HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20040929APPROVED 11/3/2004
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session for an Assembly of
Governments meeting on Wednesday, September 29, 2404 at 7:3Q p.m. at the Southern
Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen Halkiotis
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Margaret Brown
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn Link, Assistant County Managers
Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members
will be identified appropriately below)
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and
Members Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, and Bill Strom,
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Greene, Dorothy Verkerk
and Edith Wiggins
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Alex Zaffron,
and Members Joal Hall Broun, Jacquelyn Gist, and Diana McDuffee
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mike Nelson and
Members Mark Chilton and John Herrerra
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mayor Joe Phelps and Members
Michael Gering, Eric Hallman, Evelyn Lloyd, Frances Dancey, and Brian Lowen
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
Chair Jacobs said they need to find ways to improve turnout of elected officials at these joint
meetings.
1. Briefing on Downtown Economic Development Initiative (Town of Chapel Hill)
Mayor Foy said that as of July 1, 2004 the Downtown Chapel Hill Economic Development
Corporation has taken its office. In the last few years, the Town of Chapel Hill has looked at
how the downtown area is doing and how it can continue to be interesting. He thought it would
be helpful for the other jurisdictions to hear the ideas.
Chapel Hill Town Manager Cal Horton said that Nick Didow is the new interim Executive
Director of the Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Commission. He will be making a
presentation. Chris Berndt will describe the Economic Development initiative that the Council
has undertaken, that could lead to the development of parking lots two and five. He said that,
contrary to the headlines in the News and Observer today, it is not fast-tracked, but it is
following the normal pace.
Nick Didow made reference to the one-page handout, which was an overview of the
corporation. The mission is "to bring the resources of the Town, University, and downtown
community together to maintain, enhance, and promote downtown as the social, cultural, and
spiritual center of Chapel Hill through economic development." The corporation is governed by
seven board members. The Town of Chapel Hill appointees are Robert Epting, Allen Fine, Tom
Tucker, and Andrea Rohrbacher. The University of North Carolina appointees are Vice
Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield and Trustee Roger Perry. This group chose a seventh board
appointee, which is Betty Kenan. Nick Didow said that he was selected as the Interim Executive
Director in mid-August. He will help get the corporation going and help in the search process for
a permanent Executive Director.
Nick Didow made the following points:
- The board meets the second and fourth Wednesday morning of each month from 7:30 -
9:00 a.m.
- The funding istwo-thirds from the Town of Chapel Hill and one-third from UNC.
- They have to work collaboratively with other local, county, regional, and state economic
development groups and downtown Chapel Hill stakeholders.
- CHDEDC is a private 501 (c} 3 corporation that has chosen to operate in accordance
with the North Carolina Open Meetings Law.
- Major current CHDEDC activities include:
o Managing the transition of critical downtown services and activities with
assistance from several partner organizations;
o Start-up matters including filing for 501 (c) 3 federal designation, opening a
CHDEDC corporate office in downtown, establishing telecommunications and
Internet support services, bank accounts, etc.;
o Board discussion of CHDEDC goals, short term objectives, long term objectives
and downtown economic development strategies;
o Review recent recommendations for improving downtown;
o Briefings on UNC, Town, and private economic development projects at various
stages of planning and implementation that will significantly impact downtown;
o Establishing a positive board culture in process and conduct to be an effective
organization and change agent for downtown Chapel Hill; and
o Development of an Executive Director job description and strategy to recruit a
permanent, full-time Executive Director.
The office of the CHDEDC will be 308 West Rosemary Street, Suite 202. The next meeting is
Wednesday, October 13th, at the Chapel Hill Museum -Public Meeting Room starting at 7:30
a.m. He invited everyone to attend.
Jacqueline Gist said that they were glad to have Nick Didow in this role. She said that Carrboro
was undergoing their own second renaissance in Carrboro, and one of the biggest things is the
renovation of the ArtsCenter/Cat's Cradle property. She said that even though they are very
distinct political entities, they are one community and their downtowns flow into each other. She
suggested that they have a meeting twice a year with the CHDEDC and the complementary
counterparts in Carrboro.
Nick Didow said that he would pass this suggestion along to his board. He agreed that
cooperation was a goad idea.
Chris Berndt made a PowerPoint presentation about the Downtown Economic Development
Initiative. She said that this project started when they began their downtown small area plan in
1997.
Background
- Downtown Small Area Plan, adopted in March 2000 -Lots 2 and 5: "Development
Opportunity Areas"
- Comprehensive Plan, adapted May 2000, includes strategies related to downtown and
nearby neighborhoods
- Downtown Design Workshops, February -March 2002 -public developed concepts far
Lots 2 and 5 and other downtown sites
- Council Committee on Lot's 2 and 5, formed June 2002 to consider how to proceed with
development of sites
- Council adopted principles and priorities far sites, February 2003
- Contract with Stainback Public-Private Real Estate, November 2003
Project - Key Steps
- Project kick-off event at Old Post Office, November 2003
- Market Demand Study completed in Spring 2004 by Economics Research Associates
- Conceptual master plans for Lots 2 and 5, RBC site, and Wallace Parking Deck
developed by HKS, Inc. May-June 2004
- Council adopted building program for sites, June 2004
- Draft financial feasibility analysis -public forums on September 14 and 27, 2004
Next Steps
Council seeking comment from the Downtown Commission, Chapel Hill Downtown
Economic Development Commission
Council to consider proceeding with developer solicitation and selection phase, October
27, 2004
- Meetings with downtown merchants, neighborhoods, and UNC
Regarding the building program, there will be retail, a substantial residential component, as well
as replacement parking and additional parking. She showed pictures of the conceptual plans.
Far Lot 2, the vision is to have an underground transit transfer system, which could replace the
buses stopping on the side of the street.
Diana McDuffie asked about the transit transfer center and if they are envisioning a developer to
build this and if it would be built with public funds. She asked if it would have a lot of impact on
how the bus service is delivered. Chris Berndt said that the idea originated with the Chapel Hill
Transit Board. This is at a very preliminary stage. The idea would be to look for federal sources
of funding.
Diana McDuffie said that they want to be involved early on in the discussions of funding.
Mayor Foy said that there might not be a possibility for a transit center there, but they would like
to at least propose it if it were feasible.
Joal Hall Broun said that they understand this but they want to know the financial implications
for their taxpayers and that all partners have time to review this if public money is used.
Commissioner Carey asked about how the RBC site figures into this. Chris Berndt said that this
is privately awned property and could possibly be used far a parking facility to serve Lot 2 and
the Wallace Deck area. Their consultants are looking at this but nothing has been finalized.
Commissioner Gordon asked about pedestrian walkways and Lot 5. Chris Berndt said that this
could be shown as more pedestrian friendly, but still be a thru-street.
Alex Zaffron asked if looking at TTA phase 2 was too far into the future for planning in this
context and Cal Horton said yes.
Alex Zaffron asked if there was a rough figure for total square footage yield and Chris Berndt
said 380,000 square feet of residential.
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Action Plan (Orange County ERCD and
Towns]
Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that a year ago, they came
before the Assembly of Governments and were charged with developing a scope of work and
an RFQ far pursuing a joint Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Action Plan. He said
that the origin of this goes back to 2002 when each of the local jurisdictions joined ICLEI
(International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives}. ICLEI is an international consortium
of 400-500 local governments that are interested in taking steps to affect climate change and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are 66 different North American members of this.
Most of the members are in Europe and Asia.
He made reference to the handout entitled, "10 Things Local Governments Can Do to Cut
Global Warming Pollution" and encouraged everyone to read this.
He said that in April of this year, the designation of the Triangle region as non-attainment for
ground level ozone has gotten a great deal of attention and there have been local and state
efforts to begin addressing this non-compliance. Also, the jurisdictions have taken steps to use
alternative fueled vehicles within their fleets. Orange County will be attempting to ca-locate with
Orange County Schools a new compressed natural gas fueling station over the next year.
Another issue, which has not been a big issue in the Triangle, but has in the Triad area, is
particulate matter, which is particulate that is emitted from smokestacks, fossil fuel burning,
vehicles, and power plants. The Triangle area does not appear to be non-compliant in this area.
As a part of ICLEI, each jurisdiction is asked to complete this inventory and action plan. In
2003, the staffs in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County noted that it might make sense to
do a joint plan. Since last year, they have developed a Request for Qualifications. The
submittal from the passible consultant is included in the agenda packet. The workgroup was
unanimous in recommending ICLEI Energy Services from Toronto. The estimated cost of the
project is about $40,000-45,000. A grant from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
Planning Organization would fund 80°~ of the transportation related cost for this project
{approximately $8,000). If the formula that has been used in the past with joint projects is used,
which is a 43-43-14 split, the cast far Chapel Hill and Orange County will be about $15,000 and
the cost for Carrboro will be about $5,000. The funding has already been set aside in Orange
County. The duration of the project would be about four months. An Air Quality Advisory Group
would be farmed.
No action is needed at this time.
Diana McDuffie said that she went to an ICLEI conference several years ago and she came
back very enthusiastic about this. She said that she is interested in how long it will be before
they do the energy audit so that they can start the community engagement and make a
difference.
Dave Stancil said that they have heard that it will take four months. Diana McDuffie urged that
this be moved ahead.
Alex Zaffron said that the MPO needs to work off the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
instead of the 2025 LRTP. The 2030 LRTP was just approved today and will be sent to the EPA
Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
Chair Jacobs asked Dave Stancil about anticipating the consultants to direct the County toward
future funding sources. Dave Stancil said that they would include this.
3. Morgan & Little Creeks Local Watershed Planning Initiative (North Carolina
Department of Environment & Natural Resources -Ecosystem Enhancement
ProgramlOrange County Planning and ERCD}
Dave Stancil said that there has been an effort underway to look at the possibility of watershed
planning, particularly stream restoration work and storm water management.
Bonnie Duncan, Planning Supervisor from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, made the PowerPoint presentation. The program goals are to restore,
enhance, and protect watershed functions.
Drivers for Local Watershed Planning
- Stream and wetland mitigation - NCDOT and USACE
- Storm water management - NPDES {Phase II)
- Impaired streams list -Section 303(d)
- Nutrient Management -Jordan Lake Strategy
Study Area - Subwatersheds
- Morgan Creek
o Orange County
o Chapel Hill
o Carrboro
o Chatham County
- Little Creek
o {Bolin and Booker Creeks}
o Orange County
o Chapel Hill
o Carrboro
o Durham
Participants in Planning Process
- Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham
- UNC at Chapel Hill
- OWASA
- Triangle Land Conservancy
- Morgan Creek Valley Alliance
- Friends of Bolin Creek
- NC Wildlife Commission
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
- US Natural Resources Conservation Service
- Triangle J Council of Governments
Improve and Pralect Watershed Functions
Accomplishing this goal involves:
- addressing eutrophication in lakes
- in-stream water quality conditions
- modification of floadplain hydrology
- headwater stream stability and sediment loading
- aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat
Three Phases of Assessment
Preliminary Findings
Detailed Assessment
Targeting of Management
Preliminary Findings
- erosion and sediment in streams
- impaired water quality/toxicity
- degraded aquatic and terrestrial habitat
- Jordan Lake nutrient loads and TMDL
Potential Sources:
- Urbanization
o Imperviousness
o Disturbed buffer
o Floodplain encroachment
o Leaking sewer/septic
- Agriculture
o Disturbed cover
o Livestock access
Detailed Technical Assessment (potential sources, stressors, and strategies)
Quantify Magnitude of Impacts:
Predicted impact from various stressors using:
o Empirical models
o GIS analyses
o Statistical analyses
Predicted nitrogen and phosphorus loads to Jordan Lake
Modeled other stressors, including:
o Sediment loading
o Stream erosion and instability
o Imperviousness
o Buffer disturbance
Targeting of Management (specific watershed recommendations]
Potential Strategies:
- Stream restoration
- Storm water management
- Best management practice retrofits
- Conservation of undeveloped land
- Low density/low impact development
- Further monitoring and analysis
Tangible End Results
- 25 BMP sites identified
o treat 600 acres of priority subwatersheds
- 11 stream restoration projects
0 28,000 linear feet of restored stream
- 137 priority preservation parcels
0 over 600 acres of high quality riparian habitat targeted for preservation efforts
EEP Implementation
Stream restoration and enhancement
o Mason Farm - floodplain restoration
o Chapel Creek
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
o Best if in conjunction with restoration
Preservation
o Easements required for all projects
o Acquisition or donation
Implementation Partnerships
- EEP will work with landowners to seek additional funding for projects:
o EPA Section 319 base or incremental
o Clean Water Management Trust Fund
o Natural Resources Conservation Service
^ CRP, EQIP, WRP, FIP, WHIP
o US Fish and Wildlife Service
High Priority Actions for All Jurisdictions
- Apply for individual permit under NPDES Phase II to allow for more stringent protections
than State minimums
- Revise development ordinances to remove barriers to low impact development and
facilitate its use
- Stay ahead of the curve!
Contact Information:
Bonnie Duncan, NC EEP
919-715-5315 bonnie.duncanCc~ncmail.net
Deborah Amaral, Ph. D., NC EEP
919-715-3466 deborah.amarahCa~ncmail.net
Jason C. Doll, Stantec, Inc.
919-851-6866 idollta~stantec.com
Download Information
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/plans/MLC&KPC/MLCHome.htm
- Margan and Little Creeks Lacal Watershed Plan Summary
- Preliminary Findings Report
- Detailed Technical Assessment
o Report
o Water Quality Monitoring Addendum
- Target of Management Report
Ed Harrison said that he went to a lot of the meetings and he had never seen the slide with the
tangible end results. He urged that these be sent to the local governments quickly because
they need help prioritizing the money to spend. These are also suited for Clean Water
Management Trust Fund applications.
Deborah Amaral said that they are delivering a full copy of the detailed assessment to each
government.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the funding possibilities. Bonnie Duncan said that their
funding comes from compensatory mitigation payments. They have a memorandum of
agreement with DOT to work proactively to develop these plans. They also operate an in-lieu
fee program, and they handle all of DOT's off-site mitigation needs. Any other funding comes
from the local governments.
Jason Doll said that he has been doing these assessments with the EEP for four years, and the
funding sources are the easy part. The hard part is landowner willingness to participate.
4. Identification of School Site Locations with Towns (Orange County Planning and
Towns]
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that he was speaking on behalf of a staff group made up
of representatives from both school districts and the Towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro, and
Chapel Hill. He said that they have not identified any new school sites in the towns, but they are
talking about the process.
Presented By: Craig Benedict, AICP, Orange County Planning Director, on behalf of the Smart
School Siting Staff Workgroup
Smart Growth and School Siting
^ Informal "Smart Growth and Schools" staff workarout~ started this year
^ AOG discussion in 2003 and 2004
^ Planning Directors of Orange Caunty, Chapel Hill, Carrbora, and Hillsborough
^ Superintendent of Orange County Schools
^ Representative of the Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools Superintendent's office
Smart Growth and School Siting
^ Formalizing a process for new school site selection
^ Better integrate land use issues and school siting with the principles of "Smart Growth."
^ Consider revisions to Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects adopted on
11/21/00
• Provisions for donated sites
(see next page for conclusion of presentation)
Draft of Process
{Currently Under Development)
1. Determine Need for Additional School(s)
^ Annual Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee
{SAPFOTAC} Report
^ Statistical methods used to project student enrollment out 10 years and identify future
needs
^ Report is forwarded to Towns for information purposes, County, and School Districts for
CIP {Capital Investment Plan} planning
2. Technical Group Meets
^ Determines general geographic location in which new school or schools need to be
located using information about:
• potential high growth areas
• high over capacity situations
• interest in reducing bus/studentlparent vehicle miles using Smart Growth Principles
• opportunity far land banking
3. Smart Growth Principles
^ Location of Urban Service Boundaries
^ Sufficient infrastructure {water, sewer, roads} availability?
^ Land Use Compatibility
^ Presence of environmentally sensitive resources?
^ Co-location and/or Mixed Use opportunities?
^ Walkable/Pedestrian-Bike Friendly?
^ Transportation considerations
^ Community participation in siting process (general area}
^ Sharing Academic Resources
^ "Green" Buildings
^ Value Engineering
4. Practical Siting Considerations
^ Where is sufficient contiguous undeveloped acreage available in geographic area under
consideration?
^ Use GIS technology to determine potential sites
5. School District Meets with Towns and County
^ Discuss feasibility/location
^ Discuss co-location opportunities
^ Possible ad hoc committee review
^ BOCC liaison
^ Coordination and Communication
6. Procurement of the property designated for the new school
7. Smart Growth Design Considerations
^ Site Principles
• Environmental considerations
• Public Transit considerations
• Walkable Community concepts {pedestrian and bike}
• Co-location considerations
School Building Standards
• Energy and water conservation
• Access to site {ingress/egress)
• Public access to buildings and athletic facilities
Smart Growth and School Siting
Informal Staff workgroup is expected to conclude work on the draft process by the end of 2004
{end of "Smart Growth and School Siting" materials)
Update on Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element and TDR Activities
Land Use Element:
^_"Report on Public Outreach Process" -online at www.co.orange.nc.us/planning
^ Emphasis -watersheds, air quality/less VMT, farm economy, and urban/rural
^ Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task Force
^ Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan
^ Next steps
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR):
^ Request For Qualifications (RFQ}/consultant
^ Timeline
^ Sending and receiving areas
^ Intro-county vs. multi-jurisdictional
^ Phase I -Feasibility;
• Legal
• Economics
• Political
• Financial
• Administrative
^ Phase II -Implementation Process
Chair Jacobs asked about the timeframe and Craig Benedict said that within a month, there
would be a report to the Board of County Commissioners.
Chair Jacobs recognized that there were five school board members present from both school
systems, as well as Orange County Schools Superintendent Shirley Carraway and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City School Assistant Superintendent Steve Scroggs. The board members included
OCS Chair Libbie Hough, Vice Chair Brenda Stephens, CHCCS Vice Chair Lisa Stuckey, and
Board Members Valerie Foushee and Nick Didow.
Joal Hall Braun said that they know the siting of schools encourages growth around those
schools. The issue is where to site these schools in terms of providing growth where it is more
appropriate. Secondly, because of the early integration of schools, the lack of schools in
historically African American neighborhoods is something they need to think about. When
thinking about siting another school in the southern part of Orange County, they may need to
think about siting it near or around Rogers Road. Thirdly, she said that they always think about
building new schools and they need to ask themselves if it is a possibility to add an or create
same type of different construction with the present schools. Other thing to consider is
retrofitting the Lincoln Center and other smaller schools because of the trend toward smaller
class sizes.
Chair Jacobs said that the Department of Public Instruction recommended acreages that are not
functional for urbanized areas. He said that Raleigh just received a smart growth award for a
middle school that is located on four acres in downtown Raleigh. He thinks the school boards
should have more participation and be more creative in the construction standards. He pointed
out that South Carolina just abandoned its acreage standards.
Jim Ward asked how the group dealt with the acreage issue. Craig Benedict said that with the
urban sites, they knew it would be mare difficult to find acreage. Recommendations will be
coming forward an acreage needs more on a case-by-case basis. There is some land banking
opportunities.
Joal Hall Broun left at 9:15 p.m.
Craig Benedict said that they acknowledge that there will have to be urban settings, where
acreage will have to be changed, and suburban settings but not sprawl settings, where they
should be as conscious as possible of efficiently using whatever lands are available.
Commissioner Gordon said that there needs to be a formal statement of smart growth principles
that everyone agrees upon. She thinks there can be smart growth principles in rural, urban, and
suburban settings. She said that the idea of land banking was not new, and the county has had
a School Park Reserve Fund for several years. The idea was to set aside one cent a year for
land purchases for school and co-located park sites. This fund was spent down and currently
no more money is being added. She said that the County needs to work with the school
systems on school siting because statutory responsibility far siting schools still resides with the
school boards.
Ed Harrison, Jacquelyn Gist, Alex Zaffron and Cam Hill left at 9:20 p.m.
5. Update on Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Transfer of
Development Rights Activities (Orange County Planning
Craig Benedict said that there were public outreach activities in March, April, and May of this
year, where the staff went to the various townships and made presentations about the
comprehensive plan update. The main emphasis of the work has to do with watershed
protection.
Regarding air quality, the pattern of development happening in rural parts of the County is
somewhat of a sprawl pattern and there are a lot of vehicle miles traveled. Some suggestions
involve a reduction in the build out population of the rural areas of the County.
Another issue is to look at the Hillsborough general area. There are areas outside of
Hillsborough that could be serviced by water and sewer that are under Orange County's
jurisdiction. These could be urban transition areas. A task farce has been farmed to talk about
the potential for this. There is also a task force for a small area plan in Efland.
The next step will be meeting with the Board of County Commissioners next week to discuss
some of the recommendations from the outreach. There may be opportunity next year to meet
with the joint planning area partners to talk about the rural buffer.
Regarding the Transfer of Development Rights issue, this is a renewed effort and the Board of
County Commissioners has authorized staff to hire a consultant to do a feasibility study on
whether Transfer of Development Rights can work in the County. Development rights would be
transferred from farming, rural, or environmentally sensitive areas to urban areas that have
adequate public services.
Commissioner Gordon said that as the comprehensive plan goes forward, the philosophy
behind it is to keep the rural areas rural and that the growth will be absorbed in the existing
municipal or transition areas. This theme would be echoed with the transfer of development
rights.
Bill Strom asked about testing the performance of the rural buffer and if there were
recommendations. Craig Benedict said that the staff recommendation is that the University
Lake part of the rural buffer has appropriate zoning at this time. The northern section of the
rural buffer does not have the same water quality issues. They are suggesting athree-acre
density, which is a two-acre minimum lot size plus one acre of open space.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the northern rural buffer and said that on October 14t", Duke is
going to designate more than 1,000 acres of Duke Forest as permanently part of the state's
Natural Heritage Program. This is a start to permanently anchoring the rural buffer.
Chair Jacobs said that on October 4t" at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., there would be two open
houses to talk about the Twin Creeks Park possibilities. The meetings will be at the Homestead
Center. He invited everyone to attend.
6. Potential Reports (limited or na presentations)
a. Unfunded Mandates (Orange County)
Chair Jacobs made reference to the list of unfunded mandates, which is more than $600,000.
This is a loss of two-thirds of a cent in County tax monies. This does not include class size
reduction.
b. School Resource Officers (Orange County)
DEFERRED
c. Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project (Orange County)
DEFERRED
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board