 - Structured parking deck 39 - Park and ride facilities 40 - Growth projections 41 - Collector street conections 42 - Fordham Boulevard 43 - Others 44 45 46 Overview of Study Refinements 47 ■ Adjusted development expectations in the corridor 48 ■ More detailed park-and-ride study 49 ■ Greater integration of bus & rail to address gaps 31 1 Expansion of pedestrian/bicycle recommendations 2 Further analyzed and developed roadway design options 3 ■ Modified functional design recommendations and phasing 4 ■ Addressed neighborhood concerns 5 ■ Recommended 15-501 interchange modifications 6 ■ Coordinated with Light Rail alignments 7 8 Land Use Concept—map 9 10 Park-and-Ride Strategy 11 - Multiple markets\ 12 o Regional commuters 13 o Satellite parking for constrained destinations 14 o Transit/light rail commuters 15 - Dispersed park-and—ride opportunities to capture markets 16 - Reduced future park-and-ride capacity at Leigh Village 17 - Phased approach 18 19 Transit Recommendations 20 Short Term 21 - Expand local service 22 - Create better regional connections 23 - Express bus to serve Park and Ride outside of corridor 24 25 Long Term 26 - Enhanced bus provides fast connections to major transit generators 27 - Increased bus service north of the corridor 28 - LRT connects corridor with region 29 - Flex route shuttle service for low density area 30 31 Light Rail 32 ■ Alignment C-1 and C-2 are still viable alternatives 33 ■ Roadway designs reflect C-1 alignment; however, C-2 alignment will work with minor 34 design changes 35 ■ Additional traffic analysis may be needed if C-2 is selected as preferred alignment 36 ■ Neither the C-1 or C-2 alignment is in direct conflict with NC 54 recommendations 37 38 Bicycle& Pedestrian Recommendations 39 - Cohesive, connected network 40 - On-road and off-road facilities 41 - Pedestrian emphasis areas 42 - Intersection at grade and grade-separated crossing treatments 43 - Pedestrian signals 44 45 Roadway Recommendations 46 - Complete collector street connections 47 - Widen NC 54 to six lanes 48 - Improve capacity through superstreet design and grade separation 49 - Address critical issues at 1-40 interchange 32 1 - Modify US 15-501 interchange 2 3 Next Steps 4 5 - Public review period through March 2012 —March 14th public hearing at the TAC 6 Meeting 7 - Final Plan Approval April 2012 8 9 The County Commissioners asked clarifying questions, which were answered by Leta 10 Huntsinger. 11 Commissioner McKee made the point that bus rapid transit would do what light rail is 12 being projected to do cheaper, more efficiently, and more effectively. 13 Chair Pelissier asked about the cost figures. 14 Leta Huntsinger said that there are some recommendations within this study that would 15 likely fit well with the broader plans. The transit tax money could be used to help support some 16 of these. Just like the highway needs in the region, there is not enough money to cover the 17 needs for transportation. 18 19 10. County Manager's Report 20 Frank Clifton said that the bids for the Efland sewer extension were really good and the 21 County has been allocated money from the State's Clean Water Trust Fund and a low-interest 22 loan of 2.4%. There is a gravity line that will be associated with removing one of the pump 23 stations, which will open up another 15 acres for residential development. 24 The County also moved forward with the four-year revaluation process. The plan is to 25 do this January 2013. This will be based on sales that occurred in 2011 within Orange County. 26 Preliminary estimates are forthcoming. There will be no impacts for the upcoming budget year. 27 28 11. County Attorney's Report 29 John Roberts said that the Court of Appeals has resolved the parking dispute between 30 the County and the Town and the courthouse will remain open. 31 32 12. Appointments 33 34 a. Recommendations for the Board of Directors of the Piedmont Food and Agricultural 35 Processing Center 36 The Board was to consider appointing three directors to the Board of Directors of the 37 Piedmont Food and Agricultural Procession Center. 38 39 DEFERRED 40 41 b. Orange County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments 42 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange county Nursing Home 43 community Advisory Committee. 44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to 45 appoint Mr. Elijah Flowers, III and Mrs. Patricia Revels to At-Large positions expiring March 31, 46 2015. 47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 48 49 c. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointment 50 The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board. 33 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by to Commissioner Yuhasz to 2 appoint Ms. Katherine Doom as the Hillsborough Township Representative to a first full term 3 expiring June 30, 2015. 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 6 13. Board Comments 7 Commissioner McKee said that he attended a TARPO meeting last week and they 8 discussed transportation improvements. He said that there is a huge shortfall of funds over the 9 next 25 years. He thinks that this should be kept in mind. 10 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he will be meeting soon about the governance of OPC 11 Mental Health. He said that the Board should expect that Judy Truitt will be visiting them to 12 explain these changes. The Board will be asked to approve a governance scheme that will be 13 unique among all the governing mental health organizations. 14 Commissioner Foushee congratulated the Chapel Hill High Men's basketball season for 15 finishing 25-0. Also, the Orange High School wrestling team won the State Championship for 16 the 2nd year in a row. 17 Commissioner Hemminger said that she attended the Community Home Trust retreat. 18 Affordable housing was discussed and a lot of organizations are leaning towards rentals instead 19 of home-ownership. 20 Commissioner Jacobs said that the code to get into the County parking spaces is 21 1202#. He said that he does not recall being apprised of a community meeting tomorrow night 22 for the Eno EDD. Someone complained to him today that they could not find anything on the 23 County's website about this. 24 Commissioner Gordon said that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning 25 Organization Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) met recently and she sent an email 26 about it. The TAC did approve the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), though not in exactly the 27 same form as it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board wanted only 28 the C2 alignment to be studied further, while the TAC voted to send both options forward, with 29 the C2 alignment option preferred. She thought that the County preferring C2 was very 30 important in convincing the TAC members to prefer the C2 alignment. 31 Regarding Triangle Transit, Commissioner Gordon said that ridership continues to 32 increase. 33 Chair Pelissier updated the Board about discussions concerning transit with the towns 34 and UNC. She asked the Attorney to write a memo on whether to have one agreement with all 35 three parties (Orange County, Triangle Transit, Chapel Hill Transit) or whether to have two 36 separate agreements, with one of them being an agreement between Orange County and 37 Triangle Transit. 38 Chair Pelissier said that there was also discussion about how the human service needs 39 are met in the Orange County Transit Plan. 40 Chair Pelissier asked if Commissioner Gordon could go to the next Durham/Orange 41 County Transit meeting and the Board agreed since Commissioner Foushee will be out of town 42 and that would leave only Chair Pelissier and Commissioner Yuhasz attending. 43 44 14. Information Items 45 46 • February 7, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 47 • Update on Whiffed Human Services Center 48 • Update on Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Master Plan 49 • Letter from Board Chair Regarding BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions Lists 50 34 1 15. Closed Session -NONE 2 3 16. Adjournment 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger 5 to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair 9 10 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC 11 Clerk to the Board 1 1 DRAFT 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 7 JOINT MEETING 8 February 23, 2012 9 7:00 p.m. 10 11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Meeting with the Town of 12 Hillsborough Commissioners on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Link 13 Government Services Center, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. 14 15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners 16 Valerie P. Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz 17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice Gordon 18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers 20 Gwen Harvey and Michael Talbert, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker(All other staff 21 members will be identified appropriately below) 22 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Commissioners 23 Brian Lowen, Frances Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd, and Eric Hallman 24 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Michael Gering 25 HILLSBOROUGH STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson 26 27 Welcome and Opening Remarks (Chair Pelissier and Mayor Stevens) 28 29 Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Foushee would be late and Commissioner 30 Gordon was not feeling well and would be unable to attend. 31 Mayor Stevens said that Michael Gering had a conflict and would be unable to attend. 32 Mayor Stevens suggested two additions to the agenda: the Mobility Fund, and, as part 33 of the economic development topic, he would like to do a quick overview or refresher of the 34 2007 Strategic Plan. 35 36 1. Transit/Transportation 37 a) Orange County Transit Plan and Potential One-Half(1/2) Cent Sales Tax 38 Referendum 39 40 Session Law 2009-527 (also known as House Bill 148) adopted in 2009 permits 41 `Triangle' counties (Wake, Durham and Orange) to consider a public referendum to implement 42 a one-half (Y2) cent sales tax to pay for development and implementation of the Triangle 43 Regional Transit Plan. Triangle Transit is the regional transit authority that will implement the 44 financial plans of the counties. A Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), identifying corridor and 45 technology, has been approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The 46 regional plan includes different elements; and in Orange County the draft includes bus services, 47 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail Transit (LRT). In Durham and Wake counties, 48 commuter rail is included. The draft Orange County Transit Plan for bus and rail specifies 49 revenues, costs, borrowing, financial assumptions (inflation, sales tax growth) and timing of 50 new/expanded bus and rail services to 2035. The Plan may also include other capital facilities 2 1 such as park and ride lots, bus and rail transfer stations, etc. The Transit Plan is part of a 2 process required by State law and must be approved by the Orange County Board of 3 Commissioners, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (2), and the Triangle Transit Board of 4 Trustees. Orange County intends to have a financial plan and "Interlocal Agreements" or 5 Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with Durham, local governments, and Triangle Transit 6 prior to the implementation of a tax if a potential public referendum is approved by voters. 7 8 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss 9 issues related to this item as necessary. 10 11 Attachment 1-a-1 —Locally Preferred Alternative Summary 12 Attachment 1-a-2—Light Rail Transit Map 13 14 Craig Benedict presented a map of Orange County and said that the red line is the train 15 track that runs through Orange County. He said that the '/-cent mobility tax has been 16 authorized by the State to put on a referendum to pay for regional mobility. The mobility should 17 be spent on underserved areas and for human service needs. It could be used for augmented 18 bus service and also light rail. Two weeks ago, Orange County agreed with the consent for a 19 recommendation that the Locally Preferred Alternative on where the alignment of this fixed 20 route service could be something from UNC South, to Mason Farm Road, out NC 54, past 21 Meadowmont, up to a future village, up 1-40, to Chapel Hill, and around the horn to Duke and 22 over to Alston Avenue. The entities still need to decide on the financial plan for the Locally 23 Preferred Alternative. The cost of this system is $1.4 billion overall, which would be paid 25% 24 by the state, 50% by the federal government, and 25% by the local Y2-cent sales tax. The 25 Triangle Transit Authority wants to submit an application by August to ask for the funds for the 26 light rail project. There will be a series of public hearings. 27 Chair Pelissier thanked the citizens in Hillsborough that came forth at an earlier meeting 28 about a train station in Hillsborough. She understands that a train station in Hillsborough is a 29 high priority from DOT's perspective. 30 Commissioner McKee asked if some of the money could be redirected to a commuter 31 rail rather than all of it going to light rail and bus rapid transit. 32 Craig Benedict said that there is a certain pool of money that would be created from the 33 Y2-cent sales tax. It is hard to find more money besides the Y2-cent sales tax. Durham County 34 would have more money for commuter rail because of the economic development in that area. 35 Commuter rail is $20 million/mile and light rail is $8 million/mile. 36 Commissioner McKee said that he is advocating for underserved areas if they are a 37 priority in this issue. He wants to make sure they are serving all of the citizens of Orange 38 County. 39 Mayor Stevens said that there is interest in bus and circulator routes for this area and he 40 said that the Town Board was also approached by the same group of citizens. 41 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner McKee to add it the commuter rail. 42 He asked about the reaction of other Orange County transit partners to the idea that money 43 would be taken out of the pie and put toward a train station in Hillsborough. 44 Chair Pelissier said that monies would not come out of the bus pie. 45 46 b) Hillsborough Circulator Route Update 47 48 The in-town Hillsborough Circulator route began June 6, 2011 with a three year grant 49 from the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Congestion Mitigation and Air 50 Quality Program. For the first year, NCDOT has waived the local match requirement of 20 3 1 percent. The Town of Hillsborough will provide the local match of about $22,000 for the 2 remaining years, while the County will operate the service at no additional cost to the Town. 3 4 The route serves various residential areas around Hillsborough, as well as the Library; 5 Orange County Courthouse; Social Services Center at Hillsborough Commons Shopping 6 Center; The Shops at Daniel Boone; UNC Family Practice; Durham Technical Community 7 College satellite campus; Hampton Pointe and Meadowlands Business Park. 8 9 The Hillsborough Circulator route was redesigned in October 2011 based on input from 10 users. An additional stop was added at South Nash and Calvin Streets. 11 12 Attachment 1-b—Hillsborough Circulator Route Map 13 14 Craig Benedict said that there is an interlocal agreement in place with Orange County 15 and the Town of Hillsborough for the circulator bus route through Hillsborough. It has been 16 going for about six months. One modification to the route is the addition of Nash Street. He 17 gave some ridership numbers: July—517, August—702, September—637, October—609, 18 November—559, and December—642. The cost is $57/hour, which is reasonable. The 19 program is being reviewed every month. The funding for this is primarily covered by CMAQ 20 grants for a few years. 21 22 c) Traffic Studies of Hillsborough 23 24 The Town has completed an access study in downtown Hillsborough as a follow-up to 25 abandoning the Elizabeth Brady Road project. The study was jointly funded by the Town and 26 the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to find small projects to address congestion and 27 vitality downtown. The attachments list the guiding principles of the study, detail the three 28 smaller areas within the study area, and outline recommended improvements throughout the 29 study area. The Town Board is scheduled to discuss the plan in detail, including any possible 30 implementation, at its February 27th workshop (which follows the budget retreat). The Town 31 welcomes any feedback from Orange County as an important property owner in the study area 32 since no feedback was provided during the public outreach portion of the planning process. 33 The implementation plan is still being prepared, but the Town expects projects to be grouped to 34 make incremental improvements that are related and build on one another. At this point, the 35 Town does not expect any group of projects to require Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 36 funding, but instead be able to be funded through small urban projects and Surface 37 Transportation Program-Direct Apportionment (STP-DA) funding. Support and cooperation will 38 be needed from Orange County to implement some of these projects and improve the 39 walkability and relieve some traffic congestion in downtown. 40 41 The attached document provides background information for the discussion. Staff will 42 provide any other information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss issues related to this 43 item as necessary. 44 45 Attachment 1-c—Hillsborough Downtown Access Study Excerpt 46 47 Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth said that she would present this plan 48 north to south. She said that the reason they did this was because there are traffic issues 49 downtown. The northern section is from US 70 to Corbin Street. The section from Corbin 50 Street to Tryon Street is residential. From Tryon Street to the river is the commercial part of 4 1 downtown. The recommendations are different for each section. She said that they want to 2 address congestion, but not at the expense of the vitality of downtown. The section between 3 US 70 and Corbin Street is recommended to have a bus pull-off. Regarding the free-flowing 4 right turn from Corbin Street onto Church Street is a little bit of a safety and speed issue. It is 5 recommended to possibly have a roundabout there. This is an expensive option. There are 6 also other widening and crosswalk recommendations throughout downtown. 7 Margaret Hauth said that just today she received a funding table for these big ticket 8 items. The two big-ticket items were in the $500-600,000 range and some of the projects were 9 as small as $5-10,000. The Town Board will be reviewing these things at the next meeting. 10 Commissioner Foushee arrived at 7:45:12 PM. 11 Chair Pelissier made reference to the right-in and right-out on Margaret Lane from 12 Churton Street and asked if the Sheriff had been contacted about this. 13 John Roberts said that he spoke to the Sheriff, who said that he was not happy about 14 putting a median across Margaret Lane because it would inhibit his deputies from making a left- 15 hand turn out of Margaret Lane in an emergency. 16 Commissioner Hemminger said that she liked the removal of some of the on-street 17 parking. She said that she has concerns about a median on East Margaret Lane. 18 Margaret Hauth said that the pedestrian signal would be kept at East Margaret Lane. 19 Discussion ensued on how confusing the parking garage is next to the library regarding 20 what is free and what is paid. 21 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is concerned that someone coming south on 22 Churton Street who wanted to drop someone off at the courthouse would have difficulty. 23 24 d) Update/Follow-up Discussion on Safe Routes to Schools Draft Action Plan 25 Orange County received a Safe Routes to School Action Plan Service Award in July 26 2008 for planning assistance to prepare an Action Plan for Grady A. Brown Elementary School, 27 Cameron Park Elementary School and C.W. Stanford Middle School. The North Carolina 28 Department of Transportation, in 2009, contracted Greenways, Incorporated and Greene 29 Transportation Solutions to work with County staff, local agency representatives, School Team 30 leaders and principals of the three schools to identify non-motorized infrastructure 31 improvements that enhance safety. An adopted plan will provide greater opportunities for 32 Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough to obtain Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grant 33 funds for the implementation of the Action Plan. 34 35 A draft Plan has been completed, reviewed locally, and comments submitted to 36 Greenways, Incorporated for inclusion in the final draft. Once a final draft has been completed 37 and returned, Orange County Schools, Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough will be 38 asked to adopt the Plan. 39 40 More information on this program is available at: http://www.ncdot.gov/programs/safety/. 41 42 Darcy Zorio, Transportation Planner, said that there is not a lot of update on this item. 43 The final plan has not been received yet. 44 45 e) Mobility Fund (ADDED) 46 Eric Hallman said that there is a bottleneck when 1-40 and 1-85 narrow down from 6-8 47 lanes to 4 lanes in Orange County. This was discussed last year. It is in the Transportation 48 Improvement Plan, but it competes with local road improvements. During the last MPO 49 meeting, there was a call for projects for the Mobility Fund, which was set up about two years 50 ago to create a separate pot of money that does not go through the individual DOT divisions 5 1 and it addresses projects of statewide significance. There has been an application put in to 2 have the 1-85 widening put into the Mobility Fund. This would free up millions of dollars to allow 3 the division to pursue local projects. He asked the County staff to also request that this be put 4 into the Mobility Fund. The deadline is February 29'" 5 The Board agreed to put in an application as requested. 6 Frank Clifton said that it would be put on the next Board of County Commissioners' 7 agenda. 8 9 2. Lake Orange 10 Lake Orange is a lake constructed in the late 1960's and owned by Orange County. 11 The purpose of the lake is a water resource for drinking water supplies for the Town of 12 Hillsborough, Orange-Alamance Water System, processing water for Piedmont Minerals and 13 environmental water releases for the Eno River. 14 15 Recreation rights to the lake are subservient to the water resource. The lake is not a 16 reservoir, but an impoundment with Y2 mile peripheral watershed protection zones that limit 17 development through density and impervious restrictions. An aerial photo and other specifics 18 are provided as attachments. 19 20 The lake is also subject to the Eno Capacity Use Agreement which regulates water 21 flows and drought situations. The adjacent West Fork of the Eno Reservoir owned by the Town 22 of Hillsborough is not subject to this agreement. 23 24 In recent years the costs of maintenance for Lake Orange have been accelerating. 25 Capital improvements are becoming necessary for lake function and safety. The Town of 26 Hillsborough has contributed funding and resources in the past as noted in one of the 27 attachments. Long term responsibility for this raw water resource is still under review. 28 29 The attached documents provide background information. Staff will provide any other 30 information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss issues related to this item as 31 necessary. 32 33 Attachment 2-a—Aerial Photo of Lake Orange 34 Attachment 2-b—Matrix of Enforcement/Development Issues at Lake Orange 35 Attachment 2-c— Summary of Lake Orange Repair and Maintenance Costs 36 37 Craig Benedict said that Orange County does own the land underneath the water 38 between elevation 615 and 620. It is owned by Lake Orange, Incorporated, who is the owner of 39 a master developer of a lot of lots around the lake. Subsequent to the development of the 40 reservoir, there was an Eno Capacity Use Agreement that spoke about who needed the water, 41 and the quantities to be released. There are three user categories: Town of Hillsborough, 42 Piedmont Minerals, and Orange-Alamance Water System. The Eno River Association is also a 43 beneficiary. 44 There have been some challenges with enforcement around the lake front, but things 45 have calmed down. Over the last four or five years, the integrity of Lake Orange has been 46 evaluated and there are some deficiencies with the dam device. 47 Kevin Lindley updated the Board on the repairs that have been made to the dam. 48 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is sometimes a lack of institutional clarity about 49 what is allowed and what is not. He made reference to Attachment 2-b, #1, that the Neuse 50 River Basin has been modeled for half a decade and the Capacity Use Agreement is 25 years 6 1 old. He said that at the time, the science is not as exact as it is now. He said that during the 2 droughts, Hillsborough has been generous about releasing water from the reservoir to make 3 sure there is adequate in-stream flow. 4 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to have a conversation with the other 5 users to see what can be done to offset the County's expense in maintaining that facility. 6 Mayor Stevens said that it is good to hear the affirmation that Lake Orange was 7 originally set up for drinking water. He said what they get out of the reservoirs is a guarantee 8 that the residents of Hillsborough have water. He said that he does have concerns about the 9 interlocal agreements between the one for Lake Orange and the West Fork reservoirs. He said 10 that the Town is concerned about the issues of the costs of infrastructure. He is concerned 11 about the cost of water in Hillsborough. 12 Eric Peterson said that the second phase of the reservoir must be completed by the end 13 of 2018. If not, then the Town has to reapply for permits and it could be triple the cost. 14 Chair Pelissier suggested moving to item #4-d since there is a guest from DOT, and all 15 agreed. 16 17 3. Future Plans for Richard E. Whitted Center 18 Frank Clifton told Asset Management Services Director Pam Jones to come forward. 19 He announced that Pam Jones would be retiring this year. 20 With the construction of the new County Main Library in Hillsborough and the relocation 21 of various departments and services within County government, space at the Richard E. 22 Whiffed Center on Tryon Street in Hillsborough is currently vacant. There have been multiple 23 discussions regarding potential uses for this space including possible uses by the County, the 24 Orange County Schools system, and various community organizations. 25 26 To establish a baseline of information, County Manager Frank Clifton previously 27 compiled background materials for the County Board of Commissioners. Those materials are 28 attached to provide a basis for discussion by the Boards. 29 30 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss 31 issues related to this item as necessary. 32 33 Attachment 3 — 216112 County Manager's Communication to BOCC Regarding Whitted 34 Building Former Library Space Reuses Analysis 35 36 Frank Clifton said that the Health Department is going to be staying in the Whitted 37 Center. He said that Pam Jones has worked closely with the Orange County Cultural 38 organization and part of the business plan was to sub-let many parts of the unused portions of 39 the Center (old Orange County library area). 40 One consideration is using the building as a dedicated meeting space with needed 41 upgrades. If the Link Government Services Center is used as the meeting room space instead 42 of Whitted, then the Whitted Center could be used as large records storage space. One of the 43 key issues with the Whitted Center would be parking. 44 Commissioner Jacobs asked how the Town Board regarded the use of the Whitted 45 Center with increased traffic and parking issues and increased evening meetings. 46 Brian Lowen said that the board has not yet talked about the increased traffic around the 47 Whitted Center but no matter where they meet, the elected boards have to meet somewhere. 48 He said that the Town Barn is totally inadequate to meet in and they would love to look at other 49 options. He said that he would like to see how the two boards could work together on this 50 project because they both need dedicated meeting space. 7 1 Margaret Hauth said that the issue with the Whitted Center is unique because of the 2 nighttime peak issue with the recreation department next door. Night meetings paired with the 3 recreation department would make this area potentially 100 spaces short. 4 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is the southeast corner of where there is some 5 parking and some open space. He said that urban legend has it that Hillsborough has 6 prohibited the County from installing parking in this grassy area. This is what limits some of the 7 parking capacity by the Whitted Center. 8 Margaret Hauth said that her version of the "urban legend"was that when the old 9 building was destroyed that the County promised the neighbors that it would not build or make a 10 parking lot on that site. 11 Commissioner McKee said that if this space could be shared with other entities, then he 12 would be in favor of looking at this site. 13 Mayor Stevens said that parking is one issue but there are reality issues in both 14 proposed sites such as the cost benefit issues. He said that another issue is the regulatory 15 functions of the Town and the principles. He would like to encourage his board to think about 16 what is fair for all. 17 The staff will look into this option further. 18 19 4. Economic Development 20 a) Update on County Economic Development Activities 21 Orange County Economic Development Director Steve Brantley introduced this item. 22 23 Orange County's Small Business Loan Program 24 Orange County Economic Development has approved seven (7) small business loans and 25 disbursed five (5) of those loans to date. All are current in terms of scheduled debt repayments 26 by borrowers. The 5 loan recipients are as follows: 27 28 • Mystery Brewing Company Hand-crafted beer brewer 29 • Skram Hand-crafted, high-end furniture 30 • West End Depot General store 31 • Phd Productions Crocheted Frisbee-type toys 32 • Santosha Cleaning Service Commercial janitorial services 33 34 Four (4) of these firms (Mystery Brewing, Skram, West End Depot and Phd Productions) are 35 Hillsborough-based companies. The most recent loan recipient, Mystery Brewing located in the 36 Hillsborough Business Center, held its official release party at the Wooden Nickel on February 37 10, 2012 and received broad statewide news coverage on February 9th (WRAL). 38 39 Since a portion of the recently approved quarter cent sales tax proceeds will go to support 40 further growth in Orange County's Small Business Loan program, there is a good potential for 41 additional Hillsborough firms to be considered as loan candidates in the future. 42 43 Piedmont Food &Agricultural Processing Center (PFAP) 44 The Piedmont Food & Agricultural Processing Center located in Hillsborough is a collaborative 45 effort between Orange, Alamance, Durham and Chatham counties and shows strong activity 46 since its recent Grand Opening event on October 21, 2011. A summary of PFAP's current 47 status shows the following activity by contracted clients and interested applicants: 48 49 a) Clients 50 19 clients at present (2 are from Hillsborough) 8 1 b) Applicants 2 59 accepted applicants (6 are from Hillsborough) 3 32 initial consultations have been conducted 4 26 clients are attending orientations 5 c) New Jobs created in Hillsborough by PFAP 6 Nine new jobs have either been filled, or posted, by current PFAP clients that 7 have already seen their businesses expand locally. 8 9 Marketinq & Business Recruitment Efforts in the Hillsborouqh Area 10 Orange County Economic Development has created and actively submitted real estate 11 marketing sheets on available Hillsborough properties for a variety of active business prospects 12 that have conducted site visits over the past five months, in addition to routine client visits with 13 investment prospects and site selection consultants. Popular Hillsborough site locations include 14 a 5-acre parcel at the Meadowlands, a 25,000 square foot building on Elizabeth Brady Road, a 15 9,600 square foot flex space building located at the Meadowlands, and available space at 16 Hillsborough Business Center. On February 7, 2012 staff met with a new agricultural-based 17 prospect that desires to relocate, create nine new jobs, and lease available flex space within the 18 town limits at Meadowlands. 19 20 In addition, staff has participated with the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce in various "After 21 Hours" functions for its members, met twice with the Chamber's Economic Development 22 Advisory Board, and included the Chamber in monthly 'partner' meetings which the Economic 23 Development office sponsors to bring together County, chamber and municipal staff who are 24 engaged in economic development throughout Orange County. 25 26 Staff has also met with Town of Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth to learn more 27 about the Town's property that could potentially host a train station and have associated retail 28 development. County Economic Development staff plans to increase communication with 29 Hillsborough's front-line economic development staff to find additional ways to help promote the 30 business potential of Hillsborough. Finally, staff is actively visiting with major employers in the 31 Hillsborough area to build relationships and assist in any on-site expansions as they might 32 occur, or, try to help remedy problems they may have with the County or State. 33 34 Steve Brantley said that he has been showing the properties and the marketing material 35 to Department of Commerce site selection consultants, which is his background, and even to 36 prospects. 37 Commissioner Foushee asked Steve Brantley to share information about the small 38 business loans and how businesses get them. 39 Steve Brantley said that there is a board that reviews the loan applications. They will 40 loan up to $40-50,000 for up to five years. 41 42 b) Town Appreciation for Loans to Hillsborough Local Businesses 43 Mayor Stevens said that he is still amazed at the amount of diversity of businesses in 44 Hillsborough because it is a business "hub". He thanked Steve Brantley and the Board of 45 County Commissioners for their efforts in this area and the small business loans to local 46 businesses in Hillsborough. He said that the Town of Hillsborough does not have any 47 dedicated staff for economic development, and so they appreciate and are glad to cooperate 48 with Orange County staff to make all of this successful. 49 50 c) Potential Business Incubator Space Downtown 9 1 2 Orange County is committed to finding ways to support individuals involved in 3 entrepreneurial start-ups, and to retain those knowledge-based firms. For example, a portion of 4 the new quarter cent sales tax proceeds for economic development is earmarked for incubator 5 support. However, too often, entrepreneurial start-ups such as those that emerge out of the 6 University of North Carolina (UNC) eventually relocate to the Research Triangle Park area. On 7 November 30, 2011, Orange County Economic Development staff spent the day with 8 Hillsborough Commissioner Eric Hallman, visited the very successful "Durham Underground" 9 incubator at the American Tobacco campus in Durham, and met with the Council for 10 Entrepreneurial Development (CED). The purpose was to begin discussing ideas regarding 11 how Orange County can form its own innovation center. 12 13 Part of Orange County's research into incubators has included a dialog with a respected 14 UNC department chair that has conducted an analysis of the area's real estate market and 15 suggested an incubator development strategy. While the UNC report includes 16 recommendations on the use of existing County-owned buildings to house innovation centers, 17 and specifically in Chapel Hill, Orange County has not developed nor endorsed a 18 recommendation at this time which proposes use of any specific County-owned buildings. 19 County staff is currently discussing how to financially assist individual incubator start-up tenants 20 rather than propose any ownership or specific County-owned and operated building which could 21 house an innovation center. County Economic Development staff certainly looks forward to 22 further talks with Town Commissioner Hallman and others who can help Orange County 23 visualize a strategy that can lead to a Hillsborough-based innovation center. 24 25 Steve Brantley said that about two years ago Orange County worked with UNC on a 26 study about trying to get designated business districts. Last summer Orange County 27 contracted with UNC again and the consultant looked at incubators coming out of UNC because 28 most are leaving Orange County and going to RTP and Durham. He said that the consultant 29 found that though they have business space for rent/purchase in the county/towns, it is very 30 expensive. 31 Frank Clifton said that the County had an opportunity to buy the building that was 32 housing the Child Support Services department, and this operation was recently moved over to 33 the County office building. This building was purchased by a music publishing group that is 34 going to open up a business there for recording. There will be an announcement in the near 35 future regarding this new business. 36 37 d) Request for Proposals (RFP) for Train Station Property Transit-Oriented 38 Development 39 40 The Town of Hillsborough owns a 20-acre tract of land located just south of downtown 41 that is adjacent to the rail line. It is best known for being the location of the Collins Fields that 42 are used by the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association (HYAA) baseball/softball programs. 43 Several attempts at grant funding for a station with associated access and utility costs have 44 been unsuccessful. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has stated that 45 Hillsborough and Lexington are the state's top two priorities for new rail stations. The Town 46 intends to include $30,000 in the upcoming FY13 Budget to provide a 20% match to partner 47 with NCDOT to conduct the environmental assessment that will be required if federal funding is 48 used to support the station. 49 10 1 Cost estimates range from $2.0 to $6.0 million for a station. Just the cost of the 2 platform (approximately 400 feet) and locating a small 500 square foot modular building on site 3 are approximately $1.0 million. This does not include the cost of road access and various 4 utilities. To help fund the costs associated with a station and minimize impact of the operating 5 budget, the Town is considering putting out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to developers to 6 consider offers to purchase and develop a portion of the property. If this strategy is 7 implemented, it would be done at an appropriate time in the future. Ideally, this would help pay 8 for any expenses the Town might incur in bringing a train station to Hillsborough and Orange 9 County, allow for a more coordinated effort in developing a transit-oriented development, and 10 possibly assist in funding a relocation of the HYAA ball fields, if necessary. 11 12 Craig Newton, a Facilities Engineer with NCDOT, will be present at the meeting to share 13 additional information and respond to any questions. 14 15 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss 16 issues related to this item as necessary. 17 18 Attachment 4-d—Hillsborough Train Station Sketch Site Plan 19 20 Hillsborough Town Manager Eric Peterson said that they have the property but have 21 been unsuccessful in getting the funding for the station. Things are looking very positive. One 22 of the benefits is the opportunity to do a transit-oriented development. 23 Craig Newton, Facilities Engineer with NCDOT, said that he has worked for NCDOT rail 24 division since 2000 and he has worked on train stations during this time. He said that he has 25 worked with the Town of Hillsborough for a while now and he has seen a huge untapped market 26 for trains coming through Orange County. He said that NCDOT is hoping to be a financial 27 partner in this project. The environmental study needs to be completed and that will put 28 NCDOT in a better position to receive state and federal grants. He has looked at separating 29 the track project from the station project because they do not depend on one another. The train 30 station would be about a $7-8 million project. The typical funding split for most of the station 31 projects has been 80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local. He said that it would be difficult to 32 do a project of this size without a federal funding partner. 33 Commissioner McKee asked if the track upgrades would accommodate commuter rail 34 as well as the Amtrak. Craig Newton said that there is a separate effort to look at capacity 35 analysis to see how this would work. He did not know the answer. 36 37 e) Possible Marketing Opportunities for Waterstone and Surrounding Economic 38 Development District(EDD) Properties 39 40 Orange County Economic Development staff has had several meetings with 41 Waterstone's Texas-based developer and North Carolina representative in Raleigh, Jim Ciao of 42 Stratford Land, to include a recent meeting on February 11, 2012. Staff maintains contact with 43 the development group to assess the owner's current strategy to market Waterstone's currently 44 available site inventory. Separately, staff has also met with various other developers and 45 realtors who have previously expressed interest in adjacent land tracts, such as along Interstate 46 40 and Old NC 86, that offer business recruitment potential. 47 48 The Economic Development office has also prepared targeted marketing brochures for 49 Waterstone and the other developable properties in the Hillsborough Economic Development 11 I District, and has been showing those sites to visiting business prospects (1), site section 2 consultants (2), and NC Department of Commerce state economic developers (5). 3 4 The new economic development website, www.GrowinOran-geNC.com, also links to 5 Waterstone and Hillsborough Economic Development District site maps. 6 7 Staff also proposes meeting more regularly with Hillsborough's Planning staff, Chamber, 8 and other Hillsborough leadership, as has already been occurring, in order to build additional 9 collaboration opportunities. 10 11 12 Margaret Hauth gave an update on the Strategic Growth Plan from 2007 where they 13 talked about where the boundaries of the town and county should be. Both jurisdictions are 14 now ready to move forward. 15 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the timeline for the next steps in this process and he 16 would want to review all of the information to this point and what it will take to move the more 17 critical issues along. 18 Craig Benedict said that he could sit down with Margaret Hauth and come back with a 19 timeline. 20 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the emphasis has been to work on the economic 21 development issues, but they need to see about this plan and if it can fit into some of the 22 economic development projects the County is developing. 23 Commissioner Jacobs said that he wanted to urge the boards to put their efforts forth so 24 as to complete the process that started years ago. 25 Mayor Stevens said that the Town is on board with this to move forward. 26 27 Q Update on Riverwalk and its Economic Impact 28 Margaret Hauth referred to the map in the packet. A grant request has been submitted 29 to the State. 30 The Town has completed conceptual planning of Phase II of Riverwalk. The color 31 coded attached map details the various portions on the project. The Town has submitted a 32 grant request to the State Parks and Recreation Trust Fund seeking $425,000 to fund final 33 design and construction of the portion of Riverwalk connecting Gold Park to River Park. The 34 Town will also be seeking $75,000 from the State Recreational Trails Program next year to 35 further support this project and expects to match these funds with local funds to fully fund this 36 high priority project. The Town also hopes to modify the current Congestion Mitigation and Air 37 Quality (CMAQ) funding for Riverwalk to fund some necessary sidewalk improvements that 38 connect neighborhoods to Riverwalk to greatly enhance safe access to this community 39 resource. Shortly, the Town plans to begin construction on the Calvin Street connecting path to 40 provide safe pedestrian access to Gold Park and Riverwalk from Calvin Street to access the 41 covered walkway under the railroad. This facilitates pedestrian access into Gold Park and 42 avoids the use of the trestle for walkers. 43 44 Further connections to the east and west have been delayed for cost considerations. 45 The Town now expects the trail surface to change heading west from Allison Street and east 46 from Cameron Street based on desires of the resources that the trail will connect to and the 47 unique landforms being crossed to make those connections. Neither Classical Home 48 Preservation Trust nor the Occoneechee State Natural Area actively permit wheels on their 49 path systems, so pavement is not necessary or desirable for these sections. A schedule for 12 1 proceeding with these connections has not been established and may rely on community 2 fundraising. 3 4 Many studies have been conducted trying to calculate the economic and social impact of 5 recreation investments. These numbers range from $1.80 to $25 per dollar invested, with more 6 reports failing in the 1:5 or 1:3 range. Part of the wide variety in numbers depends on how 7 many benefits were attempted to be calculated (social as well as economic) and the variety of 8 recreation resources included in the study. When the paved portion of Riverwalk is complete, 9 the total investment in Riverwalk and Gold Park will exceed $6M, including significant grant 10 support. 11 12 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the Boards can discuss 13 issues related to this item as necessary. 14 15 Attachment 4f—Riverwalk Phase 11 Planning Map 16 17 18 With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 19 20 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair 21 22 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC 23 Clerk to the Board 1 I DRAFT MINUTES 2 3 Orange County Board of County Commissioners 4 Social Services Board 5 Joint Meeting 6 March 15, 2012 7 5:30 PM 8 9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Work Session with 10 the Department of Social Services on Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the Link 11 Government Services Center, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. 12 13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and 14 Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, and 15 Steve Yuhasz 16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice Gordon 17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: 18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey and Michael 19 Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be 20 identified appropriately below) 21 COUNTY STAFF ABSENT: County Manager Frank Clifton 22 SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD PRESENT: Chair Pat Garavaglia, Albert Williams and 23 Claire Millar 24 SOCIAL SERVICES STAFF PRESENT: Nancy Coston, Denise Shaffer, Lindsey 25 Shewmaker, Sharron Hinton and Joyce Lee 26 27 28 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM. She said that 29 Commissioner Jacobs would be arriving about 6:30 and that Commissioner Gordon 30 would be unable to attend. 31 32 1. Introductions 33 Introductions were made. 34 35 2. Poverty Statistics and Public Assistance Data 36 Lindsey Shewmaker made a PowerPoint presentation. 37 38 39 BOCC — DSS Board 40 Joint Meeting 41 Orange County Department of Social Services 42 March 15, 2012 43 44 Agenda 45 Introductions 46 Poverty Statistics and Public Assistance Data 47 Emerging Issues 48 Success Stories 49 Hot Topics 2 1 2 Poverty in Orange County 3 According to data from the American Community Survey, in 2010: 4 • 19,702 Orange County residents lived in poverty (16.3%) 5 • 4,137 children in Orange County lived in poverty (15.5%) 6 • 931 elderly adults in Orange County lived in poverty (7.8%) 7 8 Poverty by Census Tract in Orange County (map) 9 10 Orange County Safety Net 11 • Safety net provides support for low-income families 12 • Safety net programs run by Social Services include: Food and Nutrition 13 Services, Medicaid, Work First, Child Care Subsidy, Energy Programs, Crisis 14 Assistance 15 • Safety net support extends beyond federal poverty threshold to include families 16 up to 200% of poverty 17 18 Medicaid 19 • Current number of Medicaid cases is 7,639 (January), a 4% increase over last 20 year 21 • Next year local medical providers are expected to receive $90,701,429 on behalf 22 of Orange County residents 23 24 Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) 25 • The number of families receiving FNS benefits is 6,129 (January), an 11% 26 increase over last year 27 • Local grocers are expected to receive $21,195,859 in FNS benefits from Orange 28 County families in FY2012-13 29 30 200% of Poverty and FNS Households (map) 31 32 Families Receiving Food and Nutrition Services 33 • Anne, 87, collects $1021/month in Social Security and lives in a house that is 34 paid for. Her benefits are $16/month. 35 • Sam receives $864/month in Social Security Disability and pays $300/month in 36 rent. His benefits are $51/month. 37 0 Tonya, a single mother of one, earns $8.50/hour and pays $400/month in rent. 38 Her benefits are $119/month. 39 0 Bill and Mary have two children. Bill is unemployed, Mary earns minimum wage, 40 and the family pays $500/month in rent. Their benefits are $540/month. 41 42 43 44 3 1 3. Emerging Issues 2 i) Work Support Strategies 3 ii) North Carolina Families Accessing Services through Technology(NC 4 FAST) 5 6 7 Work Support Strategies 8 • Policy simplification and alignment 9 • Retention of eligible families 10 • Increased use of performance data 11 • Holistic view of family 12 • New roles for staff 13 14 North Carolina Families Accessing Services through Technology(NC FAST) 15 • State automation solution for DSS programs 16 • Allows online applications 17 • Client information available across all programs 18 • Provides tools to manage caseloads 19 • Reduces likelihood of error through automated calculation of eligibility 20 • Performance issues are possible during implementation 21 22 Child Care and Smart Start 23 Social Services administered the Smart Start subsidy for FY 2011-12 24 • The consolidation of child care subsidy funds has reduced overall administrative 25 costs and provided a seamless program for eligible Orange County children 26 • The state estimate for child care subsidy for next year is anticipated to be 27 reduced. Social Services is working to assure there will be no interruption in 28 these services for children 29 • The waiting list has been cleared 30 31 Child Welfare 32 • Because of intensive social work services, more children are able to remain in 33 their own homes, resulting in fewer children in social services' custody 34 • Children are achieving permanence more quickly 35 • Continued collaboration with the juvenile court system has resulted in better 36 outcomes for children and families 37 38 Aging —Social Services Collaboration 39 • A DSS social worker is out-posted at each Orange County Senior Center 40 • Agencies are sharing county funds to support adult day care in the community 41 • Worked together to provide Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program to 42 low-income Orange County residents 43 44 Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program (HPRP) 45 - Prevention 76% 4 1 - Rapid Rehousing 24% 2 3 Hot Topics 4 • Proposed Coordination of Community Drug Court and Justice Partnership 5 Activities 6 • Work Force Development Board Alignment 7 • Medicaid Transportation 8 • Guardianships 9 Social Services Budget Forecast 10 11 12 Commissioner Hemminger asked if students were taken into account regarding 13 poverty levels and Lindsey Shewmaker said that when it is broken down by census 14 track, it becomes more evident who is living where. This particular count does not take 15 into account people living in institutions, including dormitories. 16 Discussion ensued about how it is tedious to figure out the poverty level when 17 there are so many students in the area. 18 Commissioner McKee said that his concern is that this will take focus away from 19 the people that the County should be serving. 20 21 Albert Williams with the DSS Board arrived at 5:52 PM. 22 The NC FAST online program should be ready by September. The staff is being 23 trained at this time. This has been promised for about 10-15 years. 24 25 4. Success Stories 26 Denise Shaffer shared some success stories. She said that with some Smart 27 Start funds, they were able to clear the waiting list for child care. 28 Regarding Child Welfare, there is a significant difference in the number of 29 children in custody. It is usually about 135-150 and it is now around 100 children as of 30 January. 31 The County was also able to assist in funding for housing for residents in need. 32 Sharron Hinton continued highlighting the various programs of Social Services. 33 34 5. Hot Topics 35 Nancy Coston went through the Hot Topics. Social Services is looking at a better 36 way to work out the community drug court. 37 Regarding Medicaid Transportation, the Social Services was told last year that 38 there would be an RFP put out for a private provider 39 Regarding guardianships, Mental Health is going to be transferring effective April 40 1 st to Social Services. 41 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if this would require new or different staff. Nancy 42 Coston said that this is happening right now. 43 Nancy Coston said that there is some unpleasant budget information 44 forthcoming. The TANF grant is a $302,000,000 block grant for North Carolina. It is 45 primarily used for Work First and child care. There will be some cuts in this funding. 46 47 48 6. Message from the Social Services Board Chair 5 1 Social Services Board Chair Pat Garavaglia thanked the staff for presenting the 2 situation. She said that this is another year of high demand for services. Each month 3 there is a new all-time high for Medicaid and food and nutrition cases with the same 4 number of staff. Employees are struggling to keep up with the demand. There have 5 been impacts on performance data and staff morale. She thinks that staff morale is at 6 an all-time low at the agency. The staff has not seen a salary change in three years. 7 Pat Garavaglia said that there is pending legislation for the General Assembly, 8 which is Senate Bill 433, which allows but does not mandate changes in Social Services 9 at the local level. The Social Services Board would encourage the Board of County 10 Commissioners to NOT support this bill locally. 11 Chair Pelissier said that Social Services represent a constituency that does not 12 come to Board of County Commissioners' meetings. She said that what this board does 13 is very important. She expressed appreciation for the work of the Social Services Board 14 and staff. 15 16 Commissioner Foushee said that she does not support this proposed bill. 17 18 7. Closing Remarks 19 The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. 20 21 22 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair 23 24 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC 25 Clerk to the Board