HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-16-2012 - 5a
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:October 16, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No.5-a
SUBJECT:
MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)No
Board of Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE:
To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
August 27, 2012Quarterly Public Hearing
August 30, 2012BOCC Work Session
September 11, 2012BOCC Work Session
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board’s
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 August 27, 2012
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, August 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central
13 Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
20 Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
21 identified appropriately below)
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members
23 Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
24 Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
25 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey, Dawn Brezina
26
27 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. She asked for a motion to add a
28 closed session at the end of the meeting.
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
30 to add closed sessions after the public hearing:
31
32 1. Per N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3): To Consult with the Attorney to protect the
33 attorney-client privilege.
34 2. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(5)] To establish or instruct the staff or agent
35 concerning the negotiation of the price and terms of a contract concerning the
36 acquisition of real property
37 3. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)]: To discuss matters relating to the location or
38 expansion of business in the area served by this body.
39 4. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6)] : To consider the qualifications, competence,
40 performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or
41 prospective public officer or employee.
42
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
47
48 A. PUBLIC CHARGE
49 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2
1
2 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3
4 1. Class A Special Use Permit - To review an application for a Class A Special
5 Use Permit for a proposed 26 lot single-family residential Major Subdivision
6 on a 68.51 acre parcel of property off of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718).
7 Michael Harvey: I will remind the Board that you are dealing with a Class A Special Use
8 Permit, which by definition is a quasi-judicial hearing. If you are speaking either for or against
9 the application —that includes the applicant and the applicant's engineer and staff—you need to
10 be sworn. Mr. Chairman, if you will swear in all interested parties in for this hearing.
11 Larry Wright: All parties approach the bench, and while they're doing so, I'd like to inform
12 everyone that additional testimony can be accepted in written format to the Planning
13 Department to be submitted prior to the Planning Board meeting. It will be part of the Planning
14 Board deliberations, and this will offer the opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to
15 have material where they can consider this in their deliberations thereafter.
16 All interested parties were sworn in at this time.
17 Michael Harvey: You have a rather lengthy agenda item here this evening, and I'm going to try
18 to go through it as methodically and as quickly as possible and allow the applicant and citizens
19 the opportunity to speak. As the Chair has already articulated, we have a major single-family
20 residential subdivision of 26 lots being proposed on a parcel of property off of Mt. Sinai Road.
21 We have two additional pieces of information concerning this project, which I'd like to call your
22 attention to. The first item is a printout of a PowerPoint presentation so that the Board members
23 can follow along. The second is a salmon-colored piece of paper, which contains
24 correspondence from Orange County's DEAPR department as well as State review documents.
25 We also have an email sent by Mr. David Sykes of Orange County Emergency Services on
26 Thursday, August 16th for your consideration on this item. Unfortunately, this information was
27 received after we had distributed the packets so we were not able to include it.
28 Attachment 1 is the application packet, and very briefly, I just want to run down what that entails.
29 The application packet begins on page 11 with a detailed narrative statement from the applicant
30 demonstrating compliance from their standpoint with the various provisions of County code and
31 the Comprehensive Plan with respect to this project.
32 Page 27 provides pictures of existing structures on the property. Page 28 is the Soil Service
33 report for this property. Page 60 is a Surface Water ldentification completed by Orange County
34 Erosion Control with respect to the streams that are located on this property. Page 64 is a
35 Water Utility Agreement concerning the proposed community well. Page 81 is the adjacent
36 property owner list. Page 83 contains letters submitted to the applicant from the State
37 Department of Cultural Resources concerning this project. Page 87 is the Agreement of
38 Purchase and Sale of this property. Page 89 is the proposed draft Declaration of Covenants,
39 Conditions, and Restrictions for this property. Page 129 begins a property information data
40 sheet submitted by the applicant's expert in an attempt to demonstrate compliance with various
41 provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, specifically that this project will maintain or
42 enhance the value of adjacent property. Page 133, you will note there are sample elevations of
43 the houses proposed for this project. On page 144 you have some additional maps showing
44 environmental features.
3
1 Attachment 2, which is a vicinity map created by staff is on page 150. Attachment 3 contains
2 staff inemorandum from Orange County Solid Waste and Orange County Health Department.
3 Attachment 4 is a fiscal analysis that we produced outlining the anticipated costs to service the
4 proposed neighborhood and what monies the County could expect to receive from this project
5 and if it is developed. Attachment 5 is notes of the neighborhood information meeting, which we
6 are going to discuss in the general abstract. Attachment 6 is the Finding of No Significant
7 Environmental Impact statement completed after County staff determined the project would not
8 have any significant impacts on this and surrounding property. Finally we have the notification
9 certification that we typically provide for these types of projects outlining our compliance with
10 established notification requirements.
11 As detailed on pages 4 and 5 of your abstract, the applicant is proposing a conventional
12 subdivision on a parcel of property located in the Rural Buffer Zoning District. As we articulate
13 in our abstract, this particular parcel of property is located in the rural portion of the County that
14 is defined on our Growth Management System Map, and it is located within the Rural Buffer
15 Rural Residential area as defined and noted within the Joint Land Use Plan that we have with
16 the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
17 The next slide is a vicinity map with the location of the property as well as a brief overview of
18 surrounding development. As you will note, on the map that we have provided we have a
19 mobile home park to the south, the J&J Mobile Home Park. To the east of this property, we
20 have Triangle Land Conservancy property. This area denoted in green is a conservation
21 easement. You also have to the north a major subdivision with lots ranging from 2-3 acres in
22 area. You have to the southwest of this property the Green Valley subdivision with lots ranging
23 from 40,000 square feet to two acres in size. To the west you have lots essentially one acre in
24 area. Across the road is the Blackwood Forest subdivision with lots approximately two acres in
25 area.
26 The project as we identified in the abstract, the applicant is proposing lots with a minimum of
27 two acres in area. The overall density for this project is one dwelling unit for every two acres.
28 The proposed roads for this project will be built to DOT standards, and it's the applicant's desire
29 to turn the roads over to NCDOT for maintenance at the appropriate time.
30 According to the site plan lots 1-22 are going to be served by on-site septic systems. The
31 applicant is proposing that lots 23-26 be served by an off-site septic area. The site plan denotes
32 that there will be a utility easement transferring the affluent just outside of the NCDOT right-of-
33 way to the proposed off-site septic area. There will be individual septic sites for each of these
34 lots and there will not be one giant septic system. The rationale for that is to ensure that all four
35 lots don't expect problems if the septic system fails. There will be a 30-foot land use buffer
36 around the perimeter of this project and there will also be a 75-foot land use buffer along Mt
37 Sinai Road as required by the code. The applicant is proposing at this point in time to service
38 the project with a community well. This is going to be located on a proposed open space lot.
39 There is also proposed to be picnic, recreational center, for use by all of the residents.
4
1 This slide denotes the site plan. You will note the land use buffer here, the 30-foot land use
2 buffer around the perimeter of the property. Lots 23-26 will be served by off-site septic, which is
3 in this general area of the project. We have two open space lots here, which is where the
4 community well is proposed to be located. This area down in here where there is an existing
5 stream, as I previously articulated to you, the County completed what we call a surface water
6 identification inspection to not only verify the location of this stream, which is shown buffered on
7 the site plan, but verify that the stream actually will have to be buffered in accordance with
8 Article 6 of our land use standards. The applicant is showing a potential storm water basin in
9 this general area that will have the storm water for the project. The storm water system has
10 been designed for a 6,000 gallon detention basin.
11 Within the site plan, the applicant is also showing the proposed street system that will have to
12 be installed along the project. They have also identified areas where foliage will be installed in
13 between proposed lots. Interior lot plantings will have to be planted in order to bring the project
14 into compliance with Article 6 of our Unified Development Ordinance. As you will all remember,
15 the UDO does require in between lot planting designed to preserve the aesthetic of the area.
16 The applicant has already the trees that they are going to try and preserve to meet this
17 requirement, and they have also identified the planting of approximately 60-70 trees that will be
18 planted in between various lots in order to ensure compliance with the code.
19 Our comments, which are contained throughout pages 5-11 of the abstract is that the project's
20 density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan; i.e., one
21 unit for every two acres of property. As contained within Attachment 3, Orange County Erosion
22 Control has already tentatively approved the proposed storm water plan and grading plan. Final
23 approval will not be received until the formal Erosion Control and Grading Plan is submitted for
24 review.
25 We also have the memorandum from Orange County Environmental Health within Attachment 3
26 articulating that they have found suitable soils supporting septic system development in each of
27 the lots of these 1-22 and that the main lot to serve as the central depository for lots 23-26
28 appears to be sufficiently sized. They also stipulate that the community well that is currently
29 proposed will have to be reviewed and approved by the State.
30 We held a neighborhood information meeting on this project on August 6th. We had good
31 attendance from local residents and the concerns can be summarized as follows. There was a
32 lot of concern on the community well and whether or not that would have a negative impact on
33 adjacent property. Although not mentioned here, I believe you have a copy of a letter sent to
34 Commissioner Pelissier outlining a local residents' concern over the use and installation of
35 geothermal wells that utilize the pump and dump system. That concern is not necessarily
36 associated to this project, it is a countywide concern. The concerned resident has asked that
37 the County begin a comprehensive review on whether or not there should be limits or outright
38 bans on the use of geothermal wells, specifically focusing on pump and dump and geothermal
39 wells in general. Given the fact that Orange County does not had a true aquifer, that most of
40 our water resources are taken from fractures within the ground, and that by eliminating
41 geothermal wells would help to alleviate some of the identified concerns over ensuring the
42 availability of adequate water supply for personal use and not for the heating or cooling of a
43 residence.
5
1 Statements and comments were made over concerns about this development causing taxes for
2 existing residents to rise as property values would improve. There were concerns over off-site
3 related traffic impacts that could be generated by the project, specifically to Alexander Drive, Mt.
4 Sinai, and NC 86. There was a concern over the protection of the existing stream in the
5 southwest corner of the property. It was suggested by some of the residents in attendance that
6 the applicant provide a plan to have a density of one dwelling unit for every five acres as well.
7 Staff's recommendation is articulated on page 10 of your abstract:
8 1) Receive the SUP application,
9 2) Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn
10 testimony on the application,
11 3) Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
12 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 20, 2012
13 BOCC regular meeting, and
14 4) Adjourn the public hearing until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning
15 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
16
17 Unless there are any specific questions of ine at this time, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant
18 and allow them to provide additional detail on this project. There are a few residents signed up
19 to speak.
20 Larry Wright: Do the Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Harvey? Members of the
21 Planning Board?
22
23 Chad Abbott: I'm Chad Abbott, with Summit Consulting. I have been duly sworn. I'm here on
24 behalf of Weekley Homes. Mr. Jeff Akin and his staff are here to answer any questions related
25 to the details of how the subdivision will be built, the geothermal comments, as well as the
26 individual septic comments. I am here to answer any technical questions you may have related
27 to the 26-lot subdivision proposed.
28 Commissioner Hemminger: Concerning the general well situation, the neighbors of this
29 property have identified concerns over their wells going dry, do you know how deep their wells
30 are and how deep this one is supposed to be?
31 Chad Abbott: I do not think a survey has been conducted on the adjacent wells.
32 Diana Walstad: Mine is 250 feet.
33 Commissioner Hemminger: How deep is this one supposed to be?
34 Chad Abbott: The exact depth, you would have to run it until it hit the water that would meet
35 the demands of the subdivision. Individual wells would be allowed and would be in compliance
36 with any other standards for a subdivision. That is an option they have.
37 Commissioner Hemminger: For the four lots that have septic that runs all the way underneath
38 all the other lots, that's a long run, how does that technically work? It's pretty far away.
39 Chad Abbott: The technical design of that has not been done either way. If it cannot be a
40 gravity feed, there will be a pump to disperse the waste in that area.
6
1 Commissioner McKee: In reference to the pump and dump geothermal, could you elaborate a
2 little bit more on the specifics of that type of system versus what the County is using as a
3 geothermal system.
4 Chad Abbott: I'm not an expert at geothermal. We can get some more information on that and
5 provide it to you.
6 Commissioner Yuhasz: I'm just wondering, looking at the remote septic system, was any
7 thought given to a design that would provide that same kind of remote system somewhat less
8 remotely from the lots being served? It's probably in here and I've missed it, but who is going to
9 own the property that the septic systems actually are on?
10 Jeff Akin: My name is Jeff Akin and I'm with Weekley Homes and I have been sworn. Those
11 will basically be extensions of the individual lots. They will be owned by the individuals. It is not
12 really a remote system, it is actually just an extension of their lot that is connected at the end of
13 the easement. They will more than likely be force mains. We have done systems like this
14 before and we have never had any problems with them. It's just trying to access the available
15 soils in a different location. It's part of the lot that is owned by the individual, there is no
16 combination of systems. It's pretty much standard.
17 Commissioner Yuhasz: I'm familiar with those kinds of systems and I've actually been
18 involved with one that could pump as much as 6,000 feet, so I know it's possible. But I'm also
19 aware that part of what is important for a septic system is that there will be regular inspection of
20 the field by someone to make sure that there is not any obvious signs of failure. I just want to
21 make sure that in this case, that kind of inspection will occur. With this being owned by
22 individuals who are several thousand feet away, there is a concern with it being owned
23 individually that those will not get that kind of inspection.
24 Jeff Akin: I believe they are required to be inspected periodically. Joe Lyle is our expert in this
25 area.
26 Joe Lyle: Joe Lyle and I have been sworn. There will be an operation maintenance agreement
27 in place by a certified septic system operator for each of the remote systems. And they will be
28 inspected on a regular basis.
29 Jeff Akin: And the second item is we intend in the homeowner's documents to add a provision
30 where that is maintained by the HOAjust so we don't have an issue with someone who doesn't
31 go down and maintain that area. I think it would be worthwhile to have that included in the
32 maintenance contract. It won't be unsightly and it will be inspected.
33 Michael Harvey: I think I can add a little more information to that, if you refer to the
34 documentation provided to you with respect to Environmental Health comments, they asked us
35 that we include the off-site wastewater system procedures provision. There are numerous
36 regulatory requirements associated with the development of off-site septic areas including a
37 requirement for annual certification and inspection. There are inspection requirements and
38 certainly you do have the authority, as this is a special use permit, as you've done with a few
39 projects in the past- most recent memory is Carolina Friends School —you required annual
40 inspections to ensure the operation of the system. I would encourage you, if you have that
41 concern to ask the applicant to consider the imposition of such a condition.
42 Commissioner Gordon: One of the comments made here was a question about the
43 geothermal well. The person who answered said he wasn't an expert. Is there any expert here
44 that could speak to that concern? If there is not and there is additional information, then I would
45 ask the Attorney how one handles that.
7
1 John Roberts: If the additional information is not to be presented at this hearing, it could be
2 submitted as a written comment to the Board prior to either the Planning Board's hearing, or
3 prior to the final hearing on this, which is scheduled for November.
4 Michael Harvey: November 20th is the County Commissioners' reconvening of the public
5 hearing. The October regular meeting is the Planning Board issue.
6 John Roberts: The reason it has to be written comment is that, traditionally and usually when
7 this Board continues or adjourns these public hearings, it adjourns them solely for the purpose
8 of accepting the Planning Board recommendation and written comments.
9 Commissioner Gordon: Is it the case then that there is not an expert or someone from the
10 developer that wishes to testify and therefore it would be a written comment?
11 Michael Harvey: I'll let the applicant speak to that specifically. The subject of geothermal wells
12 only came up as a result of a neighbor concern on the general use of such a system. There is
13 no pump and dump geothermal well proposed for this site, in fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in
14 the narrative of the application that there will be such systems on the project. It is fair to
15 recognize that you've had a citizen that has asked the Board to begin a comprehensive
16 assessment on the installation and use of such systems. The applicant indicated at the
17 neighborhood information meeting that it was not their intent to promote or encourage the
18 installation of geothermal wells with a pump and dump system. I think the issue here is two-
19 fold. You have a concern that transcends this particular project, but the County Commissioners
20 need to give us some direction on it. But you also have a situation where you have an applicant
21 that has not proposed the installation of such systems on the property in the first place. I do not
22 feel qualified to provide any kind of detail of the benefits of the various types of geothermal
23 wells.
24 Commissioner Gordon: Well, if there could be a definitive statement that there would be no
25 geothermal wells on this property, then there would be a more general question and not
26 specific.
27 Jeff Akin: We will consider that to see if that's likely a request from a homeowner, but we were
28 not anticipating the use or installation of geothermal well systems. The comment that was made
29 was directed at water usage and the concern was water usage on an individual lot in an area
30 with wells. We're trying to find an answer to that question, and it would probably be best to
31 submit a written response just so we respond accurately to that person's comment.
32 Commissioner Gordon: Just so it is definitive when we have to make a definitive decision.
33 Jeff Akin: It should be. I don't think it's a major issue, so a resolution should be reached.
34 Chair Pelissier: What is our role vis�-a-vis� the draft of the covenants? I have some questions
35 about that.
36 Michael Harvey: I think it's perfectly appropriate for the County Commissioners to address
37 those comments and concerns to the applicant so that they can begin to take notice of whether
38 they need to modify. These are draft covenants that they are proposing for this project. I think it
39 is perfectly reasonable for you all, if you have concerns or you would like specific answers to
40 specific questions that they can provide that to you.
41 Chair Pelissier: I do have a couple of comments and questions. One is just an inconsistency
42 with the presentation. The covenants say on page 97 that there will be 14 lots served by off-lot
43 septic area and I understand it's only 13.
8
1 Jeff Akin: These are not draft covenants for this project. These are actually just sample
2 covenants from a project that is somewhat similar. We have not gone through the draft
3 covenants process, but we took a neighborhood that was similar as far as having septic and
4 other things. All inconsistencies like that are going to be addressed will be done so to ensure
5 the standards are specific for this site.
6 Chair Pelissier: The other comments I had were on page 103 where it talks about that you
7 can't have any structure for providing alternative sources of energy unless you have permission
8 from the architectural review committee. I did have concerns about that because with a lot of
9 people wanting solar panels and other things for alternative energy, I just don't like to see
10 restrictions for that.
11 Jeff Akin: These are general restrictions, we generally want to make sure that those panels
12 are located in the least visible area and still be functional. We want to make sure that they're
13 not reflecting or doing anything to inhibit someone's use of their personal property. We don't
14 generally restrict anything like that. We want to encourage that, but if we don't have them come
15 through the process of architectural review, we may end up with two parties having a
16 discrepancy over the locations. In all of our history we have never had an issue where we were
17 not able to work out a location acceptable for an alternative use. So, we're very open to that.
18 There is an appeal process if someone gets denied. Basically, you couldn't deny them without
19 due process, without a purpose for denying.
20 Chair Pelissier: Maybe it could be written a little clearer. I also did want to have some
21 discussion about the off-site wastewater treatment and that the homeowner's association would
22 be responsible. I just want to stress that I have some concerns about that, because the people
23 that would be responsible are not the property owners. I don't know if there would be any
24 problems with maintenance because they would be assessing the charges for the repairs to the
25 actual owners of specific properties with off-site. I don't have an answer to it except that it is just
26 a concern of whether that actually works since the people who are responsible are not the
27 homeowners.
28 Jeff Akin: Everyone deals with their own maintenance in the maintenance for the HOA. The
29 system, the repair field, anything to do with the pumps will remain individually the homeowner's
30 responsibility. So there is going to be no separation. It will simply just be an obligation for the
31 grounds maintenance.
32 Chair Pelissier: The last question I had was about the water, I was just curious, why were the
33 individual wells not considered? As I understand it, maybe I misread it, that the old property
34 owners will have to pay the company for their well. Normally, when we have individual wells,
35 property owners only have to pay if there is a problem with the pump.
36 Jeff Akin: I understand that the concern over a community system and difficulty in finding the
37 necessary amount of water. We're leaving options open for the use of individual wells on each
38 property if we cannot get sufficient water yield with the community system in accordance with
39 State law. We've met with a couple of drill companies in that area. Our hope would be to drill
40 deep and provide a large water supply for the community system, and therefore there would be
41 no concern with tapping. We're still investigating that. If that's not the case and it's not the best
42 avenue to go, we'll go back to the individual wells. If we're running into a situation where we'll
43 have to put a lot of wells in and not a lot of power and have the potential of wells running dry,
44 we'd much rather put the expense in. Typically, because of the issue that came up with the last
45 one convinced us that we really should try to go that route first. We're still in the process with it.
46 Commissioner McKee: In an adjoining county, an issue of mineral rights has come up and I
47 wonder if that has been addressed. I might ask that the Attorney address this concern.
9
1 John Roberts: I would be unable to answer that at this time.
2 Jeff Akin: We have never made any attempt to retain mineral rights on any lots whatsoever.
3 Basically, the laws of the local jurisdiction, state laws, would apply to the individual rights. I
4 would assume that it's their rights to the minerals.
5 Larry Wright: Any more questions from the County Commissioners? The Planning Board?
6 Johnny Randall: I just wanted a clarification on the geothermal wells in that there should be
7 perhaps a question about the use and operational characteristics of pump and dump and the
8 closed loop system. I assume a closed loop system does not require any more water than it
9 does to build up pipes. The closed loop does not use groundwater, so that should be
10 encouraged, and the pump and dump should be discouraged.
11 Commissioner Yuhasz: I don't remember the details, but at the last Board of Health meeting,
12 which was last week, this subject did come up and Tom Konsler, the Environmental Health
13 Director did say that the pump and dump system is not one that's generally used or approved in
14 Orange County and that he would anticipate that any geothermal system that was approved in
15 Orange County would not be a pump and dump variety.
16 Larry Wright: For the general well, the communal well, how many gallons per unit timed would
17 you estimate that it would take in peak hours? Part b to that question is how would that
18 influence, if any, neighboring wells from adjacent neighbors?
19 Joe Lyle: Let me address the second part of that question first. My Name is Joe Lyle and I
20 have been sworn. I've had several discussions with Tom Konsler. Tom has issued the
21 following statements to me regarding this well or any proposed wells. I know there was concern
22 from neighbors that maybe a community well could impact their existing wells. The statements
23 made by Mr. Konsler is that the geography of the area does not lend itself to drying or reducing
24 the peak gallons per minute of neighboring wells, to speak to the geography and the fracture in
25 this part of the county. I also asked him about the sampling limits and what his experience has
26 been, and he said that they have done extensive sampling in the County. The contamination as
27 well as yields, and also assured that this has not been the case. He did not see an issue with
28 that. We also spoke with a company that would eventually take over the operation of a
29 community well system, one of the largest bore utility providers here in the state. They have not
30 had any problems with their other community well systems in the County impacting neighboring
31 wells. It's our thought, based on that information, that it should not be an issue, based on the
32 geography here.
33 Larry Wright: So this is independent of a water table.
34 Joe Lyle: The way it was put to me, is that there are not individual aquifers that would spread,
35 that these are pockets of water underneath the particular piece of land. Your neighbor next
36 door could have 100 gallons a minute and you could end up with 2 gallons a minute, and they
37 are completely different water sources. That's the way that Tom explained it to me.
38 Larry Wright: My second question is maybe for somebody else to answer. With the 6,000-
39 gallon retention pond, you have homes coming in here with lawns that have a high runoff
40 coefficient and then you have roads and then you have these deep ditches and they take water
41 rapidly to this 6,000-gallon retention pond. It's my understanding, I could be wrong. If it
42 happens that this retention pond overflows, where does that overflow go?
10
1 Jeff Akin: I'm not sure if we're at that level yet. We're not at the point that we have designed
2 the stormwater conveyance system, the ditches that you're talking about. It would be our belief
3 and hopes that water would not be quickly conveyed off of individual property homeowners to
4 that pond. Most of that 6,000 gallons would be used for the road construction on a temporary
5 basis as well as some of the roadside ditches. The way that this property drains, it doesn't all
6 drain to that spot. Some of it drains naturally off to the side.
7 Larry Wright: My concern here is with neighboring properties.
8 Jeff Akin: I understand. We're simply not at the engineering level right now to be able to
9 comment on how that system would really be designed. There may end up being two storm
10 water ponds.
11 John Roberts: There was a response to Mr. Wright's first question regarding community wells.
12 I believe your response was based on a conversation you had with Tom Konsler?
13 Joe Lyle: That's correct.
14 John Roberts: Heresay testimony is generally not allowed for this type of hearing. I
15 recommend that you respond to the Board in writing to that question.
16
17 Joe Lyle: I would be glad to. I have requested that in writing from Mr. Konsler.
18 Michael Harvey: I just want to make a statement concerning the storm water. If you can refer
19 to page 163-164 of your packet. You do have a memorandum that has been produced by Mr.
20 Terry Hackett, our Storm Water Resources Officer, who indicates that based on the preliminary
21 assessment, a 6,000-gallon depression area seems sufficient. But obviously, a formal storm
22 water plan is going to be required. That is going to be a required and mandated condition for
23 approval of this if we get to that point. If the Planning Board can make an affirmative
24 recommendation, staff will recommend a formal storm water plan. But at least as it has been
25 sized currently, Mr. Hackett does not see an issue with it complying with local or state storm
26 water or nutrient issues.
27 Commissioner McKee: If I might point out one thing. This abstract on page 164 refers to a
28 6,000-square foot potential storm water treatment area. That is entirely different than a 6,000-
29 gallon. I'm sitting here thinking that 6,000 gallons is approximately one tractor trailer. This
30 would be smaller than a child's wading pool
31 Michael Harvey: I apologize for the misuse of the term and for the confusion it has created.
32 John Roberts: I have a comment with regard to the Chair's question regarding the restrictive
33 covenant document. This document actually predates a General Assembly law in 2009 that
34 made it illegal for these types of covenants to outright ban solar reflectors on homes. They are
35 still allowed to regulate the location. That's just for your information on that question.
36 Johnny Randall: Shouldn't the retention pond be measured in cubic feet and not square feet?
37 Larry Wright: It would seem so.
38 Commissioner Gordon: It just strikes me that there are a number of questions that have been
39 unanswered that are going to be answered by written comments. If they are not answered, then
40 I would strongly urge us, if it is approved, that any development that is here have any conditions
41 so that if something is missing and not definite, that before it is built, that there be a condition
42 that would specify. There have been a number of questions that we have asked that haven't
43 been answered that would be deferred to written comments. I would just urge that at the
44 Planning Board level and at the County Commissioners level that there be conditions that
45 address anything that's important that's not definitively addressed.
11
1 Michael Harvey: I'll just remind everyone here the applicant has an obligation to respond to
2 any and all questions in writing that will be presented to the Planning Board and also to the
3 County Commissioners. I would dare say that if staff does not feel those questions have been
4 adequately addressed or answered, we have never been shy to recommend conditions for the
5 applicant to have to adhere to. But the applicant also runs the risk if they don't submit the
6 necessary information and get a negative finding by the County Planning Board, the County
7 Planning staff will ultimately deny the project. So, obviously, it is in their best interest to address
8 those comments, and we will work with them in order to make sure that the comments and
9 questions will be addressed by the Planning Board meeting.
10 Larry Wright: Any more questions by the Planning Board or Commissioners? Any more
11 presentations from the applicant? At this time, I'd like to entertain any testimony from the public.
12 I have Mary Jo Fife for item 1. Would you please come to the podium, state your name, and
13 that you've been duly sworn.
14
15 PUBLIC COMMENT:
16 Mary Jo Fife: Hi, I'm Mary Jo Fife, and my husband and I own 3 acres of land that back up into
17 this developmentjust exactly east. Myself and one other person have wells on that land. Our
18 projected idea is to build homes on those 3 acres for land for families. The well that we have is
19 directly east of what is proposed to be built. This well that we have, although it serves only one
20 person and has for the last 10 or 12 years, has gone dry and we've had to have it re-drilled
21 again. That is only sufficient for one person right now. We know there's going to be problems.
22 There is a family with two or three kids next door, juxtaposition to this one, and I'm not sure
23 what their position is on their well. If there is an excessive well use on a well that is very close
24 and juxtaposition to this well, I'm looking at the land and I think it's maybe 300 feet or so from
25 that, and I think that it could have an effect upon our well. We do not want it to go dry, just
26 because it's a new housing development. That's our major concern.
27 After the comments, it was discovered that Ms. Fife had not been sworn in. She was then
28 sworn in and repeated her comments.
29 John Roberts: Ms. Fife, you need to repeat your comments since you were just sworn in. You
30 need to repeat, if you can, the essence of what you just testified to.
31 Mary Jo Fife: We have three acres of land. Two acres that bridge back up to this
32 development. There's only one other person in that area that has property and has a well on it.
33 Our well from my best observation, from having attended the first meeting, I think it was August
34 6th, is in close proximity to the area where the well is going to be put for this development. My
35 concern is, that because our well has gone dry and we had to have it drilled again about ten
36 years ago, plus the fact that the well has only been serving one person for the last 10-12 years,
37 that there may be a problem with the well given if this huge well is put in close juxtaposition to
38 our well.
39 Diana Walstad: My name is Diana Walstad, and I was the one that wrote the letter about the
40 pump and dump system. I would just like to say, though I wrote it in the letter, in 2002 my well
41 went dry and one of the neighbors next door in a ritzy development had a pump and dump
42 system and it was running continuously, the well was pumping out water into the creek.
43 Meanwhile, my well was almost dry and I couldn't take a shower. These rich people were using
44 the water, pumping it out, for their house. I thought it was outrageous. If you want people to
45 support this, then people like myself need to be protected. I'm all for a re-circulating system,
46 that's fine, but pump and dump is just a terrible waste of groundwater. I live in a lot adjoining lot
47 #25.
12
1 Jeff Akin: I'd like to respond to Ms. Walstad. The applicant would be willing at this time to
2 officially agree that we would restrict pump and dump systems on this site. We would be more
3 than happy to restrict that.
4 Donna Jean Benson: I've lived on a lot that neighbors this proposed development for 33
5 years. I have been duly sworn. I'm not particularly opposed to this new development. I guess
6 my biggest concern is wells, because my neighbor, at the same time her well went dry, mine
7 was pretty close to getting dry. I've talked to other people in the neighborhood who aren't here
8 tonight but were at the first meeting that had a real strong concern about the same thing. That
9 was the main thing at the last meeting was the water. There is a development, a new clean
10 place that Diane was talking about with a pump and dump and it borders lots 1-10, that area on
11 that side, I think. I think the Planner was describing that they were two and three-acre lots, but
12 there's at least one that's ten and I think there's one that's sixteen, and they have a community
13 well there that's enormous. Then there was one guy that had pond and he's the one that had
14 the pump and dump thing. The pond was like a waterfall that ran into the creek, the woods,
15 etc., and that was during the serious drought when everybody in our neighborhood was going to
16 the Laundromat and using the dishwater to water the plants and stuff like that. I guess my
17 biggest concern is about the wells. I'm also excited because this area has the rural buffer zone.
18 I'm kind of wondering what's the point of a rural buffer if it seems like this whole area is turning
19 into subdivisions. It just seems like it's a little too dense. Another thing, I keep thinking if I was
20 going out into this rural buffer area and buying land and they came in and said, "your land
21 doesn't perk, you can't put septic here," they're probably not going to allow me to build a house
22 there. I'm thinking that one proposal might be for this developer to take lots 23, 24, 25, and 26
23 that can't take septic and maybe make that open space or maybe even a park for his
24 development. It would cut the density down a little bit and solve the problem of this remote
25 septic system, which might cause problems for the adjacent property owners. Plus, there's a
26 real cute, nice trailer park over there. I know people don't like trailers, but it's a very nice, clean,
27 nice families that live there, and I know they don't want a nasty septic field for four other remote
28 lots in their backyard. That might make it a little easier to swallow. You know, tone it down a
29 little bit, maybe not so dense, maybe a nice park, and get rid of that remote septic field.
30 Commissioner Jacobs: First, whatever the size of the retention pond is, there's a comment on
31 page 8 from the Fire Marshal. Is there a response to that regarding having a source of water for
32 fighting fires?
33 Michael Harvey: Not at this time, the applicant is working on a response.
34 Commissioner Jacobs: So, we could make a comment about it in this public hearing that they
35 have to address that.
36 Michael Harvey: That's right.
37 Commissioner Jacobs: There's a comment from, in this document, about having a trail that
38 connects with the Johnson trail on the adjacent Triangle Land Conservancy property. Do we
39 have a response to that?
40 Michael Harvey: The applicant has not provided a response and we have not heard from TLC
41 as to whether or not they would even allow a trail from this neighborhood to connect to their
42 property.
43 Commissioner Jacobs: I'd like to see a response before I vote on this.
13
1 Joe Lyle: On Friday one of the consultants, Michelle Kimpenski, spoke with Jeff Masten with
2 the Triangle Land Conservancy. There was a question about trail access through this property.
3 This is the statement that was made, if they certainly prefer one point of an access into the
4 Triangle Land Conservancy property, so that they can not only control that point of access but
5 also control the hours of when that access is, and if there was a second point of access, they
6 would listen to that opportunity, but they don't prefer that opportunity.
7 Commissioner Jacobs: So, it's the situation that the Attorney mentioned before, if you could
8 get that in writing.
9 Michael Harvey: The TLC property is this property right here (pointed out on the map).
10 Commissioner Jacobs: I also had a question about the 25-foot access easement. This is
11 between 16 and 18, and that's specifically to allow members of the community to get to the
12 open space areas, is that why it's there?
13 Michael Harvey: Correct, yes sir.
14 Commissioner Jacobs: And the homeowner's association is supposed to maintain that, is that
15 correct?
16 Michael Harvey: The homeowner's association will be maintaining it. That information that
17 was not provided will have to be provided. Unfortunately, the previous engineer with Summit,
18 who was working on this project, is no longer part of the company so there has been some
19 information lost in the transition.
20 Commissioner Jacobs: Let me go back to a question that Commissioner Pelissier had. I'm
21 very uncomfortable with the homeowner's association agreement that's been provided that
22 doesn't specifically respond to this development. Let me give you two specifics. We've had
23 these issues before with homeowner's association agreements. One is on page 102 at the
24 bottom, Waste. It sounds to me that you can't have a compost bin on your property, based on
25 this scripture. On page 103, #13, Landscaping, it sounds like you have to put in sod. We are,
26 believe it or not, in a period where the climate is changing, and we don't have as much water
27 and there are some grasses that are actually more drought resistant than others. I would hate
28 to see us require people to put in grasses that are not drought resistant. We need to
29 understand that the developer may be phased out of the decision-making process. So, what's
30 in these documents......and we have seen in the legislature that one of the big issues in
31 homeowner's associations is that people can be pretty intolerant of difference. I just don't want
32 to keep bringing that into Orange County neighborhoods at the same time that we're trying to
33 promote certain kinds of energy conservation and natural resource preservation.
34 Michael Harvey: Commissioner Jacobs, can I just interject and say that Article 6 of our Unified
35 Development Ordinance, the land use buffer, the street and interior lot landscaping, existing
36 regulations require the installation of drought-resistant indigenous foliage and grass. Individual
37 lot owners would be addressing this requirement with the builder in terms of the installation of
38 required foliage. There needs to be some modifications to this document to make it specific as
39 it has been submitted but will remind all here the ordinance does not require the submission of
40 the documents in the first place. I believe the applicant wanted to provide the Board with a feel
41 for the types of local development limitations they typically impose on their projects.
14
1 Commissioner Jacobs: I have concerns about the remote septic area, and I didn't think
2 Commissioner Yuhasz actually got an answer to his question. His specific question was did you
3 consider something different than a pump system having to pump affluent over a great distance,
4 that question wasn't answered. The answer that was given was based on the legality of the
5 system and the approval process. That's not the same as saying what Ms. Benson was asking.
6 The question was whether the remote septic area is the optimal alternative for the people who
7 live there and the people who live around there. I didn't think that Commissioner Yuhasz got a
8 direct answer to that question. I will say I know what the concern is with that type system. I
9 think the concern was trying to have it more proximate to the houses which would be
10 responsible for maintaining it.
11 Jeff Akin: That's the maintenance issue with the HOA. We felt like this was a good land use
12 plan for this particular site. We thought that it was going to be a nice transition area there.
13 That's not going to be an unsightly area, it's going to be a beautiful mowed meadow. All of the
14 system is below ground. It's going to make a nice green buffer and a transition to the adjoining
15 mobile home park. So we thought it was a really good land use. As far as this tract of land and
16 the testimony about the area in that development, we looked at many properties in this area that
17 are unsuitable for development. There's a tremendous amount of that area that does not work.
18 There are tributaries, the New Hope Watershed, and there are a lot of properties that are not
19 developable. This is really one of the few nice developable tracts. It is mostly not treed. We
20 designed the entire project to have minimal impact on that land. Obviously, economics require
21 us to try to put the maximum allowable number of lots in the project, but we try and meet the
22 code another way. We've put these systems in and there are absolutely no problems with them.
23 They function well. Pumps are absolutely nothing new, they're part of the large percentage of
24 septic systems. They function exactly the same. We'd be happy to address any concerns that
25 come up through the process, but we think this is good land planning and we think we've
26 optimized the site to preserve the trees, to stay away from the creeks, and to have a nice
27 looking neighborhood. We'll make adjustments if we need to.
28 Michael Harvey: We had asked the applicant to provide a sample and they did exactly what
29 we told them to do. There are a few unresolved issues, unfortunately some of which were
30 precipitated by the lateness of which the comments came in from other County departments and
31 other agencies. The Department of Transportation had submitted initial comments. The
32 applicant will provide written responses as they're required to do.
33 Commissioner Yuhasz: I just have to make one comment, and since I probably won't have
34 the opportunity to address this in the future, there is nothing special about a subdivision and I
35 think it's inappropriate for a subdivision to have to go through the time and the expense of this
36 kind of special use permit process, whether it's 20 lots, 24 lots, or 30 lots. It's still just a
37 subdivision. It's still just a body of land to use for development process. I just wanted to raise
38 my objection to this process.
39 Commissioner Jacobs: I have two comments that I'd like to direct to staff and the Planning
40 Board. One is on page 7, just the way in which the material was presented. I would think it
41 would be more clear to separate out land use buffers from open space in cases like this
42 because it confuses what is open space. I think you're saying there is specifically designated
43 open space in the subdivision, then there is space set aside that is required based on our buffer
44 standards. Is that correct?
45 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. It should be remembered that there is technically no independent
46 open space area required for a conventional subdivision, although the applicant is providing
47 some.
15
1 Commissioner Jacobs: So, it would just be easier for me, and probably for others. To the
2 point though, and Ms. Benson made it as well, and staff made it on page 5 in the next to the last
3 paragraph. When we adopted the Joint Planning Agreement, and there were many objections
4 from property owners in the rural buffer about the restriction on their property, one of the things
5 we discussed is we would revisit the two-acre minimum. Over time, the two-acre minimum
6 produces exactly what Ms. Benson said, just a two-acre parcel property, unless the land can't
7 perk. Staff inentions that you're going to be working on something that actually looks at creating
8 a true flexible development option for lots in the rural buffer area as to a subdivision in a band
9 around Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I would hope that we see that in the near future as opposed
10 to the distant future. The other thing has to do with what all the neighbors were talking about,
11 which is groundwater. I don't remember the name of the subdivision, it was probably about five
12 years ago, the one on Arthur Minnis Road, where it goes from pavement to dirt. The neighbors
13 were very concerned about the effect of the subdivision on their groundwater, on their wells.
14 One of our responses was to hire a staff person full-time to study groundwater in Orange
15 County. And here we are, I don't see that we've made any progress in providing any report or
16 methodology for reviewing development impacts on well usage, maybe there is no update to
17 provide. Maybe that's the answer. We do have places where we have policies in place if there
18 are impacts from a commercial use or from something we did. I just don't think we have
19 adequately addressed the concerns that people in rural areas have about subdivisions that go in
20 next to them in a time when water is becoming more scarce. Basically, I feel like I sit up here
21 and I listen and I empathize, but I'm not sure we're doing anything to help people. I would hope
22 that we can do something a little more proactive, whatever it may be.
23 Commissioner Gordon: I am not anxious to revisit the rural buffer. I think we've done
24 reasonably well in the rural buffer. There are a lot of other things that I think take priority.
25 Maybe we'll eventually get to reconsidering it, and I think it's worked well and I don't think we
26 should rush to reevaluate it.
27 Chair Pelissier: There is one item in the covenant that I forgot to express my concern. I'm not
28 sure I support the square foot size of the house of 3,000 square feet. I know it's a boilerplate,
29 but I don't know if that's the intention here. I'd also like to just say something to what
30 Commissioner Jacobs had said about water. I was on the Commission for the Environment
31 some years ago when we did have a geophysicist on the board who had actually done studies
32 in Orange County. And one of the lessons I learned from him was, as one of the presenters
33 said tonight, that there are little pockets and this fractured rock. He said that the most important
34 thing to do and that some counties do it is to zone your land according to the recharge rate for
35 that area. There is a study that tells us about the water recharge rate, and that is something
36 that can give you guidance. That would require looking at zoning according to the water for that
37 area of the county. I don't know if we're ready to go there, but that's what was mentioned. We
38 need to assure citizens that they have water for the development there.
39 Commissioner McKee: In response to the last comment, I want to make sure that we're very
40 careful that we don't micromanage ourselves into a taking of property.
41 Chair Pelissier: I'd like to entertain a motion to "refer the matter to the Planning Board with a
42 request that a recommendation be returned in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular
43 meeting, and
44 Adjourn the public hearing until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's
45 recommendation and any submitted written comments."
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
16
1 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
2 in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing
3 until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and
4 any submitted written comments.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application to rezone
8 approximately 14 acres of a 36 acre parcel of property located at 9925 NC
9 Highway 57 from Agricultural Residential (AR) to NC Highway 57 Speedway
10 Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) for the purpose of
11 developing an enclosed mini self-storage facility with accompanying
12 accessory uses including office space, a retail office selling boxes and
13 packing supplies, and a truck rental area.
14
15 Michael Harvey made reference to the PowerPoint presentation. This is near the go-cart
16 track on NC 57, which is currently for sale. The Orange County Speedway is also nearby. This
17 proposed use is consistent with the land uses that are anticipated within the adopted NC 57
18 Speedway Area Small Area Plan that was adopted in 2007 by the County Commissioners. This
19 land use is listed as a permitted use. The applicant is in a position where he needs some
20 guidance from the County Commissioners before moving forward. The abstract identifies the
21 concerns related to this project and the staff needs direction from the Board. There will be
22 approximately 400 individual storage lockers. The applicant is proposing the installation of a
23 land use buffer. There is also some transportation planning concerns. Staff is asking the Board
24 to give necessary feedback on this issue.
25
26 STAFF COMMENTS:
27 - Land use consistent with recent REDA-CZ-1 district amendment
28 - Approved Small Area Plan envisioned this as an acceptable land use in the area
29 - Staff is concerned over the lack of well for the site and recommends the applicant
30 revisit this matter
31 - Erosion Control has expressed concern over proposed storm water plan
32 - Transportation planning comments will need to be addressed
33 - Staff will need direction on the proposed land use buffer modifications
34 Commissioner Yuhasz informed the Board and the public that he did represent Mr.
35 Chandler during the time of the development of the NC 57 Small Area Plan and that
36 representation ended when he became a County Commissioner. He has no interest in this
37 particular project.
38 Commissioner Foushee made reference to toilet facilities and that the applicant has
39 been made aware of this condition and expressed reservations. She asked what needed to be
40 done so that this does not continue to be a concern.
17
1 Michael Harvey said that Orange County Environmental Health will review the proposal,
2 and staff can provide additional information once it becomes available. He understands that it
3 will not be an issue to have toilet facilities just for staff use and not for the public. The resolution
4 of this issue will be provided in writing.
5 Commissioner McKee said that his only concern is the lack of well water and adequate
6 bathroom facilities.
7 Chad Abbott, with Summit Consulting, said that the applicant and staff will reevaluate
8 this issue and will ask Planning staff to work with him to secure the necessary written
9 responses.
10 Commissioner Yuhasz said that part of the property is on the northeast side of Mile
11 Branch and asked if there has been any investigation of a well/septic system in that 12 acres.
12 Chad Abbott said that the land does not perk, but there are alternative systems.
13 Commissioner Hemminger said that she has a lot of concern about the storm water.
14 She asked what was being proposed.
15 Michael Harvey said that the initial review of the site plan with Erosion Control did not
16 turn a favorable response in terms of storm water. The water runoff will be significant.
17 Chad Abbott said that there has not been time to design the storm water control yet. He
18 made reference to sheet c-5, which has storm water calculations. He said that the runoff is
19 proposed to be caught at Mile Branch and NC 57.
20 Commissioner Hemminger said that she has concerns about needing a well, not just for
21 bathrooms, but maintaining the aesthetics of the facility, as well as the safety.
22 Commissioner Gordon requested some additional materials. She made reference to
23 access to the facility and the turn radius. She has concerns about this.
24 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the buffer and the adjoining property. He said
25 that the property to the southwest has the same soil characteristics, presumably. He said that
26 this suggests to him that this property will never be developed as a residential property. He
27 thinks that it is not necessary to provide this kind of buffer against property that is not actually
28 going to need it. He suggested showing some flexibility with regard to the buffer requirements.
29 Commissioner McKee said that the Board should keep in mind that this is an economic
30 development area. He does not see any issues that cannot be overcome. He agrees with
31 Commissioner Yuhasz about the buffers. This is not a general use area. He said that the soil is
32 not very amenable to perking. This property will probably not be used for any use if not this type
33 of use. His said that this is a proposal for low-impact economic development and it is the type
34 of business that he would like to attract to these areas.
35 Commissioner Foushee echoed Commissioner McKee's comments.
36 Andrea Rohrbacher said that storage areas generate a lot of waste and there needs to
37 be some mechanism to dispose of things on-site. Secondly, she echoed Commissioner
38 Hemminger's concerns over the water. She said that units need to be hosed out from time to
39 time. There should be a mechanism for this and she does not think that a pressure washer is
40 viable for this.
41 Larry Wright said that he would like for the applicant to consider looking at an area for
42 solid waste disposal. He also supports Commissioner McKee's viewpoint.
18
1 Chad Abbott made reference to the transportation comments and said that he would like
2 to see how DOT would respond to some of these comments. He said that it would be best to
3 push back the entrance as far away from the intersection of NC 57 as possible because of the
4 potential truck traffic. He will provide written responses to the comments from staff.
5 He said that this use fits this site because the soil does not perk and not many other
6 uses could be placed here.
7 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants this project to succeed, but there are
8 many issues that were not covered in the documentation the Board received (i.e., traffic, storm
9 water runoff, etc.). She just wants it to be the best possible project and have it succeed. She
10 feels like the application is disjointed.
11 Michael Harvey said that this was supposed to be a negotiable site development
12 process. There are several concerns of staff and there are issues that need to be addressed.
13 He said that the applicant is seeking the Board's guidance on what should come next and he
14 thinks it would be perfectly reasonable for the Board to ask and provide direct guidance on what
15 should occur next and allow the Planning Board to continue this review at the October meeting.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is glad this proposal is coming forward. He said that
17 the next presentation should have the staff concerns and the responses from the applicant. He
18 is more interested in having buffers along NC 57 than on other parts of the property because
19 these facilities are not very attractive. He suggested having some bullet points come back to
20 the Board.
21 Chad Abbott said that he is certain that the applicant has addressed the storm water and
22 the traffic/fire and turn radius issues. The big item is the buffer, and he needs guidance on this.
23 He said that the applicant will put in a well if needed. He said that the staff-requested buffer is
24 very expensive.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said that all of this needs to be put in writing.
26 Michael Harvey said that the Board has some options - identify areas the applicant
27 needs to address, adjourn the public hearing to a date and time certain asking the applicant to
28 submit written responses to the issues, asking the Planning Board to review the project, and
29 asking the Planning Board to continue the dialogue at the October meeting. He said that there
30 is information that is lacking and everyone is frustrated with that.
31 Chair Pelissier said that she has heard that the Board really does want a well on this
32 site. Regarding the buffers, she thinks that there should be some flexibility. She said that all of
33 the storage facilities that she has seen around here do not have buffers. She would not want to
34 put restrictions on this project when other similar projects did not have the same restrictions.
35 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to keep this process on track and
36 come back at a September meeting.
37 Larry Wright asked the Board to provide some options for the buffer for the Planning
38 Board to discuss.
39 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would support the small buffer on the perimeter as
40 shown, as well as the clustered buffer.
41 Chair Pelissier said that the Board is happy with the proposed buffer.
42 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not agree with the proposed buffers. She said
43 that she would still like to see the Planning Board comments. She would like to see a summary
44 come back on September 1 gtn
19
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
2 seek further clarity, get responses back in writing and come back at the September 18th
3 meeting, and to use that meeting to provide further direction to the applicant and Planning
4 Board regarding the Commissioners' preferences on the items that have been identified as
5 areas of concern and that are addressed in writing by the applicant and by appropriate
6 agencies; and to adjourn the public hearing until September 18th to allow staff and the applicant
7 to bring forward the written requests and information as required by this meeting.
8
9 Commissioner Yuhasz said that this process and the need to get feedback from the
10 County Commissioners points to the possibility that they may not want to limit conditional use
11 applications to the Quarterly Public Hearings. If there is going to be this kind of month-to-month
12 bringing something back, it might be more appropriate to accept conditional use applications on
13 a more frequent basis.
14 Commissioner Gordon said that she objects to that suggested change.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
18 target a November 20th decision point and to have a recommendation by the Planning Board.
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s): To review
21 qovernment-initiated amendments to the text of four sections of the UDO in
22 order to adequatelv address the development of solar arravs within the
23 county•
24
25 Michael Harvey made reference to page 10 of the agenda packet. Under Section 5.1.2
26 of the Ordinance, there are references to uses that are permitted and land use development
27 standards. He read Subsection J, "electrical substations, switching and metering stations and
28 associated transmission lines, where incoming voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv). (See
29 Section 5.9.2)". He said that Section 5.9.2 is the appropriate section where this type of
30 development is located. There are three amendments to address the inconsistency. The
31 proposal is to establish an accessory use process where residential and non-residential land
32 uses can obtain a zoning compliance permit to allow for the development of a solar unit for utility
33 needs. This will be approved by staff based on guidelines. If the guidelines are exceeded, the
34 recommendation is for it to go to a Class B Special Use Permit (Board of Adjustment and
35 Planning Board). If a public utility is proposed, it will be a Class A Special Use Permit process
36 (County Commissioners in a Quarterly Public Hearing). This ordinance provides guidance on
37 permitting processes. He made reference to the yellow sheet, which was a memorandum from
38 the Commission for the Environment with comments regarding the amendments.
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked for more detail on the Commission for Environment's
41 concerns about the permitting process.
42
43 Michael Harvey said that one of the concerns is that solar arrays cannot be located in
44 the front area of a property. Staff is consistent with the current development practice in the
45 County. If there is a desire to modify existing limitations to allow for more flexibility of the arrays,
46 there would have to be a separate amendment.
20
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that it seems like the Commission for the Environment is
2 proposing another step.
3
4 Michael Harvey said that if the regulation does not work, the Board of Adjustment should
5 not be put in the position to activate the ordinance every time it does not work. The ordinance
6 needs to be amended to make it work. Staff should also not be allowed to waive the provisions
7 of the code as it sees fit. Either the code is amended to address the issue or the standard is
8 kept the way it is.
9
10 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see the reasons against accessory uses
11 in a front yard and let the Planning Board decide whether it wants to preclude having a solar
12 array in a front yard.
13
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked clarifying questions, which were answered by Michael
15 Harvey.
16
17 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 23 and said that he is trying to get a
18 sense of the size of some of the elements. He asked why these would have to be screened if
19 air conditioning systems are not screened. He made reference to item `g' on page 23 and said
20 that he would like to know how"the proposed array will not impact the existing land use" will be
21 defined.
22
23 Michael Harvey said that there is required landscaping depending on the type of
24 development and project. There cannot be removal of any required landscaping or condition
25 consistent of the site based on the land use.
26
27 Commissioner Yuhasz asked that this be clarified in the document.
28
29 Commissioner Yuhasz asked why the area with the solar array is considered impervious
30 surface.
31
32 Michael Harvey said that this is based on state classification and the County is bound by
33 this determination.
34
35 Commissioner McKee said that his recommendation is that the County not allow solar
36 arrays in front yards.
37
38 Commissioner Gordon made reference to item `j' on page 23 and said that if it is unsafe,
39 it should be fixed, but she will leave it up to staff for a recommendation regarding if it is not in
40 use for six months.
41
42 Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Yuhasz' comments. She said that she would like
43 to have more flexibility on the front yard option and not have such a stringent viewpoint on the
44 separation of commercial and residential. She asked about the 10 kilowatt versus the 100
45 kilowatt.
46
47 Michael Harvey said that this requirement is based on state and federal tax credits.
48
49 Tony Blake from White Cross said that Duke Power in cooperation with the State Public
50 Utilities Commission, accepts 20 kilowatts as the standard for a residential customer. He said
51 that he thinks the 10 kilowatt limit is arbitrary. Regarding the size, technology is changing
21
1 rapidly, so smaller panels are able to generate more electricity. He thinks that the ordinance
2 should be looser and able to evolve with the technology.
3
4 Pete Hallenbeck said that he has a 7500 watt solar panel array for use at his house. He
5 said that a 10 kilowatt array is approximately a 50-foot long by 12-foot wide footprint. It would
6 stand approximately 9-10 feet tall. The 15 feet came from the fact that you may wish to raise
7 the panels up to maintain the ground underneath. The 10 kilowatt limit comes from the fact that
8 with Piedmont Electric, they will only give net metering if you are 10 kilowatts or less. He
9 suggested that instead of having a kilowatt specification, then it could be the limit from the
10 power company where there will be net metering. With regard to item `j' on page 23, he would
11 suggest that it could be cleaned up to say that if it is not working for six months, it has to be
12 dealt with, and if it is unsafe, it should be dealt with faster than six months.
13
14 Larry Wright said that the front yard restriction does not conform to each situation. He
15 suggested looking at this because there is a lot of property in Orange County that is rural.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
18 to receive the proposed amendments as detailed in this abstract and attachments; refer the
19 matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in
20 time for the November 8, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until
21 November 8, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
22 any submitted written comments; with the additional stipulation that the Board of County
23 Commissioners receive information on the rationale behind restricting accessory uses in the
24 front yard, and that this be part of the discussion when a recommendation comes back from the
25 Planning Board.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested that the front yard issue be addressed particularly with
30 regards to the size of the lot.
31
32 CLOSED SESSION
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
34 to go into closed session at 10:03 p.m.:
35 1. Per N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3): To Consult with the Attorney to protect the
36 attorney-client privilege.
37 2. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(5)] To establish or instruct the staff or agent
38 concerning the negotiation of the price and terms of a contract concerning the
39 acquisition of real property
40 3. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)]: To discuss matters relating to the location or
41 expansion of business in the area served by this body.
42 4. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6)] : To consider the qualifications, competence,
43 performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or prospective
44 public officer or employee.
45
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
50
22
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
2 to reconvene into open session at 11:10 p.m.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5
6 C. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
8 adjourn the meeting at 11:14 p.m.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
12
13 Donna S. Baker, CMC
14 Clerk to the Board
15
1
1 DRAFT
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 August 30, 2012
6 7:OOpm
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, August 30,
9 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
12 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
13 Yuhasz
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen
17 Harvey and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers
18 will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 1. District Court House Tour— Court Proqrams Overview
21 Head District Court Judge Buckner made a PowerPoint presentation.
22 Judge Buckner gave some background information prior to the start of the PowerPoint.
23 He said that there is an 18-20 year history that shows that the rules were often made in
24 Raleigh.
25
26 Orange County
27 District Court House Tour
28 Court Programs Overview
29 Hillsborough, NC
30 January 23, 2012
31
32 Current Jail Situation
33 �:� The Orange County Jail averages around 150-155 inmates per day
34 �:� The jail is filled nearly to capacity
35 �:� By housing and transporting federal inmates, the Sheriff's Department brings revenue in
36 through federal reimbursements
37 �:� Approximate Average Daily cost per inmate - $48.00
38 �:� Total projected cost for upcoming fiscal year - $3,815,127
39
40 Sentencinq Chanqes for Misdemeanants
41 �:� 90 days or less - Placed in jail; no change here.
42 o Funded through local government
43 �:� Between 90 days and 180 days — Law passed in 2011 places these offenders in
44 county jails, reimbursed by the DOC, a local cost.
45 �:� Over 180 days — Placed in Prison
46 o Funded by Dept. of Corrections
47
48 Pretrial Services
49 �:� Provides the judge with release from jail options for offenders -
2
1 �:� Supervision for offenders with pending charges
2 �:� Investigates inmates for appropriate recommendation
3 �:� Facilitates placements for problems that manage offender risk factors such as mental
4 health or substance abuse treatment
5 �:� Pro-active on strike order supervision, preventing jail costs on the "front end" as well as
6 avoiding costs after arrest
7
8 Pretrial Services Creates a Social Safety Net:
9 �:� Calls attention to poor risk factors & revokes non-compliance promptly with re-arrest
10 �:� TREMENDOUS COST SAVINGS:
ll 300 inmates released through pretrial at a savings of$70 per day annually
12 Example: average 12 days saved per defendant X $70/ day (jail costs) X 300
13 releases = $252,000 saved
14 �:� Cost sharing of overhead ended with state grant 6/30/2011
15 �:� Admissions for services increased 100% from two years ago
16 $54,000 increase needed to cover program costs over the $70,000 allocation
17 from last year @ 70% cost in 15-B
18 cost sharing of overhead ended with state grant last fiscal year
19
20 Druq Treatment Court
21 �:� Goal:
22 Rehabilitate drug and alcohol offenders while also saving our justice and judicial
23 system's valuable resources in the long run.
24 �:� Method:
25 Hold chemically dependent offenders accountable by requiring them to meet
26 rigorous court ordered treatment plans for a MINIMUM of 12 months.
27 �:� Results:
28 Over 2/3 remain in treatment for over six months.
29 Overall: Effective in rehabilitating offenders while also saving resources.
30
31 Problem:
32 Druq Treatment Court's State Fundinq Cut
33 �:� In the state budget, Drug Treatment Courts were eliminated leaving district courts
34 searching for funding from local and other sources.
35 �:� For FY 2011/12— Orange County Commissioners approved $67,000 to keep the court
36 operational
37 �:� In 2011 DTC served 61 offenders and graduated 13. Currently, we have 38 participants
38 in this court, 3 of which are in long term residential programs.
39
40 DTC Cost Savings
41 An example of cost savings: From July to September 2011, we had 5 graduates with
42 suspended sentences totaling over 7 years in prison, however, they served a combined 12 days
43 jail while in DTC, totaling $763.80 (12 days jail* 63.65). This county and the state did not have
44 to pay for approximately 2543 days of jail/prison, or approximately $161,862.
45
46
47 Community Resource Court
48 �:� Goal of Community Resource Court:
3
1 Collaboration between mental health and judicial professionals to provide
2 support for offenders suffering from diagnosed mental health conditions.
3 �:� Method:
4 Require these offenders to complete CRC court, as a way to keep them out of
5 trouble, rehabilitate them, provide support, and eventually have their charges
6 dropped.
7 �:� Results :
8 Around 50 participants per year/Orange Co. only— (54 in 2010)
9 Graduation rate has averaged 50% over the last 10 years.
10 Local studies show recidivism is slowed after CRC involvement.
11 What is Community Resource Court?
12 (CRC)
13
14 CRC was created to address the treatment needs of people with mental health issues who
15 became involved with the criminal courts.
16
17 �:� Links offenders with services and supports that help them to better manage their mental
18 illness.
19 �:� Also called "Mental Health Court" because it helps people address their mental health
20 needs as well as helping them to be law abiding residents.
21 �:� Funding is $189,000 per year which comes from DHHS and covers the salary and
22 expenses of the program manager and care coordinator-covers both Orange and
23 Chatham Counties
24 �:� Currently there are no funds that cover court administrator, judges, or attorneys time
25
26 �:� The total number served since 2000 in Orange County: 780
27
28 Dispute Settlement Center:
29 �:� The Dispute Settlement Center is the original and model mediation center in NC,
30 founded in 1978 by concerned citizens with support of Orange County Board of County
31 Commissioners.
32 �:� DSC serves 3000 people a year through Mediation, Public Disputes, Training and Youth
33 Programs.
34
35 District Court Mediation
36 �:� DSC's core program for over 30 years
37 �:� FY 12 state budget eliminated the allocation to DSC for court mediation: $60,227
38 �:� Mediators worked with an average of 200 cases/year with 85% resolution rate for
39 mediated cases
40 �:� Mediation saves court time and effectively moves cases through the system
41 Commissioner Foushee arrived at 7:13 PM.
4
1 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the Mental Health Court and how it is funded.
2 Judge Buckner said that it is funded by the Department of Health and Human Resources.
3 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if this funding was going to be terminated. Judge Buckner said
4 that it is such a small problem that the State has indicated that it will continue to sustain it.
5 Commissioner Hemminger asked Judge Buckner what he was looking for in a new jail.
6 Judge Buckner said that most of the time they are trying to deal with dockets of
7 hundreds of cases, so it is critical to the operation of the court to get people into queue. In the
8 design, there should be the capacity to meet with more people that are incarcerated.
9 Chair Pelissier asked Judge Buckner to comment on the effort of improving the
10 homelessness population.
11 Judge Buckner said that they have been trying to keep up with this population and
12 coordinate services when these individuals are in court. This has been successful.
13 Commissioner Jacobs suggested looking at who the County will be building the prison
14 for and what other resources/programs are there. He asked Judge Buckner what he would like
15 to see the Board of County Commissioners do.
16 Judge Buckner said that the State mandates are on the prison population. He said that
17 it is worth a look. He said that a lot of other people need to weigh in on this conversation.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the County was proactive, this would be a good time
19 to bring together stakeholders to look at other alternatives to decrease the prison population.
20 Chair Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Jacobs.
21 Sheriff Pendergrass said that daily it is an operation of manipulation to keep the
22 numbers between 135-140 people each day. He said that he tries to keep the jail population at
23 a number that is safe to manage. He said that there are over 600 people on probation in
24 Orange County and at any given time, 5-30 will violate probation and come back to jail without
25 notice. Many unpredictable factors in running a jail and they also never know at any given time
26 how many female inmates they will have, which creates a problem too. He said that there has
27 to be a new jail with a capacity of about 250 inmates. The old jail can be used for
28 misdemeanors, etc. He said that there are 30-40 people that are continuously brought into jail
29 off the streets from Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and they are street people. He said that it is like
30 a revolving door, and there need to be other places for these people besides the jail.
31 Commissioner McKee said that in the long run it will be imperative to look at a new
32 facility and he liked the idea of looking at alternative means to treat these homeless people.
33 Frank Clifton said that on September 11th the Council of State will meet about the
34 County's request for a long-term lease on property for a future jail site. He said that additional
35 jail space is needed for female inmates and alternative programs.
5
1 Chair Pelissier said that she would hope that the Sheriff and everyone in the criminal
2 justice systems will be involved in the creation of a new jail and the County needs to look at this
3 and alternative programs simultaneously.
4 2. Draft Comprehensive Assessment of Emerqencv Medical Services and 911/
5 Communications Center Operations Studv
6 Michael Talbert said that the County Commissioners will be receiving a final draft
7 Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services and 911/ Communications Center
8 Operations Study. The County Commissioners approved this in December of 2011 and it has
9 taken a little over six months to complete. It has been thoroughly vetted through the
10 Emergency Services Work Group. Steve Allan, from Solutions for Government, was present to
11 give an overview of the report.
12 Steve Allan made a PowerPoint presentation. The call volume in 2011 was 10,719,
13 which was an increase from 10,420 in 2010. The primetime of the day for calls is from 9:00
14 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
15 He explained the turn-out time and the travel time, which total the response time.
16 Regarding the Emergency vs. Non-Emergency Response Times, he explained that Emergency
17 is a response with lights and sirens and Non-Emergency has no lights or sirens. The Average
18 Event Duration Time is the time it takes for the vehicle to respond to an emergency, transport
19 the patient, and be ready to respond again. The increase in this is a combination of the travel
20 distance and the backup in the emergency vehicles.
21 The issues of concern are: Availability of Ambulances, Response Times, and EMS
22 Facilities.
23 Availabilitv of Ambulances
24
25 During 2011 ambulances were directed to "MOVE" 2,360 times from their identified
26 staging area or location to another point in the County because:
27 a. The number of ambulances immediately available was down to one (1) and the
28 subject ambulance was directed to move to a location (typically) near the center of
29 the County in anticipation of being able to respond in any direction the call may
30 direct.
31
32 or
33
34 b. In tracking the status of multiple ambulances, the Communications Center and/or
35 EMS Supervisor(s) noted significant area gaps in coverage and redirected
36 movement of ambulance(s) accordingly.
37
38 Steve Allan said that moving ambulances this many times is significant.
39
40 Response Time
41
42 "The time from the initial alert or announcement by the Communications Center of the
43 reported emergency, to the time that the service vehicle and appropriate personnel
44 arrive on the scene."
45
46 The factors that most commonly impact response time include:
47 - The time required to access and engage the vehicle
48 - The speed at which the emergency vehicles is able to travel
49 - The distance that must be covered to the incident dispatched, and
6
1 - Under what conditions
2
3 Consequences of increased response times for cardiac arrest/stroke:
4
5 0-1 minute; cardiac irritability
6 0-4 minutes; brain damage not likely
7 4-6 minutes; brain damage possible
8 6-10 minutes; brain damage very likely
9 >10 minutes; irreversible brain damage
10
11 Response Time
12
13 ".....have recommended that EMS vehicles should respond to deliver BSL (basic life
14 support) skills within 3 to 4 minutes, with ALS (advanced life support) skills available
15 within 6 to 8 minutes. The ALS-within-8-minute concept was developed from research
16 that showed the survival rate of cardiac arrest victims decreases significantly with each
17 passing minute, and that optimal probabilities for survival increase when BLS has been
18 provided within 4 minutes followed by ALS within 8 minutes."
19
20 American College of Emergency Physicians
21 American Heart Association
22 American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons
23 National Fire Protection Association
24
25 He said that it is a concern that the average response time in 2011 was 10:47.
26
27 Response Time
28
29 OCEMS Agency Standards per System Plan:
30
31 For Emergency Responses;
32 .....a paramedic on scene within 12 minutes 90% of the time
33
34 For Non-Emergency Responses;
35 ......a paramedic on scene within 15 minutes 90% of the time
36
37 Although not acceptable to the referenced standards setting and professional
38 organizations cited, concern can be offset somewhat by effective and timely response
39 from certified BLS responders; i.e. certified Medical Responders (MR) and Basic Level
40 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's).
41
42 In Orange County, these responders-per the OEMS System Plan-are comprised of
43 members of the 12 municipal and community Fire Departments.
44
45 South Orange Rescue Squad (SORS):
46 - 57 certified EMT's
47 - 36 on OEMS Roster w/NCOEMS
48 - Share duties w/OEMS on Medic 8
49 - 3-4-3-4-3 alternating schedule
50 - Includes use of SORS' 2-BLS ambulances
7
1 Average Response Times:
2 All rescue squads: 5:53
3 Volunteer rescue squads: 7:59
4 Career rescue squads: 5:02
5
6 Response Time
7
8 Average vs. Fractile Response Time Performance Criteria
9
10 Given what has been learned about the need for an eight-minute response to maximize
11 survivability from cardiac arrest, an average eight-minute response, by definition, means that
12 one-half, or more, of the service's patients are not reached within that critical time.
13
14 Many high-performance emergency ambulance services use a different methodology to
15 measure response times to ensure service equality to all patients: fractile distribution; in most
16 instances as suggested by NFPA and others, reported at the 90�"percentile.
17
18 EMS Base Facilities
19
20 ....EMS "staging" locations
21
22 Orange County EMS, like Law Enforcement, is an ongoing and at times almost continuous
23 service that functions 24 hours a day throughout the entire County. Its services are far from
24 occurring on a "periodic" or "sporadic" basis.
25
26 This concern (facilities) must be addressed as a long-term issue. And, it must dovetail with the
27 Ambulance Availability and Response Time issues previously addressed.
28
29 Steve Allan said that Orange County does not have any base facilities and the locations
30 lack a lot.
31
32 EMS Base Facilities
33
34 An EMS facility must include at least, the following type of spaces:
35
36 - Indoor, temperature controlled vehicle bays with exhaust ventilation and recharging
37 stations
38 - Secure equipment, materials and medication storage
39 - Special storage for certain narcotics and refrigerated medical supplies
40 - Decontamination showers for personnel
41 - Decontamination/wash areas for equipment
42 - Space for air drying decontaminated equipment after washing
43 - Storage accommodations for contaminated clothing, waste, sharps, etc.
44 - Accommodations for the handling of inedical gases (oxygen)
45 - Laundry facilities
46 - Food preparation and dining space
47 - Common/dayroom space
48 - Multipurpose storage space
49 - Staff restrooms
8
1 - Technology to permit wireless internet capabilities, phone, radio, and pager
2 communications
3 - Public entrance and space to accommodate meetings with visitors
4
5 The actual issue of Fire and EMS "sharing" facilities is more complex:
6
7 - The ultimate purpose (mission) of each is different
8 - Fire Department service areas are specific and limited
9 - EMS service area is the entire County
10 - The schedules of each are different
11 - EMS may run continuously for extended period(s) of time
12 - Fire will more often respond to "periodic" incidents
13 - The work habits of each are different
14 - The facility requirements of each are different
15 - Fire Departments are visible within their respective communities
16 - Existing Fire station locations are not strategically located to adequately address the
17 deployment of EMS vehicles
18 - To push the "sharing" of these facilities would simply continue a practice that has
19 already worn out its welcome
20
21 EMS Base Facilities
22
23 8:00 Minute RT Coverage
24
25 19 Stations 204 FTE's
26 VS.
27 6 Locations 63 FTE's
28
29 Total Personnel Cost $10,135,975.82
30 Less Existing Budget Personnel Cost $ (3,703,295.00)
31 Less est. Overtime Savinqs $ (200,000.00) [1/2]
32 Total Net Cost Addt'I Personnel $ 6,232,680.82
33
34
35 12:00 Minute RT Coverage
36
37 9 Stations 97 FTE's
38 VS.
39 6 Locations 63 FTE's
40
41 Total Personnel Cost $ 4,818,233.16
42 Less Existing Budget Personnel Cost $ (3,703,295.00)
43 Less est. Overtime Savinqs $ (200,000.00) [1/2]
44 Total Net Cost Addt'I Personnel $ 914,938.16
45
46 Issue: Availability of Ambulances
47
48 R-1. Adjust Medic 5 and Medic 8 Coverage Hours
49 - Move Medic 5 from 6:OOam-6:OOpm to 9:OOam-9:OOpm
50 - Move Medic 8 from 6:OOpm-6:OOam to 12:OOpm-12:OOam
9
1 R-2. Add ALS Ambulance 9:OOam-9:OOpm @12 hrs/7 days
2
3 R-3a. Utilize available SORS/BSL ambulance for non-emergency transports; the basis being to
4 free up ALS units to reduce travel time to/from medical facilities and be available sooner to
5 respond to emergency status calls.
6
7 R-3b. OEMS to staff a BLS ambulance to be available for non-emergency transports; the basis
8 being the same as 3a, however in the event that SORS/BLS ambulance is not available.
9
10 R-4. Assess Fire Department capabilities necessary to meet MFR Response Time objectives;
11 via independent assessment of call volume, roster, paid vs. volunteer personnel, vehicles, base
12 location(s), past call locations, included map grids, existing funding, and anticipated
13 performance requirements.
14
15 R-5a. Schedule and implement Fire Department MFR initiative with included performance
16 objectives.
17
18 R-5b. Staff and equip four (4) EMS/QRV's for assignment 12 hours/7 days; with shift start/end
19 times to be determined by EMS.
20
21 R-6. Staff and equip six (6) 12 hour/7 day ALS ambulances at appropriate staging/base facility
22 locations proximate to (1) Zones 1 & 2, (2) Zones 7 & 5, and (3) Zones 6 & 8.
23
24 R-7. Hire Paramedic Level Shift Supervisor @ 24/7.
25
26 R-8. Prepare a detailed Space Needs Assessment that addresses the essential building and
27 site requirements to accommodate a stand-alone, functional, code compliant EMS base facility
28 that can serve as a prototype for all future facilities.
29
30 R-9. Identify a minimum of nine (9) strategic locations, preferably no less than one (1) location
31 within each major Zone for the potential location in each of a future EMS base.
32
33 R-10. County to purchase/obtain identified sites (and/or buildings) for development.
34
35 R-11. Procure EMS base planning and design services.
36
37 R-12. Advertise, bid, and commence construction on designated EMS base facilities.
38
39
40 Steve Allan said that the growth rate for Orange County is the highest of its neighboring
41 counties.
42
43 911/Communications Center
44 Orange County's emergency services network, which includes virtually all of the public safety
45 agencies operating in the County, could not exist; i.e. could not begin to approach the general
46 public's expectations of it, without a sophisticated emergency communications system.
47
48
49
10
1 Issues of Concern
2
3 Staffing:
4
5 During the course of study, the Communications Center:
6 - Total allocation of 30 full-time positions
7 - Plus one (1) Operations Manager; 31 total
8
9 During that time:
10 - Nine (9) of those positions were either vacant (5)
11 - Or in training (4) and therefore unavailable
12
13 If you "know":
14 - The number of positions to be filled
15 - The hours/year each needs to be in service
16 - The hours/year a single employee is available
17
18 You can:
19 - Calculate the Position "Relief Factor" used to
20 - Determine total staff required
21
Position Coverage Annual Hours Hours Available/Yr. Relief Factor
Re uired/Position Per Em lo ee
24 hrs/7 days 8,760 1,718 5.10
12 hrs/7 da s 4,380 1,718 2.50
22
23
24 Staffinq
25
26 If you want to determine the number of post positions to be filled based on workload:
27
28 The number of positions needed to adequately handle the call volume can be calculated based
29 upon a formula matrix which utilizes:
30
31 Average call Duration: 102 seconds
32 Peak Call Rate/Hr. 236/hour
33
34 Staffinq
35
36 In addition, and currently missing from the Communications Center; i.e. one having this level of
37 Telecommunicator staffing and annual call volume:
38
39 1. FT Data System Manager
40 2. FT Quality Assurance Officer
41 3. FT Training Officer
42
43 The need is CRITICAL!
44
45
46
11
1 Data
2
3 The communication Center's; i.e. the County's; technical capabilities were not up to speed, nor
4 have they been up to speed in the eyes of the agencies it serves.
5
6 The information is there!
7
8 Its accessibility and the format in which it exists has been a problem.
9
10 It's 20 years old!
11
12
13 Issue: Staffinq
14
15 R13. Hire a full-time dedicated Data System Manager to be located as close as possible,
16 preferably adjacent to the Communications Center, and answerable first to the Communications
17 Center Operations Manager.
18
19 R14. Hire a full-time, dedicated Training/Quality Assurance Officer to be located as close as
20 possible, preferably adjacent to the Communications Center, and answerable first to the
21 Communications Center Operations Manager.
22
23 R15. Anticipating increasing responsibilities due to the number of personnel forthcoming, hire
24 an additional fulltime Training/Quality Assurance Officer no later than the end of year 3.
25
26 R16. Prepare a schedule for the hiring and training of the identified Telecommunicator
27 positions and identify date to begin solicitation of applications.
28
29 R17. Hire the 17 new, full-time Telecommunicators.
30
31 Issue: Data
32
33 R18. Purchase necessary AVL vehicle hardware for each new EMS vehicle purchased to
34 enable compatibility with newly purchased CAD software and existing AVL system hardware.
35
36 R19. Following the installation of recently purchased Communications Center software and the
37 training of in-house personnel; organize and provide informational meetings to emergency
38 service system users, particularly Fire Departments and Law Enforcement, with regards to the
39 system's capabilities and the information that will be available to them for their use.
40
41
42 Commissioner McKee said that this may be a bit overwhelming but it can be
43 implemented over time. He said that this is a needed study and he would like to implement
44 what they can as quickly as possible. He said that it is critical to get feedback from the Board of
45 County Commissioners to the work group and then come back with a final report.
46 Commissioner Hemminger said that she is concerned about some of the facilities and
47 their placement because of lack of cell phone coverage in many areas of the County. She
48 wants to be proactive with this report.
49 Frank Clifton said that the telecommunications analysis is also going on right now, so
50 there is a potential that this analysis will bring forward some cell towers that could be located.
12
1 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Foushee for
2 working on the Emergency Services work group. He made reference to the extra 15 seconds
3 to take information when dispatching calls and he asked if ambulances would be added. He
4 asked staff to come back with an implementation plan with the costs of adding ambulances.
5 Steve Allan said that the key to feedback in those arenas is going to be important as to
6 who you ask and has diverted this Board in the wrong directions for years. He said that the
7 facility he quoted is bare bones. He said that he was impressed with Orange County in that it
8 has asset management and all are involved in the decision making of the purchase of
9 ambulances. He said that he was not prepared or asked to come up with the type of vehicle for
10 Orange County to purchase.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the work group would be recommending the priority of
12 order for these recommendations.
13 Commissioner McKee said that it has not been decided yet, but his idea is to get
14 feedback from Board of County Commissioners and incorporate it into study, and for the work
15 group to come back with a general list of recommendations with what could be implemented the
16 most quickly and with the least cost.
17 Steve Allan said that he is still responsible as the County's consultant to meet with the
18 fire chiefs, etc., and to have a public meeting to provide them with a presentation so the County
19 Commissioners can provide him with suggestions and feedback.
20 Commissioner Foushee said that it seems it would be easier for the work group to make
21 suggestions in depth after hearing these comments and feedback from stakeholders and the
22 public.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see a recommendation from staff or
24 have someone put these recommendations in priority order.
25 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the methodology and said that she wanted to
26 know more about the variability in the response times. She made reference to page 30 at the
27 top and then again on page 112-113 with respect to response times. She asked about the data
28 on the response times from other districts and if it is the fire departments responding, EMS, or
29 both.
30 Steve Allan said that, regarding the fire departments, how fast they respond is
31 dependent upon how far away they are from the emergency. He said that everything in the
32 data is average total response time for just EMS.
33 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to have one more input session from the
34 Board of County Commissioners before the final report comes back to the Board.
35 Commissioner McKee summarized the process of the Emergency Services work group
36 up to this point. He wants to avoid this becoming a loop of a protracted discussion. He
37 suggested that as the consultant goes forward with other stakeholders that the work group will
38 incorporate feedback into the document and then the work group will review these and come
39 back to the Board of County Commissioners with a consensus of a report of recommendations
40 (generalized). This is a living document. He does not want to put this on a shelf.
41 Commissioner Gordon summarized the process. If the public or County Commissioners
42 have a question, they can go to one of the meetings or email Michael Harvey with questions.
43 When that is wrapped up, it will go to the work group, which will answer the questions and
44 prioritize the recommendations. This will then get folded into the consultant's report. At a later
45 time, it will come to the County Commissioners to approve, and then come through the budget
46 process after that.
47 The Board agreed with the process by consensus.
48 Michael Talbert agreed that this is a living document and will be changed annually. It
49 will be brought forward every year with the CIP. He reminded the Board that improvements
50 have been made in EMS funding every year through additional ambulances, new EMTs, and
13
1 new telecommunicators. Staff is looking for priorities from the Board as to what would be most
2 important for the County Commissioners to do first. He will take these priorities back to the
3 work group.
4 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the performance of the fire departments as first
5 responders is a necessity.
6 Steve Allan said that the fire department study and the space study are to be quick and
7 he was not charged with analyzing the fire departments. He would like to meet with the fire
8 departments and talk about medical first responding.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is nothing in the report about the Emergency
10 Services work group and Steve Allan said that it will come in the narrative.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said that part of the document should have an email for the public
12 to send comments or questions to. He said that he also appreciates the fractile measures. He
13 said that Orange County does need better resources, but he is appreciative of the Emergency
14 Services staff that does so much with so little.
15 Frank Clifton said that, as they have added staff, some of the significant issues with
16 these workers include the high stress, the high technical training required, and that these
17 workers are in high demand across local government, all of which can contribute to the high
18 rate of turnover in Emergency Services. Orange County will need to be competitive in all areas
19 of the hiring process, especially the pay.
20 Chair Pelissier said that the Board would like the work group to come back with priorities
21 and recommendations at the end of the process.
22 Commissioner McKee said that when comments are received, Michael Talbert should
23 put it into a memo and distribute to the County Commissioners.
24 Frank Clifton suggested videotaping the next presentation by Mr. Allan to the public and
25 placing it on the website.
26
27 3. Report on Paperless Aqendas
28 Chief Information Officer Todd Jones said that agendas are now being produced using a
29 paperless process. There is interest in using iPads during the meetings. There are a lot of
30 hardware and software options. There are also small format laptops available as well. He said
31 that he would be happy to train anyone on using various devices for this process.
32 Commissioner Hemminger said that the training was great and helpful. She liked the
33 iPad better and she annotated tonight and it worked well. She said that the maps are much
34 clearer on the iPad.
35 Chair Pelissier said that she did not use paper at all tonight and used the iPad and it
36 worked well.
37 Frank Clifton said that there are some limitations with the iPad because the County uses
38 all Microsoft products.
39 John Roberts said that there are some things that should not be done with internet
40 access at a public meeting.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
43 adjourn the meeting at 10:21 PM.
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
47
48 Donna S. Baker, CMC
49
50
14
1
1
1
2 DRAFT
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 September 11, 2012
7 7:OOpm
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners for a Work Session on Tuesday September 11,
10 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon,
13 Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Pelissier and Commissioner McKee
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
17 Clarence Grier and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 Commissioner Hemminger (Vice-Chair) is chairing the meeting tonight because Chair
21 Pelissier, Commissioner McKee, and Frank Clifton are traveling back from Bloomington.
22
23 1. Review of the Draft Oranqe County Strateqic Information Technoloqy Plan
24 Shannon Tufts, from the School of Government, made a PowerPoint presentation.
25
26 Technology is the vehicle from which accurate, reliable, and timely
27 information is produced for: strategizing, identifying objectives, improving
28 productivity, and facilitating service delivery
29 Technology is ...
30
31 Citizen Relationship Management Services
32 •45+ Online Services
33 •ARI ES Mobile App
34 •Parks Locator App
35 •Addressing Services
36 •Tax System Implementation
37 •PIN/TMBL/Parcel Lookup Tool
38 •Subscription Services
39 •Streaming Video
40 •Wifi Hotpots
41
42
43 County Operational Services
44 •Security Enhancements
45 •Training Room
46 •Mobile Email Support
47 •Telephony
48 •Increased Device Deployment
49 •Service Request Improvements
50
2
1
2
Priority Ranking Description
Level One A Level One project should be started within the next year
in order to meet critical business support requirements.
Level Two A Level Two project should be started within the next two
years in order to further citizen and employee impact
needs.
Level Three A Level Three project should be assessed and started
within the next three years to ensure innovation and
technological advancement are occurring within Orange
County.
3
4
5
6 Internal County Operational Recommendations
7
County: Number of Staff IT Operating Budget IT Operating Total IT IT Capital Budget
in Department: (Personnel) Budget (Non- Operating
Personnel) Budget
Cabarrus 21 FTEs $1.678 million $1.875 million $3.56 million None noted
Catawba 27 FTEs $1.586 million $1.948 million $3.534 million $1.1 million (licensing
and upgrades)
Durham 33 FTEs $2.6 million $1.07 million $4.39 million $1.7 million (lifecycle
replacement for all IT
equipment)
Pitt 32 FTEs $2.342 million (MIS) + $895,402 (MIS) $3.3285 million Fluctuates between
$299,013 +$219,103 (MIS) + $538,103 �$100K-$500K
(GIS)=$2.64 million (GIS)=$1.115 (GIS)=$3.867 annually b/c Pitt Co
million million uses a loan strategy
for all large capital
expenditures (larger
outlay every 3 years)
Orange 14.7 FTEs $1.193 million $920,260 $2.113 million $500,000 (lifecycle
replacements, etc
8 Internal Operations:
Priority Level
One Technology
Investments
(should be
accomplished
within the next
3
year):
1 -Increase IT Staffing Levels
2 -IT Governance Council
3 -Communications Process Improvement
4 -Training for County Staff
5 -Shared Accountability and Authority
6
7 Staffing Needs
8
9 1. Network Engineer
10 2. GIS Addressing Administrator
11 3. SharePoint Administrator (newly identified)
12 4. Applications Systems Analysts
13
14
15 Internal Operations:
16 Priority Level One (cont) Technology Investments
17 -Computer and Network Replacements
18 -Connectivity and Network Expansion
19 -Fire and EMS Systems
20 -SAN Expansion
21 -Virtual Server Shelves and Physical Servers
22 -MS Office/ Upgrade/ELA
23
24 Priority Level Two Technology Investments (should be started within the next two years)
25 -Required Use of Technology
26 -Business Relationship Managers
27 -ITIL
28 -SLAs
29 -Project Justification Methodology
30 -Performance Metrics
31
32 Internal Operations: Priority Level Three (should be started within the next three years)
33 -Location of GIS
34 -Virtual Desktop Infrastructure
35 -Standardized Applications and Data
36
37 Citizen Engagement Investment Recommendations
4
1
2
3 Citizen Engagement: Priority Level One
4
5 -Website Improvements
6 -Comprehensive Licensing, Planning, and Inspections Software
7 -Paperless Agendas and Tablets
8 -Recording of All Meetings
9 -Social Media Engagement
10
11
12 Citizen Engagement:
13 Priority Level Two
14
-Increase field-based
applications
-Public Comments via
Technology
-Increase Access to High-
Speed Internet/Cellular
-Mobile Applications
-Real-time GIS Access
15
16
17 At the end of the day...
18 Orange County should view IT investments as creators of strategic value, not simply costs to be
19 controlled
20
21
22 Shannon Tufts said that Information Technology staff is the most critical component and
23 if it comes down to money, this is where funding needs to go.
24 Commissioner Yuhasz said that Shannon Tufts pointed out that they need more training.
25 Shannon Tufts said that the way she would think about training is that there is some
26 excellent online training at low cost, such as Microsoft software and it is not an Information
27 Technology issue, but an HR issue. She said that people probably only use 15% of the
28 capacity of what the technology can do.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the connection point between the Board of County
30 Commissioners' goals and the governance committee (pages 19-20) and how to get from the
31 goals to the governance.
32 Shannon Tufts made reference to Appendix B, Project Prioritization and Management,
33 and said that every project should align with the goals. The issue is to justify the projects
34 through the goals with a rubric.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that he went to two County department websites and there is
36 no email address for the public to actually send an email to the department. He said that this
37 seems like a basic thing to do.
38 Chief Information Officer Todd Jones said that they have confederated authoring and
39 each individual department has a webmaster. IT has provided a lot of inechanisms for being
40 able to do this. Some departments have not done this even though it is an easy thing to do.
41
5
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that he has not seen the internal social networking policy for
2 employees. He said that he has seen court cases that are coming up where employees have
3 "liked" something on a Facebook page and were subsequently fired.
4 Todd Jones said that it is on the Orange County intranet under "Policies." He said the
5 Orange County social media policy is more geared toward how to set up a departmental social
6 media account.
7 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the departments that do not have email addresses
8 on their websites and how this can be facilitated.
9 Financial Services Director Clarence Grier said that he would provide direction. He said
10 that he is reviewing the staff needs for Information Technology and the proposed eight
11 employees from the IT Strategic Plan would cost about $650,000. He will bring this forth in the
12 budget process. He is also looking at larger screens for desktops.
13 Commissioner Hemminger asked clarifying questions about fiber optics, which were
14 answered by Todd Jones.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that two County Commissioners are not here and she would
16 like for them to have this PowerPoint.
17 Shannon Tufts said that she would email it to the Clerk to forward to the other
18 Commissioners.
19 Commissioner Hemminger said that she is so impressed with how much the Information
20 Technology department has done with limited resources.
21 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the communication strategy and asked about
22 the relationships between the new Public Information Officer and the IT staff.
23 Shannon Tufts said that from a Chief Information Officer standpoint, there is some
24 interconnectivity in that Information Technology provides the tools and the PIO would own the
25 content, branding, and structure.
26 Commissioner Gordon said that there are some basic communication tools that you
27 need and there are a lot of human factors that need to work together. She asked about the
28 ideal way for this to work.
29 Shannon Tufts said that IT is providing a support service for the PIO to deliver the
30 communication strategy that has been defined. The tool delivery is the domain of IT.
31
32 2. Employee Benefits Updates and Preliminary Recommendations Reqardinq
33 Calendar Year 2013 Health Insurance Modifications
34 Clarence Grier said that there is a revised abstract for this issue. He said that staff
35 looked at the possibility of being self-insurance. At this time there is not enough data, so the
36 proposal is to renew with United Health Care.
37 Human Resources Director Nicole Clark made a PowerPoint presentation.
38
39
40
41 � Employee Benefits Update and Preliminary Recommendations for the 2013 Health
42 Insurance Renewal
43 � September 11, 2012
44 Background
45 � Orange County provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package
46 � Health, dental, vision, life; flexible benefit compensation; employee assistance
47 program; paid leave; contributions to the Local Government Employees'
48 Retirement System and other supplemental retirement plans
49 � Effective January 1, 2012 UnitedHealthcare became the County's provider of health
50 insurance
6
1 � Point of Service and HSA
2 � Benefits information provided at previous meetings and work sessions during the month
3 of June
4 � FY 2012-13 budget includes funding for a 23% increase ($171,069)
5 � No significant changes to other benefits
6
7 Retiree Health Insurance
8 � Employees hired on or after July 1, 2012 must have 20 years of continuous service to
9 receive retiree health insurance overage
10 � Survey of 22 other jurisdictions as of July 1, 2012
11 � 9 require continuous service
12 ��� The break must be a year or less (1)
13 ��� The last 10 years must be continuous (1)
14 � 8 require total combined service
15 ��� If the break in service is more than 3 years, the count starts over (1)
16 � 3 require participation in a health savings account
17 � 2 provide no retiree health insurance
18
19 Employee Feedback
20 � Prescriptions:
21 � Brand names for certain acid reflux medications were not covered
22 � Limited supplies for migraine and asthma medication
23 � Members had to change prescriptions to get a lower co-pay
24 � All generic prescriptions were not included in Tier I
25 � Tier I co-pays increased from $0 to $8
26 � Services
27 � Office visit co-pays did not include diagnostic tests
28 � Preventive versus non-preventive services were unclear
29 � Elimination of the obesity rider
30
31 Employee Survey
32 � 400 Employees responded
33 � 73% POS plan participants
34 ��� 96.6% of POS participants are very familiar or somewhat familiar
35 � 23% HDP plan participants
36 ��� 94.2% of HDP participants are very familiar or somewhat familiar
37 � 76% participated in the health assessment
38 � 95% would like to have $0 generic co-pays
39 � 29% would like to reduce prescription costs
40 � 22.8% would like plan improvements, if premiums remained the same or decreased
41 � 34.3% would require employees to improve or maintain good health through smoking
42 cessation and setting weight loss goals
43
44 Next Steps
th
45 � September 19 : Discuss renewal recommendation with the ERC
nd
46 � October 2 : BOCC considers and approves the 2013 Employee Benefits Package
th:
47 � October 9 HR Staff begins education process for employees and retirees
7
th nd
1 � October 29 — November 2 : Open Enrollment, Mark III and HR Staff conduct
2 numerous open enrollment meetings
nd
3 � November 2 : Open enrollment closes
4
5
6 Commissioner Jacobs said that he asked for the detail of the survey because he knew
7 that employees were very displeased with UHC as compared to Cigna. He wants to know if
8 employees would be willing to have fewer benefits if you could switch to a provider they would
9 rather have. He said that the survey should have had this question. In the follow-up, he thinks
10 that this is a key indicator.
11 Nicole Clark said that the survey is a starting point and she hopes to have focus groups.
12 The details of the survey will be posted on the website. This is only a starting point for
13 discussion.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said that, having heard from employees, he would like them to
15 know that they are not alone and that the County Commissioners responded in some way to
16 direct staff to do this survey.
17
18 Commissioner Foushee said that she has a concern about retiree health insurance.
19 The Board changed the eligibility of employees but Board of County Commissioners retiree
20 health insurance is not addressed. She thinks that if the County requires employees to have 20
21 years of continuous service, then the County Commissioners should also have something
22 comparable (they are currently eligible now after eight years) to this for equity's sake. This will
23 be brought back to the Board.
24
25 Mark Browder then made his PowerPoint presentation. He made reference to slide 2
26 and said that the payout versus the premium pay was a loss of$2.7 million for the NCACC for
27 insuring Orange County. After plan design changes were made, the plan has been running
28 more smoothly than it did with the NCACC. It is running two points better than breaking even.
29 Slide 5 has the 2013 renewal estimate. He looked at both fully insured and self-funded
30 and self-funding does not make economic sense at this point.
31 Slide 6 has the 2013 renewal from United Healthcare. There are now plan design
32 changes. The net effect is a 7% increase in rates, which is competitive.
33 Mark Browder made reference to the question of whether employees would be willing to
34 pay more for richer benefits. He said that some employees would be willing to pay more.
35 Slide 10 has the difference in Option 1 and 2, with the difference being the addition of
36 the obesity surgery benefit. There is a substantial jump in cost to add that benefit.
37
38
39 RenewalObservations:
40 - The UHC Renewal is very competitive, based on the County's claims.
41 -Looking to transition to another carrier will have a nominal financial impact.
42 -Self-funding doesn't provide the County with any savings.
43 -As noted, there are benefits additions that are being recommended.
44 -Adding the obesity coverage would increase rates by nearly 4%, while only a few would utilize
45 the benefit.
46
47
48 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County solicited bids and Mark Browder said no
49 because this renewal was extremely competitive. He said that if they had stayed with Cigna,
8
1 they would have seen the same prescription increases. He said that the County has not heard
2 from employees who were positively impacted but only those that were negatively impacted.
3 He said that going to Cigna would have caused a prescription tier interruption. If there is
4 another move, there would be more disruption in the tiers for the employees.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said that he read the employee feedback on page 4 of 14 of the
6 survey and said that this is different than what Mark Browder is saying. He said that there is
7 more involved than just cost. He would like to see if there are other alternatives in January. He
8 said that it seems like service is an issue, regardless of tier disruption. He said that United
9 Healthcare is notorious for bad service. He would like to have a plan to be broader in the
10 examination.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said that he attended a session at NACo about healthcare and it
12 seems that Orange County is not aggressive enough in promoting wellness, which would drive
13 down claims and costs.
14 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that the renewal increase is less than budgeted. He
15 asked if this could be applied to employee benefits. He would like to have this come back as an
16 option.
17 Mark Browder said that one of the ways to apply money is to have money available to
18 fund wellness programs.
19 Nicole Clark said that wellness is one of the areas they hope to use with the focus
20 groups and get feedback from the employees.
21 Commissioner Hemminger asked about the cost of a typical bariatric surgery and Mark
22 Browder said that without complications it is $30,000+, but with complications, it can run up to
23 $300,000. It is a serious surgery.
24 Mark Browder said that healthcare reform does not give the flexibility as they have had
25 before. He said that he needs a decision from the Board of County Commissioners no later
26 than early October to keep the County compliant with the law.
27 Nicole Clark said that one change is for the flexible spending accounts. The cap will be
28 decreased from $5,000 to $2,500 next year. Dependent care is still $5,000.
29 Commissioner Hemminger asked if the survey was given to retirees also.
30 Nicole Clark said that the survey was for active employees only and there were no
31 comments from retirees. There was feedback from retirees in the beginning with the new
32 program last year.
33 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was anything the County Commissioners could do
34 to make sure the employees get better service from United Healthcare.
35 Diane Shepherd said that the employees can let Human Resources know if there are
36 problems with the UHC service.
37 Nicole Clark said that staff will be meeting with the account managers on a regular basis
38 with regard to service delivery.
39 Commissioner Jacobs asked if UHC could communicate this directly to employees it
40 would be better. He would like for UHC to be willing to come and do a Q&A with the
41 employees.
42 Commissioner Gordon asked what the retirees have said.
43 Diane Shepherd said that she is in constant communication with the retirees and she
44 also meets with them individually during open enrollments. There are periodic mailings to
45 retirees. There is also a listserv for retirees.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said that during budget time this is out of sequence for
47 healthcare since it is on a calendar basis and not a fiscal year basis. He asked if there was any
48 way to get a plan for a year and a half to make it better coordinated with the other financials of
49 the County.
50 Clarence Grier said that this has been discussed, but the timing has been the issue.
9
1 Mark Browder said that there could be a short plan year from January 1 St—June 30tn
2 and then the cycle would be started at that point. There cannot be an 18-month plan, but only a
3 short cycle and then a new one starting July 1St
4 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to consider allowing a gap in the
5 continuous service for retiree health insurance for people that have to take an extended amount
6 of time off. Some employees have come back and she would like to consider this.
7 Nicole Clark said that she would look into this.
8 The next step is to bring this back with recommendations at the October 2nd meeting.
9 Commissioner Foushee said that she would like to have more discussion on eligibility of
10 the Board of County Commissioners for retiree health insurance.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked to get draft minutes on this item as soon as possible so
12 that staff can follow up on these issues before October 2na
13
14 3. Report on Paperless Aqendas
15 Greg Wilder made reference to revisions to agendas after the agendas have gone out
16 and said that staff has taken the position that when they publish the agenda, the agenda is put
17 out to all County Commissioners and to the public. Any changes, whether there are additions
18 or deletions or changes to materials, it is a decision for the Board to make at the meeting and
19 therefore, it is not under staff's authority to change agenda materials. It is now up to the Board
20 to change the agenda. This is why there will be no updates to the agenda on the website until
21 after the meeting occurs.
22 Commissioner Yuhasz said that sometimes it is only changing agenda materials, and if
23 there are multiple revisions, it is difficult to manage, particularly when the documents are in pdf
24 format.
25 Todd Jones said that there may be an interim solution, but there are challenges. Staff
26 can look into this if the Board desires.
27 Commissioner Gordon suggested figuring out how not to add to an agenda, unless it is
28 an emergency.
29 Donna Baker said that sometimes there are revisions to abstracts that are already out
30 there and sometimes the revisions are a result of questions from the County Commissioners.
31 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that a modification could be "subject to Commissioner
32 approval," and there could be a vote at the beginning of a meeting on whether or not to accept
33 a modified agenda item.
34 Todd Jones said that there are some aspects of this process that are way more efficient
35 then the way things used to be done.
36 Commissioner Gordon said that sometimes email exchanges also need to be included in
37 the record.
38 Commissioner Jacobs agreed and said that email transparency is something the County
39 Commissioners have not discussed, but it should be discussed.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
42 adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
46
47 Donna S. Baker, CMC
48 Clerk to the Board