Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-05-2012 APPROVED 9/6/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING June 5, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda The Chair went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - Gray sheet— replacement of item 6-b, UDO Text Amendment - White sheet— copy of inemo from Commissioner Gordon regarding item 7-a, Orange County Transit Plan and Related Agreement - Updated copy of the Transit Plan - White sheet— "untitled" at the top —Additional information from the Town of Hillsborough related to item 7-c, Exchange of Properties between Orange County and Eno River Parking Deck PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda John Silva- Citizens United to Protect the Cane Creek Watershed STATEMENT TO BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 5, 2012 Good evening, my name is John Silva, a resident of the Cane Creek area in Bingham Township. I represent a community group named Citizens United to Protect the Cane Creek Watershed (CUPCCW). I respectfully request that the written statement I am about to read be recorded in tonight's minutes. For over a year Cane Creek area residents have attempted to receive information identifying the path of an OWASA/Cane Creek recreational trail proposed by Orange County Land Management (OCLM) staff, and Friends of the Mountain to Sea Trail (FMST). We eventually learned that the trail is proposed on OWASA land adjacent to property and residences on Apple Mill Road, Mt. Mitchell Road and Thunder Mt. Cane Creek community efforts to work with OCLM and FMST have met with minimal responsiveness. The expressed concerns of Cane Creek area residents have clearly not been in the forefront of the planning for the proposed OWASA/Cane Creek segment of the trail. Given the lack of response by OCLM and FMST to concerns expressed regarding the placement of the proposed OWASA/Cane Creek trail members of our communities formed CUPCCW. The purpose of the group is to engage the Board of County Commissioners, Orange County Land Management, NCDENR and FMST in dialogue regarding this matter. Representatives of our group have interacted with all of the above entities and met with most of the Orange County Commissioners. We want to thank you for your time and interest. While the MST is in concept a valuable idea, the placement of specific segments of the trail should not infringe upon nearby residents basic rights such as privacy, security and in this instance protection of the Cane Creek watershed. Given that MST Executive Director has publically stated that hikers have walked the entire MST from the mountains to the sea the need for the proposed MST Cane Creek/ OWASA segment is entirely unnecessary for the goal of the MST organization to be achieved. Tonight, we respectfully ask the Board of County Commissioners to open a dialog on the proposed routing of the MST through Bingham Township. We hope that once the Board fully reviews the situation the Board will agree with CUPCCW that the proposed OWASA/Cane Creek segment presents unacceptable and unnecessary risks to Cane Creek area residents and compromises the protection of the Cane Creek Reservoir, a major water supply for greater Chapel Hill. We specifically request that the Board require OCLM staff to stop working on the proposed OWASA/Cane Creek segment and that this segment be removed from further consideration. We ask the Board to advise OCLM to focus on segments of the MST in other parts of Orange County allowing the exploration of viable alternatives to the proposed OWASA/Cane Creek segment. We understand that OCLM staff and FMST have scheduled an educational meeting on the MST for the end of June. This meeting will be helpful for individuals who seek general information about the trail. However, CUPCCW requests that the subject of a possible routing of the MST through Bingham Township be placed on the Board's agenda for a late September or early October meeting. Thank you for your consideration and action on the requests communicated by CUPCCW this evening. Residents of the Cane Creek area and Bingham Township look forward to discussing this subject openly and completely at the requested fall meeting. Respectfully submitted, John M. Silva CUPCCW Contacts: Bill Charles (Mt. Mitchell) bacharles(a�earthlink.net Phil Duckwall (Mt. Mitchell) phi13826(a�yahoo.com Nancy Holt (Bradshaw Quarry Rd.) fq325(a�aol.com Beth and Jim Hooten (Mebane Oaks Rd.) eqhooten(a�qmail.com Jim and Marlene O'Conner (Teer Rd.) joc mebtel.net Christine and John Silva (Thunder Mt.) jmscros67(a�qmail.com Dave and Donna Walser (Apple Mill Rd.) dbwalser(c�me.com Don O'Leary said that the Board of County Commissioners is committing high treason by being a member of the foreign communist socialist organization of ICLEI. He said that the County Commissioners are fully conscious and aware of whom they are dealing with. He said that Orange County is the only communist county in N.C. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Hemminger asked the Board to review the appointments to the Workforce Development Board. There are some changes with this initiative that the County Commissioners need to be aware of and there are some terms expiring and shifting. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations-NONE 5. Consent Aqenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Commissioner Jacobs removed item 5-f, Renewal of Contract with In-Home Aide Providers to Provide In-Home Aide Services to Eligible Adults. • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from March 1, 13 and May 15, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 49 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to twenty-six (26) requests for property tax release and/or refunds in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Application for State Aid to Public Libraries The Board authorized the Chair to sign the application and all future annual applications for State Aid grant as required by the State Library of North Carolina. e. Renewal of Contract with Northen Blue, L.L.P. for DSS Leqal Services The Board accepted the Social Services Board recommendation and approved the contract renewal for legal representation with Northern Blue, L.L.P., for Fiscal Year 2012- 2013 and authorized the Chair to sign the contract contingent upon approval of the Orange County FY 2012-13 budget. f. Renewal of Contracts with In-Home Aide Providers to Provide In-Home Aide Services to Eliqible Adults The Board removed this item and placed it at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. g_ Renewal of Aqreement for Social Work Services Between Oranqe County Schools and Oranqe County Department of Social Services The Board accepted the recommendation of the Social Services Board and renewed the agreement for eight permanent full time social worker positions and supervision to be funded through the agreement, and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement contingent upon the continuation of federal and agreement funding and approval of the Orange County FY 2012-13 budget. h. Renewal of Aqreement with UNC Hospitals for DSS to Provide Medicaid Workers The Board accepted the Social Services Board recommendation and approved the agreement renewal with UNC Hospitals and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement pending approval of the Orange County FY 2012-13 budget. i. Reiection of All Bids for Construction of Walnut Grove Church Road Solid Waste Convenience Center and Authorization to Rebid The Board rejected all bids for Bid Number 367-283 for the construction of the Walnut Grove Church Road Solid Waste Convenience Center and authorized staff to rebid the project and present a recommended bid to the Board for award at the August 21, 2012 regular Board meeting. i Oranqe County ABC Board Travel Policy The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's adoption and use of the Orange County's travel policy. k. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road Svstem The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained System to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for a subdivision road in Birdsong Subdivision; and recommended the Department of Transportation accept the road for maintenance as a State Secondary Road. • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda f. Renewal of Contracts with In-Home Aide Providers to Provide In-Home Aide Services to Eliqible Adults Commissioner Jacobs said that he wanted to point out that Orange County maintains a living wage for its employees and in its contracts for those who are providing in-home aide for seniors. He said that it is important to continue to reaffirm this fact. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve continuing contracts to provide In-Home Aide Services with Arcadia Health Services, Inc., Premier Home Health Care Services, Inc., Personalized Patient Home Assistance, Inc., CNC Access, Inc., Flaircare, Inc., and TAMM, L.L.C. for FY 2012-2013, and authorize the Chair to sign the contracts contingent upon approval of the Orange County FY 2012-2013 budget. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Public Hearinqs a. Proposed UDO Text Amendment: New Section 6.20: Public Sewer Connection The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to create a new Section 6.20 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) outlining public sewer connection requirements. Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer, said that this item was heard at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. Subsequently, it went to the Planning Board and was heard at two meetings. The majority of the Planning Board's discussion of this item concerned the ability of using the viable repair area if a septic system failed. The original amendment to the UDO as presented at the QPH did not allow this circumstance. After the two Planning Board meetings, a unanimous recommendation was made that all new construction be required to connect to the public sewer service, but if someone has a septic system that fails, they would be given an option to use the viable repair area on their property or to connect to a public sewer system. Another issue that came forward at the Planning Board meetings was the definition that is part of the UDO amendment for a public sewer service area. He read this definition: "An area located within Orange County's primary service area in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement that is currently served by public sewer or is expected to be served by public sewer in the near term." Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 9, Section 6.20.1-C and asked it this was the change from the Planning Board and Kevin Lindley said yes. He said that this was something that he and Commissioner McKee brought up at the quarterly public hearing. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item B on the same page and asked it was considered that this is a significant cost that would be incurred by property owners to have to put in a private sewage pumping station. Kevin Lindley said that pumping systems are more expensive than regular sewer systems. Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to know the cost of this. Kevin Lindley said that it would probably be about $10,000. Frank Clifton said that there is a grinder pump system for single family homes that is not quite that expensive. Craig Benedict said that the gravity sewer system should pick up 90-95% of the properties in that area. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County Commissioners had an email from a citizen about financial assistance in this issue. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to make a motion to direct staff to research having a fund for this kind of financial assistance. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to direct staff to investigate a low-interest loan program to help people that want to hook up to the Orange County managed sewer systems. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; close the public hearing; and Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within Attachment 2, "An Ordinance Amending the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County." VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. UDO Text Amendment(s) — Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoninq District The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment relating to the creation of the Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning District (REDA-CZ-1) in the NC Highway 57 Speedway area. Michael Harvey made reference to the replacement to attachment 2, page 15. There is an additional amendment to address some concerns. The gray sheet is supposed to replace pages 15-23 of the packet. He summarized each of the attachments. This item was presented at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. This small area plan allows the potential for additional non-residential activities in areas of the County where there is existing non-residential land uses. This plan also provides a potential pathway to bring the speedway and the go-cart track into conformity. These existing uses are non-conforming at this time and cannot be expanded as they are listed at this time. Michael Harvey said that concerns were expressed at the QPH by Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner McKee regarding the buffers and impacts of the speedway area. This information was discussed by the Planning Board at length, and this information is provided in the attachment. He clarified that this Rural Economic Development Area designation can only be applied in this NC 57 Small Area Plan. He said that he thinks that all of the concerns have been addressed. The Planning Board recommended approval of this amendment as long as staff incorporated the requested changes. He went through the changes as listed on the gray sheet, which were bolded and underlined. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Jacobs said that everyone from property owners to the owners of the speedway was invited to attend the SAP meetings. There were two Board of County Commissioners members participating. He said that it is important that this went very quickly and it was very collaborative. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 9 of the original abstract, item #7. He said that two issues came up and they tried to make a more definitive statement about Orange County's interest in having recreational facilities that were available to Orange County and that Orange County would be part of the process. He said that this was taking place right after Hillsborough was fighting to prevent an asphalt plant right next to the Agricultural Food Processing Center. He said that the group wanted it stated in writing that no asphalt plant would be permitted. He asked staff to address these concerns. Michael Harvey said that staff could provide detail in the ordinance to address the asphalt plant issue. Commissioner Jacobs suggested adding something about parkland and made reference to #7 on page 9. He suggested saying, "the creation of additional parkland within the study area shall be at least proportional to the amount of quarry acreage in Orange County." Michael Harvey said that page 9 is part of the abstract and for the County Commissioners to direct staff to begin dialogue formally with Durham County and quarry staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; and adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments as contained within the revised Attachment 2, "An Ordinance Amending the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County." VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to direct staff to bring back modifications to the ordinance to prohibit the building of an asphalt plant within the NC 57 Small Area Plan area. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to direct staff and the Chair to initiate discussions with Durham County and quarry staff regarding the future disposition of recreational facilities to be created at the close of the quarry. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Public Hearinq on Potential Placement of a Half-Percent Sales Tax Referendum for Public Transportation on the November 2012 Elections Ballot The Board conducted a public hearing on the potential placement of a '/2 - percent sales tax referendum on the November 2012 ballot as a funding source for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County. Craig Benedict introduced this item. He said that this is being permitted through session law 2009-527, also known as House Bill 148. This allows the County to put forward revenue sources for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Orange County Transit Plan). David King from Triangle Transit said that the Board of County Commissioners has had plenty of opportunity to review this plan over the past 15 months. He spoke about a smoother, faster, more reliable bus transit system. The last phase is 3+ miles of light rail in Orange County that would be connected to another 14+ miles in Durham County. These components are all priced in the plan and the financial model considers conservative growth in sales tax revenue. If the Federal partner for funding is not in place, the light rail cannot be afforded. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chris Weaver said that there is a disparity in paying for transit. Everyone will pay a sales tax, but the vehicle registration fee is disproportionate to the expenditures. He said that District 2 pays half the fees and receives token increases in bus services. He asked why the rural area should pay half and only receive a small percentage of the proceeds. He said that this tax predominantly serves the 1 St District. He said that this portion of the County voted all of the County Commissioners onto the Board. He asked the Board to reconsider the great amount of funding provided by District 2 and the disproportional dispersal of these funds. Jeff Schmitt agreed with Chris Weaver. He is a resident of Cedar Grove and he said that his comments would probably be supported by the majority of northern and rural southwest Orange County. He spoke about the voting strength of the Chapel Hill Township. He said that the light rail system would not be used by the rural areas of Orange County. He said that Orange County does not have the population density to use the light rail system. He said that if this is so needed by Chapel Hill, then Chapel Hill should pay for it and not the entire County. Gerry Cohen said that he hopes the County Commissioners would adopt this plan tonight and place the issue on the ballot. He said that regional transit is good for economic development. Harry Johnson is a law student at UNC and a member of Tarheels for Transit. He asked the County Commissioners to please put this on the referendum and let the citizens decide. He said that everyone will benefit from this plan because it helps focus development in areas where it is needed while keeping it away from areas where it is not needed. Patrick Byker said that he used to be a student at UNC and then worked with Triangle Transit through the Chamber of Commerce. He then worked at the DATA for eight years and served on the board as either Chairman or Vice Chair. He said that it was imperative to him that there be a robust transit connection between Durham County and Orange County because the two counties are intertwined. He said that this would be a great thing for economic development. Dan Jewell is a resident of Durham but for 17 years before that, he was a resident of Orange County. He is a member of the Durham/Orange Friends of Transit and said that he worked hard to get this on the ballot in Durham County last year. He said that this is an investment in the future. He reminded the County Commissioners that they are not voting on the referendum tonight, but to allow democracy to take its place. Ed Harrison recognized other Chapel Hill Town Council members: Mayor Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, and Penny Rich. He said that he wanted to address one detail on the plan, which is getting one short sentence on page 7 under "maintaining existing services." He suggested the following sentence: "support existing services consistent with state law." Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice and thanked Commissioner McKee for his evaluation of the Triangle Transit Plan and Commissioner Gordon who insisted that the plan be transparent. She said that her group supports transit but not this plan and she said that as long as light rail is part of the plan, they cannot support it. She said that there is widespread support for commonsense meaningful transit, but as people learn about the light rail plan, they lose interest and begin to oppose it. Julie McClintock has been a Chapel Hill resident since 1970. She also served for 12 years on the Chapel Hill Town Council. She said that there has been a drop off in enthusiasm for the transit plan because of the amount of emphasis and cost projections on light rail. She spoke in support of a first rate bus system. She said that the light rail system consumes over 90% of the cost. She said that the technology of light rail is not suited for this County. She said that she has serious reservations about endorsing a tax to raise revenue that puts so much money into light rail. She said that an independent third party should review the cost projections given by TTA. Dave Landicina said that this plan is just a starting point and it will continue to grow and serve the whole Triangle. He spoke in support of the referendum. David Neal is a resident of Hillsborough and is an attorney. He is also a member of Durham/Orange Friends of Transit and also a member of the Orange County Commission for the Environment. He reminded the County Commissioners of a memo from the Commissioner for the Environment sent to the County Commissioners on April 16th endorsing the referendum. He said that this transit plan will result in a lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower sprawl. It will help preserve the rural character because the growth will be around the transit. Chapel Hill Town Council Member Penny Rich said that she encouraged the County Commissioners to bring this to the citizens and let them vote on it in November. She spoke about the Phoenix, Arizona metro system, which was created through a regional transportation plan that involved a '/�-cent sales tax approved by the voters in 2000. She encouraged the Board to put this on the ballot. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Oranqe County Transit Plan and Related Aqreement The Board considered adoption of the Orange County Transit Plan and approval of the Implementing Agreement and if approved, authorized the Chair to sign. Chair Pelissier said that the implementation agreement is for comments only. She does not expect any decisions on this agreement tonight. She asked that Triangle Transit give a summary of changes made from the original plan from last week. Patrick McDonough said that the elements of the transit plan remain in the plan. He said that they received many comments from the County Commissioners and they released these changes on May 23�d. He made reference to page 25 and a request from Commissioner McKee to clarify the debt. The last two bullets in section VI were modified slightly. He said that the debt service remains at $19.2 million, but the amount borrowed is $25 million. Also, on page 23, sections B and C, there was a minor typographical error and $787,000 is the correct amount. In section C, the amount was changed from $330,000 to $338,000. He made reference to Appendix A and the page with three pie charts. The middle pie chart, there were some rounding issues, and these were corrected. Commissioner McKee made reference to page 25 and the bullet on Hillsborough inner city rail. He said that Orange County picks up the 10% local match. Patrick McDonough said that this is correct, but it just needs to be put in the right place in the document. Commissioner McKee said that this is Orange County's plan and should reflect Orange County's obligations. Patrick McDonough pointed out Appendix A and the asterisks at the bottom, which reflects this. Commissioner McKee said that this is misleading. Chair Pelissier suggested that when the plan is discussed that this issue be discussed at that time. Commissioner Gordon clarified that there is a replacement page for her handout. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kathy Andrews said that there will be people who lose their property because of the proposed rail line. She said that she does not believe that this is a truly local endeavor. She said that eminent domain would be needed to make land transfers in this project. She said that the citizens are paying for this advice without a vote and this is an atrocity to her. Commissioner Gordon said that she has a proposed motion on the transit plan and she read it: The motion is given below, with the revisions made at the meeting shown in bold. Here is a Proposed Motion on the Bus and Rail Investment Plan for consideration tonight, submitted by Alice Gordon. Move that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRI Plan) in Orange County, contingent on the approval of an Implementation Agreement between Triangle Transit and Orange County, and subject to the following conditions: A. That the following inconsistent sections in the BRI Plan be addressed, as shown below 1. The difference in the cost of the Hillsborough rail station on page 25 (Orange Financial Plan Data) and page 31 (Appendix A, Assumptions) REVISION: on Page 25, add a note, referencing the Hillsborough Rail Station, which states that Orange County will only be responsible for a 10% match 2. The difference in the number of expenditure categories on page 25 (Orange Financial Plan Data - 9 categories), and page 32 (Appendix A, How All Dollars Are Spent - middle pie chart - 8 categories) REVISION: Change the last bullet, which references the borrowing of$25 million, into a Note. B. That the language concerning the Implementation Agreement on pages 25 and 26 of the BRI Plan be changed to reflect the actual contents of the agreement, once that agreement is revised. C. That the Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement with charts and map be included as an Appendix to the BRI Plan, in substantially the same form as presented on June 5, and with the dollar amounts verified and corrected, as needed. ATTACHMENTS (to be included with the cost sharing agreement): LRT Reference Map (Cost Sharing) Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement Charts D. That Orange County and Triangle Transit will work together to identify any other inconsistencies, misstatements, or omissions, and to provide the changes to the BOCC before the Implementation Agreement is scheduled for approval by the BOCC. The BOCC wishes to note that, even though not all of the stipulations in the BOCC transit plan motion of May 15 were addressed, the BOCC wishes to move the BRI Plan forward at this time, in the manner stated above. NOTE: The above attachments (LRT Reference Map and Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement Charts) are included in the agenda materials and are hereby included by reference in these minutes. Commissioner McKee seconded this motion above for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Gordon asked John Roberts why this implementation agreement was important. John Roberts said that the implementation agreement is not mandated by statute. He does not think that it delays anything. Commissioner Gordon asked Financial Services Director Clarence Grier if he had enough information and he said that he just received the financials today and he has not had a chance to read it. Chair Pelissier suggested looking at each component of the motion. Commissioner Gordon said that the public needs to understand that the County Commissioners have already had the discussion of approving this plan in principle as presented. She said that the County Commissioners need to figure out how best to move forward. Commissioner Yuhasz said that, in looking at this motion, it is as understandable as the plan itself. He said that this is no criticism of Commissioner Gordon but he does not know what this motion says or what the plan says. He said that this started as a regional plan and still is a regional plan. He said that they are putting all of their transit eggs in this basket that is so heavily weighted to light rail. He said that the plan is too expensive and provides too little overall service. Chair Pelissier said that she does not have a problem with the motion, but it does not help the public understand the plan any better. She thinks that the plan is understandable. Commissioner Hemminger said that the County Commissioners did look at ways to protect Orange County from unforeseen circumstances. She said that this will be tweaked over the years and she thinks the concept works. She thinks that it is time to take it to the voters. Commissioner Foushee said that she agreed with Commissioner Hemminger and this plan will only go forward if the public decides to vote for it. Commissioner McKee said that he can imagine a future without light rail, where the attention is on bus rapid transit and commuter rail. He realizes that eventually light rail will be a component, as in 2050-2060. He made reference to a survey that was done of citizens where transportation was #5 at 4.5%. The actual number of people that would use light rail often was at 7.7%. One of the problems for him is the lack of a definitive implementation plan. He said that this should be a comprehensive process and not a piece meal plan. He said that the moment the County approves the plan, it loses the ability to negotiate the rest of it. Commissioner Jacobs acknowledged the publicly spirited people that guided them through this process. He also thanked Chair Pelissier and Commissioner Gordon who have worked diligently on transit issues, and especially Commissioner Gordon who worked on this proposed motion. Commissioner Jacobs said that even though Wake County does not want to move this forward though there are some issues to resolve, he thinks that this is a time for the County to provide transportation for the public. He made reference to the debate about who gets what and who gets the short end of the stick. He said that it is a constant refrain. He said that the fact is that everyone gets served by Orange County government. If it is viewed in a bundle, everyone is being treated equitable to the best of the ability of the County Commissioners. He thinks that this moves forward in a better way than has been done so far. Chair Pelissier said that she has looked at transit for years and no plan is perfect. In the end, the Board of County Commissioners needs to decide if this is a good plan and she thinks that this is a good plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she wrote the motion as she did because you need to be clear about your baseline data, and if the County or Triangle Transit has questions before the implementation agreement is completed, then they have time to resolve these issues. She thought that she captured the best of both the County and Triangle Transit positions. She has worked with transportation for many years and she wants this to be right. John Roberts made reference to subsection C of the Cost Sharing Agreement and said that the maps and charts could be in an appendix. Commissioner McKee accepted the friendly amendment along with Commissioner Gordon. Patrick McDonough clarified points A.1 and 2. Commissioner Gordon made reference to A.2 and suggested turning the last bullet on page 25 into a note and she stated the language: "The following seeming inconsistencies in the plan should be addressed as follows...." Then on page 25, the note would read, "NOTE: the amount borrowed by Triangle Transit to execute the plan is $25 million. This number is larger than the amount of debt service payments (above) because debt payments are over 30 year terms and go past 2035." There could also be another note that the Hillsborough Rail Station for $8.9 million will have a 10% local match. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to add language on page 7 under Maintaining Existing Services: "support existing services consistent with state law." This is related to Article 43 of Chapter 105 N. C. General Statutes. Commissioner McKee made reference to an email the County Commissioners received today about this language. He said that it has been changed three times, this time at Triangle Transit's request. He is leery of that because he has extreme reservations on supplantation of services. Chair Pelissier said that all this would need to be spelled out in the implementation agreement and by law the County cannot supplant. The details have to be worked out. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz) Commissioner McKee said that about a year ago he requested that this plan be split in two components — one relating to bus service and commuter rail service and the other relating to light rail to be considered in the future. This was not accomplished, therefore he finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to vote against every bit of this plan. He agrees that Orange County needs increased transportation services, but he is adamantly opposed to the light rail component. Vote on motion from Commissioner Gordon above, as stated on page 10. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz) Chair Pelissier made reference to the Implementation Agreement (Attachment 2). She said that this is the first time that the County Commissioners will be discussing this. It has not been discussed with TTA or any other parties. The County Commissioners need to provide some initial comments so that staff can be directed on how to continue. Commissioner Gordon reviewed the suggested changes to the agreement and referred to her emails with John Roberts and Craig Benedict below: John Roberts' responses to Commissioner Gordon's questions are in underline below: Throughout the agreement -The correct terminology is vehicle "registration" fee, not "tag" fee. ill b� �orr��t�de Page 2, section 3a - What is the definition of"supermajority"? I (�ohn �ob�rt�) ����r�ntl� d�l�t�d � 2/3 �ot� r�f�r�n�� for th� �u��rrr��i�rit� t�rrr� frorr� rr�� I��t dr�fte It ��n b� r�in��rt�d if thi� �ro�i�ion i� k��te Page 2, section 3d - What is the rationale behind the membership of the advisory board which includes one representative each for Chapel Hill Transit, Hillsborough, and Mebane? That does not relate to the population distribution in Orange County. Has any consideration been given to having a representative from Chapel Hill and one from Carrboro? Thi� i� � ���tion �r�i� in�lud�d �o I (�ohn �ob�rt�) �ill I���� thi� �n���r to hirr�e I r���ll � di��u��ion th�t th�r� �hould b� �n �d�i�or� �rou�s �nd it �hould in�lud� th� to�n� but I do not r���ll if rr��rr�b�r�hi� ����ifi�� ��r� di��u���de Craig Benedict made reference to the board makeup and said that it has been brought down to a five-member board then back to a seven-member board. The composition includes two members from the Chapel Hill Transit area, one member from Hillsborough, one member from Durham, one member from Mebane, two members from Orange County (one from District 1 and one from District 2). Commissioner Jacobs made reference to a super majority and suggested having 5 as a super majority as the Board of County Commissioners. Regarding the composition of the advisory board, he is in favor of bringing Mebane to the table but it is preposterous to him that Mebane would have an equal vote to Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the University in this plan, or that Durham would be advising on the Orange County transit plan partnership. He said that it would be easier to have 3 partners in Chapel Hill Transit, one in Hillsborough, and two representatives of the County and make it a six-member board. All agreed to have 5 as a super majority. All agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion for the composition of the advisory board. Pages 3, 4, and especially page 7. When and how will the blank spaces on these pages be completed? � (�ohn �ob�rt�) �o�ition i� TT��hould ���i�t th� �ount� in findin� thi� inforrr��tione Craig Benedict made reference to the three elements of the implementation agreement and how monies are spent on existing and future service. He made reference to page 4, table 1 and said that it would be funding levels as of August 1, 2009. These numbers will be plugged in later. Commissioner Gordon said that on page 3 there are also some blank spaces. John Roberts said that some of those numbers will need to come from Triangle Transit. John Roberts said that Triangle Transit has not had a chance to give comments on this plan yet and there will probably be substantial changes to the document. He suggested not spending more time on this tonight. Chair Pelissier said that she just wanted to hear initial general comments. Page 8, section 6a - What is the meaning of the words "with an advisory recommendation"? Does it mean "after receiving an advisory recommendation"? If so, the latter wording would be clearer. Th� I�tt�r i� �I��r�r �nd it �ill b� �h�n��de Page 8, section 7a - I believe the "core plan" is now being called the "local plan" or something similar. Also, please check the wording on page 28 of the BRI Plan (IX. Alternative Plan) and determine whether that wording provides enough direction concerning how the alternative plan will be developed. Th� t�rrr� `d�lt�rn�ti�� �I�n" �nd � r�f�r�n�� to th� �I �I�n ���tion �r� �r�f�r�bl�e I do not �i�� th� ��r��r��h in th� �I �� �uffi�i�nt b���u�� it ��t� no ��r�rr��t�r�e Page 9, section 10a (2) - It is stated that Orange transportation staff and/or the Orange County Transit Plan Partnership may recommend amendments to the BRI Plan. If the BOCC wished to make an amendment on its own initiative, would it be allowed to do that according to this document? Th� �� or TT�s �� ��rti�� to th� ��r��rr��nts rr��� r�c�u��t �rr��ndrr��nt� �t �n� tirr��e Frank Clifton made reference to page 5 and the operating hours for OPT at $58/hour. He said that these are older numbers that did not include overhead for administration. There will be a third party analysis of this to make sure the numbers are accurate. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about item 6-b on page 8 and why this is included because it is redundant. A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer this agreement to staff to work over the summer, getting other comments from partners and coming back with agreed modifications on August 21 St Commissioner Jacobs asked if this includes what the Board already agreed on regarding the super majority and board composition. The Board agreed to include these modifications in the motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Decision on Placement of a Half-Percent Sales Tax Referendum for Public Transportation on the November 2012 Elections Ballot The Board considered a decision on the placement of a '/2 - percent sales tax referendum on the November 2012 ballot as a funding source for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is going to vote against this and he asked that any approval of placing a referendum on the ballot be contingent upon approving the implementation agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee that the approval of placing a '/2 cent sales tax referendum for public transportation on the ballot be contingent upon approval of the implementation agreement. John Roberts said that the Board of Election needs to know to put this on the ballot by early August. Commissioner Hemminger asked for a friendly amendment to not levy the tax until the implementation agreement is approved. Wib Gulley said that there is an effective contract now between Triangle Transit and Orange County that they will not levy any tax or anything until the implementation agreement is approved. Commissioner Yuhasz withdrew the motion and Commissioner McKee withdrew the second. Commissioner McKee said that he thinks that the County should have these things worked out before asking the citizens to vote. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the placement of a '/2 - percent sales tax referendum on the November 2012 ballot as a funding source for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County; and make a statement that the tax will not be levied until satisfaction is reached with agreements. John Roberts made a suggestion to add a `whereas': Whereas, the Orange County Commissioners notify the residents of Orange County that Triangle Transit will not levy the '/2 cent sales tax until Orange County requests the tax be levied. This amendment was accepted by Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Jacobs. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL ADVISORY REFERENDUM ON THE ISSUE OF LEVYING A ONE-HALF PERCENT (1/2%) LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted the "Local Government Public Transportation Sales Tax Act" at Article 43 of Chapter 105 of the North Carolina General Statutes (Session Law 2009-527), which authorizes counties and transportation authorities to levy a local sales and use tax for the purpose of financing local public transportation systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 105-509(a), the regional public transportation authority (hereinafter, "Triangle Transit") will create a special district consisting of the entire area of Orange County to be added to the existing special district of Durham County; and h�r���s th� �ount� �orr�rr�i��ion�r� of r�n�� �ount� notif� th� r��id�nt� of r�n�� �ount� th�t th� �/� ��nt t�x �ill not b� I��i�d until r�n�� �ount� r�c�u��t� th�t Tri�n�l� Tr�n�it I��� th� t�xe WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 4 of the Act, Triangle Transit must obtain the approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in order to conduct an advisory referendum by a vote of the people. The election shall be held in accordance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute §163-287; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange: Section 1. The Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes Triangle Transit to call a referendum during the normal time the polls are open, on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, at which there shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the County of Orange the question stated in Section 3 of this resolution. Section 2. The said referendum shall be held in accordance with the procedures of North Carolina General Statute §163-287. Section 3. The form of the question to appear in the ballots and in the instructions to voters for said referendum shall be substantially as follows: [ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST "One-half percent (1/2%) local sales and use tax, in addition to the current local sales and use taxes, to be used only for public transportation systems." Section 4. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to mail or deliver a certified copy of this Resolution to the Board of Trustees of Triangle Transit within three days after passage hereof. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect upon its passage. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz) c. Approval of a Settlement Resolution Authorizinq an Exchanqe of Properties Between Oranqe County and Eno River Parkinq Deck, LLC, and Approval of Budqet Amendment#9-B The Board considered approving a resolution regarding settlement with Eno River Parking Deck, LLC, authorizing the purchase for $1,000,000 and the exchange of properties valued at $580,000 pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 160A-271 to purchase the Eno River Parking Deck, and approving Budget Amendment#9-B and authorizing the Chair to sign. John Roberts said that Orange County has been involved in a tenant/lease agreement for several years and this has caused many issues. He said that these issues led to litigation between owners of the deck and Orange County. Out of that mediation, a potential settlement was reached, which would be that Orange County would purchase the Eno River Parking Deck for the price of$1 million cash, plus the two buildings at 112 and 118 North Churton Street, which have a combined assessed value of$508,000. The parking deck has a replacement value of$2.9 million. If the County Commissioners will approve that property exchange, the case gets settled and Orange County would own the Eno River Parking Deck. Regarding the lease, the County leased this for 40 years initially and there are 37 years remaining. It leased 200 spaces at $1 a space plus half of the maintenance costs. Initially, Orange County contributed $2.3 million to the construction of the deck, which was approximately a $5.2 million construction cost in an overall project which involved the Library, the office building, and Gateway Center. The County pays $200 a year, plus $25,000 in maintenance costs. Regarding the sculpture, John Roberts' recommendation is to remove the sculpture because it is old cast iron and he has evidence that children have been playing on it. If it is left there, then the County would need some kind of liability insurance. John Roberts made reference to Financial Impact and said that the additional costs are actually $20-25,000 for closing costs and inspections. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, Eno River Parking Deck, LLC owns a multi-level parking facility ("Parking Deck") (PIN 9874052667) on Nash and Kollock Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina; and WHEREAS, Orange County leases approximately 200 parking spaces ("Leased Spaces") in the Parking Deck; and WHEREAS, Orange County and Eno River Parking Deck, LLC (the "Parties") are currently engaged in litigation regarding the Leased Spaces; and WHEREAS, the Parties have reached a mediated settlement agreement whereby they will exchange certain properties which shall result in a termination of the Lessor Lessee relationship and a dismissal of the litigation; and WHEREAS, the Parking Deck property has a stated value of $2,900,000, recognized as such for purposes of the negotiated settlement only, and the Orange County-owned property located at 112 North Churton Street (PIN 9874066435) has an assessed valuation of$450,000 and the Orange County-owned property located at 118 North Churton Street (PIN 9874065497) has an assessed valuation of$130,000; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to transfer the Parking Deck property to Orange County and to transfer both of the properties at 112 and 118 North Churton Street plus one million dollars ($1,000,000) to Eno River Parking Deck, LLC; and WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute §160A-271 authorizes the County to exchange county-owned property upon authorization by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County adopted at a regular meeting after at least ten (10) days' public notice; and WHEREAS, the County has given the required public notice, and the Board has considered the matter at a regular meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Exchange of properties described above is authorized. 2. The appropriate county officials are directed to execute the instruments necessary to carry out the exchange. This the 5th day of June 2012. Commissioner Gordon went through the emails exchanged between her and John Roberts. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the owner of the sculpture is willing to do what is necessary regarding the ownership, etc. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to attempt to leave the sculpture in its current location. Commissioner Yuhasz amended his motion to say "if the County purchases the parking deck." Commissioner Jacobs agreed. Frank Clifton suggested making this sculpture a condition of the purchase. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve a resolution regarding settlement with Eno River Parking Deck, LLC, by approving the Chair to sign the resolution authorizing the exchange of properties, valued at $580,000 pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 160A-271 to purchase the Eno River Parking Deck; approve budget amendment#9-B for the appropriation of$1,000,000 from the General Fund's fund balance for the cash payment; and authorize the County Manager and Chair to execute all necessary documents to effectuate the settlement and property exchange and the exchange of properties, and to approve Budget Amendment#9-B and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner Gordon read a statement about why she is voting against this item: Commissioner Gordon said she would be voting against this item for the following reasons: 1. The County already has a lease for 200 parking spaces in the parking deck, at the cost of$1 per year for each space, and the lease has 37 years remaining. The 200 parking spaces area all that the county needs. 2. The cost is too high, especially at a time when the county has many financial constraints. The assessed value of the deck is $595, 473 while the assessed value of the two county buildings is $450,000 and $130,000 for a total of$580,000. There amounts are roughly equivalent. Paying an additional $1 million is unwise, in my opinion, and particularly since the money could be used for many worthy projects, including school funding. 3. An exchange of buildings means that there will be no proceeds from a sale of these two buildings which can be put into a fund for the Southwest Library and for older schools, as BOCC policy would otherwise mandate. Please make these comments part of the minutes along with the email messages below from the county attorney which provided background information: The number of leased spaces is 200 @ $1/year plus half of the approximately $50k/year in maintenance costs. John L. Roberts Orange County Attorney -----Original Message----- From: Alice Gordon (mailto:qordon.alice(c�qmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:00 AM To: John Roberts Cc: Bernadette Pelissier; Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Pam Hemminger (External); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee; Donna Baker; Frank Clifton; Greg Wilder; Gwen Harvey; Michael Talbert; Clarence Grier Subject: Re: Questions/ Comments -Agenda Item 7c - June 5 John, Thank you very much for this information. I appreciate knowing that the county has 37 years remaining on the lease for the parking deck in Hillsborough. My understanding of the other terms of the lease is that the county has leased approximately 200 spaces at the cost of$1 per year for each space. Is that correct? What is the exact number of leased spaces? Thanks again. Alice Gordon On 6/4/12, John Roberts <joroberts(a�co.oranqe.nc.us> wrote: Commissioner Gordon, The assessed tax value of the deck is $594,473. The $2.9 million is the construction cost of the deck ($5.2 million) less the amount the owners now acknowledge the county has previously contributed to that cost ($2.3 million). In order for the County to lawfully engage in a property transfer some conditions must be met including publication and notice of the values of the properties and the County must receive fair value for the exchange. Exchanging $1 million plus two buildings valued at $500,000 for a $594,000 structure is not fair value. However, such an exchange for a $2.9 million structure would be a fair exchange. The $594,000 figure is based on an income stream valuation. The $2.9 million figure is based on a replacement cost valuation. Both are accurate values for those purposes but only the $2.9 million value can be used in the exchange. 37 years remain on the lease. John L. Roberts Orange County Attorney -----Original Message----- From: Alice Gordon (mailto:qordon.alice(c�qmail.coml Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:52 AM To: John Roberts; Bernadette Pelissier; Alice Gordon; Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Pam Hemminger (External); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee; Donna Baker; Frank Clifton; Greg Wilder; Gwen Harvey; Michael Talbert Cc: Clarence Grier Subject: Questions/ Comments -Agenda Item 7c - June 5 John and Clarence, I had a couple of questions of clarification on item 7-c regarding the parking deck settlement. The stated value of the deck is given as $2,900,000. What is the assessed valuation of the deck? The reason I ask is that I thought the value was something just under $600,000. Could you explain where the $2.9 million value came from? Also, was the approximately $600 K value what is listed on the tax rolls, or the appraised value, or what? The resolution states that the county leases approximately 200 parking spaces but does not give the terms. How many more years remain on the lease? Thank you. Alice Gordon Commissioner Jacobs said that until tonight he did not know if he was going to vote for this or not. He thinks that the County takes things out of sync in the budget process. He agrees that there might be better uses for this money. He does not agree with committing another $1 million before making the primary budget decisions. He wants to make sure that the County has done everything it can to resolve these differences, so he cannot support this item. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to convey to Hillsborough that the County is attempting to address the outstanding parking issues and to mend the fences. He would like to have a declarative letter from John Roberts and solicit from the Town a response. John Roberts said that he has already done this and he has spoken with the Town Attorney several times and they are aware the County is considering purchase, which will resolve all outstanding issues. Commissioner Jacobs asked when this would go into effect. John Roberts said that the closing should happen fairly quickly, within the next couple of weeks. d. Recommendations from the Emerqency Services Workqroup for VIPER Radio Svstem Improvements and Communication Svstem Improvements The Board received recommendations from the Emergency Services Workgroup for VIPER Radio System Improvements and Communication System Improvements included in the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and incorporate the recommendation as appropriate into the approval of the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Annual Budget. Michael Talbert said that this is the first of three items from the Emergency Services Work Group. He reviewed the requested improvements. The purchase of these items will be spread out over five years at $128,000 per year. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to receive the recommendations from the Emergency Services Workgroup for VIPER Radio System, OSSI- CAD Replacement, and 800 mHz radios included in the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and incorporate the recommendation as appropriate into the approval of the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Annual Budget. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Approval of a Recommendation from the Emerqency Services Workqroup to Conduct a Coveraqe Assessment for the VIPER Svstem The Board considered approving a recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup to conduct a Needs Assessment for the VIPER System to improve County-wide coverage and authorizing the Manager to sign a contract not to exceed $50,000. Michael Talbert said that the workgroup has been working since early December with the North Carolina Department of Highway Patrol. There is a desperate need of a technical analysis in how to increase coverage. The work group decided to move forward with the scope of work that is included in Attachment 2. Chair Pelissier asked for a motion to continue the meeting since it was 10:30 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner McKee said that this consultant is needed because no one on the workgroup has the expertise to pinpoint the location of these towers. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve a recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup to conduct a Needs Assessment for the VIPER System to improve County-wide coverage and authorize the Manager to sign a contract not to exceed $50,000 for the Needs Assessment; and plan to appropriate the necessary funds from the General Fund's Fund Balance as part of a budget amendment that will be presented for the Board's approval at the August 21, 2012 regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS f. Authorization to Proceed with Development of New Fire Protection Contracts with the North Chatham Fire Department, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill The Board considered the recommendation from the Emergency Services Workgroup to proceed with the development of New Fire Protection Contracts with the North Chatham Fire Department, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill for implementation by July 1, 2013, and authorizing the Chair to send letters to the three entities providing notice of plans to terminate the existing fire protection contracts as of June 30, 2013. Michael Talbert said that the Board began discussing this in September 2011. This particular area is mainly the southern Triangle. There are roughly 112 property owners that are more than 6 miles from a fire station and are therefore immediately impacted and there are others that can be helped with a restructuring of these contracts. The abstract includes the four options that the workgroup analyzed. There was a meeting with the homeowners from the immediately impacted area on May 10th and they are desperate to get something done to help with their insurance rates, which have doubled in many cases. There is a 365-day cancellation clause, so the contracts would have to be terminated as of June 30, 2013. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve proceeding with the development of New Fire Protection Contracts with the North Chatham Fire Department, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill for implementation by July 1, 2013, and to authorize the Chair to send letters to the three entities providing notice of plans to terminate the existing fire protections contracts as of June 30, 2013. VOTE: UNANIMOUS g_ Amendment to Oranqe County Code of Ordinances Reqardinq Weapons The Board considered amending the Orange County Code of Ordinances to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on certain Orange County property and authorizing the Chair to sign. John Roberts said that last year the General Assembly mandated concealed carry of firearms legislation to authorize people with lawful permits to carry those firearms in a concealed manner within parks, including any recreational facilities, whether those parks are owns privately or publicly. This authorizes local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons within recreational facilities. Recreational facilities are defined as: playgrounds, athletic fields, swimming pools, or athletic facilities owned, leased, or operated by counties or cities. One of the comments at the public hearing was that there are remote areas in Little River Park and this amendment authorizes people to carry a concealed firearm through a recreational facility if it is necessary to access those remote trails within Little River Park. However, it does prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or non-concealed weapons in Cedar Grove Park, Central Recreation Center, Efland-Cheeks Park and Community Center, Eurosport Soccer Center, Fairview Park, Little River Regional Park and Natural Area with the exception of the areas specifically mentioned, Orange County Sportsplex, and River Market and Public Market House. Regarding adding in future parks, he said that he would leave this up to the Board. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chris Weaver said that when they started this process the Board of County Commissioners was going to invite the public to participate in this discussion, but this did not happen. He said that this is a failure to communicate with the public on matters such as this. He said that the County is trying to create "gun-free zones". There have been a couple of instances in the last couple of weeks. A lady was murdered in a gun-free zone. He said that anyone in the gun-free zones would be fair bait because people that have lawfully obtained firearms would not be able to carry them in these areas. He said that criminals do not care about the law so it does not make anyone safer. He said that he has been in contact with the Sheriff's Department every day and there has not been a single incident where a lawfully permitted citizen has used their gun to commit a crime. Don O'Leary said that the U. S. Constitution is the law of the land. He said that this rips the constitution to pieces. Commissioner Jacobs said that he had also brought up the issue to the County Attorney that Twin Creeks Park has a greenway. He wants to have the County Attorney's opinion on record. John Roberts said that other entities have attempted to add greenways and other areas that are not specifically defined by State statute, and they have been put on notice that they will be sued over that. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Resolution of Amendment, eliminating exception #8 on page 3 of the abstract. Commissioner Jacobs said that most of the trails in Little River Park are in Durham County and Orange County should not be making decisions on what happens in a joint park. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he was disappointed that the public was not given the opportunity to weigh in on this. He said that he does not want to remove #8. John Roberts said that#8 would not apply to Durham County, but only people crossing through a recreational facility to access remote areas. Commissioner McKee echoed Commissioner Yuhasz's statements about transparency of this issue. He said that item 8 acknowledged reality that there are remote trails in these parks and where concealed weapons could and should be appropriate. He will vote against this if item 8 is removed. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a partnership with Durham and to enact this and expect people to know when they are crossing the county line is not reasonable. Discussion ensued about the inclusion of#8 and John Roberts said that part of this amendment includes placing signs at the recreation areas referencing the ordinance. VOTE: (Commissioner Jacobs's motion with deletion of# 8) Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 4 MOTION DEFEATED A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to amend the Orange County Code of Ordinances by adopting the Resolution of Amendment to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on certain Orange County property and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Gordon, and Commissioner Hemminger) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT A RESOLUTION AMENDING CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE V SECTIONS 18-151 THROUGH 18-155 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES Be it Resolved by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina: WHEREAS, Orange County, through ordinance, has prohibited the carrying of weapons, concealed or non-concealed, on Orange County-owned property; and WHEREAS, in 2011 the General Assembly of North Carolina expanded the ability of concealed carry permittees to carry concealed weapons statewide with few exceptions; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly simultaneously authorized local governments to restrict and prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on certain local government-owned property; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, believing it to be in the best interest of the citizens and residents of Orange County, have determined that weapons whether concealed or non-concealed should not be carried on certain Orange County-owned property; NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby amends Chapter 18, Article V, Sections 18-151 through 18-155 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in Orange County-owned buildings and in, at, or on Orange County Recreational Facilities. This Amendment shall become effective upon adoption. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this 5th day of June, 2012. 8. Reports - NONE 9. County Manaqer's Report - NONE 10. County Attorney's Report - NONE 11. Appointments - NONE 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) Commissioner Jacobs — none Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Gordon — none Commissioner Hemminger said that she had a conference call with the Chief of Staff for Vice President Joe Biden who will be coming to Winston-Salem tomorrow. He has been asked to look at the to-do list for jobs specifically targeting North Carolina. She thanked the Clerk for keeping up with all of the motions regarding this. Commissioner Foushee said that Social Services Child Care Subsidies waiting list backlog has finally been cleared for the first time in three years. The County is currently serving 800 children. Commissioner Yuhasz -none 13. Information Items • May 15, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Memo — Efland Cheeks Community Center Access and Usage Follow-up • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding NC 10% Campaign • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding "Ban the Box" Proposal • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding May 8, 2012 Election Report • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Potential Significant Locations Project with the Town of Hillsborough 14. Closed Session - NONE 15. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 P.M. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board