HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-2012 - 5aSUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -a
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245 -2130
PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
March 1, 2012
BOCC Regular Meeting
March 13, 2012
BOCC Regular Meeting
May 15, 2012
BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1 -
1
2 DRAFT
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET WORK SESSION
6 March 1, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Work Session on
10 Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill. N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
14 Yuhasz
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey,
18 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
22 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
23
24 Chair Pelissier said that there are additional pages for the CIP for the County
25 Commissioners' notebook and a PowerPoint presentation for item 3.
26 Financial Services Director Clarence Grier let the Board know that Paul Laughton is now
27 the Deputy Finance Director as of today.
28
29 1. To review and discuss the Manager's Recommended FY2012-17 Capital
30 Investment Plan
31
32 Deputy Finance Director Paul Laughton said that the County has had a CIP for years
33 and it is a financial planning tool. He said that the CIP tonight is broken into several tabs -
34 county projects, special revenue projects, propriety projects, school projects, and appendices.
35 He summarized the abstract, as shown below:
36
37 BACKGROUND: for over 20 years, the county has produced a Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
38 that establishes a budget planning guide related to capital needs for the County as well as
39 Schools. The current CIP consists of a 5-year plan that is evaluated annually to include year-
40 to-year changes in priorities, needs, and available resources.
41
42 Capital Investment Plan —Overview
43
44 The FY 2012-17 CIP includes County Projects, School Projects, Proprietary Projects, and
45 Special Revenue Projects. The Special Revenue Projects are a new addition in the FY 2012-17
46 CIP, and includes Economic Development and School related projects funded from the Article
47 46 (1/4-cent) Sales Tax proceeds. The Article 46 Sales Tax was approved by the voters in the
48 November 11 election, and is effective April 1, 2012.
49
2
1 The CIP has been prepared anticipating continued slow economic growth of between 1-2%
2 annually over the next five years. Many of the projects in the CIP will rely on debt financing to
3 fund the projects. A Debt Service and Debt Capacity spreadsheet is included in the
4 Appendices section of the document detailing this planned debt. Also included in the CIP are
5 several new projects that were not part of the FY 2011-16 CIP (See Attachment 2).
6
7 Additionally, during FY 2012-13 the County should pursue a review and update of its facility
8 needs. Several costly maintenance related projects are planned for a few of the County's older
9 facilities. A thorough analysis is needed of whether these maintenance projects should be
10 pursued or whether the funding for these items would better serve County needs being
11 allocated toward new facilities.
12
13 We will discuss these items in more detail during the work session, highlighting examples.
14
15 County Capital — Highlights
16
17 The County Capital section includes nine new projects that were not part of the FY 2011-16
18 Approved CIP. Major projects include the following:
19
20 Southern Orange Campus(Future Planning)—a site master plan is recommended in FY 12-
21 13, with construction recommended in FY 14-15 for campus buildings not associated with the
22 existing Southern Human Services Center. Expansion of the existing SHSC is included in a
23 separate CIP project.
24
25 Proposed Future Jail—site related planning costs are recommended in FY 13-14, with the
26 construction of a new 250-bed jail recommended in FY 16-17, at an estimated cost of
27 $30,000,000.
28
29 Viper Radio System -funding of$543,750 is recommended in FY 12-13 for additional
30 channels on existing towers in Orange County, as well as surrounding areas, to allow for
31 increased system capacity and reduction on busy signals received by field units during times of
32 high demand. Also, the addition of three towers is recommended from FY 13-14 to 15-16 in
33 order to expand coverage and increase capacity. This project is being reviewed as part of the
34 charge to the Emergency Services Work Group.
35
36 Communication System Improvements— includes recommended funding of$748,000 in FY
37 12-13 to replace the outdated Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, as well as replacement
38 of 800 MHz radios for Emergency Services. Enhancements to the 9-1-1 Call Taker, emergency
39 police and fire dispatch software, and replacement of 800 MHz radios associated with law
40 enforcement agencies and fire departments are planned in Years 2-5. An option of establishing
41 County Service Districts (Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue, Public Safety) could be
42 explored to pay for these radio replacements. If established, funds to pay for the replacements
43 would come out of a newly created Special Revenue Fund, outside of the General Fund. This
44 project, as well as the option of possible County Service Districts, is being reviewed as part of
45 the charge to the Emergency Services Work Group.
46
47 Future EMS Stations— planning/assessment funds of$50,000 for future locations of EMS
48 stations are recommended in FY 12-13, with construction of a station in Year 3 and one in Year
49 5, and two additional stations planned in Years 6-10. The strategic locations have not yet been
50 determined and will be reviewed by the Emergency Services Work Group.
3
1
2 Joint Artirrcial Turf Soccer Fields— recommended in FY 12-13; funds of$623,000 are
3 currently available in the Twin Creeks Park project to construct artificial turf soccer fields in
4 partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill at the Town's Cedar Falls Park.
5
6 Special Revenue Projects (Article 46 Sales Tax Proceeds)— Highlights
7
8 The Special Revenue section includes anticipated revenue of$2,500,000 annually, with 50% of
9 the proceeds for Economic Development initiatives, and 50% for Education (allocated by the
10 ADM count of the two school districts). In FY 2011-12, proceeds are estimated at one-fourth of
11 the annual amount, for a total of$625,000. A summary is provided within the Special Revenue
12 Projects section of the document listing the recommended uses of these proceeds.
13
14 Proprietary Projects— Highlights
15
16 Water& Sewer Utilities—Year 1 reflects inclusion of the McGowan Creek Pump Station
17 rehabilitation project costs ($725,00) in the Central Efland/North Buckhorn Sewer Expansion
18 project in order to take advantage of remaining State Revolving Loan funds.
19
20 Solid Waste—includes recommended funds of$3.1 million to close the Municipal Solid Waste
21 (MSW) Landfill in FY 12-13, and establishes a separate C&D Landfill project from this point
22 forward. Also, provides for the delay of purchasing 18,970 Urban curbside carts until FY 13-14,
23 and begins the purchase of 13,000 Rural curbside carts over a three-year period from FY 12-13
24 through FY 14-15.
25
26 Sportsp/ex—funding is recommended in FY 14-15 for a Mezzanine addition at the pool area to
27 include dedicated member change areas, lockers, and workout rooms. Funding is also
28 recommended in FY 15-16 for the addition of a Mezzanine in the ice rink to provide additional
29 fitness space, a dedicated group cycling area, and an advanced group training center, as well
30 as funding of a new Children's Activity Center to expand the After School and Summer Camp
31 programs.
32
33 School Projects—Highlights
34
35 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools—Year 1 reflects the funding of Elementary#11
36 construction ($21,500,000) and assumes a 1.5% annual growth in Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG)
37 funds and constant Lottery Proceeds throughout the 5-year period.
38
39 Orange County Schools—funding is recommended in FY 14-15 for the construction of an
40 auxiliary gym at Cedar Ridge High School, as well as recommended funding in FY 15-16 for the
41 construction of a 20 classroom addition wing to address over capacity issues at Cedar Ridge
42 High School. 1.5% annual growth in PAYG funds and constant Lottery Proceeds are assumed
43 throughout the 5-year period.
44
45 Note: Both schools systems provide Funded and Unfunded CIP requests each year. Within
46 the School Capital Projects section, there are three summaries provided that reflect: (1) the
47 Recommended funded projects, (2) the Requested, but Unfunded projects, and (3) the total
48 amount of the Recommended and Requested projects.
49
50 Appendices — Highlights
4
1
2 County Debt Service and Debt Capacity— based on the Manager's recommended funding,
3 the County's annual debt service as a percent of the General Fund budget would remain under
4 15% until FY 16-17, when it would reach 15.35%.
5
6 Note: An additional summary is provided in the Appendices section, which reflects the debt
7 service percent if all the Recommended and the Requested, but Unfunded projects were
8 included during the FY 2012-17 CIP period. This would increase the percentage to 16.97% in
9 FY 16-17, and would approach 20% by FY 17-18.
10
11 Active County Capital Projects—also included in the Appendices section is a list of all
12 currently active County Capital projects with available balances as of January 31, 2012.
13
14
15 Paul Laughton made reference to the old Ag center and the cost of updating this for
16 $1.5 million. He said that this should be discussed before renovating this building.
17 Frank Clifton said that this money could be used to update the Blackwood property
18 instead.
19 Commissioner Gordon encouraged this type of thinking and having a long-term space
20 needs plan. She said that it important to get out of rental space and consolidate County offices.
21 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was adequate space in the office buildings to
22 accommodate the staff that are currently located in the Environmental/Ag space. Frank Clifton
23 said that there is not enough space right now in one place to be functional. He said that his
24 concern for suggesting this was the cost of maintenance and operation of the older buildings.
25 The Blackwood property would be an opportunity to invest the $1.5 million into this.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with Commissioner Gordon in that they need
27 to have some basic principles on how to analyze space needs. He said that there are two
28 different Blackwood Farms—one is near Hillsborough and one is not. He thinks that one of the
29 principles is to try and keep the services as close together as possible. He thinks that this
30 should still be a priority. Either way, there are buildings for sale that are not being used. There
31 is also the Annex, the Whitted Building, and downstairs of the Link Building. He said that there
32 needs to be a systematic way to analyze space needs. There are two space needs plans and
33 he suggested starting with these plans first and see what changes need to be made. He wants
34 to make the best of the County's resources.
35 Chair Pelissier asked Frank Clifton when something might come before the Board.
36 Frank Clifton said that the staff could do some analysis and come back next fall for
37 Board review.
38 Commissioner McKee said that he realizes that the costs of maintaining a building can
39 sometimes exceed the cost of doing something new, however, he would caution the County
40 Commissioners to remember the fiscal constraints the County has faced, and that the services
41 to their citizens should come first.
42 Commissioner Gordon said that there was a notebook at one time with all of the County
43 buildings and the space analysis. She said that before Pam Jones retires, she hopes that this
44 information will be updated.
45
46 Paul Laughton continued going through the components of the CIP notebook.
47
48 Northern Human Services Center:
5
1 He made reference to the Northern Human Services Center on page 17. This is
2 consistent with what is in the current CIP. The Board has seen this and reviewed options in
3 January. The $2 million in FY 14-15 is the cost of constructing a new building.
4 Commissioner McKee said that, as they talk about this facility, he would like to please
5 keep the citizens in this area abreast of what the Board of County Commissioners is talking
6 about in reference to this facility.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that he assumes that there will be a public meeting in this
8 area to comment on the proposed changes to this facility.
9 Commissioner Foushee said that the citizens at the last meeting were not aware that
10 they could speak about this item
11 Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation Director Dave
12 Stancil said that there will be a meeting March 19t'to talk about this facility.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said that he hoped that the Efland/Cheeks Community Center
14 would be a part of the space analysis because it is the sentiment of the community that this
15 space is too small.
16
17 Seymour Center:
18 Paul Laughton said that there is consideration of installing a permanent generator here.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a bid out for this. There is a business called
20 Power Solutions in Efland that sells solar generators.
21 Pam Jones said that she is aware of Power Solutions and it is one of the go-to vendors.
22 This building was built as a generator-ready building and they will be looking at new technology.
23
24 Clarifying questions of the County Commissioners were answered by Pam Jones.
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners have had to compete for
27 use of this meeting room at Southern Human Services Center and he hoped that when they did
28 a study on this campus, that they would find out who is actually using the parking lot and if it is
29 being used for park and ride purposes, which is not what it is supposed to be used for. Before
30 more parking is added, he would like to know who is using the existing parking.
31 Paul Laughton continued going through the various projects.
32 Commissioner Hemminger asked Paul Laughton to put a footnote that any sale of
33 future buildings will go toward a particular project.
34
35 Southwest Library:
36 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the process of developing criteria for siting and
37 designing the southwest library.
38 Chair Pelissier said that she sent a letter to the Town of Carrboro stating that nothing
39 else would be done until hearing back from the Town of Carrboro, and there has been no
40 response.
41 Frank Clifton said that he has heard that the Town of Carrboro is trying to form a
42 committee of Aldermen members to review the siting criteria, but nothing has come back to the
43 Board of County Commissioners.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be nice to have some timeline or a timely
45 response from the Town of Carrboro on this process and maybe they could work with the
46 Mayor.
47 Chair Pelissier said that she would call the Mayor and ask what the plans are.
48 Commissioner McKee said that he sees a link between the funding for the Chapel Hill
49 Library and the Southwest Branch Library. He would like to have this discussion before
50 discussing the design plans and siting for a Southwest Branch Library.
6
1 Link Government Services Center:
2 Commissioner McKee made reference to page 95 and the 72% complete figure. He
3 asked if this was just the repairs that have been done with the sprinkler system and what is
4 seen now. It was answered yes. He said that there is a building next door to the Link Center in
5 which there are several employees of the Elections Board. He asked if there was a possibility
6 of moving that department to this area.
7 Commissioner Gordon encouraged the County Commissioners to think about whether
8 this is a temporary meeting solution or if this is a long-term solution. She does not see the
9 space in the Link Center being a good meeting room. She said that the meeting room should
10 be built as a meeting room instead of retrofitting something else. She would like to solve the
11 long-term space planning issue before deconstructing something.
12 Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for putting money into making the Link Government
13 Services Center handicapped accessible. He said that all government buildings should be ADA
14 compliant as soon as possible.
15 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the figure for this building and said that he
16 thought it was $1 million a couple of years ago. He asked if the geothermal system would be
17 used and if this savings was incorporated.
18 Pam Jones said that the cost of the geothermal system was separate from this building.
19 Commissioner McKee asked if there were figures for putting in office partitions in the
20 downstairs Link Government Services Center and Pam Jones said no.
21 Commissioner Foushee said that she respects the staff for funding needs for ADA
22 compliance, but since they have indicated that it is not known when the space needs study
23 would occur, it seems that it might be beneficial for the Board to be able to see an inventory of
24 the buildings that need ADA attention.
25
26 Information Technology:
27 Paul Laughton made reference to the blue handout which was the Information
28 Technology Capital sheet for FY 2012-13. This year, the proposal is $500,000, but the green
29 sheet has information on increasing this to $700,000 this year.
30 Clarence Grier said that every year the County spends $500,000 for IT for infrastructure
31 and all. This year, if they add $200,000 to existing allocations, they can get all of the IT
32 infrastructure updated in one year instead of doing it piece meal.
33
34 Paul Laughton continued summarizing the information.
35
36 Frank Clifton suggested that the County Commissioners take a tour of the existing jail
37 with the Sheriff.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said that when he toured the courthouse, he heard about the lack
39 of facilities for magistrates. Perhaps they could be accommodated with this potential new jail.
40
41 Emergency Services:
42
43 Viper Radio System:
44 Paul Laughton said that the Emergency Services Work Group has been charged to look
45 at these projects.
46 Commissioner McKee said that the work group will be addressing the need for the
47 additional towers fairly quickly. He said that he has been informed that a couple of fire
48 departments, working with a private contractor approved by the Highway Patrol, has
49 reprogrammed some of the radios and it is not a fix, but it has improved the reception to some
7
1 extent. These towers can also be used to expand other services such as internet, etc. There
2 would be multiple uses for these towers.
3 Commissioner Hemminger said that she is ok with this funding as a placeholder for now
4 while they wait for the Emergency Services Work group recommendations. She wants to make
5 sure that these are estimates and placeholders and not definitive things. She wants the work
6 'group to come back with recommendations.
7 Commissioner McKee said that the points are well taken.
8
9 Communication System Improvements:
10 Paul Laughton went through the various improvements. There is an option of
11 establishing County service districts as a way to pay for the radio replacements. This is on
12 page 33. This project would also be reviewed by the work group.
13 Commissioner McKee said that he has several issues with this project. He said that with
14 800 mHz radios, the fire departments currently provide funding and buy the radios out of their
15 own budgets. He has a question regarding why the fire departments are looking after their own
16 needs and now the County is suddenly taking over that particular part.
17 Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that either the County could
18 purchase the radios or the departments could purchase their own radios with the specifications
19 that match up with the radio system. Alamance County mandates the kind of radios that are
20 bought so that they are compatible. His concern is that there are several departments
21 managing their own radios and buying from different manufacturers, and there may be a
22 compatibility issue.
23 Commissioner Foushee said that she is fine with an option being presented, but it just
24 seemed to her that with decisions such as this, she would have thought that this was an issue
25 that the work group would have been charged to review.
26 Chair Pelissier said that does not necessarily have to be done through the County
27 budget, but it can be an agreement that everyone makes.
28 Commissioner McKee said that he is not aware of compatibility issues with departments'
29 radios, but he will know all of this by tomorrow afternoon.
30
31 Future Emergency Services Stations:
32 The first year has $50,000 for planning and assessment for future locations. No
33 locations have been determined at this point. This would be a charge to the work group for
34 recommendations. Years three through five, there is a new station at $500,000 each for the
35 land and construction. In years 6-10 there are two additional substations. This would be a total
36 of four substations over the next ten years.
37
38
39 Conservation Easements:
40 Paul Laughton said that $250,000 a year is going to these from the General Fund
41 starting in year two and continuing each year thereafter.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said that when the Board did a bond in 2001, they were told by
43 the Bond Attorney that they could not do conservation easements with bond money because
44 there would be no public access. That is why it had to come from a different source.
45
46 Eurosport Soccer Complex:
47 Commissioner Jacobs said that this has been a very successful project as far as usage
48 and it was put there for economic development purposes.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz asked for a measure of the economic benefits of this.
8
1 Dave Stancil said that this has been discussed lately and he hopes to get some
2 concrete figures soon.
3 Commissioner Gordon said that she too would like to see this impact since they do have
4 competing needs for soccer parks and usage and there are other places where soccer fields
5 could be built.
6
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a plan for the other Blackwood Farm to fund in
8 year six, but this one does not have a plan and yet it is being funded. The plan for the first
9 Blackwood Farm was worked out with a group of citizens, County Commissioners, and staff and
10 it took about a year. Now, that plan has been shelved and this plan has been moved way up
11 without having something seen or adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
12 Dave Stancil said that a big part of the rationale here is that there is a funding partner in
13 the Town of Chapel Hill and there is not one at the other Blackwood Farm.
14
15 Paul Laughton said that the next time the County Commissioners will discuss the CIP is
16 March 15th. There is time allotted for follow-up on the CIP and then they meet again on April
17 19th for about an hour.
18
19 Commissioner Foushee suggested suspending speaking on the CIP from pages 47-69
20 and going to school projects since school staff are here.
21
22 SCHOOL PROJECTS:
23
24 Orange County Schools (OCS):
25 Paul Laughton said that this begins on page 69. Included in this section are the
26 requested CIPs from both school systems. Both of them list funded and unfunded projects.
27 Orange County Schools sent a revised CIP, which is at the County Commissioners' places.
28 The changes are highlighted in yellow. On page 81, the Cedar Ridge classroom wing addition
29 was changed to add $300,000 in planning costs in year one. The other change is on page 84
30 of the revised CIP, which is Elementary School #8. There is also information on reassessing
31 the capacity at Orange High School. This analysis should be completed by early April.
32 The recommended funding for Orange County Schools is continuation of the pay-as-
33 you-go, the lottery fund, and the Cedar Ridge Auxiliary Gym in 2014-15 at$2,175,000 and then
34 in years 2015-16 the classroom wing addition. This would be an addition of 20 classrooms.
35 The current capacity is 1,000 students and the enrollment is 1,129.
36
37 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS):
38 The %-cent sales tax Article 46 is reflected in the special revenue fund section of the
39 CIP. The schools submitted how they would like those proceeds allotted.
40 Page 70 has some "unfunded" projects outlined. Page 71 has a total summary sheet of
41 funded and unfunded projects.
42 Commissioner Gordon asked that the SAPFO TAC information for both schools be
43 provided on larger pages. She stated that the CIP for the new school facilities should conform
44 to the provisions of the SAPFO.
45 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 70 and said that the Culbreth Middle
46 School science labs are still not funded and have not been funded for years. This is a core
47 instructional function.
48 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would also like to know about the SAPFO
49 numbers in the fall. She asked about the enrollment for elementary schools in OCS.
9
1 OCS.Chief Operating Officer George McFarley said that the student rates from the
2 SAPFO for single-family dwellings versus multi-family dwellings have almost flip-flopped. There
3 are more children out of apartment complexes than there were previously. He said that they
4 are considering an elementary school in the vicinity of Gravelly Hill Middle School. A lot of the
5 children from apartment complexes are coming from Ashbury in Mebane.
6 Donna Coffey said that the OCS Board knows this is an aggressive timeline of only two
7 years out, but they wanted to get this on the radar.
8 Commissioner Foushee said that all of this suggests that Orange County needs to invite
9 Mebane to be a part of the SAPFO agreement.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a meeting with the Mayor of Mebane and the
11 Chair and Vice-Chair awhile back (maybe when Commissioner Foushee was Vice-Chair).
12 There was discussion about the SAPFO and the need to bring Mebane in. He said that it is
13 important to proceed with joint planning with Mebane, but not just for SAPFO.
14 Chair Pelissier said that she and Donna Coffey may want to sit down with the City of
15 Mebane and discuss this issue.
16 Commissioner Jacobs suggested revisiting the projection of the multi-family housing
17 student generation.
18
19 2. Retiree Health Insurance Overview
20 Frank Clifton said that the staff is not proposing that the Board of County
21 Commissioners do anything at any specific time but this will affect the County's borrowing
22 capacity. He said that they are going to plan to set aside some funds for a reserve fund. He
23 said that the County spends about $1 million each year to fund retirees' health insurance.
24 Interim Human Resources Director Katherine Cathey went through the information in the
25 abstract.
26
27 BACKGROUND: The current Personnel Ordinance (Article IV, Section 28-36) requires the
28 County to provide health insurance, up to the same cost as active employees, for retirees who
29 have at least ten years of Orange County service upon retirement. Additionally, employees who
30 retire at age 65 or older and employees who retire due to disability with more than five years,
31 but less than ten years of Orange County service, are eligible for the 50% of this benefit.
32
33 Health coverage is provided differently depending on the age of the retiree. Retirees who have
34 not yet reached age 65 remain on the County's group health insurance and are eligible for the
35 dependent subsidy. In 2008, Commissioners approved a revision to the Personnel Ordinance
36 to stop subsidizing the cost of retiree dependent health care for employees hired after July 1,
37 2008. This has not had any noticeable impact on recruitment or on costs to date.
38
39 At age 65, retirees enroll in Medicare Part A (no cost to the retiree or County) and part B
40 (premium is deducted from the retiree's Social Security benefit), and the County pays for both a
41 Medicare supplement (Plan F) and Part D. Plan F is referred to as a "Medigap" plan because it
42 covers the gaps left by Medicare Parts A and B. Part D is prescription drug coverage. The
43 County has an arrangement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC (BCBSNC)whereby retirees
44 enroll in the BCBSNC Plan F and Part D, and the County receives and pays one bill for all
45 enrolled post-65 retirees. This reduces the administrative burden on the County but increases
46 the financial burden because there are lower cost providers for Medicare supplements and Part
47 D. While every Plan F includes the same benefits, Part D plans vary from provider to provider.
48
49 Like every Part D plan, the BCBSNC Part D plan does not cover every medication prescribed
50 for all retirees.
10
1
2 Medicare has made several changes in the past few years, as has BCBSNC. Whenever
3 possible, the County has reduced costs for Plan F and Part D by making administrative
4 changes that did not affect the post-65 retiree benefits. The average cost of the County's cost
5 for post-65 retiree Medicare coverage is less than half of the cost of the group health insurance
6 individual premium.
7
8 As of February 2012, more than 12% (more than 100 individuals) of current Orange County
9 employees are eligible to retire. As more baby-boomers retire and live longer, retiree health
10 insurance will become a greater cost to the County. In 2011, approximately 100 employees
11 were eligible to retire and receive retiree health insurance, and in 2012, the number of
12 employees eligible to retire will exceed 120.
13
14 Orange County's benefits exceed the average health insurance benefit in North Carolina in
15 terms of co-pays and deductibles. As a comparison, the following information is included:
16
17 - Attachment 1 —summary of employee health care benefits from other of local
18 government employers throughout the state.
19 - Attachment 2—Summary of Comparative retirees Health Cost and Liabilities
20 - Attachment 3— Projected Post-Employment Benefit Analysis through Fiscal Year 2017
21 - Attachment 4—Current Monthly Retiree Health Insurance Cost
22
23 Staff has previously identified a variety of options that lower the cost of employee and retiree
24 health care. These options were presented at the May 10, 2011 work session. Each option
25 has varying impacts on both retirees and the County.
26
27 The Manager recommended that the Board receive information on employee and retiree health
28 care and provide feedback regarding options related to employee and retiree health care
29 benefits. The FY 2012-13 proposed budget does not include any specific changes at this time,
30 but does expect to have budget projected increases (up to 15%) in premiums/costs.
31
32 Commissioner Yuhasz said that at a meeting with OPC Mental Health yesterday, they
33 were told that there are 11 employees that are on the retiree coverage that are under the age of
34 65, but when OPC dissolves on June 30th, there will be no more opportunities for these
35 employees to have retiree health coverage. It has been suggested and agreed by each of the
36 three counties in principle that those people who dedicated their professional services to OPC
37 deserve to have the benefit. It has been suggested that one of the three counties would accept
38 those 11 people into their health insurance plan and that OPC would fund the expenditure over
39 the period of time within that health plan. Chatham County is not particularly interested in
40 taking all of the people. He suggested that either Orange or Person County might be. OPC
41 would fund the expenditure at a level that is higher than what the County is currently paying. If
42 there is any left over, the county would keep it. If there was a shortfall, each of the three
43 counties would participate in a third of the cost of the overage. He asked the Board if they
44 would be willing to accept these employees into the system.
45 Frank Clifton said that he has been looking at the numbers. If it is funded as discussed,
46 it will not be a problem.
47 Commissioner McKee asked the staff to please make sure that all of this information is
48 put out to post-65 employees.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said that he appreciated the work that staff did to bring this to the
50 Board's attention. He said that starting a fund is a good idea now. He said that the County is
11
1 not in an emergency situation now, but they need to be clear to their retirees that the County is
2 not going to reduce the benefits, but only tweak them. He wants to be affirmative in standing by
3 the commitments.
4 Frank Clifton said that about 25% of the funds going to insurance are for retired
5 employees.
6 Commissioner Gordon asked if this would reduce the benefits for retirees.
7 Frank Clifton said that this depends on the decisions that are made.
8 Commissioner Hemminger suggested clarifying in the policy about the dependent
9 coverage and how it is only for those employed before July 1, 2008, and it is only 52%.
10 The Board decided to have this issue come back with some prioritization.
11
12 3. Presentation Regarding the 2013 Revaluation of Real Property
13 Director of Tax Administration Jenkins Crayton said that staff received some advance
14 information a couple of weeks ago that property values are starting to drop. He made a
15 PowerPoint presentation.
16
17 REVALUATION 2013
18
19 Local Economy Continues Growth
20
21 For 2011:
22 - Business Property Value: Up 4.8%
23 - Motor Vehicle Value: Up 7.8%
24 - Real Estate New Construction and Development:
25 ■ $170,000,000 (1.2%)
26 - Tax Collections: Coming in faster by 26 basis points
27
28 Charts indicating:
29 Property values have begun to drop and sales are fewer
30
31 Potential Revenue Neutral Tax Increases in 2013
32
33 Revenues Needed
34 - Orange County: Up 7.7% or 6.6 cents $9.9 million
35 - Chapel Hill: Up 8.3% of 4.1 cents $2.6 million
36 - Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools:
37 Up 7.6% or 1.4 cents $1.4 million
38 - Hillsborough: Up 6.2% or 0.38 cents $28,000
39 - Carrboro: Up 5.3% or 3.1 cents $590,000
40
41
42
43 Frank Clifton said that the County could do the revaluation in the four-year cycle that the
44 Board of County Commissioners has planned, but the cost of doing a revaluation is that every
45 governmental entity in Orange County will need to raise taxes to be revenue neutral.
46 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the alternative is not to do a revaluation and wait until
47 the values catch up, but he is not in favor of that.
48 Frank Clifton said that the requirement is to do a revaluation every eight years.
49 Chair Pelissier said that what worries her is that they would be basing a revaluation on
50 so few sales. She questions whether there would be a good revaluation.
12
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see the percentage of sales that the
2 peer counties did in 2009 versus 2012.
3 Chair Pelissier agreed that this would be good data.
4 Frank Clifton said that the Board would need to make a decision to defer before the
5 budget by this summer and they need to have conversations with the towns.
6
7 With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Foushee,
8 seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 PM.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
12
13 Donna S. Baker, CMC
14 Clerk to the Board
15
16
17
1
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 March 13, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March
10 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services in Hillsborough, N. C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
14 Yuhasz
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
18 Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker(All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22 Chair Pelissier went through the additional items at the County Commissioners' places:
23
24 - Yellow sheet—revised suggestions to item 5-m, BOCC Rules of Procedure—
25 Revised Booklet
26 - Blue sheet—Chair Pelissier's memo about the Qualified School Construction Bonds
27 (QSCB)-for Board comments
28
29
30 Chair Pelissier asked Frank Clifton to introduce the new staff person.
31 Financial Services Director Clarence Grier introduced Sharon Laisure, who will be acting
32 as the Interim Human Resources Director for the next six months.
33
34 PUBLIC CHARGE
35
36 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
37
38 2. Public Comments
39 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
40 Hillsborough Mayor Joe Phelps said that he listened to the Board's discussion about
41 property revaluation and he would like to be placed on a future agenda to give the County
42 Commissioners some information. He said that it looks like the County Commissioners can set
43 the standard for this. He said that he has a lot of data.
44 This request will be addressed in the agenda review process.
45
46 Chris Weaver read a prepared statement:
47 "On February 7th the BOCC put forth a weapons ban on the consent agenda. It was
48 removed due to concerns from the public who had short notice and the minor concerns of
49 Board members over the inclusion of pocket knives. There was much presumptuous in mixing
50 the characteristics of criminals with those of lawful citizens. There was open discussion by the
2
1 Board to allow all interested parties to participate in the process of crafting the ordinance. That
2 interest of citizen participation appears to have evaporated.
3 At the February 21St Board meeting there was a petition by the Vice-Chair to return the
4 item to regular agenda without a community meeting on the matter. On March 6th this was
5 denied by the Chair in favor of more review and return to regular agenda at least by summer
6 vacation with no plans of community meeting in the interim.
7 From email exchanges with members of staff there is no indication this matter will find
8 itself in a venue where actual dialog may occur as we were led to believe.
9 It is in the interest of shared information and transparency and expediency in
10 government that we ask three things:
11 - A community meeting to discuss the ordinance
12 - To better understand the scrutiny of, dedication of, and commitment of CWP
13 holders, we ask that the BOCC, Attorney, and Manager all receive CWP provided
14 free of charge. The offer for CWP stands for all County employees at the regular
15 rate.
16 - That this matter not be pushed out to a date in which we are all distracted by other
17 events."
18
19 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
20 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
21 below.)
22
23 3. Petitions by Board Members
24 NONE
25
26 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
27 a. Presentation on the County's Online Service Offerings
28 The Board received information on the current state of Orange County's web-based
29 online services and provided any recommendations and directions for future expansion.
30 Todd Jones, Chief Information Officer, said that he requested to be on the agenda
31 tonight to give the Board of County Commissioners a presentation of the current state of
32 Orange County's web-based online services. There has been an exhaustive review of the
33 larger counties in the state that are deemed to be technology leaders. He made reference to
34 the spreadsheet with online services and different counties that offer them.
35
36 Todd Jones gave some background information and said since the inception of the County's
37 internet site in the mid-1990's, the County has envisioned providing a wide variety of County
38 services through the Internet. These services, sometimes known as e-Government, allow the
39 public to interact with Orange County government anytime and from any Internet connected
40 computer. This strategy marks a deliberate transition in the County website from the
41 information source to a resource for engaging the public and county government in a wide
42 variety of interactive services. In addition to the clear benefits of public accessibility and
43 convenience, online services can alleviate the inefficiencies of staff managing paper and
44 manually processing forms and payments.
45
46 Orange County's Information Technologies Department has been working with other
47 departments to add online services as the website evolves. There has been a recent push to
48 position the County's online services among those leading the state. This initiative has included
49 seeking input from departments, comparing Orange County's offerings to those of other
50 counties and brainstorming new offerings unique to Orange County.
3
1
2 The attached spreadsheet (in permanent agenda file in Clerk's office) compares Orange
3 County's online services to other counties in the state deemed to be technology leaders. This
4 spreadsheet defines online services to be any service which uses interactive Internet
5 technologies to deliver information or conduct transactions. This excludes services labeled as
6 online services which are only hyperlinks to static documents, lists or forms that require printing.
7
8 The spreadsheet shows that Orange County provides the most complete and comprehensive
9 set of online services in the state, including the largest counties and those deemed to be the
10 most technologically progressive. Orange County offers some unique online services,
11 including:
12
13 - The farm produce locator tool—
14 http://www.orangecountvfarms.org/ProductSearch.asp This tool allows the public to
15 search for a variety of farms and farm products online at any time from any Internet
16 enabled computer. This service helps connect the public with the wide variety of
17 agricultural offerings throughout the County's myriad farms, while reinforcing the
18 commitment to promoting local agriculture.
19
20 - The GIS mailing label tool—
21 http://server2.co.oran-ge.nc.us/OrangeNCGOS/default.aspx, 'Buffer" tab. This
22 allows the public to create a set of printable mailing labels with addresses of all
23 properties within a user-specified distance of a selected parcel. This is particularly
24 helpful when a resident seeks to alert property owners within, for example, 500 feet
25 of that individual's property. This tool has significantly alleviated demands on Land
26 Records' staff time, while giving the public the ability to create mailing labels
27 themselves more quickly and cheaply.
28
29 - Online pet registration —
30 http://www.co.orange.nc.us/AnimalServices/LicensingOnline.asp This tool allows
31 pet owners to register their pets online using a system that securely processes credit
32 card payments. This system has quickly become a popular and convenient way for
33 the public to conduct business with Animal Services any time and from anywhere. It
34 has reduced paper processing and manual financial transactions for Animal Services
35 staff.
36
37 - Facilities reservations—
38 https://server3.co.orange.nc.us/wbwsc/webtrac.wsc/Wbsearch.html?xxmod=fr. This
39 tool allows groups to reserve County facilities online, using an interactive tool that
40 ensures adherence to County policies, while matching group needs with appropriate
41 facilities. It has allowed the Facilities Use Policy to be implemented quickly and
42 publicly.
43
.44 Other Orange County online services are noteworthy for their innovative features, including:
45
46 - ARiES —hftp://aries.co.orange.nc.us This suite of tools leverages the power of
47 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) without exposing the public to the complexity
48 of the underlying GIS technology. Using simple street addresses rather than
49 esoteric identifiers, the public can find a cornucopia of information related to a
50 property. This address-centric approach is possible now that the addressing
4
1 ordinance has greatly improved the correlation of addresses to parcels. There are
2 only a couple of similar tools in the state (Wake and Mecklenburg), but none with the
3 level of detail, Google maps integration and accompanying single function toolset of
4 ARiES.
5
6 - Parks locator map—http://server2.co.orange.nc.us/ParkLocator/ This tool allows the
7 public to search parks throughout the County based on specific amenities. It is the
8 only tool of its kind allowing multiple amenity search (e.g., find all the parks in the
9 County that have basketball courts, picnic facilities, and a playground), Google Maps
10 integration and covering all County parks including those managed by municipalities.
11
12 Information Technologies staff is also investigating the feasibility of developing mobile apps of
13 some of these tools which could run on iPhones, iPads, and Android devices.
14
15 As shown in the spreadsheet comparing Orange County's online services with those of other
16 North Carolina counties, Orange County's variety and completeness of online services is
17 among the leaders, if not the leader, in the state of North Carolina. The Information
18 Technologies Department continues to partner with other departments to identify additional
19 areas in which government information and services can be made available over the Internet.
20 These ongoing efforts include: continuing study of peer counties' efforts, review of vendor
21 enhancement plans, outreach to the community on what the public would like to see available,
22 and internal brainstorming on capabilities that may position Orange County as pioneers for
23 certain services.
24
25 Todd Jones said Information Technologies appreciates the strong support from the Board of
26 County Commissioners in these endeavors, as well as the excellent collaboration from other
27 Orange County departments. Staff is confident that the County can maintain and expand its
28 position as leaders in online services through continued efforts to excel in these areas.
29
30 Commissioner Gordon asked about a map of the fire districts. Todd Jones said that in
31 the larger GIS site, it will show the larger boundaries.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked Todd Jones to tell the public the amount of staff used to
33 provide this service as opposed to other counties. Todd Jones said that Orange County is at
34 about 50% staff of comparable-sized counties, but it provides as much or more than staffs twice
35 their size.
36 Chair Pelissier asked about outreach to the public.
37 Todd Jones said that they are using some of the local blogs in the County. He asked for
38 suggestions on outreach.
39 Frank Clifton said that there are regular inquiries from users of the website and those
40 are always forwarded to IT.
41
42 b. UNC Report on Entrepreneurship Opportunities in Orange County
43 The Board received a report prepared by the University of North Carolina at Chapel
44 Hill's Department of City and Regional Planning that summarizes the current state of
45 entrepreneurship activity originating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
46 provided comments to staff.
47 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, introduced the UNC consultant Dr.
48 Milizia. He said that Dr. Milizia's research shows the current state of entrepreneurial activity
49 originating from the University, and identifies options where Orange County could work to
5
1 regain more of these spinoff companies. This report is a follow-up to an earlier review
2 leveraging UNC to promote entrepreneurship and business expansion in Orange County.
3 Since 2000, 51 companies have originated from UNC through its Office of Technology
4 Development (OTD), with even more companies started outside the OTD. While approximately
5 90% of these companies remain in the Triangle region, few of these companies are located in
6 Orange County. To enable Orange County to attract and retain a subset of these companies, a
7 clearer understanding of their space requirements and rent levels is necessary. Dr. Malizia
8 documented the space needs of UNC's spin-off companies, interviewed representatives from
9 current spin offs, documented the existing real estate climate, and proposed recommendations
10 on how Orange County can better position itself to retain these companies.
11
12 Dr. Malizia's recommendation from the report includes:
13
14 - Orange County could focus on more specialized niches in the startup landscape.
15 - Until UNC's Carolina North develops to where it can more directly support life
16 science entrepreneurs, Orange County could develop office/flex space for life
i7 science companies, particularly in the NC Highway 54 corridor, possibly through a
i8 public/private partnership.
19 - The potential for UNC's Odum Village (former married student housing apartment
20 complex) to support campus startups could be evaluated. Odum Village is located
21 on south campus near the UNC Medical School.
22 - At some future point, as Orange County eventually utilizes more of the southern
23 campus properties in Chapel Hill and potentially shifts some operations to that
24 location, the Economic Development Department could evaluate using various
25 available County spaces in downtown Chapel Hill, such as the County-owned "Jobs
26 Link" building at 503 West Franklin Street, as an incubator center.
27 - Orange County could evaluate the potential for Carr Mill Mall to house startups, with
28 short term, reasonable rental rates.
29 - Orange County could evaluate the potential to incorporate an incubator in the
30 proposed mixed use project being developed at 300 East Main Street in Carrboro.
31 - Orange County could evaluate the potential for Hillsborough to accommodate
32 product-oriented spinoffs in existing industrial/warehouse space (such as
33 Hillsborough Business Center) as well as County-owned facilities in Hillsborough.
34 - Target the County's existing small business loan program to focus on startups, to
35 include incorporating rent subsidies in the program.
36 - Leverage existing County resources by inviting the participation,of high net worth
37 residents to support entrepreneurship growth and incubator facility operations.
38 - Evaluate the potential successes of other emerging sectors such as green
39 companies, contract research organization and defense contractors.
40 - Evaluate the export potential of prepared foods.
41 - Form a working group to include representatives from UNC Chapel Hill and Orange
42 County to coordinate partnerships.
43
44 Dr. Malizia said that what this study involved was to look at the companies that
45 demanded real estate and locations that would supply this. He said that they wanted to find the
46 appropriate place where Orange County fit in this regional area and a location where Orange
47 County would not be in competition with Wake or Durham. Orange County needs to look at
48 startup companies whose employees live in Orange County. The most attractive niche would
49 be young companies that are beyond the startup stage. He said that the demand is in life
50 science groups as well as information technology groups. The life science segment has high-
6
1 finished space needs. The information technology arena would need general flex space. The
2 Triangle is over-supplied in this kind of space, but Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Carrboro is
3 not. However, this space that is available here is expensive. The recommendation to go after
4 the life science group would be to go to Carolina North. He said that.in the report he talked
5 about developing buildings that would provide some redevelopment opportunities for some of
6 the life science groups (NC 54 corridor).
7 The "tech savvy" group would have more relaxed and unconventional work styles.
8 These are companies such as those at American Underground at the American Tobacco
9 Campus.
10 There is an opportunity at Odum Village in the intermediate term, but not for a couple of
11 years. In 2015, the University intends not to use that space further.
12 Commissioner Hemminger said that these companies seem to want to be in an
13 urbanized area. She asked if these companies still have a strong tie to UNC.
14 Commissioner McKee encouraged the Economic Development staff to continue with
15 these recommendations. He said that this is very good thinking.
16 Commissioner Foushee said that one of the recommendations is to have the County's
17 small business loan program to focus on these types of companies and to set aside funding to
18 encourage these types of companies.
19
20 5. Consent Agenda
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
22 to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
23
24 a. Minutes
25 The Board approved the minutes from January 24, 31 and February 10, 2012 as submitted
26 by the Clerk to the Board.
27 b. Appointments—None
28
29 c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
30 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
31 consideration.
32 d. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
33 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
34 values related to fifteen (15) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance
35 with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
36 e. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
37 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to one
38 untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year.
39 f. Jail Inspection Report
40 The Board received the jail inspection report for January 4, 2012 from the North Carolina
41 Department of Health and Human Services.
42 g_ Bid Award: Electronic Security Control System Upgrade for Orange County Jail
43 The Board awarded the bid to Norment Security Group, Inc. of Garner, North Carolina at a
44 cost of$144,789 and authorized the Financial Services Director to execute the necessary
45 paperwork.
46 h. Notice of Public Hearing on Orange County's 2012 Legislative Agenda
47 The Board directed the Clerk to the Board and the County Manager to publish a notice of
48 the Board of County Commissioners' plans to hold a public hearing on April 3, 2012 at 7:00
49 p.m. at the Department of Social Services — Hillsborough Commons at 113 Mayo Street in
50 Hillsborough, North Carolina to receive public comments on potential items for inclusion in
7
1 Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2012 North Carolina General Assembly
2 Session.
3 i. Authorization to Declare Items Surplus
4 The Board declared two pieces of heavy equipment surplus for disposal through GovDeals
5 and authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of the items.
6 L License Renewal for Farmers' Market Pavilion—Eno River Farmers' Market, Inc.
7 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
8 consideration.
9 k. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)Amendment Outline
10 and Schedule for Upcoming Items (Special Flood Hazard Area and
11 CommerciallIndustrial Standards)
12 The Board approved the process components and schedule for two government initiated
13 items anticipated for the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
14 I. Resolution Approving Application for a Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan to
15 Finance the Proposed McGowan Outfall
16 The Board approved a resolution authorizing staff to apply for a North Carolina Department
17 of Environment and Natural Resources Clean Water Revolving Fund Loan funding to
18 finance the elimination of an existing pump station and construction of a proposed sewer
19 collections outfall line and authorized the Chair to sign.
20
21 RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
22 WHEREAS, The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the North Carolina
23 Water Infrastructure Act of 2005 (NCGS 159G) have authorized the making of
24 loans and grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of
25 construction of wastewater collection system infrastructure, and
26 WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners has need for and intends to
27 construct a wastewater collection system infrastructure project described as the
28 McGowan Outfall and
29 WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners intends to request state loan
30 assistance for the project,
31 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
32 COMMISSIONERS:
33 That Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Applicant, will arrange
34 financing for all remaining costs of the project, if approved for a State loan
35 award.
36 That the Applicant will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the
37 project a schedule of fees and charges and other available funds which will
38 provide adequate funds for proper operation, maintenance, and administration of
39 the system and the repayment of all principal and interest on the debt.
40 That the governing body of the Applicant agrees to include in the loan
41 agreement a provision authorizing the State Treasurer, upon failure of the
42 County to make scheduled repayment of the loan, to withhold from the County
43 any State funds that would otherwise be distributed to the local government unit
44 in an amount sufficient to pay all sums then due and payable to the State as a
45 repayment of the loan.
8
1 That the Applicant will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the
2 project on completion of construction thereof.
3 That Frank Clifton, County Manager, the Authorized Official, and successors
4 so titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the
5 Applicant with the State of North Carolina for a loan to aid in the construction of
6 the project described above.
7 That the Authorized Official, and successors so titled, is hereby authorized and
8 directed to furnish such information as the appropriate State agency may request
9 in connection with such application or the project: to make the assurances as
10 contained above; and to execute such other documents as may be required in
11 connection with the application.
12 That the Applicant has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all
13 Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to
14 the project and to Federal and State grants and loans pertaining thereto.
15 Adopted this the 13t' day of March, 2012, at Hillsborough, North Carolina
16
17 m. BOCC Rules of Procedure—Revised Booklet
18 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
19 consideration.
20
21
22 VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
23
24 6. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
25
26 L License Renewal for Farmers' Market Pavilion— Eno River Farmers'
27 Market, Inc.
28 The Board considered renewal of the license agreement for the Eno River Farmers'
29 Market Inc., for use of the Farmers' Market Pavilion through March 31, 2015 (existing
30 agreement expires April 1, 2012) and authorizing the Chair to sign.
31 Lisa Pope is the treasurer of the Farmer's Market and said that they are looking at the
32 proposed fee structure for usage of the facility. She said that the structure, as proposed, would
33 pose a financial hardship on the market itself. The current budget for the year with over$1,000
34 in fees would put the market in a deficit. She said that the prior market contract for the first
35 three years of usage suggested that the contract could be reviewed and possibly renewed
36 under the same terms if the County sees fit. This prior agreement waived any fees for the
37 market for the usage. Since the building was built on a grant, the operating expenses are
38 minimal. She said that they would appreciate being able to use the facility with no fees, but if
39 that is not an option, they would suggest a flat rate of$500 per year for all times suggested
40 (mid-week and Saturday market). The current fee structure is reasonable for groups that
41 occasionally use the facility (wedding receptions, etc.), but it becomes a financial burden on the
42 farmers to have that fee paid on a weekly basis.
43 Austin Genhe spoke on the benefit of the market to the downtown area. He said that it
44 is a vital part of the community.
45
9
1 Commissioner Gordon asked if the market had approached the Town of Hillsborough.
2 Austin Genhe said that the Tourism Board helps the market with a grant, but this is not
3 guaranteed every year.
4 Commissioner McKee said that, considering the County's focus on encouraging and
5 helping small agricultural entities, he would support waiving the fees or making them minimal.
6 He would prefer waiving the fees.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with sentiment of Commissioner McKee. He
8 said that it is not encouraging to go from a subsidized rent program to off the cliff fees. He
9 suggested talking about setting fees during the budget process.
10 Commissioner Hemminger said that they all want to be supportive of the farmer's
11 market. She said that it would be difficult to waive fees for one group if there are other groups
12 coming in regularly. She is amenable to the suggestion of$500 annually.
13 Commissioner Yuhasz agreed that the full fee is excessive in this case. He asked how
14 many regular members participate each time it is open. He supported Commissioner Jacobs'
15 suggestion to investigate this more and discuss an appropriate fee.
16 Commissioner Gordon agreed that the Board needs to discuss what an appropriate fee
17 should be. She asked the staff to provide a basis for a decision based on principles. She said
18 that there is competition for this location. She would like the staff to look this over and see if
19 the fee should be less and what would be reasonable.
20 Chair Pelissier said that this license agreement will expire on April 1St. She asked what
21 would happen if they wait. She is concerned about staff time for doing an in-depth analysis.
22 Frank Clifton said that the Board adopted a Facilities Use Policy last year. The staff
23 studied this and came up with an analysis based on the committed use of this facility. There is
24 some competition for this facility. He said that he would follow the Board's direction.
25 Commissioner McKee said that the facility is used by the local farmers heavily. He said
26 that the $500 annual rent is reasonable and the agreement ends soon. He said that the Board
27 needs to make a decision.
28 Commissioner Foushee disagreed and she asked John Roberts about the agreement
29 and the terms of termination. She said that the agreement does not speak to an extension of
30 the current agreement. She has a problem with taking this decision out of context of the fee
31 structure and opening it up to other requests. She suggested extending the agreement until the
32 Board has had this discussion on fee structures during budget deliberations, such as July 1St
33 John Roberts said that Section 4 says that is can be extended for two years beyond the
34 three-year term. He agreed with Commissioner Foushee about making exceptions. He said
35 that there should be a structure in place for making exceptions so that the County is not
36 inundated with similar requests.
37 Commissioner Jacobs reminded the Board that the initial reason that there is only one
38 group using this facility is because there was a personality conflict that precluded a competing
39 group from being willing to use the facility. It is not that the County selected one over the other;
40 it is that one refused to participate.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
43 • Defer consideration until the Board's review of the County fee schedule during the
44 budget process;
45 • Regard this facility as a specialized use with a cost structure that reflects that
46 difference; and
47 • Adopt the $500 fee for the 2012-13 year(extending the current agreement for one
48 year)
49
50 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
10
1
2 John Roberts asked the Board to make another motion to authorize the Chair or
3 Manager to sign a one-year extension.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
5 authorize the Chair or Manager to sign a one-year extension on this current agreement.
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 C. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
9 The Board considered adoption of a release/refund resolution related to 30 requests for
10 motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked to be excused from voting for this because he has an
12 automobile on this item.
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
14 excuse Commissioner Jacobs from voting on this item.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
17 Foushee to adopt the release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
18 30 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS (6-0, without Commissioner Jacobs)
20
21 M. BOCC Rules of Procedure— Revised Booklet
22 The Board considered approval of the revised BOCC Rules of Procedure booklet.
23 Commissioner Gordon made reference to her handout, which was on the yellow sheet.
24 She summarized her suggestions.
25
26 Page 8—Suggest that in Rule 8 (next to last line on the page), the word "would" should
27 be changed to "shall" so that it reads "shall also be placed...." It seems this change is needed
28 for consistency with the previous wording.
29
30 Page 9—Also in Rule 8, in the second line at the top of the page, should the word
31 "usually" be deleted? It would then read "(48-72 hours before the meeting)."
32
33 Page 16— In Rule 22, in the second line of the first paragraph, should the word "may"
34 be changed to "shall" so that it reads "....board shall excuse members...."?
35
36 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker made reference to the suggestion on page 9 and said
37 that there may circumstances out of the staffs control, and this wording was in an effort to
38 make it more generalized. There is no legal requirement for when it is put out there. She
39 prefers to leave it as "generally" or"usually."
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked the County Attorney about suspending the rules on Rule 5
41 on page 13. He said that for petitions from the public, there may be times when something has
42 to be acted upon. He said that making it "will" and "all such requests" makes it exclusionary
43 and inflexible. If there could be a motion to suspend the rules, then he will not change the
44 wording.
45 John Roberts said that in Rule 22, after the words, "official conduct," he would add "as
46 provided by law."
47 Frank Clifton said that with suspending the rules, as long as the intent is clear, then it is
48 sufficient.
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
50 approve the revised BOCC Rules of Procedure, with the following changes:
11
1 - Page 8—Rule 8, change the word "would"to "shall"
2 - Page 16—Rule 22, change the word "may" to "shall" and add "as provided by law" at
3 the end.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6
7 7. Public Hearings
8 NONE
9
10 8. Regular Agenda
11 a. Approval of the Construction of Orange Grove Fire Stations#2 and #3 in
12 the Cane Creek Fire District
13 The Board considered approval of the recommendation from the Emergency Services
14 Workgroup to proceed with the construction of Orange Grove Fire Stations#2 and#3 in the
15 Cane Creek Fire District.
16 Commissioner Yuhasz asked to be excused from voting from this because he has been
17 asked by the Orange Grove Fire Department regarding surveying some of this property.
18 A motion was made Commissioner Hemminger, seconded Commissioner Jacobs to
19 excuse Commissioner Yuhasz from voting on this item.
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that this was Orange Grove Fire
23 Department's idea because of the number of people outside the six-mile boundary. He said
24 that Orange County has 1,100 residents that are outside the six-mile boundary.
25 The first station will be on Rocky Ridge Road and will solve the issue for 400 property
26 owners. The second station will be near the Alamance County Line. There are approximately
27 200 homeowners in this area that are more than six road miles from a station.
28
29 Chief Tommy Holmes from Orange Grove Fire Department thanked the County
30 Commissioners for this opportunity. He said that they took it upon themselves to find a solution
31 for this problem. He said that they tried to do the proper thing and be fiscally conservative, but
32 now there is a need for more stations. It will be sometime in 2013 before construction begins.
33 The stations will cost about$70,000 each.
34 Commissioner Gordon asked about the equipment needed and Chief Holmes said that
35 he would need to purchase two vehicles. It was answered that it would cost about$400,000 to
36 outfit each station.
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
38 Hemminger to approve the recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup for the
39 construction of both Orange Grove Fire Stations#2 and#3 in the Cane Creek Fire District.
40 VOTE: Ayes, 6, No, 0 (Commissioner Yuhasz was excused)
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
43 send a thank-you letter to the Nutters for their continued community service and for their
44 donation of land for one of these fire stations.
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 b. Landfill Neighborhood Illegal Dumping Cleanup/Collection
48 The Board reviewed staffs plans and timeline and considered authorizing staff to
49 proceed with the cleanup of waste improperly dumped on properties within % mile of the
50 Orange County Landfill.
12
1 Michael Talbert summarized the information in the agenda abstract.
2
3 BACKGROUND: On October 4, 2011 the Board of Commissioners authorized staff to
4 proceed with a 'one-time' effort to clean up illegal dump sites located within three-fourths of one
5 mile of the landfill boundary (Attachment 1), at no cost to the individual property owners. This
6 item provides the opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to review staffs plans
7 and timeline to proceed with the cleanup of waste improperly dumped on properties within 3/
8 mile of the Orange County Landfill. The plan is subject to modification relative to other
9 priorities.
10
11 Subsequent to the October 4th authorization, staff has performed a windshield survey of the
12 area as well as spoken to property owners and otherwise inquired about the extent of the illegal
13 dumping problem. As a result, staff has acquired additional information that will impact final
14 cleanup planning. There appear to be two large, unregulated (non-permitted) and currently
15 inactive for-profit disposal sites within the delineated %mile area (Attachment 2). These sites
16 raise complicated legal issues surrounding potential County and property owner liability that
17 require a more measured approach. This has caused staff, pursuant to County Attorney
18 advice, to amend the previous planning to take this, and perhaps other, unexpected and
19 potentially problematic dump sites into account (Attachment 3).
20
21 One property of concern has been recently purchased by St. Paul AME Church. The church
22 has submitted applications to the Town of Chapel Hill for a rezoning of 20.4 acres from R-1 to
23 R-5 zoning and for a special use permit as a mixed use development (to be developed in
24 phases)that includes 350 parking spaces, fellowship hall, administrative complex, day care,
25 gymnasium, independent living units, memorial garden, sales office, sanctuary,
26 wellness/senior/teen center, mausoleum, assisted living/continuing care units, guest house and
27 health clinic. These development applications are currently proceeding through the Town of
28 Chapel Hill's development review process and it is the County's understanding that the Town
29 has requested that the applicant submit a "landfill mitigation plan."
30
31 The property seems to contain a variety of materials that are buried over a several acre area
32 and contains construction and demolition debris, land clearing and inert debris, and possibly
33 municipal solid waste and/or commercial waste materials. This unregulated and non-permitted
34 dump was the subject of a Warning Letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment
35 and Natural Resources in February 1992 (re: non-conforming dump site). However, there is no
36 record that additional action was taken on this matter and there is no record of Orange County
37 being notified. Staff believes the County should use utmost caution by not taking any cleanup
38 action (excavation of waste materials) that might expose Orange County to substantial
39 environmental/financial liability.
40
41 The County Health Department has historically provided well water sampling in this area which
42 includes the wells down-gradient of this "dump site". Additionally, the area residents have been
43 offered water sampling at no cost through the Landfill Area Water Assistance Fund approved by
44 the BOCC last year. Based on available data to date, there has been no contamination that
45 could be deemed likely to originate from this buried waste. Health Department Staff will
46 continue to evaluate groundwater data as it becomes available. Area residents on well water
47 will continue to be encouraged to request testing of their drinking water wells at no cost. If wells
48 are discovered that appear to have been impacted by this dump site, Health Department and
49 Solid Waste Department Staff will collaborate to develop plans of action related to resident
50 notification and site mitigation for Board consideration. It may also be necessary to include NC
13
1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Health and Human
2 Services in site evaluation and/or mitigation discussions.
3
4 At the time this neighborhood cleanup program was conceived, it was not known that
5 unregulated, non-permitted for-profit waste dumps existed in a neighborhood nearby the landfill.
6 There are two of these type dump locations that have been identified that fall into this category
7 that staff is aware of at this time. The neighborhood cleanup program is not intended to
8 mitigate potentially large areas where substantial quantities of unknown debris/trash have been
9 buried or otherwise landfilled. Therefore staff advises that some limitations or constraints be
10 applied to this program in order to avoid regulatory, environmental and financial liability.
11
12 Staff believes it is not in Orange County's best interests to become involved in cleanup activities
13 where there is a reasonable potential for liability and has therefore developed a draft
14 neighborhood cleanup protocol and timeline (Attachment 4) with the objective to provide
15 valuable cleanup services for neighborhoods within 3/mile of the landfill, consistent with the
16 direction of the Board, while being judicious in order to avoid incurring unreasonable liability. It
17 is staff's understanding that the intent of the cleanup activity is to remove those piles of trash
18 and other materials that have been dumped (littering, roadside dumping, etc.) in the
19 neighborhoods surrounding the landfill and not large quantities that represents unknown
20 debris/waste that has been land disposed without proper permits or licenses.
21
22 The process envisioned and discussed in more detail in Attachment 4 includes:
23
24 - Distribution of letter to property owners within 3/ mile of the landfill informing them
25 that they are eligible for a County provided illegal dumping cleanup, based on certain
26 criteria that will be outlined in the letter
27 - Provide a time period not exceeding 90 days to respond to County letter
28 - Solicitation of proposals from companies interested in and capable of providing
29 cleanup services, selecting two that will be under contract to Orange County
30 - Receiving expressions of interest from property owners within 90-day deadline
31 - County staff, along with selected cleanup service contractors, will evaluate each
32 property to determine level of effort and equipment/labor resources necessary for
33 cleanup, to identify any questionable materials that may be present (hazardous
34 waste or buried waste materials) and to evaluate contractor access to the debris.
35 - Obtain written authorization from property owner to conduct agreed upon cleanup
36 activities and necessary liability waivers
37 - Staff obtain quotes for service and authorize a contractor to proceed with cleanup
38 - Objective is to complete all neighborhood cleanup activities no later than April 1,
39 2013, but work must be completed by the anticipated June 30, 2013 landfill closure.
40
41
42 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs for this cleanup project are dependent on the level of
43 response from residents eligible for this service and the ultimate conditions existing in the
44 designated area. Previous estimates began at about $50,000, but costs also could easily
45 exceed this amount. All funding for this project will be provided by the Solid Waste Enterprise
46 Fund.
47
48 PUBLIC COMMENT:
49
14
1 Joan Garnett said that she was representing Justice United. She conceded her three
2 minutes to Rev. Robert Campbell.
3 Chair Pelissier said that the Board normally does not allow this, but she would this time.
4
5 Rev. Robert Campbell said that he is speaking for RENA, the Coalition to End Racism,
6 and Justice United. He thanked the County Commissioners for closing the landfill. He said that
7 in December the County Commissioners promised to clean up 40 illegal dumpsites, which
8 includes these two that were mentioned in this item. He spoke about a surrey that was done
9 that showed the water was contaminated. He said that the County has this information. He
10 said that when it was first brought up to clean up these sites, it was stated that it would cost
11 about$500,00041 million to clean it up. He said that $50,000 will not be sufficient. He said
12 that the illegal dump sites are a liability to Orange County.
13 Sara Hatcher, Master's student of UNC School of Public Health and the former Project
14 Leader of UNC's Engineers Without Borders project, said that she is thrilled by the many steps
15 taken in the last year to provide this community with the services it has been promised. She
16 said that the project done through Engineers Without Borders identified over 40 illegal dumping
17 sites, many of which were located within the headwaters of Bolin Creek Watershed. There
18 were approximately 135 tires, along with hazardous materials such as antifreeze, motor oil, and
19 paint. This represents a history of disrespect for the community and has potential lasting
20 environmental health implications. She urged the County to reconsider the restrictions involving
21 buried, partially buried, and hazardous or dangerous materials as it moves forward with the
22 landfill neighborhood illegal dumping cleanup and collection initiative.
23
24 Chair Pelissier apologized to her colleagues that she allowed time to be conceded.
25 John Roberts said that the potential of liability is from many sources and County staff
26 has been given information that some of these sites may have been operated in the past as a
27 for-profit landfill. He cannot verify this at this time. He said that the cleanup costs for this would
28 be extremely high, but that is not the reason that he strongly counseled them not to touch this.
29 He counseled the County Commissioners not to touch this because of the potential for a
30 tremendous liability from the State and Federal governments. The County taxpayers cannot
31 afford this potential liability.
32 Commissioner Foushee asked John Roberts to explain to the public what the liabilities
33 are.
34 John Roberts said that there are several state and federal acts such as the Clean Water
35 Acts, Resource and Conservation Recovery Act, etc. Each of these laws has provisions that
36 anyone who transports, disturbs, or excavates hazardous or toxic materials, regardless of
37 whether it was intended or not, becomes liable for that cleanup. This is a very expensive
38 cleanup. It would be millions of dollars.
39 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County cannot possibly know what is there until it
40 investigates, and once it investigates, it cannot possibly avoid the full responsibility of whatever
41 is found. John Roberts said that once this is disturbed, the County becomes liable.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said that this issue came up with the development of Fairview
43 Park, and that is why the County did a land swap with Hillsborough and did not disturb the area
44 that had materials buried. He thinks that there are two issues here—one is the issue of what
45 the County is willing to remove and the other is an issue of public health of the people that live
46 there. He said that the immediate issue at hand is to deal with what can be readily removed.
47 He thinks that there should be some sort of plan to look at how to address or protect public
48 health. He asked if the Health Department could review the water contamination data that has
49 been given to the County Commissioners. He also asked if the property owners could agree to
50 put in monitoring wells to get some data along the edges of those properties so that there would
15
1 be some scientific evidence about what was coming out without having any acceptance of
2 responsibility. He asked the Attorney if it was possible to determine if one of these dumping
3 sites was for-profit.
4 John Roberts said that the State has mechanisms to pursue this, and he could work with
5 the State on this.
6 Frank Clifton made reference to the other issues and said that the Health Department
7 could test the wells if the property owners allowed it. Regarding the second issue of monitoring
8 wells, he thinks that this is a fairly sizable expense. He said that it might be useful to have the
9 Rogers Road Work Group discuss this possibility.
10 Commissioner Hemminger said that it is frustrating that the County is supposed to leave
11 this hazardous waste here due to federal regulations. There are more of these kinds of sites in
12 the County. She said that she would love to clean all of these sites, but she does not know how
13 it can be done.
14 Commissioner McKee asked if any involvement by the County of placing monitoring
15 wells around these sites incur liability to the County.
16 John Roberts said that a monitoring well, as long as it does not disturb material and it
17 only reads, does not cause liability. He would like to research this further.
18 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the County could provide financial assistance to these
19 third parties for cleanup efforts without incurring liability as a County.
20 John Roberts said that he believed that there was some provision for contracting for
21 cleanup. He said that it could cause problems for the contracting party, but he will research it
22 further.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said that the County took a gamble with Fairview Park and had
24 the property tested, and it was benign. The County just swapped land with the Town of
25 Hillsborough.' It was not that the County left a hazardous ticking time bomb in the middle of
26 Fairview. He said that there are two separate issues: the Board of County Commissioners
27 could be aggressive and clean out any junk on ground level and above; and secondly, take a
28 more cautious, but progressive approach toward addressing the fact that there is a public
29 health issue. He thinks that it is not an option to just leave it.
30 Commissioner McKee said that he would like to commend staff for their well-reasoned
31 recommendations for cleaning up this area. He said that when he talked in the past about
32 cleaning up, he meant trash on the side of the street and not the hazardous waste cleanup. He
33 said that he will not place this financial burden on the taxpayers of Orange County to clean up
34 these sites with the liabilities that could occur.
35 Frank Clifton suggested that the County could assist by placing dumpsters, and this
36 would not disturb the site.
37 Commissioner Foushee said that this is an unfortunate situation that they find
38 themselves wanting to help the neighborhood but also to be responsible to all Orange County
39 citizens. She said that it would be irresponsible for the County to move forward to do
40 something without knowing all of the implications.
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
42 Hemminger to approve the manager's recommendation to authorize staff to proceed with
43 implementation of landfill neighborhood notification and clean-up activities to be funded by the
44 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund; and that the County begin to explore and assist with the public
45 health safety measures to protect the public from the two identified illegal dump sites that
46 require excavation, digging, or mechanical uncovering.
47 Commissioner Hemminger asked for a friendly amendment to add in offering free
48 testing to the residents of Tallyho and also consider putting in wells around these particular
49 areas. Commissioner Foushee agreed.
50 Commissioner Yuhasz asked for clarification for"assistance."
16
1 Commissioner Foushee said that it includes what Commissioner Hemminger said and
2 the idea of placing the signs, and offering assistance to property owners to remove surface
3 level trash without disturbance.
4 Commissioner Yuhasz asked that the County Attorney approve any assistance
5 beforehand.
6 Frank Clifton clarified that the motion was the Manager's recommendation as indicated,
7 and the Board will bring back follow-up documentation on all of the issues and how to proceed.
8 He also suggested that the Rogers Road Task Force review this.
9 Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner Hemminger accepted this amendment.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to respectfully include in this the work of
11 the Engineers Without Borders. He hopes that the staff incorporates this data into what is
12 brought back.
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 C. Interim Services Planning for Walnut Grove Solid Waste Convenience
16 Center
17 The Board received and considered authorizing staff to proceed with an interim
18 convenience center service plan of services to be provided at the Walnut Grove Church Road
19 Convenience Center during the period of construction.
20 Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the prior discussion about this expansion
21 included an urging by the Board that staff find a way to keep some level of services continuing
22 through the period of construction at the site. Staff has considered numerous options. He said
23 that staff is recommending in the interim that all SWCC activities move to the older site that was
24 once used as the SWCC for 20 years and they are proposing to go only to garbage during that
25 time due to size limitations. The existing site currently utilizes 32 dumpsters and staff believes
26 they can put 24 dumpsters on the interim site. He hopes to get recycling on this site, but they
27 would have to reduce the number of dumpsters. He is proposing to keep the oil containers at
28 the current site. He said that at a meeting in December, the Board of County Commissioners
29 wanted him to do public outreach that this property is not being considered as a landfill or
30 transfer site. He told the public that this property is not being considered for a transfer station
31 or a landfill at this time.
32 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if single-stream recycling would provide any relief to the
33 space constraints. Gayle Wilson said that it would be of minimal benefit.
34 Commissioner Hemminger asked if there would be signage indicating where people can
35 take their recyclables. Gayle Wilson said that they would do a massive and comprehensive
36 public outreach campaign.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a property owner nearby that the County could
38 influence, and that is the Northern Human Services Center. This could be used as a temporary
39 site for recycling.
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there could be any incentives for moving the bidding
41 process faster. John Roberts said that this could be worked out.
42 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested encouraging citizens to use the curbside recycling
43 where it is available.
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
45 to authorize staff to proceed with the interim implementation of convenience center service plan
46 at Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center due to center construction disruptions,
47 including temporarily reducing services to municipal solid waste and waste oil/anti-freeze/oil
48 filters/batteries;with additions to place temporary bins at Northern Human Services Center for
49 recycling with temporary signs, to include in bids incentives to finish sooner, and to place signs
50 at original site to give plenty of time to inform the current users at this SWCC.
17
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 d. NC 5411-40 Corridor Study
4 The Board provided comments to Durham—Chapel Hill—Carrboro Metropolitan
5 Planning Organization on the NC54/1-40 Corridor Study.
6 Planning Director Craig Benedict gave an overview of this item. He said that tonight's
7 goal is to send comments to the DCHC- MPO.
8
9 BACKGROUND: The BOCC heard a presentation on the NC 5411-40 Corridor Study at its
10 February 21, 2012 meeting.
11
12 What is the purpose of the study?
13 The purpose of the study is to analyze short-term and long-term land use issues and multi-
14 modal transportation problems, evaluate opportunities and challenges, and recommend short
15 and long-range land use and transportation solutions and strategies along the corridor.
16
17 Why is this study important?
18 The NC 54 corridor serves as one of the major gateways between Chapel Hill and southwest
19 Durham, and its interchange with 1-40 has consistently ranked as one of the top congested
20 locations in the region. Development pressures within the corridor coupled with mobility and
21 capacity issues have illuminated the concern that the existing and planned transportation
22 infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate growth and to address land use and
23 transportation problems. Short and long-range solutions are needed to preserve this important
24 corridor.
25
26 What are the study objectives?
27 The vision of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC
28 MPO) is to develop and implement transportation plans that are multimodal and that fully
29 integrate land use and transportation issues. To achieve this vision this study will:
30 - Clearly define a realistic blueprint" for an integrated growth and mobility strategy for
31 the corridor
32 - Establish a development framework that strengthens multimodal travel options and
33 reduces vehicle miles of travel
34 - Improve operations, safety, and travel time
35 - Categorize strategies into near, mid-term, and long-term phases
36
37 How much will the study cost and who is paving for it?
38 The total cost for the study is $349,977, with 80% of the funding coming from Federal
39 transportation planning funds and the remaining 20% funded jointly by the City of Durham,
40 Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill.
41
42 The Table of Contents (Attachment 1) and Executive Summary (Attachment 2) from the
43 Corridor Study are provided. The complete NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study is 169 pages and can be
44 reviewed online: http://www.nc54-i4Ocorridorstudy.com/DraftReport.html
45
46 IMPLICATIONS:
47 This study creates a short and long-term transportation framework for the corridor where a
48 segment of light rail (LRT) is being proposed, future roadway widening, and mention of
49 premium Bus Rapid Transit (BRT-H). Since these are all major transit investments, decisions
50 should consider the complementary and/or supplementary nature of these transportation
18
1 methods. For example, should widening include dedicated busways for BRT-H, how do
2 commuters mode transfer from car to LRT or BRT and where (i.e., adequate Park & Ride and
3 where in corridor do you locate), how can actions ensure that the transit method does not
4 duplicate investment (i.e., LRT fully addressing commuter patterns so parallel BRT or bus
5 service is not needed).
6
7 NEXT STEPS:
8 March 16, 2012 is the deadline for public comment to be submitted to the DCHC MPO
9 Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).
10
11 Attachment 3 is a draft letter for the BOCC to consider submitting to the MPO with or without
12 revisions. The draft has been prepared based on Board comments at its February 21st meeting
13 and other recent Board discussions on bus and rail. The draft letter conveys the Board's
14 questions and comments regarding the study.
15
16 STUDY SCHEDULE:
17
18 Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners (Planning Board and
19 Orange Unified Transportation Board members invited to attend)
20
21 Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and
22 comment
23
24 Mar 12 Chapel Hill Town Council approves comments on report
25
26 Mar 13 Orange County approves comments on the report
27
28 Mar 14 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Hearing
29
30 March Durham County review and approves comments on the report (prior to March 16)
31
32 Mar 16 Deadline for public comment
33
34 Mar 28 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) recommends NC 54
35 recommendations for approval by TAC
36
37 Apr 11 Approval by TAC
38
39 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached letter
40 (Attachment 3) for submission to the DCHC MPO TAC with or without changes.
41
42 The Board then discussed the proposed draft letter recommended by staff.
43 Commissioner Gordon noted that the letter should go to the Transportation Advisory
44 Committee, not the Technical Advisory Committee
45 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bullet on the top of page 5. He thought
46 that the first part of the sentence is saying that there is not adequate density and the second
47 part is saying that light rail will not support the high density. It seems contradictory.
48 Craig Benedict said that there are two ideas embedded in that bullet and they probably
49 should be separated. One is that the density development might not get the thresholds that
50 would make light rail transit viable. The second part should be a second bullet, that the amount
19
1 of traffic that is anticipated on 54, the way light rail is being put in that corridor, it will reduce
2 congestion 1-2% in that corridor.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the letter is addressed to the Chair, then the salutation
4 should be to the Chair. If it is addressed to the TAC, then it should be the TAC in the
5 salutation.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said that all of the bulleted points need to have either a semi-
7 colon or a period after them. Also, "southern' for Durham and "western" for Wake do not need
8 to be capitalized..
9 Chair Pelissier made reference to the last bullet on page 4 and the parking spaces at
10 Leigh Village. She asked whether the original number of spaces was 2000 or 3000 spaces,
11 and Manager Clifton said it was 2000. She made a correction and said that it should say, "from
12 the original" 2000 estimate at the end.
13
14 The draft letter below is revised to include the Commissioners'comments:
15
16 March 13, 2012
17
18 Lydia Lavelle, Chair
19 Transportation Advisory Committee
20 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
21 101 City Hall Plaza
22 Durham, North Carolina 27701
23
24 Dear Chair Lavelle,
25
26 On February 21St, 2012 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners received a
27 presentation on the Draft NC 5411-40 Corridor Study Transportation-Land Use Master Plan.
28 After the presentation, the Board has the following comments/questions about the Study:
29
30 - Currently, Chapel Hill Transit operates 30 buses in the 54 corridor. The study
31 should include a discussion about how the transit elements of the plan address this
32 issue;
33 - Orange County supports the recommendation that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) be
34 included in the 54 corridor. However, it is suggested that BRT service include
35 dedicated bus lanes to further alleviate high traffic volumes. This could be possible
36 by redesigning some or all of the new lanes suggested in the Durham County portion
37 of the corridor to accommodate BRT or a combination of BRT and High-Occupancy
38 Vehicles (HOV);
39 - A more detailed explanation of how the recommendations accommodate the high
40 commute volume to Orange County from southern Durham and western Wake
41 County would be beneficial;
42 - Orange County further suggests that the study explore incorporating dedicated bus
43 lanes and/or HOV on the six-lane section of NC 54 in Orange County (from the
44 Durham County line west) to complement the previous suggestion of including
45 BRT/HOV lanes in the Durham County portion of NC 54;
46 - Orange County supports the recommendation for a park and ride facility at NC 751
47 and Southpoint Auto Park Blvd and agrees that park and ride accommodations east
48 of the 54/1-40 intersection is a good strategy for increasing mobility in the corridor;
20
1 - There are questions about the total number of park and ride spaces available and if
2 this will be adequate to support demand now that the number of spaces at Leigh
3 Village has been decreased from the original 2000 estimate;
4 - The Board is concerned about how the density of development recommended in the
5 plan and the densities necessary to support Light Rail Transit do not seem to match;
6 - Light Rail Transit may not be enough to alleviate the congestion in the study area;
7 - The Board would like to see how the recommendations in the plan may be funded
8 including which projects could be funded through the proposed Y2-cent sales tax and
9 what additional funding sources have been identified;
10 - The Board expressed concerns that the transit portion of the plan is becoming too
11 complex and that citizens may not utilize transit in this corridor because they may
12 have to make multiple transfers.
13
14 In conclusion, the Board would like to recognize that the 54 corridor is greatly important but also
15 requires a large investment. Due to the newly adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, Orange
16 County is very sensitive to providing the best solution to the study area.
17
18 Bernadette Pelissier
19 Chair, Orange County Board of County Commissioners
20
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
23 to approve the letter of Orange County's comments and to submit this letter to the DCHC-MPO
24 with recommended changes.
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict whether he needed clarification concerning
27 what the Board wished to have included in the letter and he indicated that he understood the
28 changes to be made.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there would be discussions with UNC about the
30 redevelopment of the Friday Center property.
31 Frank Clifton said that there have been no discussions yet.
32
33 e. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)—Receipt and
34 Transmittal of 2012 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report
35 The Board received the 2012 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory
36 Committee and considered transmitting it to the SAPFO partners for comments before
37 certification in May and authorizing the Chair to sign.
38 Craig Benedict said that this item is just to receive this report and transmit it to the
39 partners. This report is done on an annual basis. The report includes information about how
40 membership has increased this year. One page two it shows that Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
41 Schools (CHCCS) has had an increase of 273 students and Orange County Schools (OCS) has
42 had an increase of 130 students. There were no changes in the capacity this year. Each year
43 the numbers are compared with the previous year and there are five different projection
44 methods of estimating future student populations, and then an average of those five is taken.
45 For CHCCS, the new middle school CHCCS is projected for 2017-2018 and the new
46 high school is projected for 2020-2021.
47 For OCS, the new elementary school is projected for 2020-2021 and there are no new
48 needs for middle or high schools.
49 Commissioner Gordon made reference to a chart on page 5 of the Executive Summary
50 which compares the number of projected students with the actual number of students who
21
1 attended school. The chart indicates that there was an overestimation of students in the
2 CHCCS for elementary, middle and high schools, but on page 30 of the SAPFO report, it says
3 that the actual number of students was underestimated by the same numbers. She asked that
4 this be corrected to "underestimated" in the Executive Summary. The numbers for the OCS
5 also need to be corrected in the Executive Summary. As shown in the SAPFO report, there
6 were two cases where the number of actual students was overestimated (elementary and
7 middle school) and one case where the number was underestimated (high school). However,
8 these numbers are also stated incorrectly in the Executive Summary.
9 Craig Benedict said that he would check the numbers and correct the information as
10 needed.
11 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the number of approved but undeveloped
12 subdivisions. Craig Benedict said that he can try and come up with some percentages.
13 Commissioner Hemminger said that the County Commissioners heard that OCS may
14 need another elementary school in the next two to three years, but on page 11, it shows that
15 there are still 346 seats available in elementary school. She said that some schools are over-
16 capacity and some are under-capacity, so it looks like there may need to be a redistricting.
17 Craig Benedict said that these are certified capacity numbers from the Department of
18 Public Instruction agreed to by all parties, and if there are changes, then the document will
19 change.
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
21 Foushee to receive the 2012 SAPFOTAC Annual Report with changes; authorize the Chair to
22 sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1 (the Mayors or Chapel
23 Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough and the two School Board Chairs—OCS and CHCCS).
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 9. Reports
27 a. Orange County Transit Plan Timeline Update
28 The Board reviewed and acknowledged a draft timeline for the Orange County Transit
29 Plan (OCTP) and associated elements.
30 Craig Benedict said that the staff has been examining what work needs to be done
31 before moving forward with the adoption of the Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP). If Orange
32 County is to pursue the implementation of the 2009 Mobility Bill transit one-half cent sales tax,
33 various aspects needs to be discussed and implemented. Basically, the following elements are
34 required:
35
36 - Orange County/Durham County Light Rail Transit (LRT) Cost Sharing Memorandum
37 of Understanding
38 - OCTP and its internal assumptions
39 o Share of LRT
40 o Intra-county and Inter-county Bus Services
41 o Bus Rapid Transit (Martin Luther King Corridor)
42 o Small Capital
43 - Orange County/Triangle Transit OCTP Implementing Agreement
44 - Referendum decision on one-half(1/2) cent transit sales tax
45
46 Craig Benedict went through the timeline, which was in the agenda abstract.
47
48 Commissioner Gordon said that they need to add on March 22nd that the Board of
49 County Commissioners will discuss the Draft Alternate Transit Plan that relies only on local
50 funding. This needs to be done before it goes to public input.
22
1 Chair Pelissier said that the plan is to present this on March 15tH
2 Frank Clifton clarified that no tax will be levied until the final document is approved.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
5 Yuhasz to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m.
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7 Chair Pelissier asked if the County Commissioners want her to confirm for the Regional
8 Transportation Alliance to do a poll after May 8t" on the Y-cent sales tax.
9 Commissioner McKee was the only one opposed to the poll. The majority agreed.
10
11 10. County Manager's Report
12 NONE
13
14 11. County Attorney's Report
15 NONE
16
17 12. Appointments
18 NONE
19
20 13. Board Comments
21 Commissioner Gordon—none
22 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to two items: Information from the Triangle J
23 Council of Governments about a meeting on March 27th in Sanford from 1:30—4:30 with local
24 elected officials about fracking and the implications for local governments. The other item is a
25 story in yesterday's New York Times about a report that said that transit ridership has gone up
26 1 billion rides this year.
27 Commissioner Yuhasz—none
28 Commissioner Hemminger— none
29 Commissioner McKee—none
30 Commissioner Foushee gave some NACo Conference updates. She said that the
31 legislative agenda includes making sure that budget reforms do not result in unfunded
32 mandates to counties. The federal budget cuts should include a significant overhaul to make
33 sure that costs and responsibilities are not shifted to counties.
34 Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Foushee's comments.
35
36 Chair Pelissier made reference to her draft memo to the schools (blue sheet). This will
37 go out tomorrow regarding Qualified Schools Construction Bonds.
38
39 14. Information Items
40
41 • February 21, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
42 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Future Board Consideration of Concealed Weapons at
43 County Facilities
44 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Presentation on Jail Population/Expansion
45 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Board Consideration of Advisory Board Protocols
46 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Draft Alternate Transit Plan with Local Funding
47
48 15. Closed Session
49 NONE
50
23
1 16. Adiournment
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
4 to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 PM.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
8
9 Donna S. Baker, CMC
10 Clerk to the Board
1
1
2 DRAFT
3
4 MINUTES
5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 REGULAR MEETING
7 May 15, 2012
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May
11 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
14 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
15 Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
19 Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
20 members will be identified appropriately below)
21
22
. 23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24 Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places.
25 - White sheet—Petition from a member of the public entitled, "Ban the Box"
26 - White sheet—PowerPoint on the Operating Budget and Capital Investment Plan
27 - Rose sheet—updated listing for the Economic Development Advisory Board
28 - White sheet—updated interlocal agreement (implementation agreement) for item 7-
29 c, Orange County Transit Plan and Related Agreements
30 - Yellow sheet—copy of Triangle Transportation Survey done by the Regional
31 Transportation Alliance, also related to item 7-c
32
33 The Board had received an updated "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan for Orange
34 County"just prior to the meeting.
35
36 Chair Pelissier said that there was additional verbiage for a closed session and an
37 additional closed session item:
38
39 Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
40 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board regarding the
41 cases of Orange County v. Eno River Parking Deck and Orange County v. Town of
42 Hillsborough."
43 and
44 143-318.11(a)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
45 businesses in the area served by the public body.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
48 to add the additional verbiage for the closed session and an additional closed session item.
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
2
1
2
3
4 PUBLIC CHARGE
5
6 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
7
8 2. PLiblic Comments
9 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
10 Margaret Cannell, Director of the Hillsborough-Orange County Chamber of Commerce,
11 thanked the Board for their support of Hog Day that will take place May 18th and 19t. She
12 thanked Solid Waste, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR),
13 the Visitor's Bureau, and the Sheriff's Department.
14
15 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7-04 PM.
16
17 Hank Elkins distributed a handout on the Ban the Box, A Petition for Open Employment
18 Opportunities for those with Criminal Convictions by The Orange County Partnership to End
19 Homelessness. He said that this is a petition to delay the question on prior criminal convictions
20 from the initial stage of an employment application to a later stage. He said that this is a win-
21 win-win petition. He said that it is a win for Orange County government because it could
22 receive more applications from energetic applicants. He said that in most organizations and
23 businesses, a prior conviction is a detriment to getting a job. It is also a win in terms of helping
24 minorities. The third win is giving people a chance of making a living and staying out of prison,
25 which is a win for the taxpayers.
26 Commissioner Yuhasz supported this addition and some of the Board members agreed.
27 Chair Pelissier said that she feels very strongly that this is an important step for the
28 County to take.
29
30 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
31 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
32 below.)
33
34 3. Petitions by Board Members
35 Commissioner Jacobs made the following petitions:
36 (1) The Board to direct the Attorney to work on the legal means by which the County can
37 continue to extend domestic partner benefits to employees, regardless of the interpretation of
38 the amendment.
39 (2) He said that in February the Board got a presentation about joining the 10% local
40 food campaign and it was referred to staff to come back with a resolution for adoption. He said
41 that he brought a copy of the resolution from TJCOG that was passed. He asked staff to model
42 a resolution after this one.
43 (3) He said that one of the voting machines where he voted malfunctioned and he just
44 wanted to get a report about how early voting went and if there was any confusion on the
45 district races.
46 (4) He made reference to the wayfaring signs in Hillsborough and said that a sign was
47 put up in an archaeological place, and he proposed the Town and County to protect
48 archaeologically sensitive areas that are in Hillsborough but on Orange County property.
49
3
1 Commissioner McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs took care of his petition about
2 domestic partner benefits. However, he is less inclined to support the issue of a lawsuit against
3 the amendment.
4 Other Board members agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about domestic partner
5 benefits.
6 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
7 a. National Historic Preservation Month
8 The Board considered a proclamation designating May as National Historic Preservation
9 Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
10 Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw introduced this item.
11 Historic Preservation Commission Chair Tom Dickinson read the proclamation.
12
13 PROCLAMATION
14 OF
15 THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
16 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
17
18 WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
19 neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing
20 livability; and
21
22 WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and
23 rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds;
24 and
25
26 WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions
27 made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that
28 has shaped us as a people; and
29
30 WHEREAS, Orange County is a strong advocate for the protection of cultural and
31 archaeological resources, and continues to pursue partnership opportunities to preserve these
32 important and often irreplaceable resources, to seek new and innovative ways to make local
33 history engaging to the public, and to encourage others to do the same; and
34
35 WHEREAS, Orange County has demonstrated its commitment to historic preservation by using
36 the restored Alexander Dickson House in Hillsborough as a visitor center, conserving the
37 farmsteads at future county parks, including a cultural resources component to the 2030
38 Comprehensive Plan, and designating important properties with historic and architectural
39 significance as local landmarks; and
40
41 WHEREAS, "Discover America's Hidden Gems" is the theme for National Historic Preservation
42 Month 2012, cosponsored by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Orange County
43 Historic Preservation Commission, the Historical Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange
44 County, the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough and the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
45
46 NOW THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim May
47 2012 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of Orange County to join
4
1 their fellow residents across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special
2 observance.
3
4 This the 15th day of May, 2012.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
7 to adopt a proclamation designating May as National Historic Preservation Month in Orange
8 County and authorize the Chair to sign.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 b. Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2012-13 Annual
12 Operating Budget and 2012-17 Capital Investment Plan
13 The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2012-13 Annual Operating
14 Budget and 2012-17 Capital Investment Plan.
15 Frank Clifton introduced this item and said that this budget is very much like last year's
16 budget and any growth is limited. He said that the property tax base is not moving and there is
17 not a tax increase proposed this year. Education is funded at the current ADM level plus
18 student growth. Each school district requested an increase, but each has a well-funded fund
19 balance. He said that they did attempt to address departmental needs.
20 Financial Services Director Clarence Grier made the PowerPoint presentation.
21
22 County Manager's Recommended FY 2012-13 Annual Operating Budget and
23 Capital Investment Plan
24 Presentation
25 Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill
26 Orange County, NC
27 May 15, 2012
28
29 Guiding Principles
30 • Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase — 4th
31 Consecutive Year
32 • Provides funding for County services at current levels without a reduction in the
33 workforce
34 Funds local school districts enrollment growth and provides for increased funding
35 for the long range capital needs for each school district.
36
37 Recommended General Fund Budget
38
39 - Totals $178.5 million
40 0 Represents an increase of $300,000 from original current year budget of$178.2
41 million, which is a .17 percent increase from previous year original budget
42 0 Represents a $4.8 million decrease in the current year's amended budget
43
44 Orange County Budget
45 Past 5 Fiscal Years (chart)
46
5
1 Proposed Ad Valorem Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2012
2
3 - Proposed tax rate of 85.8 cents per$100 of assessed valuation
4 This rate produces $136.9 million in property tax revenues for FY 2012-2013
5 Overall Real Property Valuation increased 1.1%
6
7 - One cent on property tax estimated to generate $1,574,232
8
9 Orange County Property Tax Revenues
10 Past 5 Fiscal Years (chart)
11
12 Sales Tax Revenues
13 • Recommended Sales Tax Revenues of$15.7 million is 3% higher than the $15.3 million
14 budgeted in FY 2011-2012
15 • Actual sales tax revenues are down over 30% since the peak of $22.5 million in fiscal
16 year 2007-2008
17
18 Orange County General Fund FY 2012-13 Revenues (chart)
19
20 Proposed Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2012
21 Recommended tax rate of 18.84 cents per$100 of assessed valuation
22 ✓ Represents no increase in the property tax rate for the District
23 Recommended tax rate will generate $19.1 million for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro
24 School District
25 ✓ This represents an additional $1,577 per pupil above the County's
26 allocation
27 One cent on district tax is estimated to generate $1,013,877
28
29 Recommended Funding for Chapel Hill -Carrboro City and Orange County Schools
30 Total General Fund appropriation totals $84.2 million
31 Funds day-to-day operations, repayment of school related debt, and capital
32 Equals an appropriation of 47.16 percent of total General Fund Budget
33 • Reflects $101,278 net increase from current year General Fund appropriation
34 due to a decrease in debt service and passing the debt service savings on to the
35 school districts
36 • Equates to $3,102 per student for each of the 19,700 students in both districts
37 for day-to-day operating funds
38
39 Additional Funding for Local Schools
40
41 In addition to the $84.2 million for operations, debt and capital, recommended budget
42 allocates $1.9 million to fund non-mandated safety net initiatives for both school districts
43 Some of these initiatives are:
44 School Health Nurses - $683,706, an increase of$49,374
45 School Resource Officers - $531,405, an increase of$1,995
46 School Social Workers -$692,283, an increase of$49,909
6
1 With these additional non-mandated funding initiatives, the total funding for the local
2 school districts total 48.2% of the General Fund Budget
3
4 County Education Funding
5
Fiscal Year Original Budget General Fund % of Budget
2008-2009 $90,180,363 49.3%
2009-2010 $87,114,600 49.1%
2010-2011 $85,917,149 49.0%
2011-2012 $85,981,149 48.3%
2012-2013 $86,082,427 48.2%
6
7
8 Major Funded County Initiatives
9
10 Maintains all County services at current levels
11 Funds the increase in medical insurance and fully funds the 401(k)/457 plans for non-
12 sworn employees
13 A cost of living and in-range increase equating up to 3% in compensation for employees
14 Provides funding for a Public Information Officer and a Risk Management Position
15 Increases positions for EMS Communicators, an Assistant Fire Marshal, and
16 Paramedics which will be staggered throughout the year
17 Adds one (EMS) ambulance and staffing, funded in an internal service fund, to continue
18 to improve emergency response times
19 Provides the Sheriff with six additional patrol vehicles, funded in an internal service fund
20 Provides for the replacement of several County vehicles due for replacement with the
21 establishment of a Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund
22 Long range/pay-as-you go County capital is $500,000.
23
24 Orange County General Fund FY 2012-13 Expenditures
25
26 Solid Waste Initiatives
27 • The closure of the landfill with public education and other related planning efforts of the
28 landfill in FY2012-13. It is expected closure cost in FY 2012-13 will be $3.1 million
29 • The conversion to single stream in all recycling programs
30 • The reconstruction and expansion of Walnut Grove and High Rock solid waste
31 convenience centers
32 • Proposed changes in the following landfill fee rates are as follows:
33 0 Construction and Demolition decrease from $44.00 to $40.00 per ton
34 • Charges for the sale of mulch from $22.00 to $25.00 per 3 cubic yard scoop
35 • Proposed increases in the sanitation household fee to be charged per household are as
36 follows:
37 Rural Residential from $10.00 to $20.00
38 Urban Household from $5.00 to $10.00
39
40 Additional Funding Options
7
1 • Appropriate Fund Balance, if necessary; The Board may use up to $555,000 without a
2 negative impact on fund balance
3 • Delaying the Property Revaluation will provide $350,000 in funds for other purposes
4 directed by the Board
5 • Property tax increase"
6
7 Revenues Generated By Property Tax Increase
8
Tax Increase Property Tax Revenues Per Pupil Equivalency
Generated
1 cent $1,574,232 $79.91
1.5 cents $2,361,348 $119.87
2 cents $3,148,464 $159.82
2.5 cents $3,935,580 $199.78
3 cents $4,722,696 $239.73
9
10 County Capital Investment Plan (table)
11
12 Concerns and Issues for FY 2013-2014
13 • Health Insurance
14 • Post-employment Insurance benefit for retirees
15 • Debt Service
16 • County Capital Projects
17 • School Capital Projects
18 Economic Development
19 • Revaluation
20 • State or Federal Budget Issues
21 • Inflation
22 Economy
23
24 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
25 (All Meetings Begin at 7:00 p.m.)
26
27 Public Hearings—May 17th at Department of Social Services; May 22 at Southern Human
28 Services Center
29
30 Work Sessions—May 24th at Department of Social Services; June 7th at Southern Human
31 Services Center
32
33 Work Session/Adoption—June 12th at Southern Human Services Center
34
35 Final Adoption—June 19th at Southern Human Services Center
36
37 Document Availability
38 - Clerk to Board of Commissioners
39 - County Financial Services Office
40 - Orange County Library
8
1 - Chapel Hill Public Library
2 - Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
3 - Cybrary, Carrboro
4 - Orange County Website
5 www.co.orange.nc.us
6 Commissioner McKee said that throughout the document, it states that an internal
7 service fund will be replacing the general fund for vehicles. He asked how that would be
8 funded.
9 Clarence Grier said that it will be a separate fund to maintain and account for these
10 vehicles.
11 Frank Clifton said that all of the department in the general fund will be charged a vehicle
12 fee, and these can be tracked separately to see if they are being maintained efficiently. They
13 are isolating these vehicles since now they are in various departments. It is hard to maintain
14 and track in the present system.
15 Commissioner McKee asked about the reduction of the Sheriffs vehicles from 12 to 6.
16 He wants to make sure these are not cut. His concern is a possible movement toward a service
17 district tax to fund vehicles.
18
19 Public Comment:
20 Jamezetta Bedford, board member of the CHCCS Board of Education, read a letter that
21 the CHCCS Board sent to the County in April, which basically asked the County to raise the
22 district tax if needed to fund their request.
23
24 Frank Clifton said that most of what the County is able to do this year is to refund
25 existing debt to gain some short-term savings.
26 Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for the budget and creativity. He has confidence
27 that, within the existing budget, without raising taxes, that the County Commissioners can find
28 enough money to give another cent to both school systems.
29
30 C. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
31 The Board recognized the Budget staff of the Orange County Finance and
32 Administrative Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association
33 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2011-12 fiscal year budget document.
34 Clarence Grier presented this award to the Finance staff. This is the 20th year they
35 have received this award. He introduced and recognized his finance staff: Paul Laughton, Lisa
36 Henty, Tonya Walton, and Allison Chambers.
37 Chair Pelissier presented the plaque to the department.
38
39 5. Consent Agenda
40 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
41
42 Commissioner Jacobs removed Item d.
43 Commissioner Gordon removed Item g.
44
45 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
47 Hemminger to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
51
9
1 d. Re-negotiated Lease—High Rock Road Solid Waste Convenience Center
2 The Board considered the approval of the re-negotiated lease for the Solid Waste
3 Convenience Center located on High Rock Road and authorizing the Chair to sign.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
5 defer authorizing the $360,000 improvements to this center on property the County does not
6 own until staff comes back with an analysis on which site would be preferable to fund
7 improvements.
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 9_ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)—Approval and
11 Certification of 2012 Report
12 The Board considered approving the 2012 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
13 Technical Advisory Committee Report and certifying portions of the Report.
14 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Executive Summary and said that there
15 was an error in this summary previously and it is important to know what has been changed.
16 The corrected summary shows that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), the
17 projected number of students was low compared to the actual number of students who
18 attended school for all three levels (elementary, middle, high school). In the Orange County
19 Schools (OCS), the projection was high compared with the actual numbers of students for the
20 elementary and middle schools and low for the high schools.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
22 approve the SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the
23 summary table above.
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 a. Minutes
27 The Board approved the minutes from both meetings on March 29, 2012.
28 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
29 The Board adoption a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related
30 to thirty-six requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds.
31 c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
32 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
33 values related to eight requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with
34 North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
35 d. Re-negotiated Lease—High Rock Road Solid Waste Convenience Center
36 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
37 consideration.
38 e. Approval of Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection Services
39 The Board approved the award of a contract to Clean Harbors Environmental Services that
40 provides Household Hazardous Waste collection, processing, and disposal services for the
41 residents of Orange County and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators within
42 the County and authorized the Chair to sign.
43 f. County Attorney Employment Agreement Amendment
44 The Board approved the amendment to the Employment Agreement governing the terms
45 and conditions of the County Attorney's employment.
46 g. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval and
47 Certification of 2012 Report
48 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
49 consideration.
50 h. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#9
10
1 The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
2 2011-12 for Health Department, Emergency Services, Sheriff's Department, Visitor's
3 Bureau —Arts Commission, and Child Support Enforcement.
4 L Applications for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill —
5 Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools and Contingent Approval
6 of Budget Amendment#9-A Related to School Capital Project Ordinances
7 The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the applications for NC Education
8 Lottery Proceeds; and approve Budget Amendment#9-A receiving the Lottery Funds and
9 amending the School Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on the State's approval of the
10 applications.
11 L Approval of a Resolution Regarding a Lease Agreement between Chapel Hill —
12 Carrboro City Schools, NWN Corporation/Cisco Systems, Inc. and Key Government
13 Finance, Inc.
14 The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution regarding a lease
15 agreement between Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), NWN Corporation/Cisco
16 Systems, In., and Key government Finance, Inc.
17 k. Contract Award for Master Planning Services, Southern Human Services Master
18 Plan
19 The Board approved the Professional Services Agreement with Clarion Associates
20 ("Clarion") in an amount not to exceed $110,000 for the Development of a Master Plan and
21 potential Special Use Permit modifications for the Southern Human Services Campus; and
22 authorized the Chair to execute the Agreement.
23
24 6. Public Hearings
25 NONE
26
27 7. Regular Agenda
28 a. Resolution Regarding the Next General Reappraisal of Real Property
29 The Board considered 2015 as the optimal year for the next general reappraisal of real
30 property and to approve a resolution establishing the year for the next general reappraisal of
31 real property in Orange County.
32 Tax Administrator Jenks Crayton said that if there was a revaluation now the problem
33 would be made worse. There has been a drop in sales. Foreclosures are running at twice the
34 level of last year. Also, none of Orange County's neighbors are planning to do a revaluation
35 before 2015, which is the Manager's recommendation.
36 Chair Pelissier made reference to the packet of information from Joe Phelps.
37
38 PUBLIC COMMENT:
39 Joe Phelps said that he has been in real estate for 25 years and is a broker/owner of
40 Phelps Realty. He had requested previously to make a presentation to the Board of County
41 Commissioners about why the County needs to stay on schedule for the tax revaluation, but it
42 was denied. He said that he did meet with the Tax Administrator and it was a good
43 conversation, but he did not agree with him about everything, especially the COD. He referred
44 to several discrepancies that he thought existed in Mr. Crayton's presentation. He went through
45 'his handout:
46 "In the packet tonight on this subject there are some statements I think are very
47 misleading. Orange County is not like many other counties in North Carolina. We don't have
48 the high unemployment others have and we have many high paying jobs in the Triangle, so to
49 compare Orange County to other not doing revaluation I think is misleading. The big thing is
50 the numbers stating there will be a shortfall in everyone's budget. After revaluation you have to
11
1 adjust tax rates to be revenue neutral so there will be no shortfalls. Now some people's taxes
2 will go up, but many people's taxes will go down.
3 If anyone wants the info I am presenting tonight, I will give out my email and send you
4 the info.
5 My info comes from the Multiple Listing Service and even though this information is
6 public, I will hide the addresses, but have a hard copy if needed for verification if questioned.
7 Page 1 is a map dividing the county into areas.
8 Page 2 —the Assessor says he doesn't have enough data. Let's use the following data:
9 if you take out the areas around Chapel Hill numbered 201, 202, 203, 204, and 228 and look for
10 closed sales of single family dwellings, single wides, and doublewides and priced from $1 to
11 unlimited dollars.
12 From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 you have 773 sales, compared four years
13 later using same data same timeframe you have 587 sales, not that many less.
14 From January 1, 2008 to May 14, 2008 you have 166 sales. Four years later same data
15 same timeframe you have 181 sales, even more than the prior years the revaluation was done.
16 . Page 3 —a map of roughly the area you were told that there wasn't enough data in
17 northern Orange.
18 Page 4 and 5 sales from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, there were 36 sales,
19 page 5 and 6. Again, same search criteria from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 there
20 were 36 sales. The same amount.
21 Page 7 sales from January 1, 2008 to May 14, 2008 there were 13 sales, page 8, again
22 same search criteria from January 1, 2012 to May 14, 2012 there were 11 sales. Almost the
23 same.
24 Quickly onto tax value versus sales price in Orange County for single family dwelling,
25 singlewides and doublewides. There were 892 sales. Each column is labeled to what it stands
26 for. Let's take page 9, which is around Chapel Hill. That's the first page printed off. Forty-six
27 properties closed. Thirty-four sold for less than tax value at an average of$51,205 less than
28 tax value. Twelve sold for more than tax value at an average of$35,550 more than tax value.
29 Page 25— let's take the area in northern Orange#222. Twenty-one properties sold
30 from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Sixteen sold for less than tax value of$46,190
31 less than tax value. Five sold for more than tax value at an average of$111,572.
32 All of these averages are from 15%to 30% off of tax value. They need to be corrected,
33 as many people are paying more than they should."
34
35 Commissioner Yuhasz asked Jenks Crayton if he saw any systemic inequities. Jenks
36 Crayton said that there are some geographical areas that do need correction. Through a local
37 appraiser, they have been alerted to one of these neighborhoods. This area was appraised at
38 too high a value in 2009. This is being remedied through the Board of Equalization and
39 Review.
40 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if it were possible that there were areas that were priced
41 too high or too low and if the County could look at those outside of a general revaluation.
42 Jenks Crayton said that he has not noticed this in particular, but he would be willing to
43 look at that if someone pointed it out.
44 Commissioner Yuhasz asked what a citizen would do if they felt that their property was
45 improperly valued.
46 Jenks Crayton said that they could email or call him. The best time to rectify a problem
47 is at the informal stage.
48 Commissioner Hemminger said that the last time the County did a revaluation, the
49 County remained revenue neutral, but about a third of the property owners ended up paying
50 more in taxes, about a third ended up about the same, and about a third paid a little less. She
12
1 said that this time if the values go down, the County will have to increase the tax rate to stay
2 revenue neutral for the County. This will yield the same result for citizens, except the motor
3 vehicle taxes will go up. She said that putting this off would mean that there would be more
4 data and a tax increase would be delayed.
5 Commissioner McKee said that revenue neutral does not equal tax neutral.
6 Commissioner Gordon said that her concern is with the equity. The reason to revalue is
7 to be fair. She asked if the issue was that there was not enough data to do a reliable
8 revaluation and Jenks Crayton said yes.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said that a year ago the Manager recommended not doing a
10 revaluation and the Board of County Commissioners decided to go ahead with the revaluation
11 in order to stay on the same schedule. He said that the data has taken him aback. He said
12 that it has been made clear to him that they need to delay the revaluation because the data
13 does not support moving forward with one.
14 Commissioner McKee said that the County should remain on a four-year cycle.
15 Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments. She said that the revaluation
16 is not really about what the tax rate is, but it is really making sure that people are taxed
17 equitably relative to one another. The equity is a very important issue.
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
19 to approve the resolution establishing the year 2015 for the next general reappraisal of real
20 property in Orange County.
21
22 Commissioner McKee said that there will be a perception that while property values are
23 going up, Orange County is ready to go forward with a revaluation, but when property values
24 are decreasing, Orange County is not willing to go forward with this same procedure.
25 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he was in favor of doing the revaluation a year ago, but
26 now it is about equity. He is in favor of delaying it to 2015.
27
28 VOTE: Ayes, 6, No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to put the revaluation savings of$350,000
31 toward employee compensation.
32 There was no second. The motion failed.
33
34 Resolution Establishing the Year of the Next General Reappraisal
35
36 Whereas, Orange County conducted its most recent General Appraisal of Real Property
37 effective January 1, 2009; and
38 Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners advanced its scheduled General
39 Reappraisal of Real Property to January 1, 2013, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute
40 (NCGS) 105-286 (a) (3); and
41 Whereas, after careful consideration, the Orange County desires to modify this
42 schedule to postpone the effective date of the next General Reappraisal to January 1, 2015, as
43 permitted by NCGS 105-286 (a) (3); and
44 Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners also desires that the Orange
45 County Tax Administrator make an annual report to the Board regarding conditions in the
46 market for real property;
47 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
48 does hereby postpone the effective date of the next General Reappraisal to January 1, 2015;
13
1 Be It Further Resolved, that the Orange County Tax Administrator shall each year
2 make at least one report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding conditions in the
3 market for real property; and
4 Be It Further Resolved, that the Clerk to the Board shall forward a copy of this
5 resolution to the North Carolina Department of Revenue as required under NCGS 105-286.
6
7 b. Economic Development Advisory Board
8 The Board considered approving the final draft"Economic Development Advisory Board
9 Policies and Procedures" and appointing ten individuals for the initial reconstituted Economic
10 Development Advisory Board.
11 Economic Development Director Steve Brantley presented this item. He said that these
12 policies were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in April and staff incorporated
13 suggested changes into this current document. He worked with the County Attorney's office to
14 incorporate these changes. The asked the Board to review and approve the policies and
15 procedures for the newly formed advisory board. The second part of the recommendation is as
16 follows:
17 - Select 10 individuals from the table provided in Attachment 2, according to the
18 following numbers and categories (from Section 111. B. !. of the 'Policies and
19 Procedures'). Please note that several individuals may be cross-listed as
20 representatives in more than one category:
21 o Choose FIVE individuals from Orange County's core business community,
22 which includes banking, construction, manufacturing, architecture, real
23 estate, legal development, utility management, etc.
24 o Choose ONE individual who represents the agriculture sector;
25 o Choose ONE individual actively involved in entrepreneur activities;
26 o Choose ONE individual representing the University of North Carolina at
27 Chapel Hill, preferably involved in the development activities, such as
28 planning for Carolina North, or on the foundation side of business
29 development;
30 o Choose ONE individual representing the tourism sector represented by an
31 individual involved in retail and/or hospitality, such as a restaurant or hotel
32 manager, or someone involved in the arts;
33 o Choose ONE individual representing the nonprofit sector.
34
35
36 The proposed list of candidates that were interviewed and submitted for the Board's
37 consideration is based on the candidates' specific skills and experience with economic
38 development as well as enthusiasm for serving Orange County. All recommended candidates
39 either manage a business in Orange County, employ citizens, or have a financial stake in this
40 community.
41
42 PUBLIC COMMENT:
43 Laura Streitfeld was representing Preserve Rural Orange and said that she was
44 surprised to see this board created without a public process for application. She read a
45 prepared statement. She said that the guidelines the Board of County Commissioners adopted
46 two months ago were not followed and were abandoned for this board. She said that she was
47 disappointed in the proposed membership roster and her concern is that economic
48 development should not be fast-tracked.
49
50 May 15, 2012
14
1
2 To the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
3
4 Preserve Rural Orange (PRO) will attend tonight's Board of County Commissioners meeting to
5 request an open, public and thorough process of seeking candidates for Orange County's
6 proposed new Economic Development Advisory Board.
7
8 PRO is concerned with the following:
9 1. The proposed advisory board policy does not adhere to key elements of Orange
10 County's General Policy for Board of County Commissioners Advisory Boards approved
11 February 21, 2012; the General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards establishes a public
12 process for seeking applicants
13 2. County Economic Development staff assisted by chambers of commerce & UNC
14 representatives used a non-public, invitation-only process to recommend potential
15 appointees
16 3. Applications of proposed appointees were not submitted to or qualified by Orange
17 County clerk,.as specified by General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards
18 4. Goals and objectives and majority "core business community" list do not fully
19 encompass Orange County Comprehensive Plan goals & objectives or BOCC Planning
20 Principles
21 5. Goals do not include sustainable growth, resource preservation, renewable energy
22 initiatives, environmentally responsible practices or recruiting green businesses
23 6. Proposed appointment of non-county residents conflicts with General Policy for BOCC
24 Advisory Boards; the policy authorizes commissioners "to appoint residents to serve as
25 members of advisory boards" and requires that"all board members shall maintain their
26 domicile in Orange County"
27 7. Proposed board composition does not adhere to General Policy for BOCC Advisory
28 Boards, lacking criteria aiming "to appoint members who represent the ethnic, cultural,
29 demographic and geographic diversity of the community"
30 8. List of potential appointees is imbalanced in terms of ethnic and gender diversity among
31 slate of potential appointees
32 9. List of potential appointees presents an imbalanced, limited slate, with several
33 categories listing only one or two candidates
34 10. All listed applications were submitted within a few days during the past two weeks,
35 without reference to previous applicants to Economic Development Commission
36 11. The proposed policy voids Economic Development Commission bylaws without
37 providing documentation or active links on website to previous EDC bylaws, agendas,
38 minutes, board membership or board dissolution
39 PRO proposal:
40
41 In selecting candidates for the new Economic Development Advisory Board, Preserve
42 Rural Orange urges the county to:
15
1 1. Follow Orange County's approved public and inclusive advisory board process to
2 seek applicants and select candidates
3 2. Extend the deadline to solicit a wider pool of qualified applicants
4 3. Take steps listed below to ensure fair, representative board selection and
5 composition
6 Scope; Goals &Objectives:
7 1. Adhere to authority of Orange County General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards revised
8 and approved in February 2012
9 2. Use the established public process coordinated by the county clerk to seek a wider,
10 more diverse and representative pool of candidates
11 3. Include among the new board's charge and goals: supporting goals & objectives of
12 Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and BOCC planning principles
13 4. Post documentation of EDC board history
14 Membership:
15 1. Adhere to General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards as specified in items 2, 3 and 4
16 below
17 2. "Appointments to advisory boards will be initiated with a public application process from
18 individuals, advisory boards, or community and professional organizations"
19 3. Select nominees who "maintain their domicile in Orange County"
20 4. "Endeavor to appoint members who represent the ethnic, cultural, demographic and
21 geographic diversity of the community"
22 5. Include green and environmentally innovative businesses in "core business community"
23 category
24 6. Extend application deadline to seek a wider and more diverse pool of applicants for
25 each category
26 The list of potential appointees to a new Economic Development Advisory Board is
27 incomplete and not representative of Orange County's wealth of diverse professionals
28 with economic development, business, entrepreneurial, agricultural, environmental, and
29 nonprofit expertise. PRO urges commissioners to allow sufficient time to follow an
30 open, public process adhering to Orange County's General Policy for BOCC Advisory
31 Boards.
32
33 A more thorough, inclusive, established process will expand the county's options by
34 drawing upon a broad spectrum of professionals residing in Orange County who have not yet
35 had the opportunity to apply. By seeking qualified applicants in a public process consistent with
36 the county's goals and objectives, Orange County citizens will benefit from the guidance of a
37 strong, diverse board advising on Orange County's economic development efforts with a more
38 comprehensive range of experience and skills.
39
40 Thank you,
16
1 -Laura Streitfeld
2 Executive Director, Preserve Rural Orange
3
4
5
6 Tom Schopler said that he submitted his name as a candidate to the previous advisory
7 board before it was dissolved, and now he does not have an opportunity to participate in this
8 newly created board. He said that the appearance of a non-transparent process is important.
9 Will Raymond is a resident of Chapel Hill. He said that the County needs an open and
10 transparent process to build integrity. He said that the diversity of representation and opinion
11 needs to be increased.
12 Chair Pelissier asked about clarification on the policy of advisory boards versus this
13 particular policy. She said that all advisory boards still have to follow all of the policies and
14 priorities of the Board of County Commissioners.
15 John Roberts said that every advisory board will have its own specific policy document,
16 or will have one before it is approved. The reason this is coming to the Board first is because
17 this board was abolished and there is no current Economic Development Advisory Board. He
18 said that this policy document will be the primary guiding document. The general policy
19 document still applies. He said that the Board of County Commissioners is following the
20 general policy in this process. There are a couple of areas in the general policy where it says
21 that it can make changes and modifications as it sees fit.
22 . Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners did discuss this at
23 a work session and most times, the public and media do not attend. He said that he does
24 agree with the statements made by the public that they object to the manner in which this is
25 being done. He thinks that an unfair correlation has been drawn between the dysfunction of the
26 previous Economic Development Commission and the notion that if we solicit participation from
27 members of the public who are not preselected, it will delay and undermine the efforts of the
28 Board of County Commissioners and the staff to provide quality economic development in
29 Orange County. He does not believe that is true..
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
31 open the process to members of the public to apply for this board, and for the Clerk's Office to
32 vet the applications.
33 Commissioner Foushee said that she is grateful to staff for what they had done on this,
34 but she expected to see a broader field of applicants. She said that it is hard to consider
35 someone on this list who has not submitted an application. She said that others have shown an
36 interest.
37 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he understood the concern about non-submittal of
38 applications, but this should not stop the Board from appointing other members. He recognizes
39 the need to be very specific in who is appointed and recruited for this specific board.
40 Commissioner Foushee said that she would like to at least replace the four names that
41 did not submit applications.
42 Commissioner McKee said that the Board discussed this at a work session with staff,
43 and he feels like the staff brought back what the Board asked for. He said that one of his
44 parameters was that if there was not an application filled out, then he will not consider them.
45 Another parameter he imposed was whether or not the applicant was an Orange County citizen,
46 and if not, whether they were heavily invested in Orange County through business, etc. He said
47 that the staff did complete the task set before them. He would at least like to move forward with
48 as many applicants as possible.
49 Chair Pelissier said that staff did what the Board of County Commissioners asked them
50 to do and the Board made a commitment to work with the Chambers of Commerce to get
17
1 recommendations. Some of these recommendations reflect that commitment. She said that
2 she has heard from the public to open up the entrepreneurial category.
3 Commissioner McKee asked to make an amendment to Commissioner Jacobs'motion
4 to open the remaining slots to the public
5 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would approve that amendment after his motion fails.
6 VOTE Ayes, 3; Nays, 4 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Yuhasz, Chair Pelissier, and
7 Commissioner Hemminger)
8
9 The motion failed.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon that
12 as the Board encounters positions that should not be filled at this time, that they be deferred to
13 a public process and for the Clerk's Office to vet the applications.
14
15 Frank Clifton said that the appointment process is term-limited and if others wanted to
16 roll off, then others could be appointed.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is some "lack of inclusion" in this group that he
18 would like to bring to the attention of the Board. He said that there are two categories that are
19 glaringly absent.
20 Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment for the applications to be brought
21 back to the BOCC no later than June 19'".
22 Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs agreed to accept Commissioner
23 McKee's friendly amendment.
24
25 VOTE. Ayes, 6, No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz)
26
27 Chair Pelissier suggested going back to the policies and their adoption.
28 Commissioner Gordon made a friendly amendment in Section 2, Goals and Objectives,
29 page 4, and said that a third bullet should be added which says, "support the goals and
30 objectives of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan."
31 Chair Pelissier said that this is already in the general policies, which is that all of the
32 advisory boards, regardless of the specific goals, all have to support the goals and objectives of
33 Orange County.
34 John Roberts said that he does not recall this being in the general policies.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with Commissioner Gordon and that it is not
36 going to hurt anything.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
39 approve the Economic Development Advisory Board Policies and Procedures with the added
40 language by Commissioner Gordon conceming the goals and objectives.
41 VOTE. UNANIMOUS
42
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board had a retreat five years ago to turn Orange
44 County green and to embrace this. He suggested having one position that is someone involved
45 in emerging technologies/green industry, and also a position that includes micro-business
46 owners. He wants someone at the table that is for"the little guy."
47 Commissioner Yuhasz said that they are getting away from what they had discussed
48 about this board, which is to support the business recruitment efforts. He said that he does not
49 see the value of increasing the membership because it dilutes the core group.
18
1 Chair Pelissier said that the focus is the economic development districts. She thinks
2 that there is not a good choice in the entrepreneur category.
3 Commissioner McKee suggested that each County Commissioner nominate one person
4 from the list.
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs that, consistent with the stated goals at
6 the retreat in 2009, to include a position on the Economic Development Advisory Board that
7 represents emerging technologies.
8 There was no second. The motion failed.
9 Commissioner Gordon noted that she was interested in the idea of adding areas that are
10 not currently represented, but not during the appointment process.
11 Commissioner Hemminger suggested going through each category. The Board agreed.
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
13 assign length of terms randomly after the appointments are made.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 APPOINTMENTS
17
18 AGRICULTURE (1)
19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
20 appoint Karen McAdams to the Agriculture position.
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 CORE BUSINESS COMMUNITY(5) (only 4 were appointed tonight)
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
25 appoint Tom Underwood to one of the Core Business Community positions.
26 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Foushee)
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
29 appoint Eric Pate to one of the Core Business Community positions.
30 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
33 Foushee to appoint John Anderson to the one of the Core Business Community positions.
34 VOTE: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 (AYES - Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee)
35 MOTION FAILED
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
38 appoint Mark O' Neal to one of the Core Business Community positions.
39 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1(Commissioner Gordon)
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
42 appoint Lori Echel to one of the Core Business Community positions.
43 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Hemminger)
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Paige Zinn to one of the Core
46 Business Community positions.
47 There was no second. Motion failed.
48 Commissioner Gordon noted that relatively few women were being appointed.
49
50
19
1 The Board then decided to only appoint four applicants.
2
3 The appointees were Tom Underwood, Eric Pate, Lori Echel, and Mark O'Neal.
4
5
6 TOURISM (1)
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
8 appoint Mark Chilton Sherburne to the Tourism position.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11
12 NON-PROFIT(1)
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
14 appoint Delores Bailey to the Non-Profit position.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 UNC AT CHAPEL HILL(1)
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
19 appoint Jim Kitchen to the UNC-Chapel Hill position.
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 ENTREPRENEUR (1) -OPEN
23 This category has been left open by the Board.
24
25 John Roberts asked about assigning terms and Chair Pelissier said that staff will assign
26 the length of terms randomly.
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
28 defer assigning terms until the completion of appointments to the Economic Development
29 Advisory Board.
30 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he opposed this because this board can function with
31 eight members for the next month. These eight people could be given random terms and the
32 other two people could be placed in the other term positions.
33 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that the term slots are already set, but the people
34 just need to be placed.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that the length of term is irrelevant to the board getting to
36 work immediately.
37 VOTE: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 (AYES-Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon)
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
40 to assign the staggered terms randomly now.
41 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
42
43 C. Orange County Transit Plan and Related Agreements
44 The Board considered adoption of the Orange County Transit Plan and considered
45 approval of the Durham/Orange Cost Share Agreement, the Orange County/Triangle Transit
46 Implementing Agreement and the Do Not Levy Agreement and authorizing the Chair to sign if
47 approved.
48 Chair Pelissier referred to a handout at the County Commissioners' places in reference
49 to the Regional Transportation Alliance's recent transit poll. It shows that the support for transit
50 in Orange County has remained consistent over the past three years.
20
1 John Roberts suggested not approving this implementation agreement tonight because
2 it needs to be reviewed.
3 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
4 (because of the late nature of receiving this information).to receive this as information only
5 tonight, and to discuss and make no decision until the meeting on June 5th.
6 Commissioner Foushee said that as she looked at this plan and the process they have
7 endured, this plan provides future transit options and tells the Board how to move forward with
8 transit in the future. She said that it is crucial to the region that the County is ready for the
9 growth to come. She thinks that Triangle Transit has done its due diligence. She suggested
10 doing this sooner rather than later.
11 Chair Pelissier said that there are things that need to be added to this plan but she said
12 that the information in the draft plan is not new to them and the cost sharing was approved by
13 Durham County last night.
14 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Foushee and said that the County
15 Commissioners have endured this process. He sympathized with Commissioner McKee in that
16 this has not been a smooth process at all. He said that adjustments could be made. He is
17 ready to vote to defer the agreement and put it on the ballot.
18 Commissioner Gordon said that to delay making any decisions tonight is not something
19 they want to do. She said that the implementation agreement and the bus and rail plan are new
20 versions that the Board just received recently. In interest of transparency, the Board may not
21 wish to adopt the bus and rail plan since there are several changes that were made to the
22 document that was delivered to the Board last night.
23 Commissioner McKee said that this information came out yesterday at 5:30 p.m. and he
24 thinks that he would be doing a disservice to the citizens of Orange County if they do not
25 consider this fully.
26 VOTE. Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee); Nays, 5
27 MOTION FAILED
28
29 Presentation by Triangle Transit:
30 Triangle Transit General Manager David King said that this started about five years
31 ago when Commissioner Gordon was Chair of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
32 Planning Organization. The DCHC MPO came up with a vision for Wake, Durham, and Orange
33 Counties. This vision is incorporated into the plan. He said that 95% of this information was
34 seen by the Board last year. The only changes are due to a one-year delay in implementation
35 and the financial adjustments that must be made.
36 The Orange County plan is a chapter of a three-county regional plan—Durham County
37 has approved its plan and Wake County is working on a draft. The plan contains several
38 elements— bus service provided by Chapel Hill Transit, Triangle Transit, and Orange Public
39 Transportation. The second element includes route enhancements on NC 86 in Chapel Hill.
40 This will make the buses move more smoothly. The third element is the local share of the cost
41 of the Hillsborough train station. This station is part of what the North Carolina Department of
42 Transportation Rail Division was planning to do. The ability to cover the 10% local share is
43 embedded in this plan. The fourth element is light rail, about three miles of it, starting at UNC
44 Hospital and proceeding east to the Dean Smith Center and then to NC 54 and the Friday
45 Center. There is an environmental study going on now to determine whether the route will
46 continue north through Meadowmont or further east along NC 54. This decision will be made in
47 the next year and a half.
48 The financial plan includes the Y2-cent sales tax. This Yz cent does not apply to food,
49 medicine, gasoline, or utilities. This will only yield about $5.1 million a year.
21
1 Triangle Transit Attorney Wib Gulley went through the two agreements, the "do not levy
2 agreement" and the "cost sharing agreement." Regarding the Levy of Transit Sales Tax, it says
3 that this agreement does not indicate approval of the Board of County Commissioners of the
4 Orange County Transit Plan; it does not require the County Commissioners to schedule for a
5 referendum; but it does say that Triangle Transit will not levy the transit sales tax in Orange
6 County pursuant to Article 43 unless the Board of County Commissioners by Resolution
7 requests TTA to levy this tax. This is Attachment 4, page 41.
8 The Cost Sharing Agreement is on page 25 and is between Durham County, Orange
9 County, and Triangle Transit.
10 John Roberts said that this is the form that Durham County approved last night but is
11 not in the form the Board of County Commissioners discussed at its work session.
12 Wib Gulley reviewed the agreement points in the cost sharing agreement, which are
13 incorporated by reference. Orange County's part of the local share would be $316.2 million.
14 This reflects the percentages of 77.05% for Durham and 22.95% for Orange.
15 John Roberts made reference to page 26, sections 3 and 4, and said that this
16 document should incorporate all of the suggested changes in it with the exception of section 4.
17 Commissioner Gordon had asked for the fees to be specified. He said that Articles 50 and 51
18 in Chapter 105 specifically reference those fees and the authorization of those fees. Rather
19 than using House Bill 58 with the specific amounts, this section references Articles 50 and 51.
20 John Roberts made reference to section 3 and said that his previous email was related
21' to this. Durham County's Attorney, at the suggestion of its Manager, changed these
22 percentages to 76.05% and 23.95%, which is different.
23 Wib Gulley said that Durham County felt that the final proposal was to move $150,000
24 a year for the full life of the agreement, and changing the percentage would make this amount
25 more, and Durham did not agree to this.
26 John Roberts said that the percentages were negotiated by Commissioner Jacobs,
27 Chair Pelissier, Commissioner Yuhasz, and Durham County officials and staff.
28 Chair Pelissier said that the Board would finish hearing about the agreements, listen to
29 the public comment, and then consider the items one by one.
30
31 John Roberts said that the implementation agreement is an optional agreement and is
32 new. He said that he recommended for the County Commissioners to approve the cost sharing
33 plan subsequent to approving this agreement. He went through this agreement, which is
34 incorporated by reference. The funding sources include the Y-cent sales tax, a new$7.00
35 vehicle registration fee, and a $3.00 increase in the existing vehicle registration fee.
36
37 PUBLIC COMMENT:
38 Will Raymond said that this plan is still not firm enough to really move forward. He said
39 that they need to understand what is being provided for those dollars. There needs to be a firm
40 understanding of what the money will be used for. He is concerned that the public input is not
41 being considered in this plan. He said that the public continues to ask for an evaluation of the_
42 15/501 versus 54 alignments in terms of at
and economic impacts. There has been
43 no deliberation by the Board on this issue. He suggested shifting the focus to buses and
44 making a commitment to save for the light rail in the future. He would like to have an
45 explanation of where the missing community input is. He said that the community turned out for
46 the meetings and gave lots of great comments, but he does not see them.
47 Bonnie Hauser echoed Will Raymond's comments. She said that she is disappointed
48 for the citizens because so few people understand this plan. She said that transit only works if
49 it is convenient, and this plan is not convenient.
50
22
1 Transit Plan
2 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Will Raymond's comments and said that the
3 County Commissioners did solicit comments from the public at the open houses and he asked
4 about the comments. It was answered that the County Commissioners were shown the
5 comments at a work session.
6 Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on the debt. In the packet dated May 8th
7 on page 22 it shows a debt of$19 million; and then on page 20 it says $28 million. He asked
8 for an explanation of the difference.
9 Patrick McDonough said that they needed to address the difference between Durham
10 County and Orange County and the operational costs and the minor disagreement. This has to
11 be addressed with cash balances. He said that $25 million borrowed in the early 2020's will
12 equal $19 million when the payments are taken into account until 2035. The County is
13 borrowing $25 million, but will make $19 million in debt payments between then and 2035.
14 Commissioner McKee made reference to the May 11th handout, which says that a total
15 of$28 million will be borrowed. Patrick McDonough said that this is a typo. It should say $25
16 million. This is also on page 21.
17 Chair Pelissier asked for clarification on the typographical errors so that it is on the
18 record.
19 Patrick McDonough said that on page 21, $28 million will be corrected to $25 million.
20 To the extent that any other number in the document refers to borrowing $28 million, it will be
21 corrected to $25 million.
22 Commissioner McKee made reference to the May 11th document under Financial Plan
23 Data, and the Hillsborough rail station of$9 million. He asked who was paying for this. Patrick
24 McDonough said that the contribution of Orange County is 10%. This is a permanent building
25 with platforms, etc.
26 Chair Pelissier asked that everyone look at the updated plan only from May 15th. She
27 said that on page 41 it shows the breakdown of financials.
28 Commissioner McKee said that the County Commissioners have discussed park and
29 rides to serve the rail stations. They also talked about expanded zones of opportunity for
30 people to be able to go to a park and ride and be able to access the light rail. He said that he
31 does not see this anywhere. There should be shuttle services from park and rides to the light
32 rail stations.
33 Patrick McDonough made reference to Appendix A and clarified where these
34 shuttles would be.
35 Commissioner McKee made reference to transit fares and asked how this would work.
36 Patrick McDonough said that Chapel Hill has made a policy decision to be fare free.
37 Commissioner McKee asked if fare free was sustainable. Patrick McDonough said that
38 the entities have tried fare free before and the reason it failed was because they put a flat
39 contribution and did not account for inflation
40 Commissioner McKee said that his intent is to insist that Orange County taxpayers are
41 not imposed upon.
42 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on operation and maintenance costs on
43 page 11, where it states that the costs are $14.4 million. She said that it does not correspond
44 with the information on page 29, where the operation and maintenance costs add up to $13.3
45 million. Patrick McDonough said that this is probably a typo on the Durham County side.
46 Commissioner Gordon stated that on page 20, the initial proceeds for the local revenue
47 stream in 2012 were given as $770,000 for the $7 vehicle registration fee and $330,000 for the
48 $3 increase in the fee. However, on pages 21 and 22 the numbers given were $580,000 and
49 $250,000 respectively.
50
23
1 Commissioner McKee said that he is for expanding the bus service and that there are
2 ways to do this without the light rail. He thinks that it should be put on the 2045-2055
3 timeframe.
4 Discussion ensued about the $14.4 million for operating costs and if this was correct.
5 David King said that this is a 25-year look into the future and it turns on several
6 important assumptions—sales tax, federal budget, how fast the costs grow, etc. He cautioned
7 the Board to not get too caught up in the numbers.
8 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 29 and information given in 2011
9 dollars. She said that, in 2011 the County Commissioners were talking about Orange County
10 paying for the Orange County portion and the part of Chapel Hill that was in Durham County for
11 a total of$330 million. Then there was negotiation and it was negotiated that Orange County
12 would pay$316.2 million. She asked for clarification of some of the numbers on page 29.
13
14 Patrick McDonough clarified these numbers.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
17 to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m.
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 23 and section VI showing the Orange
21 Financial Plan data. She said this information is difficult to understand because of the
22 differences between 2011 dollars and year of Year of Expenditure dollars. She asked Triangle
23 Transit to add clarifying information. She then referenced page 30 of Appendix A which
24 showed total plan revenues and costs. She said that the total plan costs on page 23, which
25 added up to $648 million, did not correspond to the total plan costs, which are given as $659.9
26 million in Appendix A.
27 Commissioner Gordon asked what Durham County had affirmed and not affirmed in
28 their work session.
29 Wib Gulley said that Durham County accepted the $316.2 million for capital.
30 Commissioner Yuhasz asked who would be borrowing the money.
31 Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit would be the borrowing entity.
32 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not understand why the $25 million keeps
33 showing up in the Orange County plan if it is not an Orange County debt. Wib Gulley said that
34 it is an effort to show how the plan works. He said that it could be rewritten to ensure that
35 Orange County is not signing up for any debt.
36 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 6 and said that there is no mention of cost
37 share for buses between Orange County and Durham County. She said that she received an
38 email from TTA that this was an oversight. She suggested adding in that all of the regional bus
39 lines are cost shared 50/50 between Orange County and Durham County. This needs to be in
40 the plan.
41 David King said that they have drafted some language for this and it will be at the end
42 of the first full paragraph on page 6: "costs and expenses for regional bus service for the
43 Durham and Orange County Regional Plan shall be shared on a 50150 basis."
44 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 7, and "a portion of revenues identified will be
45 used to support existing bus service." To be consistent, she suggested saying "only those
46 revenues from the vehicle registration tax will be used to support existing bus service."
47 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 9 and bus capital investments. She said that
48 she would like to specify bus shelters in both rural and urban areas and not just urban areas.
49 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 8 and the first sentence, after the word
50 "appropriated", she would like to add, "at the outset."
24
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
3 delay a decision on these four items until the June 5t'meeting.
4 Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving ahead in principle and asking that it come
5 back with the changes.
6 John Roberts said that a motion that was denied cannot be brought back at the same
7 meeting (he is referring to Commissioner McKee's motion to defer the vote tonight on the transit
8 plan).
9 Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion.
10 Commissioner Gordon said that she will have to vote against this tonight, in the interest
11 of transparency and getting the plan right. There are still errors.
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
13 to approve the transit plan in principle and have all staff to come back with changes identified, if
14 the Board of County Commissioners identify other changes to include them, and to embrace the
15 general principles and details of the transit plan.
16 Chair Pelissier said that she would send in her additional changes.
17 John Roberts said that once the financial plan is approved and there is a referendum
18 without an implementation agreement, the County Commissioners have no control over
19 anything. Approving in principle is still, in effect, an approval.
20 Wib Gulley said that the motion on the table could be approved and then the Board
21 could also approve the levy agreement which states that TTA will not levy the sales tax until
22 Orange County approves.
23
24 It was suggested to amend the motion to add "contingent on approval of an
25 implementation agreement between Triangle Transit and Orange County."
26 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger accepted the amendment.
27 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would vote against it because he does not agree
28 with the plan in principle, but he is in favor of the agreement occurring before any other action.
29 Commissioner Gordon said that she had more to say about changes to the bus and rail
30 plan. She will vote against the motion because everything needs to be transparent. She does
31 not feel this is the proper procedure because it is not transparent and there has not been due
32 diligence to make sure the plan is correct.
33 VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Yuhasz, Commissioner Gordon, and Commissioner
34 McKee)
35
36 Frank Clifton said that if the referendum is passed by the public, the revenues collected
37 go straight to TTA. The debt is issued by TTA and not Orange County.
38
39 Additional Comments from Commissioners in reference to this item were encouraged to be
40 submitted and would be included as part of these minutes:
41
42 Additional comments regarding minor modifications to the transit plan from Chair Pelissier:
43
44 Regarding transit fares on Page 23, do we need to specify the
45 assumption regarding fare recovery for Hillsborough routes or is that considered to be the same
46 as the TTA farebox recovery rate?
47
48 The section on the Implementation Agreement (page 23) needs to
49 be consistent with the fact that a draft agreement has already been
50 developed. The second sentence does not need to reference UNC, the
25
1 MPO, and the towns since the implementation agreement is between Orange County and TTA.
2 Rather, the plan should note that the implementation agreement spells out how all these parties
3 will work on various aspects of the implementation of the plan.
4
5 On page 24 additional revisions to the implementation agreement :
6 On item b, delete reference to the MPO voting on changes to the plan.
7 The Intermodal Act does not require an MPO vote but a report to the MPO as outlined in item a.
8 On item d delete reference to MPO. The Implementation Agreement does not have the MPO
9 voting on modifications unless it is needed.
10
11 Page 29. The assumptions mix total costs with Orange County costs. The cost for the
12 MLK BRT is the total cost but the Hillsborough train station is the local cost. It would be good to
13 make sure that costs always clearly identify for the reader total costs vs. local costs to avoid
14 confusion.
15
16 Check that all numbers are consistent across the document
17 (Commissioner Gordon pointed out some of the inconsistencies). I noticed , for example, that
18 the cost of the MLK bus lanes are not the same on page 29 and 43.
19
20 1 would like to have a note about the percentage contingency assumed in the financial
21 model.
22
23 Comments from Commissioner Gordon: Part 1
24
25 All,
26
27 As I stated at the BOCC regular meeting on May 15, 1 have additional questions and comments
28 concerning the "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County. " (BRI) I will convey
29 those comments and questions in two parts:
30
31 Part I.
32 A. Additional Appendix-There should be an appendix which shows the details of the cost
33 sharing agreement with Durham County. In the attachment, I have shown what I think should
34 be included for capital costs, giving the dollar amounts which I have obtained from
35 information previously presented to the BOCC. These charts need to
36 be completed and checked for accuracy. For operation and maintenance costs. I have just
37 stated that the information should be given in the same format as for the capital costs, because
38 1 do not have those dollar amounts.
39
40 B. Page 6 - First five years following successful tax referendum It was suggested at the BOCC
41 meeting that the cost share for the regional bus lines should be shared 50-50 between Durham
42 and Orange.
43 Before that change is made, I would like an explanation of why that should be done and what
44 effect, if any, it would have on the BRI as it has been presented.
45
46 C. Page 7-What is the meaning of the following statement:
47 Routes provided by Chapel Hill Transit, may or may not, be included in the Plan. What effect, if
48 any, does that have on the BRI as it has been presented?
49
26
1 D. What is the cost of an individual LRT station, and what is the total cost of all 17 stations in
2 the Plan?
3
4 Commissioner Gordon's comments—Part II
5 This email contains Part II of my comments on the "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan in
6 Orange County. " (BRI Plan)
7
8 A. Add an additional Appendix- Cost Sharing Agreement (revised comment)As I stated in.my
9 Part I comments, there should be an appendix which shows the details of the cost sharing
10 agreement with Durham County.
11 Upon reflection, I decided I should send an outline of the Operations and Maintenance section
12 of this appendix, and so I have added that section at the bottom of the appendix that I sent
13 before. (See the attachment in this email)
14
15 B. Add an additional Appendix- Projected Sales Tax Revenues Please present the following
16 information in one or more charts.
17 For Orange County and for Durham County, give the dollar amounts for the projected sales tax
18 revenues for each year of the plan. Then for each year, show the total for both counties
19 combined, and the percent of the total that is projected to come from each county. (I believe
20 we have already seen such a chart, or something similar.)
21
22 C. Make the following changes in the BRI Plan
23
24 1. Different map
25 On page 18 use a different map that shows the county line and other geographic details so the
26 LRT alignment is clearly shown with respect to what is currently on the ground.
27
28 2. Dollar amounts for state and federal funding On pages 22 and 23, the dollar amounts for
29 state and federal funding should be stated clearly. Please give the amounts for the 25% state
30 match and 50% federal match for LRT, and also the amounts for other state and federal funds
31 that are included in the model. Note that the
32 $239 million in federal funds in paragraph F needs further explanation.
33
34 3. Orange financial plan data
35 On page 23, the amounts given should list all of the costs included in the model, and they
36 should be given in both 2011 dollars and YOE dollars. Doing that might help explain why the
37 costs listed on this page total $648 million while the total plan costs listed on page 30 total
38 $659.9 million.
39
40 4. Implementation agreement
41 On pages 23 and 24, the text should be changed as suggested by Chair Pelissier in her edits to
42 the transit plan, sent by email on May 17.
43
44 5. Federal New Starts funding process
45 On pages 24-26, state the dates for federal funding that are used in the model for each step of
46 federal funding.
47
48 6. Alternative plan
49 Either here on page 26 or elsewhere in the text of BRI Plan, describe the "local" plan
50 (previously known as the "core" plan) which explains what will happen if federal and state funds
27
1 are not obtained. The details of the plan that we have already received could be included in an
2 appendix.
3
4 7. Closing summary
5 On page 27, it is stated that the draft Plan has been shared with the general public, Carrboro
6 Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council, the Hillsborough Town Commissioners, the
7 DCHC MPO, the Burlington-Graham MPO and the Orange County Commission.
8
9 Please see that all of these entities receive the most recent version of the BRI Plan and that
10 they are told how and when they may provide their comments.
11
12 8. Appendix A- Total Plan Revenues and Costs Review the charts on page 30, and check all of
13 the information for accuracy and completeness. If all of the information is correct, please
14 explain why the third pie chart shows the local costs for Orange County to be 40.7 percent of
15 the total costs ($268.7 million divided by $659.9 million). Please give a clear statement
16 concerning how the revenues and costs in all three charts were calculated.
17
18 D. Eliminate all of the inconsistencies
19 In addition to the ones I identified at the May 15 meeting, and those identified by other
20 commissioners, here are some additional places which should be checked for inconsistencies.
21
22 1. Sales tax growth rate
23 On page 21 the rate is-given as 1.5% (2011 through 2014) and on page
24 29 it is listed as 1.00% (to 2015).
25
26 2. Assumptions
27 Review the chart on page 29, and check all of the information for accuracy and completeness.
28
29 3. Length of the LRT alignment
30 Throughout the BRI Plan, the length of the LRT line is given as 17 miles (e.g. page 10), but it is
31 more than that. Is it 17.3 miles?
32 Whatever it is, the 17 miles should be changed to 17.3 or whatever is correct.
33
34 4. Initial costs and revenues
35 Throughout the BRI Plan, the initial costs/revenues are usually given in 2011 dollars, but
36 sometimes they are given in 2012 dollars. Why aren't 2012 dollars used? In any case, it would
37 be more consistent if the dollar amounts for the initial costs/revenues were stated using just
38 2011 or 2012 dollars.
39
40
41
42
43 Lew Agreement
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
45 Hemminger to approve the Orange County and Triangle Transit Levy of Transit Sales Tax.
46 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
47
48
49 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
50 ORANGE COUNTY and TRIANGLE TRANSIT
28
1 LEVY OF TRANSIT SALES TAX
2
3
4 An INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated
5 between the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle Transit
6 ("TTA"), a three county regional transportation authority organized pursuant to NCGS Chapter
7 160A et. seq., and Orange County ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of North
8 Carolina. TTA and the County may be collectively referred to (together the "Parties").
9
10 WITNESSETH:
11
12 WHEREAS, the County and TTA, have determined that it is in the best interest of
13 Orange County citizens for them to coordinate the planning, construction and expansion of
14 public transit services in order to provide efficient and effectively linked transit services to the
15 residents of, the employees and employers in, and the visitors to the Orange County area; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that an efficient and effective transit system
18 is crucial, in concert with other transportation, land use, and economic development initiatives,
19 to maintain a high quality of life, appropriately to support future development, and to provide
20 transportation options to the current and future residents, employees and employers of the
21 Orange County area; and
22 -
23 WHEREAS, the Parties understand that new county-wide tax levies authorized by the
24 North Carolina General Assembly in NCGS Chapter 105, Article 43 ("Article 43") will be paid by
25 residents and businesses in all locations within the County; and
26
27 WHEREAS, these Article 43 tax levies should be invested to the highest degree
28 possible so that the return on investment accrues to Orange County's quality of life, tax base,
29 and retail sales proceeds, which can create long term financial sustainability for public transit;
30 and
31
32 WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority granted by NCGS
33 Chapter 160A, Article 20.
34
35 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and assurances
36 contained herein, and the mutual benefits to result therefrom, the Parties agree as follows
29
1 1. That this Agreement does not indicate approval of the Orange County Bus and Rail
2 Investment Plan ("Orange BRI Plan") by the Orange County Board of County
3 Commissioners ("Orange BOCC").
4
5 2. That this Agreement does not require or bind the Orange BOCC to approve, set or
6 schedule a referendum for voter approval of a transit sales tax.
7
8 3. TTA agrees that it will not levy the transit sales tax in Orange County pursuant to Article
9 43 unless the Orange BOCC by Resolution requests TTA to levy this tax.
10
11
12 Cost Sharing Agreement
13 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the operational costs should be at the same
14 percentage as the capital costs.
15 Chair Pelissier said that if this is not approved, then the negotiations with Durham must
16 be started again.
17 (The three Commissioners who were involved in the negotiations with Durham County
18 were asked if they had specifically discussed the operations and maintenance costs with
19 Durham. They said they had not, since they had thought they were discussing both capital as
20 well as operation and maintenance costs.)
21 Commissioner Jacobs said that, based on the compromise Durham County made in
22 capital, Orange County still comes in ahead of where it started.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
25 to approve the current Intedocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for LRT Rail Project.
26 VOTE. Ayes, 5, Nays, 2 (Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee)
27
28 ORANGE COUNTY, DURHAM COUNTY and RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC
29 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
30 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
31 COST SHARING FOR LRT RAIL PROJECT
32
33
34 This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") dated , 2012 is entered into
35 by and between Orange County ("Orange"), a political subdivision of the State or North
36 Carolina, Durham County ("Durham"), a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and
37 Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle Transit ("TTA").
38 Durham, Orange, and TTA may be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as
39 "Parties". This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina
40 General Statutes.
41
42 Whereas, the Parties each desire to provide for the future transportation needs of
43 Durham and Orange, understanding that enhanced mobility options will support a high quality of
44 life, strengthen economic development, and enhance sustainability; and
45
46 Whereas, Durham and Orange mutually desire to support and share the costs for the
47 planning, construction, operation, and maintenance (collectively "Costs") of a 17.3 mile
48 passenger rail service running from Durham to Orange along a corridor as outlined in
49 Attachment One, containing 17 stations, four of which are located in Orange County, and
30
1 utilizing light rail vehicles ('LRT Project") as an important element in meeting their future
2 transportation needs and supporting efficient, sustainable development patterns; and
3
4 Whereas, the Parties acknowledge that the LRT Project will be managed, planned,
5 constructed, maintained and operated by the TTA according to each jurisdictions Bus and Rail
6 Investment Plans ("BRI Plans") as respectively adopted or subsequently modified by the
7 Parties, which plans, once adopted shall be incorporated herein by reference; and
8
9 Whereas, pursuant to NCGS §105-508.2 (Article 43) and Chapter 105 Articles 50 and
10 51, revenues will be collected by the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue
11 and distributed to TTA to fund public transportation in TTA's jurisdiction including the
12 construction, maintenance and operation of the LRT Project; and
13
14 Whereas, the Parties have bargained to agreement on an equitable division of
15 responsibility to pay for the Costs of the LRT Project.
16
17 Now therefore, in light of the mutual covenants contained herein and provided that the
18 LRT Project moves through planning and construction as set forth in the BRI Plans as may be
19 modified from time to time, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
20
21 1. The total capital cost for the LRT Project through 2035 is estimated to be $1.378
22 billion dollars as of the date of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement
23 capital costs include only planning and construction of the LRT Project ("Capital
24 Costs") which is estimated at 13 years and are a portion of the total Costs. Over the
25 coming years the Parties acknowledge that the LRT Project will move from
26 preliminary to final design, which will result in a more precise project description and
27 more accurate Capital Costs. As a result of this and as with any major capital
28 project planned and constructed over a number of years, the Parties understand that
29 the estimated Costs of the LRT Project may be subject to change and adjustment.
30
31 2. Subject to Section 5 herein and based upon a total Capital Cost estimate of $1.378
32 billion for the LRT Project, it being anticipated the LRT project will be funded 50% by
33 the federal government and 25% by the state government, Durham's share
34 (including federal, state and local transit tax proceeds) of this total shall be $1.061.8
35 billion and Orange's share (including federal, state and local transit tax proceeds) of
36 this total shall be $316.2 million. This division of responsibility for Capital Costs
37 reflects percentage shares of 77.05% for Durham and 22.95% for Orange.
38
39 3. Subject to Section 5 herein, and due to the change in costs following planning and
40 construction, the Parties agree that the division of responsibility for operations and
41 maintenance costs of the LRT Project in percentage shares of 76.05% for Durham
42 and 23.95% for Orange.
43
44 4. The Parties agree that the funds used to pay for the Costs of the LRT Project shall
45 come from the M2 cent transit sales tax revenues received pursuant to NCGS 105-
46 508.2 and other transit revenues which may be used for this purpose, including but
47 not limited to rental car taxes and vehicle registration fees levied and received
48 pursuant to Chapter 105 Articles 50 and 51 by TTA. TTA shall allocate and pay for
49 the respective shares of planning, construction, operations, and maintenance Costs
50 from the revenues received in accordance with this Agreement and the BRI Plans.
31
1
2 5. The Parties agree that should the revenues discussed in Section 4 generated in
3 Orange and Durham counties be insufficient to meet each jurisdiction's share of
4 Costs, then neither party shall be obligated to use other revenues to pay its share of
5 Costs.
6
7 6. In the event Capital Costs exceed the current estimated total of $1.378 billion, the
8 Parties agree to discuss a response to this situation. Such response may include
9 but not be limited to a schedule delay in one or more aspects of the LRT Project, a
10 reduction in the scope of the LRT Project, a combination of these measures,
11 discontinuation of the LRT Project, or other reasonable steps to mutually address
12 the increased Capital Costs of the LRT Project.
13
14 7. TTA shall provide an annual report on the collection, allocation, and expenditure of
15 those funds to the governing boards of Durham and Orange. TTA shall provide to
16 the governing boards of Durham and Orange copies of its annual audit reports as
17 those reports are related to the collection of transit revenues in Durham County and
18 Orange County, including funds collected pursuant to NCGS Chapter 105 Article 43.
19
20 8. Further, all of the Parties and any transit provider receiving funds pursuant to this
21 Agreement shall use the net proceeds to supplement and not to supplant or replace
22 existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems. The Parties
23 shall address this supplantation issue in each Party's Implementation Agreement.
24
25 9. The Parties agree that Durham and TTA shall enter into an agreement pursuant to
26 NCGS 105-508.1(2) ("Durham Implementation Agreement").
27
28 10. The Parties agree that Orange and TTA shall enter into an agreement pursuant to
29 NCGS 105-508.1(2) ("Orange Implementation Agreement").
30
31 11. If, during the term of this Agreement, state and/or federal funds to be used for the
32 LRT Project are cancelled, terminated, withdrawn, or otherwise become unavailable
33 for the LRT Project, the Parties agree the funds generated by the sales tax levied
34 pursuant to NCGS 105-509 and any other funds collected for the LRT Project shall
35 be re-allocated through the process set forth in each Party's Implementation
36 Agreement and the reallocation of funds shall be incorporated into the BRI Plans.
37
38 12. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first above recorded to and
39 including June 30, 2035. Upon its expiration the Agreement may be'renewed upon
40 mutual agreement of the Parties for successive three-year terms.
41
42 13. The Parties agree to review this Agreement and to make any needed modifications
43 to its terms not more than once every three years.
44
45 14. The Agreement may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties or by one
46 or more of the Parties upon a material breach by any of the Parties. In the event of
47 termination prior to the expiration of the original term, or any agreed upon extension
48 thereto, the Parties shall determine what obligations remain and how to equitably
49 distribute such obligations as they relate to the LRT Project.
50
32
1 Any amendment, renewal, or termination of this Agreement must be in the form of a
2 written instrument approved by the governing Boards of the Parties.
3
4 15. This Agreement shall be governed by and in accordance with the laws of the State
5 of North Carolina. All actions relating in any way to this Agreement shall be brought
6 in the General Court of Justice in the County of Durham and the State of North
7 Carolina.
8
9 16. Except to the extent provided otherwise in this Agreement, it is agreed that the
10 Orange County Manager shall designate persons to carry out Orange County's
11 obligations under this Agreement, the Durham County Manager shall designate
12 persons to carry out Durham County's obligations under this Agreement, and the
13 General Manager of TTA shall designate persons to carry out TTA's obligations
14 under this Agreement.
15
16 17. Ownership of Improvement. All equipment acquired under this Interlocal Agreement
17 shall be the property of TTA or another entity under separate agreement and shall
18 be subject to disposition as required under applicable law.
19
33
1
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have approved this Agreement and have caused
3 it to be signed by the Chair of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, attested to
4 by the Clerk of the Orange County Board, and by the Chair of the Durham County Board of
5 County Commissioners, attested to by the Clerk of the Durham County Board, and by the
6 General Manager of TTA and it is effective as of the year and day first written above.
7
8
9 Implementation agreement
10 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the second page about the advisory board.
11 She said that the Board needs to discuss the membership of this board. The proposed board's
12 membership shows one representative each from Chapel Hill Transit, Hillsborough, and
13 Mebane but this representation does not correspond with the relative distribution of population
14 in these geographic areas. Chapel Hill Transit would include both Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
15 and this area has the majority of the population in Orange County.
16 Commissioner Jacobs suggested putting the transit item first on the June 5t' agenda.
17 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 8 on the BRI plan and said that she does not
18 think that five years is an appropriate timeframe.
19
20 8. Reports
21 NONE
22
23 9. County Manager's Report
24 NONE
25
26 10. County Attorney's Report
27 NONE
28
29 11. Appointments
30 a. Advisory Board on Aging—Appointment
31 The Board considered making an appointment to the Advisory Board on Aging .
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
33 to appoint Ms. Donna Prather to an At-Large position on the Advisory Board on Aging with a
34 term ending June 30, 2014.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 b. Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB)—Appointment
38 The Board considered making an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory
39 Board.
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
41 appoint Ms. Martha Hoyleman to the At-Large Position on the AHAB with a term ending June
42 30, 2015.
43 VOTE: UNAIMOUS
44
45 C. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointments
46 The Board considered making appointments to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
48 to appoint:
49
50 Ms. Renee McPherson—to the Cane Creek/Buckhom Voluntary Ag District position.
34
1 Mr. Howard McAdams, Jr. to an At-Large Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
2 Mr. Joe Thompson to an At-Large Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
3
4 VOTE: UNANI MOUS
5
6 d. Animal Services Advisory Board—Appointments
7 The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
9 appoint:
10
11 Ms. Aviva Scully to the Town of Chapel Hill position with a term ending June 30, 2015
12 Ms. Lori Lumpkin to the Non— Municipality position with a term ending June 30, 2015
13 Ms. Jean Merritt to the Animal Handier/Trainer position with a term ending June 30,
14 2013.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 e. Board of Health—Appointments
19 The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health.
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
21 to appoint:
22
23 Dr. Michael Carstens to the optometrist position with a term ending June 30, 2015
24 Mr. Corey Davis to the BOCC/Citizen position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
25 Mr. Tony Whitaker to the Engineer Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 f. Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment—Appointments
30 The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said that this board and the Chapel Hill Planning Board need
32 some kind of orientation to the County's policies, etc. regarding planning.
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
34 appoint Dr. Timothy Peppers, Sr. to the JPA position with a term ending June 30, 2015; and Ms.
35 Jennifer Amter to the ETJ position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 g_ Chapel Hill Planning Board—Appointment
39 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
41 appoint Deborah Fulghieri to the ETJ position on the Chapel Hill Planning Board with a term
42 ending June 30, 2015.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 h. Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board—Appointments
46 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage
47 Control Board.
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
49 Hemminger to appoint Greg Jarvies to the At-Large position with a term ending June 30, 2015;
50 and Rosa Tilley to a second term ending June 30, 2015.
35
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that in the letter sent from this board, there was a
4 notation about Keith Cook remaining as Chair.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
7 that Keith Cook remain as Chair on the Orange County ABC Board.
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 12. Board Comments
11 Commissioner Foushee—none
12 Commissioner Gordon—none
13 Commissioner Hemminger—none
14 Commissioner McKee—none
15 Commissioner Yuhasz—none
16 Commissioner Jacobs—none
17 Chair Pelissier—none
18
19 13. Information Items
20
21 May 1, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
22 Memo from Planning Department to BOCC Regarding NCDOT Eubanks Road
23 Realignment Options
24 BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Special Advisory Committees
25
26 14. Closed Session
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
28 Hemminger to go into closed session at 11:12 PM for the purpose of:
29
30 Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
31 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board regarding the
32 cases of Orange County v. Eno River Parking Deck and Orange County v. Town of
33 Hillsborough."
34 and
35 143-318.11(a)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
36 businesses in the area served by the public body.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
42 reconvene into open session at 11:40 p.m.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 15. Adjournment
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
47 adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
36
1
2 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC
3 Clerk to the Board