Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-07-2012APPROVED 5/1/2012 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 inembers will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda 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 Aqenda 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 Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions bv 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. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations Oranqe Countv 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: A.L. Stanback Middle School - ArtsCenter - Attendees: Michele Johnson Jeri Lynn Schulke Christ Church Preschool - Barb Wallace 8~ 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 - Grady A. Brown Elementary School PTA - Hillsborough Elementary School - Historical Foundation of Hillsborough & Orange County - Kristi Vincent Johnson - McDougle Elementary School PTA - Preservation Society of Chapel Hill - Susan Simone - WCOM-FM - Sean Wellington - Women's Voices Chorus - Nerys Levy, Anne Pusey Rachel Monschein Keri Frank, Jon Cocoran Brandie Fields Jeri Lynn Schulke Michele Melet Tama Hochbaum Susan Simone Ernie Hood Sean Wellington Dr. Allan Friedman, Shelley Hedtke b. NC 10% Campaiqn - Helpinq 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 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 Acknowledainq Februarv 28, 2012 as Spav Neuter Dav USA in Oranae Countv, and Communitv Spav and Neuter Proqram 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 8~ 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! 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 cosY' 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 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 5. Consent Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: 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 Propertv 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. Propertv 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 Propertv 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 Propertv 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 Sauad Annual Certification Roster The Board approved the certification roster and authorized the Chair to sign the certification documents. Oranqe Countv 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 Oranae Countv Code of Ordinances Rectardinq Weapons This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Leqal Advertisement for Quarterlv Public Hearinq - Februarv 27, 2012 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Interqovernmental Aqreement The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the above listed agreement and any amendments to renewals of that Agreement. Chanqes in BOCC Reaular Meetinq Schedule for 2012 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Boards and Commissions - Commissioner Assianments 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 Aqenda i. Amendment to Oranqe Countv Code of Ordinances Reqardinq 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. J ohn 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. i Leqal Advertisement for Quarterlv Public Hearinq - Februarv 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"a 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. 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. Chanqes in BOCC Reqular Meetina 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 Hearinqs a. Oranae Countv Consolidated Housinq 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 29~h. 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 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 Hearinq on the Financinq for Chapel Hill-Carrboro Citv Schools Elementarv #11 and Other Countv Capital Proiects and Refinancinq of Existinq Obliaations 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 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 21S' 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. 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: (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 Cify Schoo/s. 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 I-85/40, and WHEREAS, the parcel is identified as follows: Parcel Identification Number PIN) Acres 9855-10-8205 46.92 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. Obiective LU-3.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map. Obiective LU-3.8: Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the revision of County policies and regulations. Housinq Overarchinq 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. 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 I-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 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/Zoninq 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 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. Rectular Aqenda a. Timeline for the Emerqency Services Workqroup 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 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 Policv for Board of Countv Commissioners Advisorv 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 Trianqle Reqional Transit Proqram - Alternatives Analvsis and the Locallv 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 (TAC) and to Chair Pelissier, the representative on the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Wib Gulley and Patrick McDonough with Triangle Transit made this presentation. 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. 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 meetinq 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 8th 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. 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 I-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 I-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 8~ E2). 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) 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 b (GAO) (2001) and other FTA sources $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 : re-examined since the Government Accounting Office (2009) would translate to $13.5 million a mile average or 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 criteria) (Note: This may be another measure to contrast with the interlined 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** 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.orq/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 (25± 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 '/z 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 'h cent sales tax commitment from Orange County residents. 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 I-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'/z-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'/z-cent transportation tax to fund a rail station for Orange County in Hillsborough to access the current passenger trains that already pass through Orange 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 '/z-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. 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 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 '/2-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 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 Hilimont; aka George King Road alignment). NOTE: Extend easterly as close to I-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. 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 betow. 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 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 WHEREAS, the alignment option C2 is potentially compatible with the overall vision for the transit corridor; and WHEREAS, the ridership, costs, environmental impacts, community impacts, and impacts on nearby roadway traffic of alignment option C2 needs to be further studied in the Scoping and Preliminary Engineering/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PE/DEIS) phases before a final decision is made on which alignment should be advanced; and WHEREAS, alignment option D3 in the South Square station area would best promote transit- supportive economic development; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative does not include a recommendation for the location of a Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility and the location of this facility will be further studied in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative will be followed by further study of the alignment and station locations in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases when a final decision is made on the remaining active options; and WHEREAS, the substantive issues identified in public comments on the Alternatives Analysis will be addressed in subsequent development steps such as Scoping and PE/DEIS; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee adopts light rail transit technology on the alignment recommended in the "Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report" dated July 2011with the modification that the C2 option be carried forward for further study in the Meadowmont and Hillmont station areas as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Durham- Orange County Corridor (as illustrated on the attached map), and that the DCHC MPO intends to incorporate this LPA into the forthcoming 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan to further inform this LPA, provided here on this, the 8th day of February, 2012. d. Recommendations to NCACC Reaardinq Prioritv Federal Issues The Board considered approving recommendations to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners on priority federal issues of importance to all counties. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve recommendations to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) on priority federal issues of importance to all counties, and direct the Clerk to the Board to complete the necessary forms and submit these priority federal issues to NCACC by the February 10, 2012 deadline. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. Reports - NONE 10. Countv Manaqer's Report - NONE 11. Countv Attornev's Report - NONE 30 12. Appointments-NONE 13. Board Comments Commissioner Yuhasz - none Commissioner Gordon said that she would send an email. Commissioner Hemminger - none Commissioner Jacobs said that the Agricultural Summit is Monday at 8:30 a.m. at the Big Barn in Hillsborough. He said that there is a parking space designated for people dropping off books at the main library in Hillsborough. The code to get into the paid parking spaces is 1202#. He also asked the Manager to report back on why the Carrboro Cybrary is not labeled the Orange County-Carrboro Cybrary since it is a partnership. Commissioner McKee - none Commissioner Foushee - none 14. Information Items • January 24, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 15. Closed Session -NONE 16. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:18 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board