Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20040429APPROVED 06123/2004 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS April 29, 2004 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session far an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, April 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis and Margaret Brown COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and Members Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Alex Zaffron, and Member Joal Hall Brown CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mike Nelson and Members Mark Chilton, Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffee and Jahn Herrerra HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Members Michael Gering and Eric Hallman HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mayor Jae Phelps and members, Evelyn Lloyd, Frances Dancey, Brian Lowen, NOTE: All other participants are listed in the text as appropriate. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs said that the item on sub-standard housing was left out inadvertently and it will be deferred to the next AOG meeting. Joal Hall Broun said that Carrboro has a request when they get to item 9-a. 1. Solid Waste Matters -Three Year Solid Waste Plan Update; Proposed Waste Reduction, Reuse, Recycling Fee Rod Visser said that there are two solid waste matters: The first matter is the three-year solid waste plan update. The last one was filed in 2000, and the State granted an extension to the County to file the next three-year plan in 2004. The County Commissioners held a public hearing in February and approved it in concept. Since then, each of the Towns have discussed it. The Town of Chapel Hill has some questions. The second matter is the need for aten-year financing plan. The current structure is not going to be sustainable in the long haul. He introduced Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson, who explained the rationale far the increase in fees. Gayle Wilson said that staff has been working on this for over a year to develop a fee proposal. They have had assistance from the Institute of Governments Environmental Finance Center and various County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board. They believe that they have proposed the lowest fees passible while still covering all essential recycling and waste reduction services. The costs are projected for 2004-05. He distributed a handout. He said that each manager has been given a large packet of materials that has substantial history related to solid waste management in the County. Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee Recommendation April 29, 2004 Assembly of Governments Historical Perspective • 1993 Supplemental Financing Needs First Discussed • 1996 First formal staff memorandum presented • 1998 Alternative Finance Committee formed - Elected Officials, Managers, Finance Directors and a citizen • 1999 Alternative Finance Committee suspends work - Solid waste organization, Interlocal Agreement issues take priority • 2001 BOCC requests SWAB consider and offer recommendations • 2003 (Jan/Feb) SWAB and staff present fee proposals • 2003 (Nov) Revised staff proposal presented to BOCC Fee rather than a Tax • Consistent with November 2003 BOCC agreement in principle • Not an availability fee, but a Recovered Material Fee • Considered "Other Fee" in Interlocal Agreement - SWAB has formal role in approval - SWAB unanimously endorsed staff recommendation on April 8, 2004 Why is a Fee Necessary? • Success of local waste reduction programs has resulted in decline in tipping fee revenue as expenditures have increased • Continued investments in recycling and waste reduction programs in response to County goals • Some wastes are collected by private companies and taken elsewhere because of Orange County's high tipping fees. • Continuing high participation and high demand for recycling services by Orange County citizens General Approach •Cantinue using tipping fee revenue to the extent practicable •Fee would be assessed to the owner of all improved properties, including tax-exempt, residential and non-residential •Bill on property tax bills beginning in 2004 •General intent that you pay for the services you receive, that are available to you, or that are performed on your behalf General Approach {cont.) •Use a two-tier system with everyone getting at least the basic services fee •Minimize fees to the extent possible •Fee revenue will not be used to fund solid waste collection or disposal functions •Following BOCC adoption, staff to initiate broad based public education campaign Basic Fee •$36 per year •Levied on each improved property unit, regardless of location in the County or tax status •For services provided to or on behalf of everyone such as HHW, electronics, drop-off sites, food waste, education and outreach •Total fee if no additional services available •$3 per month Urban Fee •$39 per year •Levied on each improved property unit inside incorporated municipal limits where weekly curbside recycling pickup is available •$39 plus Basic Service Fee of $36 per year •Total Fee $75 per year •$6.25 per month Rural Fee •$16 per year •Levied on each improved property unit outside incorporated municipal limits where biweekly curbside recycling pickup is available •$16 plus Basic Service Fee of $36 per year •Total Fee $52 per year •$4.33 per month Multifamily Fee •$14 per unit per year •Levied on each improved property unit where apartment/condominium "Multifamily" type service is available, regardless of location in the County •$14 plus Basic Service Fee of $36 per unit par year •Total Fee $50 per year •$4.16 per unit per month Basic FY 04-05 •Revenue Requirement $2,308,899 •# Units 57,870 •WRRR Fee 36 •Total Fee Revenue $2,083,320 •Program Revenue I Reserves $159,981 •Difference $-65,598 Urban FY 04-05 •Revenue Requirement $998,849 •# Units 16,500 •WRRR Fee 39 •Total Fee Revenue $643,500 •Program Revenue /Reserves $18,463 •Difference $-336,886 Rural FY 04-05 •Revenue Requirement $353,111 •# Units 10,900 •WRRR Fee 16 •Total Fee Revenue $174,400 •Difference $-178,711 Multi-Family FY 04-05 •Revenue Requirement $357,342 •# Units 13,500 •WRRR Fee 14 •Total Fee Revenue $189,000 • Diffe re nce $-168, 342 Tipping Fees Used to Subsidize Recycling •2004105 $749,537 •2005/06 $859,235 •2006107 $994,332 •2007/08 $847,406 •2008109 $1,042,430 •2009110 $0 -Landfill closes Gayle Wilson said that they are proposing that this fee be held at this rate for a period of five years. Chair Jacobs recognized four school board members that were present and Jan Sassaman, Chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Board. Chair Jacobs said that Gayle Wilson's Solid Waste department won an award for its outreach and education for solid waste. Also, the Planning Department won an award for the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Mayor Foy said that the Town of Chapel Hill has questioned the fee. They know that the fee is needed and that tipping fees would not be enough to cover recycling. The issue is that $75 is a significant fee for residents of Chapel Hill. He said that it has to be cheaper to collect in an urban area than in the rural area, and they want that acknowledged. He said that it seems like the urban areas are subsidizing the rural areas, which he thinks is fine. However, they want to move toward a "pay as you throw" plan, which will generate more recycling and decrease waste, and this plan does not accommodate that. They do not want a fee that provides no new services to the citizens. He said that the Town Board has asked staff to look at this seriously. Commissioner Carey asked Gayle Wilson to verify that the urban areas are subsidizing the rural areas. He was approaching it on the basis that the fee was related to the cost of the services. Gayle Wilson said that the fee {$39} does not cover the cost of the urban curbside recycling. They are proposing that it be subsidized from the surplus disposal revenue. He said that about three years ago, there was a request from the Town of Chapel Hill for the staff to look at the value of the services that the Town specifically received in the context of how much tipping fee expenditures it made to the solid waste fund. The analysis showed that the Tawn of Chapel Hill was receiving service benefits valued at more than four times the cost the Town was paying in surplus tipping fees (after factoring out the portion of tipping fees paid by the Town that simply cover the cost of disposing of the Town's waste -the portion of the tipping fee that exceeds the actual cost of disposal generates "surplus revenue" that is used to underwrite the County's recycling programs}. Other users of the landfill probably are subsidizing the municipal programs. Mayor Foy said that this is not the issue now. The question is whether it is mare expensive to pick up recycling in the County or in the urban areas. It seems that if people are closer together, that it can be provided mare cheaply. Gayle Wilson said that this would be true if they were collected on the same frequency. The rural curbside program is collected on a biweekly basis, while the urban collection is every week. This makes it slightly cheaper per household. Mayor Foy asked if the fee would be less if they went to a biweekly pickup in the urban area. Gayle Wilson said that the biweekly collection in the urban areas would cost less than biweekly collection in the rural areas. But a consequence would be people significantly increasing their use of the drop-off sites because of the move to a less frequent collection. Costs would be shifted. He said that they could easily change the contract next year to go biweekly in the urban areas, but it would cause problems elsewhere. Jim Ward made reference to the recycling efforts of the urban areas and asked how this has affected the use of the landfill. Gayle Wilson said that Chapel Hill is one of the major contributors to the reasons for the countywide success in recycling and waste reduction. Jim Ward said that it seems that this has extended the life of the landfill and the recycling efforts of the urban areas have basically bought a landfill. He said that this does not seem to be in the equation. Rod Visser agreed with the notion of having bought a landfill. His reaction is if they were pursuing same other method of disposing of the waste, there would be additional casts in the equations that have been avoided by being able to maintain a landfill. Gayle Wilson said that the landfill would have closed much sooner if it were not for the efforts of the urban areas with the recycling and would have been more expensive. Jim Ward asked what would happen in 2010. Gayle Wilson said that if the fee were adopted, they would be evaluating the rate at which citizens pay and they will reassess finances. In 2010, the landfill will close and a transfer station will have to open and the surplus revenue generated from the landfill currently will cease to exist in any meaningful way. There will be additional financial issues to deal with. Joal Hall Broun asked if there was any empirical evidence that when you have less recycling pick ups that people will actually drive and drop off their recycling. Gayle Wilson said that very few would nationally, but there would be a higher amount in this community. Rod Visser said that he is one of those people that live in a rural curbside area and they generate more recycling than they could hold on to and wait for biweekly pickup. Joal Hall Broun said that she would do just the opposite. She said that some members of her board think that if waste removal and recycling is a government function then it should be included in your taxes. She has a philosophical issue with this fee. She wants to know if the Board of County Commissioners has considered those on limited incomes. She said that if this were a tax instead of a fee, they could at least write it off their income tax. She understands that it costs to provide recycling. Cam Hill said that it seems like the most efficient way to collect recycling would be at drop-off centers and it would be less expensive than picking up every week. Gayle Wilson said that the more convenient recycling is, the more people participate. If there were only drop-off sites, there would be a significant drop in the amount of people participating. It would be cheaper. Alex Zaffran made reference to the slide about tipping fees and the reduction in tipping fee revenues and asked if this was including the loss of C&D revenue. Gayle Wilson said that he is including C&D and MSW revenue in this. Alex Zaffron asked if there was a re-evaluation planned of the per tonnage C&D fee that is contemplated in the future as the new C&D facility is opened. Gayle Wilson said that Orange County is already the mast expensive C&D facility in the state. He said that no one charges $41, which is what Orange County charges. In the ten-year financial plan, they assumed incremental increases in both the C&D tipping fee and the MSW tipping fee, but not enough for the overall revenue requirement. Alex Zaffron said that earlier in this process when they discussed moving from a tip fee based structure to a fee based structure, they thought there would be some off-setting reduction in the tipping fees required. He said that his board has not had a chance to discuss this yet and some citizens may feel that they were not told about what was going to happen. Ed Harrison made reference to the "pay as you throw" concept and said that this fee appears to have no relationship to the amount of use of the system. They would like to have an analysis of this. Gayle Wilson said that "pay as you throw" programs are for garbage collection and not for recycling. They can look at making a variable recycling fee work. He said that they have tried to base fees on the cost of service provided. It is out of the County's control as to how much the citizens avail themselves of the service. Chair Jacobs asked if all of the municipalities have adopted the C&D recycling ordinance except Chapel Hill. He encouraged the Town of Chapel Hill to adopt this because it has helped reduce C&D waste. Chair Jacobs made reference to the levels of services and said that the Board of County Commissioners has not discussed this. He said that he has to carry everything himself to a convenience center. He said that his level of service is way lower than urban areas and it is not fair to put it in the property tax and have him pay the same amount as urban citizens. He said that the rural citizens are not getting a better deal out of all of this. He said that they need to do abetter job of explaining the different levels of services and why people are being charged different rates. He said that they want to do this in a way that is embraced by the community and not as yet another burden. He appreciates the comments. Mayor Foy said that he does not want this to be set up as a rural versus urban area. He wants to be clear on what the numbers are. He asked how much had to be raised and Gayle Wilson said that the fee would raise approximately $3 million. This is three cents on the tax rate. He is more interested in the ability to increase the recycling and put the cost on people who generate waste and not on people who generated recyclables. Chair Jacobs asked Gayle Wilson if this relates directly to the presence of a MRF. Gayle Wilson said that it does relate directly to the presence ar absence of same method of enhanced processing -whether it is a MRF in Orange County or somewhere else. Chair Jacobs said that they would try and report back to all jurisdictions as they move forward. Alex Zaffran said that he echoes Mayor Foy's comments about the equity issues. 2. OWASA Water Reuse Chair of the OWASA Board Mark Marcoplos said that this reuse project is designed to utilize wastewater instead of potable water for the University's chiller facility, steam generation, and irrigation needs. They focused on this during the 2001-2002 drought. He said that UNC and OWASA are currently collaborating on this project. This will result in a new source of water supply for the community as well as drought insurance. This is a perfect time to do this project because the University is doing a lot of construction and ditches are open and OWASA is at the beginning of an upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant. The OWASA board has dealt with this for a long time and they have supported this project. This is a conservation project and will be a source of 700,000 gallons of water supply when it begins in 2007. There will be a small rate increase of approximately $2 per household per month. If this is compared to the cast of going to Jordan Lake, it is the cheapest source of supply. UNC will pay for all of the costs of the system and the rate increase is to account for the drop in revenue stream. Joal Hall Braun asked if there had been any thought to using non-potable water when Carolina North Games into fruition. She asked if there had been any thought to expanding the use of the water to the new schools that are built to the northern area of the urban services boundary and the park. OWASA Sustainability Coordinator Pat Davis said that they have been discussing with the University the future plans for Carolina North. If they develop a reclaimed water system for Carolina North, then it can be designed to ultimately meet the non-essential water needs of some of the surrounding urban growth areas. He said that, with the ongoing construction at UNC, they have the opportunity to ca-construct a series of reclaimed water mains along with the construction. He said that by developing the reclaimed water system for the main campus, they expect to be able to defer the need for an additional water supply source for about 12 years. They estimate that through reuse, they can defer over $40 million of capital improvements. This is a long-term financial benefit. Chair Jacobs said that on May 20t" the Board will have a work session to consider Twin Creeks, and this will be the first opportunity to look at the infrastructure. Mayor Foy asked haw they set the recycled water rate. Pat Davis said that they are required to set rates at cost of service. The use of reclaimed water will reduce the potable water revenues. They have made it clear to the University that the revenues from reclaimed water services will fully cover the capital, operation, and maintenance costs that OWASA incurs in setting up and maintaining this system. No OWASA water or sewer system customers will be paying to cover the expenses of the reclaimed water system. The target startup date is July 1, 2007. He said that the University is fully committed and is supporting this project. Jim Ward said that there should be an imperative that they will not be forced into a position where they need to go to Jordan Lake. He said that maybe an adequate public facilities ordinance could be created for water services. He asked if this was an appropriate tool and where OWASA stands on looking at same water resource before the quarry comes online. Pat Davis said that there are other components in the master plan that address these issues. He said that they are getting close to the crossroads of making the decisions about meeting the demands for water. Dan Okun said that he was with the University (retired, but still active). He read a prepared statement, as follows: Water Reclamation for Nonpatable Reuse: An Established Urban Practice By Daniel A. Okun My purpose here is to assure you that water reclamation for non-potable reuse is a well- established approach to urban water management throughout the developed world. In fact, the State of California adopted regulations for the practice in 1918 and, because the federal government has na regulations, their 1968 "Title 22" has become a guide to the regulation of reclamation to this date. Currently, some forty states have their own regulations. In 1962, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which provide sewerage for the many cities in the county, other than the City of Las Angeles, built the Whittier Narrows tertiary wastewater reclamation plant. It provides water for many non-potable purposes in the service area and for recharge of the groundwater. The rapid growth of population of southern California, and the very limited water resources in the region, resulted in the construction of six additional reclamation facilities in the county, its growth of population to about 10 million people would not have been possible without water reclamation. I was fortunate to be employed by the California Department of Health Services in the 197Q's to review experiences with the many urban non-potable reuse projects existing then throughout southern California with the aim of improving Title 22, and I have been involved as a consultant in California ever since. While water is being transferred from "water-rich" northern California to southern California, reclamation is now growing rapidly in the north. Thirty years ago, a friend, the director of Public Works for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, was faced with a problem; the state had introduced mare stringent standards for nutrient removal from wastewaters being discharged to sea. We believed that they might save money for wastewater treatment by reclaiming the wastewater for non-potable uses in the city. The added costs would be far the addition of tertiary wastewater treatment and the creation of a dual distribution system. It became an instant success. Golf courses were the first users, as has been the case in North Carolina, but reclaimed water is now provided for other sports fields, landscape irrigation, cooling towers for power plants, air conditioning, toilet flushing, environmental amenities, concrete for construction, and car washes. It is one of the few cities that designed its reclaimed water system far enhancing its fire protection. Despite the fact that annual rainfall in Florida is much the same as in North Carolina, urban growth in Florida has been so great, it rivals California in the number of its dual systems. This growth was not a result of the savings in pollution control alone, but the savings in very limited potable water resources in Florida. Mast water supplies in Florida came from underground and St. Petersburg, despite its growth, is the only city in its region that was able to reduce its withdrawals from its well fields. What is being planned here has had two substantial benefits. It reduces the costs and impacts of discharging wastewaters to receiving waters and, more importantly it conserves urban potable water resources for drinking. The investments for the many hundreds of dual systems in the U. S. have proven worthwhile despite the fact that all of these dual systems have had to be retrofitted, which is relatively costly and which is required on the main campus. However, we do have an opportunity to provide a dual system for serving the proposed Carolina North campus from scratch. The dual system there can be built as the campus grows without the costs and disturbances that accompany retrofitting. Lastly, these reclamation programs give promise of our never having to resort to water from the heavily polluted Jordan Lake for our drinking water. 3. Presentation on Report from Council for a Sustainable Community Charlie Fisher said that Chairman Howard Lee was not able to attend this evening because he was out of town. He said this group was formed last fall by the Chamber of Commerce with 21 participants representing the County Commissioners and the jurisdictions and school boards. He said that the most important thing is that they listened to each other in the group and people came to a joint vision. He said that they adopted athree-legged stool of sustainability - do no harm to the environment, adhere to the principles of social justice and equity in economic community development efforts, and return strong shareholder value. The council identified eight mutually supporting visions for the community. This is in the handout. They would like to have the opportunity to discuss the report in more detail to all elected bodies. He noted an important element in the report that the components support each other and are not separate. He asked several members of the council to speak. James Carnahan is a resident of Carrboro and a member of the Carrboro Planning Board. He was on the infrastructure community. He spoke about elements 1, 4, and 7. He said that these elements support "walkability" and public transportation. He explained #7 - A growth boundary that conserves farmland, protects drinking water, open space and wildlife habitat and prevents sprawl. He then explained #4 -Multiple forms of transportation to increase connectivity and reduce the impacts on air quality, watersheds, and public health that result from dependence on the automobile. He then explained #1 -Compact urban form with increased density and mixed use that fosters "walkability", reduces dependence on fossil fuels, accommodates future growth, and provides affordable housing. One of the issues that all governments have worked on is to have sufficient affordable housing. He read part of a narrative on the bottom of page 3. He said that this document says that they need to came together as a community and have a process to address the issues as the area becomes denser. Scott Maitland said that this process was exciting and he loved the way the group worked together. He spoke about the important value of human capital and creating a cluster of entrepreneurship. He said that if citizens live and work in the community then they are better citizens. He said that it was important that this document not sit on a shelf. He said that the reason he lives in Chapel Hill was that he was so impressed that the downtown area was created in 1789 and it is still functional and vibrant. He believes that the community has a big opportunity now because far the last 50 years, the downtown area has struggled to maintain its prominence as aretail-chapping destination. He said that this is an opportunity to leverage the investment in the arts. He spoke in support of park and ride lots in the downtown Chapel Hill area. Delores Bailey, Ca-Director for Empowerment, Inc., said that she was delighted to be on the committee. She highlighted #3 - a sufficient supply of meaningful jobs so that local residents can work close to where they live, thereby maintaining the social diversity necessary for a vibrant community. Her committee, infrastructure, addressed the African American declining population in Chapel Hill and Carrboro and lack of social outlets for minorities. They also discussed jobs that would attract African Americans and other minorities to Chapel Hill and Carrboro. She said that the important thing to her was that 21 people representing different areas of the community came together and talked about these issues. She said that this report would not make a difference unless the leaders in the communities become united and address these issues. She would like to help make this happen. Ruffin Slater works at Weaver Street Market. He said that the report is a good first step towards defining a sustainable future for the entire community. They want to engage the community in improving this vision over the next several months. They would like to have a dialogue to revise the report. They would like for the ongoing group, the Sustainable Roundtable, to continue to coordinate the process and measure the community's progress towards the benchmarks. The report is on the website -www.sustainablecommunitv.info. Sally Greene made reference to the perceived connection between the urban services boundary's existence and the cost of housing in Chapel Hill. She said that it seems that this is true, but she wonders if there is any subjective evidence that this is true. She cautioned that this should not be assumed without evidence because it cuts against the existence of it and people might think that the urban services boundary should be eliminated. Alex Zaffran said that this is a nice restatement of the Carrboro Vision 2020 and downtown vision plans and a blueprint for how they can benchmark this work. He made reference to Sally Greene's comments and said that James Carnahan was saying that within an urban services boundary that there are finite resources and if we are going to achieve goals of social equity, we need to maximize the use of those resources in a sustainable fashion. He does not think James Carnahan was making a direct connection. 4. Air Quality and Bia-diesel Chair Jacobs said that Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil was ill and could not make this presentation. Commissioner Halkiotis is also very interested in this, but he is also ill tonight. Commissioner Halkiotis asked him to tell the group that a study group is being established by the County, Towns, and the schools to look at how to use bio-diesel in vehicles that are currently in use or may become used by the governments. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that all of the cities, counties, and school districts have been engaged in some form of air quality initiatives. As of April 15th, the Triangle region was declared an ozone non-attainment area, which means that some funding may be removed from this region unless emissions are reduced. He said that a study was done of the Triangle area was done that showed that the commuter traveling time of this region had the highest increase over the last ten years in the nation. This is an economic development issue, environmental issue, and a land use issue. He said that they are very proactive in this area, but there is a lot of work to be done. Chair Jacobs said that Beau Lossoff is here from the Human Kindness foundation to talk about the use of bio-diesel. Beau Lossoff said that he is founder of Carolina Bio-diesel. He distributed vials of bio-diesel. He said that there are three components -environmental, employment security, and essential sustainability. They have been working with prisoners for the past 30 years and how to develop a training program for them to help them get jobs in bio-diesel production when they are released. He said that North Carolina is the fifth leading state in the use of bio-diesel. He said that this could reduce the dependence on foreign petroleum to a tremendous degree. He said that there are two reasons that these prisoners cannot get jobs - no job skills and a felony record. They are hoping to create abio-diesel refinery and to supply this to the local area. The closest bio-diesel refinery is Kentucky or Florida. He said that they are not using this in the school buses yet and the kids are breathing diesel fumes. Bio-diesel is less toxic than table salt. They are asking the Assembly of Governments for friendship and collaboration between their non-profit, Carolina Bio-diesel, and the governmental entities so that they can raise public awareness together. He said that two counties in Hawaii have mandated that all of the waste vegetable oils go to Pacific Bio-diesel Company to make fuel. Sally Greene said that she visited this and that the story in the Independent is wonderful. She urged everyone to read it and think about all of the aspects. Beau Lossoff said that he was not going to ask the County for money, but only for collaboration and partnership. Joal Hall Broun asked if Chapel Hill transit was using B20 and Mayor Foy said they use kerosene. He said that they go through this every year about what they should use. They are not using diesel. ~. Transportation Funding Options Alex Zaffron said that he assumes that all local governments are supporting the request from the General Assembly for dedicated sources of funding. The two proposed funding mechanisms are not his favorite, and they are an additional registration fee and additional fuel taxes. They have been endorsed by the DCHC MPO, CAMPO, the Metropolitan Coalition, and the Regional Transportation Alliance. He said that he hopes to see movement on these in the short sessions. Regarding the non-attainment status, he said that this was a result of the change in standard by the EPA. He said that despite what is in the paper, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and CAMPO are working cooperatively and are developing a formal relationship to link the long range transportation plans for the entire region so that they can conform. Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners will be asked to endorse these revenues. The Durham Board of County Commissioners have not endorsed them yet because they had some reservations. 6. Update an Work Resulting from Economic Development Summit (Orange County} 7. Update an Orange County Land-Use Plan Outreach (Orange County) Chair Jacobs said that the information is in the packets. 8. Report on TownlCountylDistrict Staff Progress an Coordinating School Planning DEFERRED 9. Informational Items (no presentations) a. Parks Update (Southern Community Park, Homestead Aquatics Center, Twin Creeks Park) Joal Hall Broun said that their mayor would like to host an opportunity for the public to come and provide input on this. Chair Jacobs said that the County would do the same, so maybe it could be done together. b. Variations In Affordable Housing Requirements And Formulas By Jurisdiction DEFERRED c. Carrboro Library Task Force Report DEFERRED d. Orange Caunty Animal Shelter DEFERRED e. Outstanding County Program Awards (Orange County Solid Waste and Planning} DEFERRED The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board