Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-13-2012 APPROVED 6/5/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING March 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services in Hillsborough, N. C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 1. Additions or Ghanaes to the Aqenda Chair Pelissier went through the additional items at the County Commissioners' places: - Yellow sheet— revised suggestions to item 5-m, BOCC Rules of Procedure— Revised Booklet - Blue sheet— Chair Pelissier's memo about the Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCB)-for Board comments Chair Pelissier asked Frank Clifton to introduce the new staff person. Financial Services Director Clarence Grier introduced Sharon Laisure, who will be acting as the Interim Human Resources Director for the next six months. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda Hillsborough Mayor Joe Phelps said that he listened to the Board's discussion about property revaluation and he would like to be placed on a future agenda to give the County Commissioners some information. He said that it looks like the County Commissioners can set the standard for this. He said that he has a lot of data. This request will be addressed in the agenda review process. Chris Weaver read a prepared statement: "On February 7th the BOCC put forth a weapons ban on the consent agenda. It was removed due to concerns from the public who had short notice and the minor concerns of Board members over the inclusion of pocket knives. There was much presumptuous in mixing the characteristics of criminals with those of lawful citizens. There was open discussion by the Board to allow all interested parties to participate in the process of crafting the ordinance. That interest of citizen participation appears to have evaporated. At the February 21 St Board meeting there was a petition by the Vice-Chair to return the item to regular agenda without a community meeting on the matter. On March 6th this was denied by the Chair in favor of more review and return to regular agenda at least by summer vacation with no plans of community meeting in the interim. From email exchanges with members of staff there is no indication this matter will find itself in a venue where actual dialog may occur as we were led to believe. It is in the interest of shared information and transparency and expediency in government that we ask three things: - A community meeting to discuss the ordinance - To better understand the scrutiny of, dedication of, and commitment of CWP holders, we ask that the BOCC, Attorney, and Manager all receive CWP provided free of charge. The offer for CWP stands for all County employees at the regular rate. - That this matter not be pushed out to a date in which we are all distracted by other events." b. Matters on the Printed Aaenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions bv Board Members NONE 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations a. Presentation on the Countv's Online Service Offerinqs The Board received information on the current state of Orange County's web-based online services and provided any recommendations and directions for future expansion. Todd Jones, Chief Information Officer, said that he requested to be on the agenda tonight to give the Board of County Commissioners a presentation of the current state of Orange County's web-based online services. There has been an exhaustive review of the larger counties in the state that are deemed to be technology leaders. He made reference to the spreadsheet with online services and different counties that offer them. Todd Jones gave some background information and said since the inception of the County's internet site in the mid-1990's, the County has envisioned providing a wide variety of County services through the Internet. These services, sometimes known as e-Government, allow the public to interact with Orange County government anytime and from any Internet connected computer. This strategy marks a deliberate transition in the County website from the information source to a resource for engaging the public and county government in a wide variety of interactive services. In addition to the clear benefits of public accessibility and convenience, online services can alleviate the inefficiencies of staff managing paper and manually processing forms and payments. Orange County's Information Technologies Department has been working with other departments to add online services as the website evolves. There has been a recent push to position the County's online services among those leading the state. This initiative has included seeking input from departments, comparing Orange County's offerings to those of other counties and brainstorming new offerings unique to Orange County. The attached spreadsheet (in permanent agenda file in Clerk's office) compares Orange County's online services to other counties in the state deemed to be technology leaders. This spreadsheet defines online services to be any service which uses interactive Internet technologies to deliver information or conduct transactions. This excludes services labeled as online services which are only hyperlinks to static documents, lists or forms that require printing. The spreadsheet shows that Orange County provides the most complete and comprehensive set of online services in the state, including the largest counties and those deemed to be the most technotogically progressive. Orange County offers some unique online services, including: - The farm produce locator tool — http://www.oranqecountyfarms.orq/ProductSearch asp This tool allows the public to search for a variety of farms and farm products online at any time from any Internet enabled computer. This service helps connect the public with the wide variety of agricultural offerings throughout the County's myriad farms, while reinforcing the commitment to promoting local agriculture. - The GIS mailing label tool — httq://server2.co.orange.nc.us/OranqeNCGOS/default aspx, "Buffer" tab. This allows the public to create a set of printable mailing labels with addresses of all properties within a user-specified distance of a selected parcel. This is particularly helpful when a resident seeks to alert property owners within, for example, 500 feet of that individual's property. This tool has significantly alleviated demands on Land Records' staff time, while giving the public the ability to create mailing labels themselves more quickly and cheaply. - Online pet registration — http://www.co.oranae.nc.us/AnimalServices/LicensinaOnline.asp This tool allows pet owners to register their pets online using a system that securely processes credit card payments. This system has quickly become a popular and convenient way for the public to conduct business with Animal Services any time and from anywhere. It has reduced paper processing and manual financial transactions for Animal Services staff. - Facilities reservations— https://server3.co.oranqe.nc.us/wbwsc/webtrac.wsc/wbsearch.html?xxmod=fr. This tool allows groups to reserve County facilities online, using an interactive tool that ensures adherence to County policies, while matching group needs with appropriate facilities. It has allowed the Facilities Use Policy to be implemented quickly and publicly. Other Orange County online services are noteworthy for their innovative features, including: - ARiES— http://aries.co.oranqe.nc.us This suite of tools leverages the power of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)without exposing the public to the complexity of the underlying GIS technology. Using simple street addresses rather than esoteric identifiers, the public can find a cornucopia of information related to a property. This address-centric approach is possible now that the addressing ordinance has greatly improved the correlation of addresses to parcels. There are only a couple of similar tools in the state (Wake and Mecklenburg), but none with the level of detail, Google maps integration and accompanying single function toolset of ARiES. - Parks locator map— http://server2.co.oranqe.nc.uslParkLocator/ This tool allows the public to search parks throughout the County based on specific amenities. It is the only tool of its kind allowing multiple amenity search (e.g., find all the parks in the County that have basketball courts, picnic facilities, and a playground), Google Maps integration and covering all County parks including those managed by municipalities. Information Technologies staff is also investigating the feasibility of developing mobile apps of some of these tools which could run on iPhones, iPads, and Android devices. As shown in the spreadsheet comparing Orange County's online services with those of other North Carolina counties, Orange County's variety and completeness of online services is among the leaders, if not the leader, in the state of North Carolina. The Information Technologies Department continues to partner with other departments to identify additional areas in which government information and services can be made available over the Internet. These ongoing efforts include: continuing study of peer counties' efforts, review of vendor enhancement plans, outreach to the community on what the public would like to see available, and internal brainstorming on capabilities that may position Orange County as pioneers for certain services. Todd Jones said Information Technologies appreciates the strong support from the Board of County Commissioners in these endeavors, as well as the excellent collaboration from other Orange County departments. Staff is confident that the County can maintain and expand its position as leaders in online services through continued efforts to excel in these areas. Commissioner Gordon asked about a map of the fire districts. Todd Jones said that in the larger GIS site, it will show the larger boundaries. Commissioner Jacobs asked Todd Jones to tell the public the amount of staff used to provide this service as opposed to other counties. Todd Jones said that Orange County is at about 50% staff of comparable-sized counties, but it provides as much or more than staffs twice their size. Chair Pelissier asked about outreach to the public. Todd Jones said that they are using some of the local blogs in the County. He asked for suggestions on outreach. Frank Clifton said that there are regular inquiries from users of the website and those are always forwarded to IT. b. UNC Report on Entrepreneurship Opportunities in Oranae Countv The Board received a report prepared by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Department of City and Regional Planning that summarizes the current state of entrepreneurship activity originating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and provided comments to staff. Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, introduced the UNC consultant Dr. Milizia. He said that Dr. Milizia's research shows the current state of entrepreneurial activity originating from the University, and identifies options where Orange County could work to regain more of these spinoff companies. This report is a follow-up to an earlier review leveraging UNC to promote entrepreneurship and business expansion in Orange County. Since 2000, 51 companies have originated from UNC through its Office of Technology Development (OTD), with even more companies started outside the OTD. While approximately 90% of these companies remain in the Triangle region, few of these companies are located in Orange County. To enable Orange County to attract and retain a subset of these companies, a clearer understanding of their space requirements and rent levels is necessary. Dr. Malizia documented the space needs of UNC's spin-off companies, interviewed representatives from current spin offs, documented the existing real estate climate, and proposed recommendations on how Orange County can better position itself to retain these companies. Dr. Malizia's recommendation from the report includes: - Orange County could focus on more specialized niches in the startup landscape. - Until UNC's Carolina North develops to where it can more directly support life science entrepreneurs, Orange County could develop office/flex space for life science companies, particularly in the NC Highway 54 corridor, possibly through a public/private partnership. - The potential for UNC's Odum Village (former married student housing apartment complex) to support campus startups could be evaluated. Odum Village is located on south campus near the UNC Medical School. - At some future point, as Orange County eventually utilizes more of the southern campus properties in Chapel Hill and potentially shifts some operations to that location, the Economic Development Department could evaluate using various available County spaces in downtown Chapel Hill, such as the County-owned "Jobs Link" building at 503 West Franklin Street, as an incubator center. - Orange County could evaluate the potential for Carr Mill Mall to house startups, with short term, reasonable rental rates. - Orange County could evaluate the potential to incorporate an incubator in the proposed mixed use project being developed at 300 East Main Street in Carrboro. - Orange County could evaluate the potential for Hillsborough to accommodate product-oriented spinoffs in existing industrial/warehouse space (such as Hillsborough Business Center) as well as County-owned facilities in Hillsborough. - Target the County's existing small business loan program to focus on startups, to include incorporating rent subsidies in the program. - Leverage existing County resources by inviting the participation of high net worth residents to support entrepreneurship growth and incubator facility operations. - Evaluate the potential successes of other emerging sectors such as green companies, contract research organization and defense contractors. - Evaluate the export potential of prepared foods. - Form a working group to include representatives from UNC Chapel Hill and Orange County to coordinate partnerships. Dr. Malizia said that what this study involved was to look at the companies that demanded real estate and locations that would supply this. He said that they wanted to find the appropriate place where Orange County fit in this regional area and a location where Orange County would not be in competition with Wake or Durham. Orange County needs to look at startup companies whose employees live in Orange County. The most attractive niche would be young companies that are beyond the startup stage. He said that the demand is in life science groups as well as information technology groups. The life science segment has high- finished space needs. The information technology arena would need general flex space. The Triangle is over-supplied in this kind of space, but Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Carrboro is not. However, this space that is available here is expensive. The recommendation to go after the life science group would be to go to Carolina North. He said that in the report he talked about developing buildings that would provide some redevelopment opportunities for some of the life science groups (NC 54 corridor). The "tech sawy" group would have more relaxed and unconventional work styles. These are companies such as those at American Underground at the American Tobacco Campus. There is an opportunity at Odum Village in the intermediate term, but not for a couple of years. In 2015, the University intends not to use that space further. Commissioner Hemminger said that these companies seem to want to be in an urbanized area. She asked if these companies still have a strong tie to UNC. Commissioner McKee encouraged the Economic Development staff to continue with these recommendations. He said that this is very good thinking. Commissioner Foushee said that one of the recommendations is to have the County's small business loan program to focus on these types of companies and to set aside funding to encourage these types of companies. 5. Consent Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from January 24, 31 and February 10, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments— None c. Motor Vehicle Propertv Tax Release/Refunds This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. d. Propertv Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to fifteen (15) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. e. Application for Proaertv Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to one untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2011 tax year. f. Jail Inspection Report The Board received the jail inspection report for January 4, 2012 from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. g_ Bid Award: Electronic Securitv Control Svstem Uparade for Oranqe Countv Jail The Board awarded the bid to Norment Security Group, Inc. of Garner, North Carolina at a cost of$144,789 and authorized the Financial Services Director to execute the necessary paperwork. h. Notice of Public Hearinq on Oranqe Countv's 2012 Leqislative Aqenda The Board directed the Clerk to the Board and the County Manager to publish a notice of the Board of County Commissioners' plans to hold a public hearing on April 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services— Hillsborough Commons at 113 Mayo Street in Hillsborough, North Carolina to receive public comments on potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2012 North Carolina General Assembly Session. i_. Authorization to Declare Items Surplus The Board declared two pieces of heavy equipment surplus for disposal through GovDeals and authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of the items. i License Renewal fo� Farmers' Market Pavilion — Eno River Farmers' Market Inc. This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. k. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Schedule for Uacominq Items (Special Flood Hazard Area and Commercial/Industrial Standards) The Board approved the process components and schedule for two government initiated items anticipated for the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. I_ Resolution Approvina Application for a Clean Water State Revolvinq Fund Loan to Finance the Proposed McGowan Outfall The Board approved a resolution authorizing staff to apply for a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Clean Water Revolving Fund Loan funding to finance the elimination of an existing pump station and construction of a proposed sewer collections outfall line and authorized the Chair to sign. RESOLUTION BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the North Carolina Water Infrastructure Act of 2005 (NCGS 159G) have authorized the making of loans and grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of construction of wastewater collection system infrastructure, and WHEREAS, The Oranqe Countv Board of Commissioners has need for and intends to construct a wastewater collection system infrastructure project described as the McGowan Outfall and WHEREAS, The Oranqe Countv Board of Commissioners intends to request state loan assistance for the project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: That Oranqe Countv Board of Commissioners, the Applicant, will arrange financing for all remaining costs of the project, if approved for a State loan award. That the Applicant will adopt and place into effect on or before completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges and other available funds which will provide adequate funds for proper operation, maintenance, and administration of the system and the repayment of all principal and interest on the debt. That the governing body of the Applicant agrees to include in the loan agreement a provision authorizing the State Treasurer, upon failure of the County to make scheduled repayment of the loan, to withhold from the County any State funds that would otherwise be distributed to the local government unit in an amount sufficient to pay all sums then due and payable to the State as a repayment of the loan. That the Applicant will provide for efficient operation and maintenance of the project on completion of construction thereof. That Frank Clifton. Countv Manaqer the Authorized Official, and successors so titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the Applicant with the State of North Carolina for a loan to aid in the construction of the project described above. That the Authorized Official, and successors so titled, is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information as the appropriate State agency may request in connection with such application or the project: to make the assurances as contained above; and to execute such other documents as may be required in connection with the application. That the Applicant has substantially complied or will substantially comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and State grants and loans pertaining thereto. Adopted this the 13th day of March, 2012, at Hillsborough, North Carolina m. BOCC Rules of Procedure— Revised Booklet This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 6. Items Removed from Consent Aaenda i License Renewal for Farmers' Market Pavilion — Eno River Farmers' Market, Inc. The Board considered renewal of the license agreement for the Eno River Farmers' Market Inc., for use of the Farmers' Market Pavilion through March 31, 2015 (existing agreement expires April 1, 2012) and authorizing the Chair to sign. Lisa Pope is the treasurer of the Farmer's Market and said that they are looking at the proposed fee structure for usage of the facility. She said that the structure, as proposed, would pose a financial hardship on the market itself. The current budget for the year with over$1,000 in fees would put the market in a deficit. She said that the prior market contract for the first three years of usage suggested that the contract could be reviewed and possibly renewed under the same terms if the County sees fit. This prior agreement waived any fees for the market for the usage. Since the building was built on a grant, the operating expenses are minimal. She said that they would appreciate being able to use the facility with no fees, but if that is not an option, they would suggest a flat rate of$500 per year for all times suggested (mid-week and Saturday market). The current fee structure is reasonable for groups that occasionally use the facility (wedding receptions, etc.), but it becomes a financial burden on the farmers to have that fee paid on a weekly basis. Austin Genhe spoke on the benefit of the market to the downtown area. He said that it is a vital part of the community. Commissioner Gordon asked if the market had approached the Town of Hillsborough. Austin Genhe said that the Tourism Board helps the market with a grant, but this is not guaranteed every year. Commissioner McKee said that, considering the County's focus on encouraging and helping small agricultural entities, he would support waiving the fees or making them minimal. He would prefer waiving the fees. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with sentiment of Commissioner McKee. He said that it is not encouraging to go from a subsidized rent program to off the cliff fees. He suggested talking about setting fees during the budget process. Commissioner Hemminger said that they all want to be supportive of the farmer's market. She said that it would be difficult to waive fees for one group if there are other groups coming in regularly. She is amenable to the suggestion of$500 annually. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed that the full fee is excessive in this case. He asked how many regular members participate each time it is open. He supported Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion to investigate this more and discuss an appropriate fee. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the Board needs to discuss what an appropriate fee should be. She asked the staff to provide a basis for a decision based on principles. She said that there is competition for this location. She would like the staff to look this over and see if the fee should be less and what would be reasonable. Chair Pelissier said that this license agreement will expire on April 1St. She asked what would happen if they wait. She is concerned about staff time for doing an in-depth analysis. Frank Clifton said that the Board adopted a Facilities Use Policy last year. The staff studied this and came up with an analysis based on the committed use of this facility. There is some competition for this facility. He said that he would follow the Board's direction. Commissioner McKee said that the facility is used by the local farmers heavily. He said that the $500 annual rent is reasonable and the agreement ends soon. He said that the Board needs to make a decision. Commissioner Foushee disagreed and she asked John Roberts about the agreement and the terms of termination. She said that the agreement does not speak to an extension of the current agreement. She has a problem with taking this decision out of context of the fee structure and opening it up to other requests. She suggested extending the agreement until the Board has had this discussion on fee structures during budget deliberations, such as July 1St John Roberts said that Section 4 says that is can be extended for two years beyond the three-year term. He agreed with Commissioner Foushee about making exceptions. He said that there should be a structure in place for making exceptions so that the County is not inundated with similar requests. Commissioner Jacobs reminded the Board that the initial reason that there is only one group using this facility is because there was a personality conflict that precluded a competing group from being willing to use the facility. It is not that the County selected one over the other; it is that one refused to participate. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: • Defer consideration until the Board's review of the County fee schedule during the budget process; • Regard this facility as a specialized use with a cost structure that reflects that difference; and • Adopt the $500 fee for the 2012-13 year (extending the current agreement for one year) VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) John Roberts asked the Board to make another motion to authorize the Chair or Manager to sign a one-year extension. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to authorize the Chair or Manager to sign a one-year extension on this current agreement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Motor Vehicle Propertv Tax Release/Refunds The Board considered adoption of a release/refund resolution related to 30 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS. Commissioner Jacobs asked to be excused from voting for this because he has an automobile on this item. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to excuse Commissioner Jacobs from voting on this item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adopt the release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 30 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (6-0, without Commissioner Jacobs) m. BOCC Rules of Procedure— Revised Booklet The Board considered approval of the revised BOCC Rules of Procedure booklet. Commissioner Gordon made reference to her handout, which was on the yellow sheet. She summarized her suggestions. Page 8—Suggest that in Rule 8 (next to last line on the page), the word "would" should be changed to "shall" so that it reads "shall also be placed...." It seems this change is needed for consistency with the previous wording. Page 9—Also in Rule 8, in the second line at the top of the page, should the word "usually" be deleted? It would then read "(48-72 hours before the meeting)." Page 16— In Rule 22, in the second line of the first paragraph, should the word "may" be changed to "shall" so that it reads "....board shall excuse members...."? Clerk to the Board Donna Baker made reference to the suggestion on page 9 and said , that there may circumstances out of the staff's control, and this wording was in an effort to �, make it more generalized. There is no legal requirement for when it is put out there. She 'I prefers to leave it as "generally" or"usually." �� Commissioner Jacobs asked the County Attorney about suspending the rules on Rule 5 I on page 13. He said that for petitions from the public, there may be times when something has to be acted upon. He said that making it "will" and "all such requests" makes it exclusionary and inflexible. If there could be a motion to suspend the rules, then he will not change the wording. John Roberts said that in Rule 22, after the words, "official conduct," he would add "as provided by law." Frank Clifton said that with suspending the rules, as long as the intent is clear, then it is sufficient. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the revised BOCC Rules of Procedure, with the following changes: - Page 8— Rule 8, change the word "would" to "shall" - Page 16 — Rule 22, change the word "may" to "shall" and add "as provided by law" at the end. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Public Hearinqs NONE 8. Reqular Aqenda a. Approval of the Construction of Oranqe Grove Fire Stations #2 and #3 in the Cane Creek Fire District The Board considered approval of the recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup to proceed with the construction of Orange Grove Fire Stations #2 and #3 in the Cane Creek Fire District. Commissioner Yuhasz asked to be excused from voting from this because he has been asked by the Orange Grove Fire Department regarding surveying some of this property. A motion was made Commissioner Hemminger, seconded Commissioner Jacobs to excuse Commissioner Yuhasz from voting on this item. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that this was Orange Grove Fire Department's idea because of the number of people outside the six-mile boundary. He said that Orange County has 1,100 residents that are outside the six-mile boundary. The first station will be on Rocky Ridge Road and will solve the issue for 400 property owners. The second station will be near the Alamance County Line. There are approximately 200 homeowners in this area that are more than six road miles from a station. Chief Tommy Holmes from Orange Grove Fire Department thanked the County Commissioners for this opportunity. He said that they took it upon themselves to find a solution for this problem. He said that they tried to do the proper thing and be fiscally conservative, but now there is a need for more stations. It will be sometime in 2013 before construction begins. The stations will cost about$70,000 each. Commissioner Gordon asked about the equipment needed and Chief Holmes said that he would need to purchase two vehicles. It was answered that it would cost about $400,000 to outfit each station. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup for the construction of both Orange Grove Fire Stations #2 and #3 in the Cane Creek Fire District. VOTE: Ayes, 6, No, 0 (Commissioner Yuhasz was excused) A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to send a thank-you letter to the Nutters for their continued community service and for their donation of land for one of these fire stations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Landfill Neiqhborhood Illeqal Dumpinq Cleanup/Collection The Board reviewed staff's plans and timeline and considered authorizing staff to proceed with the cleanup of waste improperly dumped on properties within 3/ mile of the Orange County Landfill. Michael Talbert summarized the information in the agenda abstract. BACKGROUND: On October 4, 2011 the Board of Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with a 'one-time' effort to clean up illegal dump sites located within three-fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary (Attachment 1), at no cost to the individual property owners. This item provides the opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to review staff's plans and timeline to proceed with the cleanup of waste improperly dumped on properties within 3/< mile of the Orange County Landfill. The plan is subject to modification relative to other priorities. Subsequent to the October 4th authorization, staff has performed a windshield survey of the area as well as spoken to property owners and otherwise inquired about the extent of the illegal dumping problem. As a result, staff has acquired additional information that will impact final cleanup planning. There appear to be two large, unregulated (non-permitted) and currently inactive for-profit disposal sites within the delineated 3/4 mile area (Attachment 2). These sites raise complicated legal issues surrounding potential County and property owner liability that require a more measured approach. This has caused staff, pursuant to County Attorney advice, to amend the previous planning to take this, and perhaps other, unexpected and potentially problematic dump sites into account (Attachment 3). One property of concern has been recently purchased by St. Paul AME Church. The church has submitted applications to the Town of Chapel Hill for a rezoning of 20.4 acres from R-1 to R-5 zoning and for a special use permit as a mixed use development (to be developed in phases) that includes 350 parking spaces, fellowship hall, administrative complex, day care, gymnasium, independent living units, memorial garden, sales office, sanctuary, wellness/senior/teen center, mausoleum, assisted living/continuing care units, guest house and health clinic. These development applications are currently proceeding through the Town of Chapel Hill's development review process and it is the County's understanding that the Town has requested that the applicant submit a "landfill mitigation plan." The property seems to contain a variety of materials that are buried over a several acre area and contains construction and demolition debris, land clearing and inert debris, and possibly municipal solid waste and/or commercial waste materials. This unregulated and non-permitted dump was the subject of a Warning Letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in February 1992 (re: non-conforming dump site). However, there is no record that additional action was taken on this matter and there is no record of Orange County being notified. Staff believes the County should use utmost caution by not taking any cleanup action (excavation of waste materials) that might expose Orange County to substantial environmental/financial liability. The County Health Department has historically provided well water sampling in this area which includes the wells down-gradient of this "dump site". Additionally, the area residents have been offered water sampling at no cost through the Landfill Area Water Assistance Fund approved by the BOCC last year. Based on available data to date, there has been no contamination that could be deemed likely to originate from this buried waste. Health Department Staff will continue to evaluate groundwater data as it becomes available. Area residents on well water will continue to be encouraged to request testing of their drinking water wells at no cost. If wells are discovered that appear to have been impacted by this dump site, Health Department and Solid Waste Department Staff will collaborate to develop plans of action related to resident notification and site mitigation for Board consideration. It may also be necessary to include NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Health and Human Services in site evaluation and/or mitigation discussions. At the time this neighborhood cleanup program was conceived, it was not known that unregulated, non-permitted for-profit waste dumps existed in a neighborhood nearby the landfill. There are two of these type dump locations that have been identified that fall into this category that staff is aware of at this time. The neighborhood cleanup program is not intended to mitigate potentially large areas where substantial quantities of unknown debris/trash have been buried or otherwise landfilled. Therefore staff advises that some limitations or constraints be applied to this program in order to avoid regulatory, environmental and financial liability. Staff believes it is not in Orange County's best interests to become involved in cleanup activities where there is a reasonab�e potential for liability and has therefore developed a draft neighborhood cleanup protocol and timeline (Attachment 4) with the objective to provide valuable cleanup services for neighborhoods within 3/4 mile of the landfill, consistent with the direction of the Board, while being judicious in order to avoid incurring unreasonable liability. It is staff's understanding that the intent of the cleanup activity is to remove those piles of trash and other materials that have been dumped (littering, roadside dumping, etc.) in the neighborhoods surrounding the landfill and not large quantities that represents unknown debris/waste that has been land disposed without proper permits or licenses. The process envisioned and discussed in more detail in Attachment 4 includes: - Distribution of letter to property owners within 3/4 mile of the landfill informing them that they are eligible for a County provided illegal dumping cleanup, based on certain criteria that will be outlined in the letter - Provide a time period not exceeding 90 days to respond to County letter - Solicitation of proposals from companies interested in and capable of providing cleanup services, selecting finro that will be under contract to Orange County - Receiving expressions of interest from property owners within 90-day deadline - County staff, along with selected cleanup service contractors, will evaluate each property to determine level of effort and equipmenUlabor resources necessary for cleanup, to identify any questionable materials that may be present (hazardous waste or buried waste materials) and to evaluate contractor access to the debris. - Obtain written authorization from property owner to conduct agreed upon cleanup activities and necessary liability waivers - Staff obtain quotes for service and authorize a contractor to proceed with cleanup - Objective is to complete all neighborhood cleanup activities no later than April 1, 2013, but work must be completed by the anticipated June 30, 2013 landfill closure. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs for this cleanup project are dependent on the level of response from residents eligible for this service and the ultimate conditions existing in the designated area. Previous estimates began at about$50,000, but costs also could easily exceed this amount. All funding for this project will be provided by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joan Garnett said that she was representing Justice United. She conceded her three minutes to Rev. Robert Campbell. Chair Pelissier said that the Board normally does not allow this, but she would this time. Rev. Robert Campbell said that he is speaking for RENA, the Coalition to End Racism, and Justice United. He thanked the County Commissioners for closing the landfill. He said that in December the County Commissioners promised to clean up 40 illegat dumpsites, which includes these two that were mentioned in this item. He spoke about a survey that was done that showed the water was contaminated. He said that the County has this information. He said that when it was first brought up to clean up these sites, it was stated that it would cost about$500,000-$1 million to clean it up. He said that$50,000 will not be sufficient. He said that the illegal dump sites are a liability to Orange County. Sara Hatcher, Master's student of UNC School of Public Health and the former Project Leader of UNC's Engineers Without Borders project, said that she is thrilled by the many steps taken in the last year to provide this community with the services it has been promised. She said that the project done through Engineers Without Borders identified over 40 illegal dumping sites, many of which were located within the headwaters of Bolin Creek Watershed. There were approximately 135 tires, along with hazardous materials such as antifreeze, motor oil, and paint. This represents a history of disrespect for the community and has potential lasting environmental health implications. She urged the County to reconsider the restrictions involving buried, partially buried, and hazardous or dangerous materials as it moves forward with the landfill neighborhood illegal dumping cleanup and collection initiative. Chair Pelissier apologized to her colleagues that she allowed time to be conceded. John Roberts said that the potential of liability is from many sources and County staff has been given information that some of these sites may have been operated in the past as a for-profit landfill. He cannot verify this at this time. He said that the cleanup costs for this would be extremety high, but that is not the reason that he strongly counseled them not to touch this. He counseled the County Commissioners not to touch this because of the potential for a tremendous liability from the State and Federal governments. The County taxpayers cannot afford this potential liability. � Commissioner Foushee asked John Roberts to explain to the public what the liabilities I are. , John Roberts said that there are several state and federal acts such as the Clean Water ' Acts, Resource and Conservation Recovery Act, etc. Each of these laws has provisions that '�i anyone who transports, disturbs, or excavates hazardous or toxic materials, regardless of I whether it was intended or not, becomes liable for that cleanup. This is a very expensive li cleanup. It would be millions of dollars. I Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County cannot possibly know what is there until it investigates, and once it investigates, it cannot possibly avoid the full responsibility of whatever is found. John Roberts said that once this is disturbed, the County becomes liable. Commissioner Jacobs said that this issue came up with the development of Fairview Park, and that is why the County did a land swap with Hillsborough and did not disturb the area that had materials buried. He thinks that there are two issues here—one is the issue of what the County is willing to remove and the other is an issue of public health of the people that live there. He said that the immediate issue at hand is to deal with what can be readily removed. He thinks that there should be some sort of plan to look at how to address or protect public health. He asked if the Health Department could review the water contamination data that has been given to the County Commissioners. He also asked if the property owners could agree to put in monitoring wells to get some data along the edges of those properties so that there would �I I I be some scientific evidence about what was coming out without having any acceptance of responsibility. He asked the Attorney if it was possible to determine if one of these dumping sites was for-profit. John Roberts said that the State has mechanisms to pursue this, and he could work with the State on this. Frank Clifton made reference to the other issues and said that the Health Department could test the wells if the property owners allowed it. Regarding the second issue of monitoring wells, he thinks that this is a fairly sizable expense. He said that it might be useful to have the Rogers Road Work Group discuss this possibility. Commissioner Hemminger said that it is frustrating that the County is supposed to leave this hazardous waste here due to federal regulations. There are more of these kinds of sites in the County. She said that she would love to clean all of these sites, but she does not know how it can be done. Commissioner McKee asked if any involvement by the County of placing monitoring wells around these sites incur liability to the County. John Roberts said that a monitoring well, as long as it does not disturb material and it only reads, does not cause liability. He would like to research this further. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the County could provide financial assistance to these third parties for cleanup efforts without incurring liability as a County. John Roberts said that he believed that there was some provision for contracting for cleanup. He said that it could cause problems for the contracting party, but he will research it further. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County took a gamble with Fairview Park and had I the property tested, and it was benign. The County just swapped land with the Town of I Hillsborough. It was not that the County left a hazardous ticking time bomb in the middle of ' Fairview. He said that there are two separate issues: the Board of County Commissioners could be aggressive and clean out any junk on ground level and above; and secondly, take a more cautious, but progressive approach toward addressing the fact that there is a public health issue. He thinks that it is not an option to just leave it. Commissioner McKee said that he would like to commend staff for their well-reasoned recommendations for cleaning up this area. He said that when he talked in the past about cleaning up, he meant trash on the side of the street and not the hazardous waste cleanup. He said that he will not place this financial burden on the taxpayers of Orange County to clean up these sites with the liabilities that could occur. Frank Clifton suggested that the County could assist by placing dumpsters, and this would not disturb the site. Commissioner Foushee said that this is an unfortunate situation that they find themselves wanting to help the neighborhood but also to be responsible to all Orange County citizens. She said that it would be irresponsible for the County to move forward to do something without knowing all of the implications. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the manager's recommendation to authorize staff to proceed with implementation of landfill neighborhood notification and clean-up activities to be funded by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund; and that the County begin to explore and assist with the public health safety measures to protect the public from the two identified illegal dump sites that require excavation, digging, or mechanical uncovering. Commissioner Hemminger asked for a friendly amendment to add in offering free testing to the residents of Tallyho and also consider putting in wells around these particular areas. Commissioner Foushee agreed. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for clarification for"assistance." I I Commissioner Foushee said that it includes what Commissioner Hemminger said and the idea of placing the signs, and offering assistance to property owners to remove surface level trash without disturbance. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that the County Attorney approve any assistance beforehand. Frank Clifton clarified that the motion was the Manager's recommendation as indicated, and the Board will bring back follow-up documentation on all of the issues and how to proceed. He also suggested that the Rogers Road Task Force review this. Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner Hemminger accepted this amendment. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to respectfully include in this the work of the Engineers Without Borders. He hopes that the staff incorporates this data into what is brought back. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Interim Services Planninq for Walnut Grove Solid Waste Convenience Center The Board received and considered authorizing staff to proceed with an interim convenience center service plan of services to be provided at the Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center during the period of construction. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the prior discussion about this expansion included an urging by the Board that staff find a way to keep some level of services continuing through the period of construction at the site. Staff has considered numerous options. He said that staff is recommending in the interim that all SWCC activities move to the older site that was once used as the SWCC for 20 years and they are proposing to go only to garbage during that time due to size limitations. The existing site currently utilizes 32 dumpsters and staff believes they can put 24 dumpsters on the interim site. He hopes to get recycling on this site, but they would have to reduce the number of dumpsters. He is proposing to keep the oil containers at the current site. He said that at a meeting in December, the Board of County Commissioners I, wanted him to do public outreach that this property is not being considered as a landfill or transfer site. He told the public that this property is not being considered for a transfer station or a landfill at this time. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if single-stream recycling would provide any relief to the space constraints. Gayle Wilson said that it would be of minimal benefit. Commissioner Hemminger asked if there would be signage indicating where people can take their recyclables. Gayle Wilson said that they would do a massive and comprehensive public outreach campaign. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a property owner nearby that the County could influence, and that is the Northern Human Services Center. This could be used as a temporary site for recycling. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there could be any incentives for moving the bidding process faster. John Roberts said that this could be worked out. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested encouraging citizens to use the curbside recycling where it is available. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to authorize staff to proceed with the interim implementation of convenience center service plan at Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center due to center construction disruptions, including temporarily reducing services to municipal solid waste and waste oil/anti-freeze/oil filters/batteries; with additions to place temporary bins at Northern Human Services Center for recycling with temporary signs, to include in bids incentives to finish sooner, and to place signs at original site to give plenty of time to inform the current users at this SWCC. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. NC 54/I-40 Corridor Studv The Board provided comments to Durham—Chapel Hill —Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization on the NC54/I-40 Corridor Study. Planning Director Craig Benedict gave an overview of this item. He said that tonighYs goal is to send comments to the DCHC- MPO. BACKGROUND: The BOCC heard a presentation on the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study at its February 21, 2012 meeting. What is the purpose of the studv? The purpose of the study is to analyze short-term and long-term land use issues and multi- modal transportation problems, evaluate opportunities and challenges, and recommend short and long-range land use and transportation solutions and strategies along the corridor. Whv is this studv important? The NC 54 corridor serves as one of the major gateways between Chapel Hill and southwest Durham, and its interchange with I-40 has consistently ranked as one of the top congested locations in the region. Development pressures within the corridor coupled with mobility and capacity issues have illuminated the concern that the existing and planned transportation infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate growth and to address land use and transportation problems. Short and long-range solutions are needed to preserve this important corridor. What are the studv obiectives? The vision of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) is to develop and implement transportation plans that are multimodal and that fully integrate land use and transportation issues. To achieve this vision this study will: - Clearly define a realistic "blueprinY' for an integrated growth and mobility strategy for the corridor - Establish a development framework that strengthens multimodal travel options and reduces vehicle miles of travel - Improve operations, safety, and travel time - Categorize strategies into near, mid-term, and long-term phases How much will the studv cost and who is pavina for it? The total cost for the study is $349,977, with 80% of the funding coming from Federal transportation planning funds and the remaining 20% funded jointly by the City of Durham, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill. The Table of Contents (Attachment 1) and Executive Summary�Attachment 2)from the Corridor Study are provided. The complete NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study is 169 pages and can be reviewed online: http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com/DraftReport.html IMPLICATIONS: This study creates a short and long-term transportation framework for the corridor where a segment of light rail (LRT) is being proposed, future roadway widening, and mention of premium Bus Rapid Transit (BRT-H). Since these are all major transit investments, decisions should consider the complementary and/or supplementary nature of these transportation methods. For example, should widening include dedicated busways for BRT-H, how do commuters mode transfer from car to LRT or BRT and where (i.e., adequate Park & Ride and where in corridor do you locate), how can actions ensure that the transit method does not duplicate investment (i.e., LRT fully addressing commuter patterns so parallel BRT or bus service is not needed). NEXT STEPS: March 16, 2012 is the deadline for public comment to be submitted to the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). At#achment 3 is a draft letter for the BOCC to consider submitting to the MPO with or without revisions. The draft has been prepared based on Board comments at its February 21 S� meeting and other recent Board discussions on bus and rail. The draft letter conveys the Board's questions and comments regarding the study. STUDY SCHEDULE: Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners (Planning Board and Orange Unified Transportation Board members invited to attend) Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and comment Mar 12 Chapel Hill Town Council approves comments on report Mar 13 Orange County approves comments on the report Mar 14 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Hearing March Durham County review and approves comments on the report (prior to March 16) Mar 16 Deadline for public comment Mar 28 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) recommends NC 54 recommendations for approval by TAC Apr 11 Approval by TAC RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached letter (Attachment 3)for submission to the DCHC MPO TAC with or without changes. The Board then discussed the proposed draft letter recommended by staff. Commissioner Gordon noted that the letter should go to the Transportation Advisory Committee, not the Technical Advisory Committee Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bullet on the top of page 5. He thought that the first part of the sentence is saying that there is not adequate density and the second part is saying that light rail will not support the high density. It seems contradictory. Craig Benedict said that there are two ideas embedded in that bullet and they probably should be separated. One is that the density development might not get the thresholds that would make light rail transit viable. The second part should be a second bullet, that the amount of traffic that is anticipated on 54, the way light rail is being put in that corridor, it will reduce congestion 1-2% in that corridor. Commissioner Jacobs said that if the letter is addressed to the Chair, then the salutation should be to the Chair. If it is addressed to the TAC, then it should be the TAC in the salutation. Commissioner Jacobs said that all of the bulleted points need to have either a semi- colon or a period after them. Also, "southern' for Durham and "western" for Wake do not need to be capitalized.. Chair Pelissier made reference to the last bullet on page 4 and the parking spaces at Leigh Village. She asked whether the original number of spaces was 2000 or 3000 spaces, and Manager Clifton said it was 2000. She made a correction and said that it should say, "from the original" 2000 estimate at the end. The draft letter below is revised to include the Commissioners'comments: March 13, 2012 Lydia Lavelle, Chair Transportation Advisory Committee Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 101 City Hall Plaza Durham, North Carolina 27701 Dear Chair Lavelle, On February 21 St, 2012 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners received a presentation on the Draft NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study Transportation-Land Use Master Plan. After the presentation, the Board has the following comments/questions about the Study: - Currently, Chapel Hill Transit operates 30 buses in the 54 corridor. The study should include a discussion about how the transit elements of the plan address this issue; - Orange County supports the recommendation that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) be included in the 54 corridor. However, it is suggested that BRT service include dedicated bus lanes to further alleviate high traffic volumes. This could be possible by redesigning some or all of the new lanes suggested in the Durham County portion of the corridor to accommodate BRT or a combination of BRT and High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV); - A more detailed explanation of how the recommendations accommodate the high commute volume to Orange County from southern Durham and western Wake County would be beneficial; - Orange County further suggests that the study explore incorporating dedicated bus lanes and/or HOV on the six-lane section of NC 54 in Orange County (from the Durham County line west) to complement the previous suggestion of including BRT/HOV lanes in the Durham County portion of NC 54; - Orange County supports the recommendation for a park and ride facility at NC 751 and Southpoint Auto Park Blvd and agrees that park and ride accommodations east of the 54/I-40 intersection is a good strategy for increasing mobility in the corridor; - There are questions about the total number of park and ride spaces available and if this will be adequate to support demand now that the number of spaces at Leigh Village has been decreased from the original 2000 estimate; - The Board is concerned about how the density of development recommended in the plan and the densities necessary to support Light Rail Transit do not seem to match; - Light Rail Transit may not be enough to alleviate the congestion in the study area; - The Board would like to see how the recommendations in the plan may be funded including which projects could be funded through the proposed %2-cent sales tax and what additional funding sources have been identified; - The Board expressed concerns that the transit portion of the plan is becoming too complex and that citizens may not utilize transit in this corridor because they may have to make multiple transfers. In conclusion, the Board would like to recognize that the 54 corridor is greatly important but also requires a large investment. Due to the newly adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, Orange County is very sensitive to providing the best solution to the study area. Bernadette Pelissier Chair, Orange County Board of County Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the letter of Orange County's comments and to submit this letter to the DCHC-MPO with recommended changes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict whether he needed clarification concerning what the Board wished to have included in the letter and he indicated that he understood the changes to be made. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there would be discussions with UNC about the redevelopment of the Friday Center property. Frank Clifton said that there have been no discussions yet. e. Schools Adeauate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFOI — Receipt and Transmittal of 2012 Annual Technical Advisorv Committee Report The Board received the 2012 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and considered transmitting it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May and authorizing the Chair to sign. Craig Benedict said that this item is just to receive this report and transmit it to the partners. This report is done on an annual basis. The report includes information about how membership has increased this year. One page two it shows that Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) has had an increase of 273 students and Orange County Schools (OCS) has had an increase of 130 students. There were no changes in the capacity this year. Each year the numbers are compared with the previous year and there are five different projection methods of estimating future student populations, and then an average of those five is taken. For CHCCS, the new middle school CHCCS is projected for 2017-2018 and the new high school is projected for 2020-2021. For OCS, the new elementary school is projected for 2020-2021 and there are no new needs for middle or high schools. Commissioner Gordon made reference to a chart on page 5 of the Executive Summary which compares the number of projected students with the actual number of students who attended school. The chart indicates that there was an overestimation of students in the CHCCS for elementary, middle and high schools, but on page 30 of the SAPFO report, it says that the actual number of students was underestimated by the same numbers. She asked that this be corrected to "underestimated" in the Executive Summary. The numbers for the OCS also need to be corrected in the Executive Summary. As shown in the SAPFO report, there were finro cases where the number of actual students was overestimated (elementary and middle school) and one case where the number was underestimated (high school). However, these numbers are also stated incorrectly in the Executive Summary. Craig Benedict said that he would check the numbers and correct the information as needed. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the number of approved but undeveloped subdivisions. Craig Benedict said that he can try and come up with some percentages. Commissioner Hemminger said that the County Commissioners heard that OCS may need another elementary school in the next two to three years, but on page 11, it shows that there are still 346 seats available in elementary school. She said that some schools are over- capacity and some are under-capacity, so it looks like there may need to be a redistricting. Craig Benedict said that these are certified capacity numbers from the Department of Public Instruction agreed to by all parties, and if there are changes, then the document will change. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the 2012 SAPFOTAC Annual Report with changes; authorize the Chair to sign the transmittal letter to SAPFO partners contained in Attachment 1 (the Mayors or Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough and the two School Board Chairs— OCS and CHCCS). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. Reports a. Oranqe Countv Transit Plan Timeline Update The Board reviewed and acknowledged a draft timeline for the Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP) and associated elements. Craig Benedict said that the staff has been examining what work needs to be done before moving forward with the adoption of the Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP). If Orange County is to pursue the implementation of the 2009 Mobility Bill transit one-half cent sales tax, various aspects needs to be discussed and implemented. Basically, the following elements are required: ', - Orange County/Durham County Light Rail Transit (LRT) Cost Sharing Memorandum ' of Understanding - OCTP and its internal assumptions o Share of LRT o Intra-county and Inter-county Bus Services o Bus Rapid Transit (Martin Luther King Corridor) o Small Capital - Orange County/Triangle Transit OCTP Implementing Agreement - Referendum decision on one-half (1/2) cent transit sales tax Craig Benedict went through the timeline, which was in the agenda abstract. Commissioner Gordon said that they need to add on March 22"d that the Board of County Commissioners will discuss the Draft Alternate Transit Plan that relies only on local funding. This needs to be done before it goes to public input. Chair Pelissier said that the plan is to present this on March 15tn Frank Clifton clarified that no tax will be levied until the final document is approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier asked if the County Commissioners want her to confirm for the Regional Transportation Alliance to do a poll after May 8`h on the '/2-cent sales tax. Commissioner McKee was the only one opposed to the poll. The majority agreed. 10. Countv Manaqer's Report NONE 11. Countv Attornev's Report NONE 12. Appointments NONE 13. Board Comments Commissioner Gordon— none Commissioner Jacobs made reference to two items: Information from the Triangle J Council of Governments about a meeting on March 27�h in Sanford from 1:30 —4:30 with local elected officials about fracking and the implications for local governments. The other item is a story in yesterday's New York Times about a report that said that transit ridership has gone up 1 billion rides this year. Commissioner Yuhasz— none Commissioner Hemminger— none Commissioner McKee— none Commissioner Foushee gave some NACo Conference updates. She said that the legislative agenda includes making sure that budget reforms do not result in unfunded mandates to counties. The federal budget cuts should include a significant overhaul to make sure that costs and responsibilities are not shifted to counties. � Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Foushee's comments. Chair Pelissier made reference to her draft memo to the schools (blue sheet). This will go out tomorrow regarding Qualified Schools Construction Bonds. 14. Information Items • February 21, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Future Board Consideration of Concealed Weapons at County Facilities • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Presentation on Jail Population/Expansion • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Board Consideration of Advisory Board Protocols • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Draft Alternate Transit Plan with Local Funding 15. Closed Session NONE 16. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board