HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-15-2012 APPROVED 6/5/2012
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
May 15, 2012
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May
15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda
Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places.
- White sheet— Petition from a member of the public entitled, "Ban the Box"
- White sheet— PowerPoint on the Operating Budget and Capital Investment Plan
- Rose sheet— updated listing for the Economic Development Advisory Board
- White sheet— updated interlocal agreement (implementation agreement) for item 7-
c, Orange County Transit Plan and Related Agreements
- Yellow sheet— copy of Triangle Transportation Survey done by the Regional
Transportation Alliance, also related to item 7-c
The Board had received an updated "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan for Orange
County"just prior to the meeting.
Chair Pelissier said that there was additional verbiage for a closed session and an
additional closed session item:
Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board regarding the
cases of Orange County v. Eno River Parking Deck and Orange County v. Town of
Hillsborough."
and
143-318.11(a)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
businesses in the area served by the public body.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to add the additional verbiage for the closed session and an additional closed session item.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda
Margaret Cannell, Director of the Hillsborough-Orange County Chamber of Commerce,
thanked the Board for their support of Hog Day that will take place May 18th and 19th. She
thanked Solid Waste, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
(DEAPR), the Visitor's Bureau, and the Sheriff's Department.
Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:04 PM.
Hank Elkins distributed a handout on the Ban the Box, A Petition for Open Employment
Opportunities for those with Criminal Convictions by The Orange County Partnership to End
Homelessness. He said that this is a petition to delay the question on prior criminal convictions
from the initial stage of an employment application to a later stage. He said that this is a win-
win-win petition. He said that it is a win for Orange County government because it could
receive more applications from energetic applicants. He said that in most organizations and
businesses, a prior conviction is a detriment to getting a job. It is also a win in terms of helping
minorities. The third win is giving people a chance of making a living and staying out of prison,
which is a win for the taxpayers.
Commissioner Yuhasz supported this addition and some of the Board members
agreed.
Chair Pelissier said that she feels very strongly that this is an important step for the
County to take.
b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Jacobs made the following petitions:
(1) The Board to direct the Attorney to work on the legal means by which the County
can continue to extend domestic partner benefits to employees, regardless of the interpretation
of the amendment.
(2) He said that in February the Board got a presentation about joining the 10% local
food campaign and it was referred to staff to come back with a resolution for adoption. He
said that he brought a copy of the resolution from TJCOG that was passed. He asked staff to
model a resolution after this one.
(3) He said that one of the voting machines where he voted malfunctioned and he just
wanted to get a report about how early voting went and if there was any confusion on the
district races.
(4) He made reference to the wayfaring signs in Hillsborough and said that a sign was
put up in an archaeological place, and he proposed the Town and County to protect
archaeologically sensitive areas that are in Hillsborough but on Orange County property.
Commissioner McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs took care of his petition about
domestic partner benefits. However, he is less inclined to support the issue of a lawsuit
against the amendment.
Other Board members agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about domestic partner
benefits.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. National Historic Preservation Month
The Board considered a proclamation designating May as National Historic
Preservation Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw introduced this item.
Historic Preservation Commission Chair Tom Dickinson read the proclamation.
PROCLAMATION
OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing
livability; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and
rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds;
and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions
made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that
has shaped us as a people; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is a strong advocate for the protection of cultural and
archaeological resources, and continues to pursue partnership opportunities to preserve these
important and often irreplaceable resources, to seek new and innovative ways to make local
history engaging to the public, and to encourage others to do the same; and
WHEREAS, Orange County has demonstrated its commitment to historic preservation by using
the restored Alexander Dickson House in Hillsborough as a visitor center, conserving the
farmsteads at future county parks, including a cultural resources component to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and designating important properties with historic and architectural
significance as local landmarks; and
WHEREAS, "DiscoverAmerica's Hidden Gems" is the theme for National Historic Preservation
Month 2012, cosponsored by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Orange County
Historic Preservation Commission, the Historical Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange
County, the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough and the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
NOW THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
May 2012 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of Orange County
to join their fellow residents across the United States in recognizing and participating in this
special observance.
This the 15th day of May, 2012.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to adopt a proclamation designating May as National Historic Preservation Month in Orange
County and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Presentation of Manaqer's Recommended Fiscal Year 2012-13 Annual
Operatinq Budqet and 2012-17 Capital Investment Plan
The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2012-13 Annual Operating
Budget and 2012-17 Capital Investment Plan.
Frank Clifton introduced this item and said that this budget is very much like last year's
budget and any growth is limited. He said that the property tax base is not moving and there is
not a tax increase proposed this year. Education is funded at the current ADM level plus
student growth. Each school district requested an increase, but each has a well-funded fund
balance. He said that they did attempt to address departmental needs.
Financial Services Director Clarence Grier made the PowerPoint presentation.
County Manager's Recommended FY 2012-13 Annual Operating Budget and
Capital Investment Plan
Presentation
Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill
Orange County, NC
May 15, 2012
Guiding Principles
• Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase — 4th
Consecutive Year
• Provides funding for County services at current levels without a reduction in the
workforce
• Funds local school districts enrollment growth and provides for increased
funding for the long range capital needs for each school district.
Recommended General Fund Budget
- Totals $178.5 million
• Represents an increase of $300,000 from original current year budget of$178.2
million, which is a .17 percent increase from previous year original budget
• Represents a $4.8 million decrease in the current year's amended budget
Orange County Budget
Past 5 Fiscal Years (chart)
Proposed Ad Valorem Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2012
- Proposed tax rate of 85.8 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
• This rate produces $136.9 million in property tax revenues for FY 2012-2013
• Overall Real Property Valuation increased 1.1%
- One cent on property tax estimated to generate $1,574,232
Orange County Property Tax Revenues
Past 5 Fiscal Years (chart)
Sales Tax Revenues
• Recommended Sales Tax Revenues of $15.7 million is 3% higher than the $15.3
million budgeted in FY 2011-2012
• Actual sales tax revenues are down over 30% since the peak of $22.5 million in fiscal
year 2007-2008
Orange County General Fund FY 2012-13 Revenues (chart)
Proposed Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2012
• Recommended tax rate of 18.84 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
✓ Represents no increase in the property tax rate for the District
• Recommended tax rate will generate $19.1 million for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro
School District
✓ This represents an additional $1,577 per pupil above the County's
allocation
• One cent on district tax is estimated to generate $1,013,877
Recommended Funding for Chapel Hill - Carrboro City and Orange County Schools
• Total General Fund appropriation totals $84.2 million
• Funds day-to-day operations, repayment of school related debt, and capital
• Equals an appropriation of 47.16 percent of total General Fund Budget
• Reflects $101,278 net increase from current year General Fund appropriation
due to a decrease in debt service and passing the debt service savings on to
the school districts
• Equates to $3,102 per student for each of the 19,700 students in both districts
for day-to-day operating funds
Additional Funding for Local Schools
• In addition to the $84.2 million for operations, debt and capital, recommended budget
allocates $1.9 million to fund non-mandated safety net initiatives for both school
districts Some of these initiatives are:
• School Health Nurses - $683,706, an increase of$49,374
• School Resource Officers - $531,405, an increase of$1,995
• School Social Workers - $692,283, an increase of$49,909
• With these additional non-mandated funding initiatives, the total funding for the local
school districts total 48.2% of the General Fund Budget
County Education Funding
Fiscal Year Original Budget General Fund % of Budget
2008-2009 $90,180,363 49.3%
2009-2010 $87,114,600 49.1%
2010-2011 $85,917,149 49.0%
2011-2012 $85,981,149 48.3%
2012-2013 $86,082,427 48.2%
Major Funded County Initiatives
• Maintains all County services at current levels
• Funds the increase in medical insurance and fully funds the 401(k)/457 plans for non-
sworn employees
• A cost of living and in-range increase equating up to 3% in compensation for
employees
• Provides funding for a Public Information Officer and a Risk Management Position
• Increases positions for EMS Communicators, an Assistant Fire Marshal, and
Paramedics which will be staggered throughout the year
• Adds one (EMS) ambulance and staffing, funded in an internal service fund, to
continue to improve emergency response times
• Provides the Sheriff with six additional patrol vehicles, funded in an internal service
fund
• Provides for the replacement of several County vehicles due for replacement with the
establishment of a Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund
• Long range/pay-as-you go County capital is $500,000.
Orange County General Fund FY 2012-13 Expenditures
Solid Waste Initiatives
• The closure of the landfill with public education and other related planning efforts of the
landfill in FY2012-13. It is expected closure cost in FY 2012-13 will be $3.1 million
• The conversion to single stream in all recycling programs
• The reconstruction and expansion of Walnut Grove and High Rock solid waste
convenience centers
• Proposed changes in the following landfill fee rates are as follows:
• Construction and Demolition decrease from $44.00 to $40.00 per ton
• Charges for the sale of mulch from $22.00 to $25.00 per 3 cubic yard scoop
• Proposed increases in the sanitation household fee to be charged per household are
as follows:
• Rural Residential from $10.00 to $20.00
• Urban Household from $ 5.00 to $10.00
Additional Funding Options
• Appropriate Fund Balance, if necessary; The Board may use up to $555,000 without a
negative impact on fund balance
• Delaying the Property Revaluation will provide $350,000 in funds for other purposes
directed by the Board
• Property tax increase
Revenues Generated By Property Tax Increase
Tax Increase Property Tax Revenues Per Pupil Equivalency
Generated
1 cent $1,574,232 $79.91
1.5 cents $2,361,348 $119.87
2 cents $3,148,464 $159.82
2.5 cents $3,935,580 $199.78
3 cents $4,722,696 $239.73
County Capital Investment Plan (table)
Concerns and Issues for FY 2013-2014
• Health Insurance
• Post-employment Insurance benefit for retirees
• Debt Service
• County Capital Projects
• School Capital Projects
• Economic Development
• Revaluation
• State or Federal Budget Issues
• Inflation
• Economy
Public Hearings and Work Sessions
(All Meetings Begin at 7:00 p.m.)
Public Hearings — May 17th at Department of Social Services; May 22 at Southern Human
Services Center
Work Sessions — May 24th at Department of Social Services; June 7th at Southern Human
Services Center
Work Session/Adoption — June 12th at Southern Human Services Center
Final Adoption — June 19th at Southern Human Services Center
Document Availability
- Clerk to Board of Commissioners
- County Financial Services Office
- Orange County Library
- Chapel Hill Public Library
- Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
- Cybrary, Carrboro
- Orange County Website
■ www.co.orange.nc.us
Commissioner McKee said that throughout the document, it states that an internal
service fund will be replacing the general fund for vehicles. He asked how that would be
funded.
Clarence Grier said that it will be a separate fund to maintain and account for these
vehicles.
Frank Clifton said that all of the department in the general fund will be charged a
vehicle fee, and these can be tracked separately to see if they are being maintained efficiently.
They are isolating these vehicles since now they are in various departments. It is hard to
maintain and track in the present system.
Commissioner McKee asked about the reduction of the Sheriff's vehicles from 12 to 6.
He wants to make sure these are not cut. His concern is a possible movement toward a
service district tax to fund vehicles.
Public Comment:
Jamezetta Bedford, board member of the CHCCS Board of Education, read a letter that
the CHCCS Board sent to the County in April, which basically asked the County to raise the
district tax if needed to fund their request.
Frank Clifton said that most of what the County is able to do this year is to refund
existing debt to gain some short-term savings.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for the budget and creativity. He has confidence
that, within the existing budget, without raising taxes, that the County Commissioners can find
enough money to give another cent to both school systems.
c. Distinquished Budqet Presentation Award
The Board recognized the Budget staff of the Orange County Finance and
Administrative Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2011-12 fiscal year budget document.
Clarence Grier presented this award to the Finance staff. This is the 20th year they
have received this award. He introduced and recognized his finance staff: Paul Laughton,
Lisa Henty, Tonya Walton, and Allison Chambers.
Chair Pelissier presented the plaque to the department.
5. Consent Aqenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
Commissioner Jacobs removed Item d.
Commissioner Gordon removed Item g.
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
d. Re-neqotiated Lease — Hiqh Rock Road Solid Waste Convenience Center
The Board considered the approval of the re-negotiated lease for the Solid Waste
Convenience Center located on High Rock Road and authorizing the Chair to sign.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
defer authorizing the $360,000 improvements to this center on property the County does not
own until staff comes back with an analysis on which site would be preferable to fund
improvements.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
g_ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) —Approval and
Certification of 2012 Report
The Board considered approving the 2012 Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee Report and certifying portions of the Report.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Executive Summary and said that there
was an error in this summary previously and it is important to know what has been changed.
The corrected summary shows that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), the
projected number of students was low compared to the actual number of students who
attended school for all three levels (elementary, middle, high school). In the Orange County
Schools (OCS), the projection was high compared with the actual numbers of students for the
elementary and middle schools and low for the high schools.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve the SAPFOTAC Annual Report and certify those aspects of the Report detailed in the
summary table above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from both meetings on March 29, 2012.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adoption a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference,
related to thirty-six requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds.
c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
values related to eight requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with
North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Re-neqotiated Lease — Hiqh Rock Road Solid Waste Convenience Center
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
e. Approval of Aqreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection Services
The Board approved the award of a contract to Clean Harbors Environmental Services
that provides Household Hazardous Waste collection, processing, and disposal services
for the residents of Orange County and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
within the County and authorized the Chair to sign.
f. County Attorney Employment Aqreement Amendment
The Board approved the amendment to the Employment Agreement governing the terms
and conditions of the County Attorney's employment.
g_ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval and
Certification of 2012 Report
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
h. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budqet Amendment#9
The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
2011-12 for Health Department, Emergency Services, Sheriff's Department, Visitor's
Bureau —Arts Commission, and Child Support Enforcement.
i. Applications for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill —
Carrboro City Schools and Oranqe County Schools and Continqent Approval
of Budqet Amendment# 9-A Related to School Capital Proiect Ordinances
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the applications for NC Education
Lottery Proceeds; and approve Budget Amendment#9-A receiving the Lottery Funds and
amending the School Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on the State's approval of
the applications.
i Approval of a Resolution Reqardinq a Lease Aqreement between Chapel Hill —
Carrboro City Schools, NWN Corporation/Cisco Svstems, Inc. and Key Government
Finance, Inc.
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution regarding a lease
agreement between Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), NWN Corporation/Cisco
Systems, In., and Key government Finance, Inc.
k. Contract Award for Master Planninq Services, Southern Human Services Master
Plan
The Board approved the Professional Services Agreement with Clarion Associates
("Clarion") in an amount not to exceed $110,000 for the Development of a Master Plan
and potential Special Use Permit modifications for the Southern Human Services Campus;
and authorized the Chair to execute the Agreement.
6. Public Hearinqs
NONE
7. Reqular Aqenda
a. Resolution Reqardinq the Next General Reappraisal of Real Property
The Board considered 2015 as the optimal year for the next general reappraisal of real
property and to approve a resolution establishing the year for the next general reappraisal of
real property in Orange County.
Tax Administrator Jenks Crayton said that if there was a revaluation now the problem
would be made worse. There has been a drop in sales. Foreclosures are running at twice the
level of last year. Also, none of Orange County's neighbors are planning to do a revaluation
before 2015, which is the Manager's recommendation.
Chair Pelissier made reference to the packet of information from Joe Phelps.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Joe Phelps said that he has been in real estate for 25 years and is a broker/owner of
Phelps Realty. He had requested previously to make a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners about why the County needs to stay on schedule for the tax revaluation, but it
was denied. He said that he did meet with the Tax Administrator and it was a good
conversation, but he did not agree with him about everything, especially the COD. He referred
to several discrepancies that he thought existed in Mr. Crayton's presentation. He went
through his handout:
"In the packet tonight on this subject there are some statements I think are very
misleading. Orange County is not like many other counties in North Carolina. We don't have
the high unemployment others have and we have many high paying jobs in the Triangle, so to
compare Orange County to other not doing revaluation I think is misleading. The big thing is
the numbers stating there will be a shortfall in everyone's budget. After revaluation you have
to adjust tax rates to be revenue neutral so there will be no shortfalls. Now some people's
taxes will go up, but many people's taxes will go down.
If anyone wants the info I am presenting tonight, I will give out my email and send you
the info.
My info comes from the Multiple Listing Service and even though this information is
public, I will hide the addresses, but have a hard copy if needed for verification if questioned.
Page 1 is a map dividing the county into areas.
Page 2 —the Assessor says he doesn't have enough data. Let's use the following
data: if you take out the areas around Chapel Hill numbered 201, 202, 203, 204, and 228 and
look for closed sales of single family dwellings, single wides, and doublewides and priced from
$1 to unlimited dollars.
From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 you have 773 sales, compared four years
later using same data same timeframe you have 587 sales, not that many less.
From January 1, 2008 to May 14, 2008 you have 166 sales. Four years later same
data same timeframe you have 181 sales, even more than the prior years the revaluation was
done.
Page 3 — a map of roughly the area you were told that there wasn't enough data in
northern Orange.
Page 4 and 5 sales from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, there were 36 sales,
page 5 and 6. Again, same search criteria from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 there
were 36 sales. The same amount.
Page 7 sales from January 1, 2008 to May 14, 2008 there were 13 sales, page 8, again
same search criteria from January 1, 2012 to May 14, 2012 there were 11 sales. Almost the
same.
Quickly onto tax value versus sales price in Orange County for single family dwelling,
singlewides and doublewides. There were 892 sales. Each column is labeled to what it
stands for. Let's take page 9, which is around Chapel Hill. That's the first page printed off.
Forty-six properties closed. Thirty-four sold for less than tax value at an average of$51,205
less than tax value. Twelve sold for more than tax value at an average of$35,550 more than
tax value.
Page 25 — let's take the area in northern Orange #222. Twenty-one properties sold
from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Sixteen sold for less than tax value of$46,190
less than tax value. Five sold for more than tax value at an average of$111,572.
All of these averages are from 15% to 30% off of tax value. They need to be corrected,
as many people are paying more than they should."
Commissioner Yuhasz asked Jenks Crayton if he saw any systemic inequities. Jenks
Crayton said that there are some geographical areas that do need correction. Through a local
appraiser, they have been alerted to one of these neighborhoods. This area was appraised at
too high a value in 2009. This is being remedied through the Board of Equalization and
Review.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if it were possible that there were areas that were priced
too high or too low and if the County could look at those outside of a general revaluation.
Jenks Crayton said that he has not noticed this in particular, but he would be willing to
look at that if someone pointed it out.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked what a citizen would do if they felt that their property was
improperly valued.
Jenks Crayton said that they could email or call him. The best time to rectify a problem
is at the informal stage.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the last time the County did a revaluation, the
County remained revenue neutral, but about a third of the property owners ended up paying
more in taxes, about a third ended up about the same, and about a third paid a little less. She
said that this time if the values go down, the County will have to increase the tax rate to stay
revenue neutral for the County. This will yield the same result for citizens, except the motor
vehicle taxes will go up. She said that putting this off would mean that there would be more
data and a tax increase would be delayed.
Commissioner McKee said that revenue neutral does not equal tax neutral.
Commissioner Gordon said that her concern is with the equity. The reason to revalue
is to be fair. She asked if the issue was that there was not enough data to do a reliable
revaluation and Jenks Crayton said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs said that a year ago the Manager recommended not doing a
revaluation and the Board of County Commissioners decided to go ahead with the revaluation
in order to stay on the same schedule. He said that the data has taken him aback. He said
that it has been made clear to him that they need to delay the revaluation because the data
does not support moving forward with one.
Commissioner McKee said that the County should remain on a four-year cycle.
Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments. She said that the revaluation
is not really about what the tax rate is, but it is really making sure that people are taxed
equitably relative to one another. The equity is a very important issue.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to approve the resolution establishing the year 2015 for the next general reappraisal of real
property in Orange County.
Commissioner McKee said that there will be a perception that while property values are
going up, Orange County is ready to go forward with a revaluation, but when property values
are decreasing, Orange County is not willing to go forward with this same procedure.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he was in favor of doing the revaluation a year ago, but
now it is about equity. He is in favor of delaying it to 2015.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to put the revaluation savings of
$350,000 toward employee compensation.
There was no second. The motion failed.
Resolution Establishing the Year of the Next General Reappraisal
Whereas, Orange County conducted its most recent General Appraisal of Real
Property effective January 1, 2009; and
Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners advanced its scheduled
General Reappraisal of Real Property to January 1, 2013, pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute (NCGS) 105-286 (a) (3); and
Whereas, after careful consideration, the Orange County desires to modify this
schedule to postpone the effective date of the next General Reappraisal to January 1, 2015,
as permitted by NCGS 105-286 (a) (3); and
Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners also desires that the Orange
County Tax Administrator make an annual report to the Board regarding conditions in the
market for real property;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
does hereby postpone the effective date of the next General Reappraisal to January 1, 2015;
Be It Further Resolved, that the Orange County Tax Administrator shall each year
make at least one report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding conditions in the
market for real property; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the Clerk to the Board shall forward a copy of this
resolution to the North Carolina Department of Revenue as required under NCGS 105-286.
b. Economic Development Advisory Board
The Board considered approving the final draft "Economic Development Advisory
Board Policies and Procedures" and appointing ten individuals for the initial reconstituted
Economic Development Advisory Board.
Economic Development Director Steve Brantley presented this item. He said that these
policies were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in April and staff incorporated
suggested changes into this current document. He worked with the County Attorney's office to
incorporate these changes. The asked the Board to review and approve the policies and
procedures for the newly formed advisory board. The second part of the recommendation is
as follows:
- Select 10 individuals from the table provided in Attachment 2, according to the
following numbers and categories (from Section III. B. !. of the `Policies and
Procedures'). Please note that several individuals may be cross-listed as
representatives in more than one category:
o Choose FIVE individuals from Orange County's core business community,
which includes banking, construction, manufacturing, architecture, real
estate, legal development, utility management, etc.
o Choose ONE individual who represents the aqriculture sector;
o Choose ONE individual actively involved in entrepreneur activities;
o Choose ONE individual representing the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, preferably involved in the development activities, such as
planning for Carolina North, or on the foundation side of business
development;
o Choose ONE individual representing the tourism sector represented by an
individual involved in retail and/or hospitality, such as a restaurant or hotel
manager, or someone involved in the arts;
o Choose ONE individual representing the nonprofit sector.
The proposed list of candidates that were interviewed and submitted for the Board's
consideration is based on the candidates' specific skills and experience with economic
development as well as enthusiasm for serving Orange County. All recommended candidates
either manage a business in Orange County, employ citizens, or have a financial stake in this
community.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Laura Streitfeld was representing Preserve Rural Orange and said that she was
surprised to see this board created without a public process for application. She read a
prepared statement. She said that the guidelines the Board of County Commissioners
adopted two months ago were not followed and were abandoned for this board. She said that
she was disappointed in the proposed membership roster and her concern is that economic
development should not be fast-tracked.
May 15, 2012
To the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
Preserve Rural Orange (PRO) will attend tonight's Board of County Commissioners meeting
to request an open, public and thorough process of seeking candidates for Orange County's
proposed new Economic Development Advisory Board.
PRO is concerned with the following:
1. The proposed advisory board policy does not adhere to key elements of Orange
County's General Policy for Board of County Commissioners Advisory Boards approved
February 21, 2012; the General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards establishes a public
process for seeking applicants
2. County Economic Development staff assisted by chambers of commerce & UNC
representatives used a non-public, invitation-only process to recommend potential
appointees
3. Applications of proposed appointees were not submitted to or qualified by Orange
County clerk, as specified by General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards
4. Goals and objectives and majority "core business community" list do not fully
encompass Orange County Comprehensive Plan goals & objectives or BOCC Planninq
Principles
5. Goals do not include sustainable growth, resource preservation, renewable energy
initiatives, environmentally responsible practices or recruiting green businesses
6. Proposed appointment of non-county residents conflicts with General Policy for BOCC
Advisory Boards; the policy authorizes commissioners "to appoint residents to serve as
members of advisory boards" and requires that "all board members shall maintain their
domicile in Orange County"
7. Proposed board composition does not adhere to General Policy for BOCC Advisory
Boards, lacking criteria aiming "to appoint members who represent the ethnic, cultural,
demographic and geographic diversity of the community"
8. List of potential appointees is imbalanced in terms of ethnic and gender diversity
among slate of potential appointees
9. List of potential appointees presents an imbalanced, limited slate, with several
categories listing only one or two candidates
10.All listed applications were submitted within a few days during the past two weeks,
without reference to previous applicants to Economic Development Commission
11. The proposed policy voids Economic Development Commission bylaws without
providing documentation or active links on website to previous EDC bylaws, agendas,
minutes, board membership or board dissolution
PRO proposal:
In selecting candidates for the new Economic Development Advisory Board, Preserve
Rural Orange urges the county to:
1. Follow Orange County's approved public and inclusive advisory board process to
seek applicants and select candidates
2. Extend the deadline to solicit a wider pool of qualified applicants
3. Take steps listed below to ensure fair, representative board selection and
composition
Scope; Goals & Objectives:
1. Adhere to authority of Orange County General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards
revised and approved in February 2012
2. Use the established public process coordinated by the county clerk to seek a wider,
more diverse and representative pool of candidates
3. Include among the new board's charge and goals: supporting goals & objectives of
Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and BOCC planning principles
4. Post documentation of EDC board history
Membership:
1. Adhere to General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards as specified in items 2, 3 and 4
below
2. "Appointments to advisory boards will be initiated with a public application process from
individuals, advisory boards, or community and professional organizations"
3. Select nominees who "maintain their domicile in Orange County"
4. "Endeavor to appoint members who represent the ethnic, cultural, demographic and
geographic diversity of the community"
5. Include green and environmentally innovative businesses in "core business community"
category
6. Extend application deadline to seek a wider and more diverse pool of applicants for
each category
The list of potential appointees to a new Economic Development Advisory Board is
incomplete and not representative of Orange County's wealth of diverse professionals
with economic development, business, entrepreneurial, agricultural, environmental, and
nonprofit expertise. PRO urges commissioners to allow sufficient time to follow an open,
public process adhering to Orange County's General Policy for BOCC Advisory Boards.
A more thorough, inclusive, established process will expand the county's options by
drawing upon a broad spectrum of professionals residing in Orange County who have not yet
had the opportunity to apply. By seeking qualified applicants in a public process consistent
with the county's goals and objectives, Orange County citizens will benefit from the guidance
of a strong, diverse board advising on Orange County's economic development efforts with a
more comprehensive range of experience and skills.
Thank you,
-Laura Streitfeld
Executive Director, Preserve Rural Orange
Tom Schopler said that he submitted his name as a candidate to the previous advisory
board before it was dissolved, and now he does not have an opportunity to participate in this
newly created board. He said that the appearance of a non-transparent process is important.
Will Raymond is a resident of Chapel Hill. He said that the County needs an open and
transparent process to build integrity. He said that the diversity of representation and opinion
needs to be increased.
Chair Pelissier asked about clarification on the policy of advisory boards versus this
particular policy. She said that all advisory boards still have to follow all of the policies and
priorities of the Board of County Commissioners.
John Roberts said that every advisory board will have its own specific policy document,
or will have one before it is approved. The reason this is coming to the Board first is because
this board was abolished and there is no current Economic Development Advisory Board. He
said that this policy document will be the primary guiding document. The general policy
document still applies. He said that the Board of County Commissioners is following the
general policy in this process. There are a couple of areas in the general policy where it says
that it can make changes and modifications as it sees fit.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners did discuss this at
a work session and most times, the public and media do not attend. He said that he does
agree with the statements made by the public that they object to the manner in which this is
being done. He thinks that an unfair correlation has been drawn between the dysfunction of
the previous Economic Development Commission and the notion that if we solicit participation
from members of the public who are not preselected, it will delay and undermine the efforts of
the Board of County Commissioners and the staff to provide quality economic development in
Orange County. He does not believe that is true.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
open the process to members of the public to apply for this board, and for the Clerk's Office to
vet the applications.
Commissioner Foushee said that she is grateful to staff for what they had done on this,
but she expected to see a broader field of applicants. She said that it is hard to consider
someone on this list who has not submitted an application. She said that others have shown
an interest.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he understood the concern about non-submittal of
applications, but this should not stop the Board from appointing other members. He
recognizes the need to be very specific in who is appointed and recruited for this specific
board.
Commissioner Foushee said that she would like to at least replace the four names that
did not submit applications.
Commissioner McKee said that the Board discussed this at a work session with staff,
and he feels like the staff brought back what the Board asked for. He said that one of his
parameters was that if there was not an application filled out, then he will not consider them.
Another parameter he imposed was whether or not the applicant was an Orange County
citizen, and if not, whether they were heavily invested in Orange County through business, etc.
He said that the staff did complete the task set before them. He would at least like to move
forward with as many applicants as possible.
Chair Pelissier said that staff did what the Board of County Commissioners asked them
to do and the Board made a commitment to work with the Chambers of Commerce to get
recommendations. Some of these recommendations reflect that commitment. She said that
she has heard from the public to open up the entrepreneurial category.
Commissioner McKee asked to make an amendment to Commissioner Jacobs'motion
to open the remaining slots to the public
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would approve that amendment after his motion
fails.
VOTE Ayes, 3; Nays, 4 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Yuhasz, Chair Pelissier, and
Commissioner Hemminger)
The motion failed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon that
as the Board encounters positions that should not be filled at this time, that they be deferred to
a public process and for the Clerk's Office to vet the applications.
Frank Clifton said that the appointment process is term-limited and if others wanted to
roll off, then others could be appointed.
Commissioner Jacobs said that there is some "lack of inclusion" in this group that he
would like to bring to the attention of the Board. He said that there are two categories that are
glaringly absent.
Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment for the applications to be brought
back to the BOCC no later than June 1 gtn
Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs agreed to accept Commissioner
McKee's friendly amendment.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz)
Chair Pelissier suggested going back to the policies and their adoption.
Commissioner Gordon made a friendly amendment in Section 2, Goals and Objectives,
page 4, and said that a third bullet should be added which says, "support the goals and
objectives of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan."
Chair Pelissier said that this is already in the general policies, which is that all of the
advisory boards, regardless of the specific goals, all have to support the goals and objectives
of Orange County.
John Roberts said that he does not recall this being in the general policies.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with Commissioner Gordon and that it is not
going to hurt anything.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve the Economic Development Advisory Board Policies and Procedures with the added
language by Commissioner Gordon concerning the goa/s and objectives.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board had a retreat five years ago to turn Orange
County green and to embrace this. He suggested having one position that is someone
involved in emerging technologies/green industry, and also a position that includes micro-
business owners. He wants someone at the table that is for "the little guy."
Commissioner Yuhasz said that they are getting away from what they had discussed
about this board, which is to support the business recruitment efforts. He said that he does not
see the value of increasing the membership because it dilutes the core group.
Chair Pelissier said that the focus is the economic development districts. She thinks
that there is not a good choice in the entrepreneur category.
Commissioner McKee suggested that each County Commissioner nominate one person
from the list.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs that, consistent with the stated goals at
the retreat in 2009, to include a position on the Economic Development Advisory Board that
represents emerging technologies.
There was no second. The motion failed.
Commissioner Gordon noted that she was interested in the idea of adding areas that
are not currently represented, but not during the appointment process.
Commissioner Hemminger suggested going through each category. The Board
agreed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
assign length of terms randomly after the appointments are made.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
APPOINTMENTS
AGRICULTURE (1)
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Karen McAdams to the Agriculture position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
CORE BUSINESS COMMUNITY (5) (only 4 were appointed tonight)
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Tom Underwood to one of the Core Business Community positions.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Foushee)
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
appoint Eric Pate to one of the Core Business Community positions.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to appoint John Anderson to the one of the Core Business Community positions.
VOTE: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 (AYES - Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee)
MOTION FAILED
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
appoint Mark O' Neal to one of the Core Business Community positions.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1(Commissioner Gordon)
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Lori Echel to one of the Core Business Community positions.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Hemminger)
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Paige Zinn to one of the Core
Business Community positions.
There was no second. Motion failed.
Commissioner Gordon noted that relatively few women were being appointed.
The Board then decided to only appoint four applicants.
The appointees were Tom Underwood, Eric Pate, Lori Echel, and Mark O'Neal.
TOURISM (1)
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Mark Chilton Sherburne to the Tourism position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NON-PROFIT (1)
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
appoint Delores Bailey to the Non-Profit position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
UNC AT CHAPEL HILL (1)
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
appoint Jim Kitchen to the UNC-Chapel Hill position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ENTREPRENEUR (1) - OPEN
This category has been left open by the Board.
John Roberts asked about assigning terms and Chair Pelissier said that staff will assign
the length of terms randomly.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
defer assigning terms until the completion of appointments to the Economic Development
Advisory Board.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he opposed this because this board can function with
eight members for the next month. These eight people could be given random terms and the
other two people could be placed in the other term positions.
Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that the term slots are already set, but the people
just need to be placed.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the length of term is irrelevant to the board getting to
work immediately.
VOTE: Ayes, 2; Nays, 5 (AYES - Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon)
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to assign the staggered terms randomly now.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
c. Oranqe County Transit Plan and Related Aqreements
The Board considered adoption of the Orange County Transit Plan and considered
approval of the Durham/Orange Cost Share Agreement, the Orange County/Triangle Transit
Implementing Agreement and the Do Not Levy Agreement and authorizing the Chair to sign if
approved.
Chair Pelissier referred to a handout at the County Commissioners' places in reference
to the Regional Transportation Alliance's recent transit poll. It shows that the support for
transit in Orange County has remained consistent over the past three years.
John Roberts suggested not approving this implementation agreement tonight because
it needs to be reviewed.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
(because of the late nature of receiving this information) to receive this as information only
tonight, and to discuss and make no decision until the meeting on June 5rn
Commissioner Foushee said that as she looked at this plan and the process they have
endured, this plan provides future transit options and tells the Board how to move forward with
transit in the future. She said that it is crucial to the region that the County is ready for the
growth to come. She thinks that Triangle Transit has done its due diligence. She suggested
doing this sooner rather than later.
Chair Pelissier said that there are things that need to be added to this plan but she said
that the information in the draft plan is not new to them and the cost sharing was approved by
Durham County last night.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Foushee and said that the County
Commissioners have endured this process. He sympathized with Commissioner McKee in that
this has not been a smooth process at all. He said that adjustments could be made. He is
ready to vote to defer the agreement and put it on the ballot.
Commissioner Gordon said that to delay making any decisions tonight is not something
they want to do. She said that the implementation agreement and the bus and rail plan are
new versions that the Board just received recently. In interest of transparency, the Board may
not wish to adopt the bus and rail plan since there are several changes that were made to the
document that was delivered to the Board last night.
Commissioner McKee said that this information came out yesterday at 5:30 p.m. and he
thinks that he would be doing a disservice to the citizens of Orange County if they do not
consider this fully.
VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee); Nays, 5
MOTION FAILED
Presentation by Triangle Transit:
Triangle Transit General Manager David King said that this started about five years
ago when Commissioner Gordon was Chair of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
Planning Organization. The DCHC MPO came up with a vision for Wake, Durham, and
Orange Counties. This vision is incorporated into the plan. He said that 95% of this
information was seen by the Board last year. The only changes are due to a one-year delay in
implementation and the financial adjustments that must be made.
The Orange County plan is a chapter of a three-county regional plan — Durham
County has approved its plan and Wake County is working on a draft. The plan contains
several elements — bus service provided by Chapel Hill Transit, Triangle Transit, and Orange
Public Transportation. The second element includes route enhancements on NC 86 in Chapel
Hill. This will make the buses move more smoothly. The third element is the local share of the
cost of the Hillsborough train station. This station is part of what the North Carolina
Department of Transportation Rail Division was planning to do. The ability to cover the 10%
local share is embedded in this plan. The fourth element is light rail, about three miles of it,
starting at UNC Hospital and proceeding east to the Dean Smith Center and then to NC 54 and
the Friday Center. There is an environmental study going on now to determine whether the
route will continue north through Meadowmont or further east along NC 54. This decision will
be made in the next year and a half.
The financial plan includes the '/�-cent sales tax. This '/2 cent does not apply to food,
medicine, gasoline, or utilities. This will only yield about $5.1 million a year.
Triangle Transit Attorney Wib Gulley went through the two agreements, the "do not
levy agreement" and the "cost sharing agreement." Regarding the Levy of Transit Sales Tax, it
says that this agreement does not indicate approval of the Board of County Commissioners of
the Orange County Transit Plan; it does not require the County Commissioners to schedule for
a referendum; but it does say that Triangle Transit will not levy the transit sales tax in Orange
County pursuant to Article 43 unless the Board of County Commissioners by Resolution
requests TTA to levy this tax. This is Attachment 4, page 41.
The Cost Sharing Agreement is on page 25 and is between Durham County, Orange
County, and Triangle Transit.
John Roberts said that this is the form that Durham County approved last night but is
not in the form the Board of County Commissioners discussed at its work session.
Wib Gulley reviewed the agreement points in the cost sharing agreement, which are
incorporated by reference. Orange County's part of the local share would be $316.2 million.
This reflects the percentages of 77.05% for Durham and 22.95% for Orange.
John Roberts made reference to page 26, sections 3 and 4, and said that this
document should incorporate all of the suggested changes in it with the exception of section 4.
Commissioner Gordon had asked for the fees to be specified. He said that Articles 50 and 51
in Chapter 105 specifically reference those fees and the authorization of those fees. Rather
than using House Bill 58 with the specific amounts, this section references Articles 50 and 51.
John Roberts made reference to section 3 and said that his previous email was
related to this. Durham County's Attorney, at the suggestion of its Manager, changed these
percentages to 76.05% and 23.95%, which is different.
Wib Gulley said that Durham County felt that the final proposal was to move $150,000
a year for the full life of the agreement, and changing the percentage would make this amount
more, and Durham did not agree to this.
John Roberts said that the percentages were negotiated by Commissioner Jacobs,
Chair Pelissier, Commissioner Yuhasz, and Durham County officials and staff.
Chair Pelissier said that the Board would finish hearing about the agreements, listen to
the public comment, and then consider the items one by one.
John Roberts said that the implementation agreement is an optional agreement and is
new. He said that he recommended for the County Commissioners to approve the cost
sharing plan subsequent to approving this agreement. He went through this agreement, which
is incorporated by reference. The funding sources include the '/�-cent sales tax, a new $7.00
vehicle registration fee, and a $3.00 increase in the existing vehicle registration fee.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Will Raymond said that this plan is still not firm enough to really move forward. He
said that they need to understand what is being provided for those dollars. There needs to be
a firm understanding of what the money will be used for. He is concerned that the public input
is not being considered in this plan. He said that the public continues to ask for an evaluation
of the 15/501 versus 54 alignments in terms of environmental and economic impacts. There
has been no deliberation by the Board on this issue. He suggested shifting the focus to buses
and making a commitment to save for the light rail in the future. He would like to have an
explanation of where the missing community input is. He said that the community turned out
for the meetings and gave lots of great comments, but he does not see them.
Bonnie Hauser echoed Will Raymond's comments. She said that she is disappointed
for the citizens because so few people understand this plan. She said that transit only works if
it is convenient, and this plan is not convenient.
Transit Plan
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Will Raymond's comments and said that the
County Commissioners did solicit comments from the public at the open houses and he asked
about the comments. It was answered that the County Commissioners were shown the
comments at a work session.
Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on the debt. In the packet dated May gtn
on page 22 it shows a debt of$19 million; and then on page 20 it says $28 million. He asked
for an explanation of the difference.
Patrick McDonough said that they needed to address the difference between Durham
County and Orange County and the operational costs and the minor disagreement. This has
to be addressed with cash balances. He said that $25 million borrowed in the early 2020's will
equal $19 million when the payments are taken into account until 2035. The County is
borrowing $25 million, but will make $19 million in debt payments between then and 2035.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the May 11 th handout, which says that a total
of$28 million will be borrowed. Patrick McDonough said that this is a typo. It should say $25
million. This is also on page 21.
Chair Pelissier asked for clarification on the typographical errors so that it is on the
record.
Patrick McDonough said that on page 21, $28 million will be corrected to $25 million.
To the extent that any other number in the document refers to borrowing $28 million, it will be
corrected to $25 million.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the May 11 th document under Financial Plan
Data, and the Hillsborough rail station of$9 million. He asked who was paying for this. Patrick
McDonough said that the contribution of Orange County is 10%. This is a permanent building
with platforms, etc.
Chair Pelissier asked that everyone look at the updated plan only from May 15th. She
said that on page 41 it shows the breakdown of financials.
Commissioner McKee said that the County Commissioners have discussed park and
rides to serve the rail stations. They also talked about expanded zones of opportunity for
people to be able to go to a park and ride and be able to access the light rail. He said that he
does not see this anywhere. There should be shuttle services from park and rides to the light
rail stations.
Patrick McDonough made reference to Appendix A and clarified where these
shuttles would be.
Commissioner McKee made reference to transit fares and asked how this would work.
Patrick McDonough said that Chapel Hill has made a policy decision to be fare free.
Commissioner McKee asked if fare free was sustainable. Patrick McDonough said
that the entities have tried fare free before and the reason it failed was because they put a flat
contribution and did not account for inflation
Commissioner McKee said that his intent is to insist that Orange County taxpayers are
not imposed upon.
Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on operation and maintenance costs on
page 11, where it states that the costs are $14.4 million. She said that it does not correspond
with the information on page 29, where the operation and maintenance costs add up to $13.3
million. Patrick McDonough said that this is probably a typo on the Durham County side.
Commissioner Gordon stated that on page 20, the initial proceeds for the local
revenue stream in 2012 were given as $770,000 for the $7 vehicle registration fee and
$330,000 for the $3 increase in the fee. However, on pages 21 and 22 the numbers given
were $580,000 and $250,000 respectively.
Commissioner McKee said that he is for expanding the bus service and that there are
ways to do this without the light rail. He thinks that it should be put on the 2045-2055
timeframe.
Discussion ensued about the $14.4 million for operating costs and if this was correct.
David King said that this is a 25-year look into the future and it turns on several
important assumptions — sales tax, federal budget, how fast the costs grow, etc. He cautioned
the Board to not get too caught up in the numbers.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 29 and information given in 2011
dollars. She said that, in 2011 the County Commissioners were talking about Orange County
paying for the Orange County portion and the part of Chapel Hill that was in Durham County
for a total of$330 million. Then there was negotiation and it was negotiated that Orange
County would pay $316.2 million. She asked for clarification of some of the numbers on page
29.
Patrick McDonough clarified these numbers.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Jacobs to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 23 and section VI showing the Orange
Financial Plan data. She said this information is difficult to understand because of the
differences between 2011 dollars and year of Year of Expenditure dollars. She asked
Triangle Transit to add clarifying information. She then referenced page 30 of Appendix A
which showed total plan revenues and costs. She said that the total plan costs on page 23,
which added up to $648 million, did not correspond to the total plan costs, which are given as
$659.9 million in Appendix A.
Commissioner Gordon asked what Durham County had affirmed and not affirmed in
their work session.
Wib Gulley said that Durham County accepted the $316.2 million for capital.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked who would be borrowing the money.
Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit would be the borrowing entity.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not understand why the $25 million keeps
showing up in the Orange County plan if it is not an Orange County debt. Wib Gulley said that
it is an effort to show how the plan works. He said that it could be rewritten to ensure that
Orange County is not signing up for any debt.
Chair Pelissier made reference to page 6 and said that there is no mention of cost
share for buses between Orange County and Durham County. She said that she received an
email from TTA that this was an oversight. She suggested adding in that all of the regional
bus lines are cost shared 50/50 between Orange County and Durham County. This needs to
be in the plan.
David King said that they have drafted some language for this and it will be at the end
of the first full paragraph on page 6: "costs and expenses for regional bus service for the
Durham and Orange County Regional Plan shall be shared on a 50/50 basis."
Chair Pelissier made reference to page 7, and "a portion of revenues identified will be
used to support existing bus service." To be consistent, she suggested saying "only those
revenues from the vehicle registration tax will be used to support existing bus service."
Chair Pelissier made reference to page 9 and bus capital investments. She said that
she would like to specify bus shelters in both rural and urban areas and not just urban areas.
Chair Pelissier made reference to page 8 and the first sentence, after the word
"appropriated", she would like to add, "at the outset."
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
delay a decision on these four items until the June 5t" meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving ahead in principle and asking that it come
back with the changes.
John Roberts said that a motion that was denied cannot be brought back at the same
meeting (he is referring to Commissioner McKee's motion to defer the vote tonight on the
transit plan).
Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Gordon said that she will have to vote against this tonight, in the
interest of transparency and getting the plan right. There are still errors.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve the transit plan in principle and have all staff to come back with
changes identified, if the Board of County Commissioners identify other changes to include
them, and to embrace the general principles and details of the transit plan.
Chair Pelissier said that she would send in her additional changes.
John Roberts said that once the financial plan is approved and there is a referendum
without an implementation agreement, the County Commissioners have no control over
anything. Approving in principle is still, in effect, an approval.
Wib Gulley said that the motion on the table could be approved and then the Board
could also approve the levy agreement which states that TTA will not levy the sales tax until
Orange County approves.
It was suggested to amend the motion to add "contingent on approval of an
implementation agreement between Triangle Transit and Orange County."
Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would vote against it because he does not agree
with the plan in principle, but he is in favor of the agreement occurring before any other action.
Commissioner Gordon said that she had more to say about changes to the bus and
rail plan. She will vote against the motion because everything needs to be transparent. She
does not feel this is the proper procedure because it is not transparent and there has not been
due diligence to make sure the plan is correct.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Yuhasz, Commissioner Gordon, and Commissioner
McKee)
Frank Clifton said that if the referendum is passed by the public, the revenues
collected go straight to TTA. The debt is issued by TTA and not Orange County.
Additional Comments from Commissioners in reference to this item were encouraged to be
submitted and would be included as part of these minutes:
Additional comments regarding minor modifications to the transit plan from Chair Pelissier:
* Regarding transit fares on Page 23, do we need to specify the
assumption regarding fare recovery for Hillsborough routes or is that considered to be the
same as the TTA farebox recovery rate?
* The section on the Implementation Agreement (page 23) needs to
be consistent with the fact that a draft agreement has already been
developed. The second sentence does not need to reference UNC, the
MPO, and the towns since the implementation agreement is between Orange County and TTA.
Rather, the plan should note that the implementation agreement spells out how all these
parties will work on various aspects of the implementation of the plan.
* On page 24 additional revisions to the implementation agreement :
On item b, delete reference to the MPO voting on changes to the plan.
The Intermodal Act does not require an MPO vote but a report to the MPO as outlined in item
a. On item d delete reference to MPO. The Implementation Agreement does not have the
MPO voting on modifications unless it is needed.
* Page 29. The assumptions mix total costs with Orange County costs. The cost for the
MLK BRT is the total cost but the Hillsborough train station is the local cost. It would be good
to make sure that costs always clearly identify for the reader total costs vs. local costs to avoid
confusion.
* Check that all numbers are consistent across the document
(Commissioner Gordon pointed out some of the inconsistencies). I noticed , for example, that
the cost of the MLK bus lanes are not the same on page 29 and 43.
* I would like to have a note about the percentage contingency assumed in the financial
model.
Comments from Commissioner Gordon: Part I
AI I,
As I stated at the BOCC regular meeting on May 15, I have additional questions and
comments concerning the "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County. " (BRI) I will
convey those comments and questions in two parts:
Part I.
A. Additional Appendix - There should be an appendix which shows the details of the cost
sharing agreement with Durham County. In the attachment, I have shown what I think should
be included for capital costs, giving the dollar amounts which I have obtained from
information previously presented to the BOCC. These charts need to
be completed and checked for accuracy. For operation and maintenance costs. I have just
stated that the information should be given in the same format as for the capital costs,
because I do not have those dollar amounts.
B. Page 6 - First five years following successful tax referendum It was suggested at the BOCC
meeting that the cost share for the regional bus lines should be shared 50-50 between Durham
and Orange.
Before that change is made, I would like an explanation of why that should be done and what
effect, if any, it would have on the BRI as it has been presented.
C. Page 7 - What is the meaning of the following statement:
Routes provided by Chapel Hill Transit, may or may not, be included in the Plan. What effect,
if any, does that have on the BRI as it has been presented?
D. What is the cost of an individual LRT station, and what is the total cost of all 17 stations in
the Plan?
Commissioner Gordon's comments — Part II
This email contains Part II of my comments on the "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan in
Orange County. " (BRI Plan)
A. Add an additional Appendix - Cost Sharing Agreement (revised comment) As I stated in my
Part I comments, there should be an appendix which shows the details of the cost sharing
agreement with Durham County.
Upon reflection, I decided I should send an outline of the Operations and Maintenance section
of this appendix, and so I have added that section at the bottom of the appendix that I sent
before. (See the attachment in this email)
B. Add an additional Appendix - Projected Sales Tax Revenues Please present the following
information in one or more charts.
For Orange County and for Durham County, give the dollar amounts for the projected sales tax
revenues for each year of the plan. Then for each year, show the total for both counties
combined, and the percent of the total that is projected to come from each county. (I believe
we have already seen such a chart, or something similar.)
C. Make the following changes in the BRI Plan
1. Different map
On page 18 use a different map that shows the county line and other geographic details so the
LRT alignment is clearly shown with respect to what is currently on the ground.
2. Dollar amounts for state and federal funding On pages 22 and 23, the dollar amounts for
state and federal funding should be stated clearly. Please give the amounts for the 25% state
match and 50% federal match for LRT, and also the amounts for other state and federal funds
that are included in the model. Note that the
$239 million in federal funds in paragraph F needs further explanation.
3. Orange financial plan data
On page 23, the amounts given should list all of the costs included in the model, and they
should be given in both 2011 dollars and YOE dollars. Doing that might help explain why the
costs listed on this page total $648 million while the total plan costs listed on page 30 total
$659.9 million.
4. Implementation agreement
On pages 23 and 24, the text should be changed as suggested by Chair Pelissier in her edits
to the transit plan, sent by email on May 17.
5. Federal New Starts funding process
On pages 24-26, state the dates for federal funding that are used in the model for each step of
federal funding.
6. Alternative plan
Either here on page 26 or elsewhere in the text of BRI Plan, describe the "local" plan
(previously known as the "core" plan) which explains what will happen if federal and state
funds are not obtained. The details of the plan that we have already received could be
included in an appendix.
7. Closing summary
On page 27, it is stated that the draft Plan has been shared with the general public, Carrboro
Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council, the Hillsborough Town Commissioners, the
DCHC MPO, the Burlington-Graham MPO and the Orange County Commission.
Please see that all of these entities receive the most recent version of the BRI Plan and that
they are told how and when they may provide their comments.
8. Appendix A - Total Plan Revenues and Costs Review the charts on page 30, and check all
of the information for accuracy and completeness. If all of the information is correct, please
explain why the third pie chart shows the local costs for Orange County to be 40.7 percent of
the total costs ($268.7 million divided by $659.9 million). Please give a clear statement
concerning how the revenues and costs in all three charts were calculated.
D. Eliminate all of the inconsistencies
In addition to the ones I identified at the May 15 meeting, and those identified by other
commissioners, here are some additional places which should be checked for inconsistencies.
1. Sales tax growth rate
On page 21 the rate is given as 1.5% (2011 through 2014) and on page
29 it is listed as 1.00% (to 2015).
2. Assumptions
Review the chart on page 29, and check all of the information for accuracy and completeness.
3. Length of the LRT alignment
Throughout the BRI Plan, the length of the LRT line is given as 17 miles (e.g. page 10), but it
is more than that. Is it 17.3 miles?
Whatever it is, the 17 miles should be changed to 17.3 or whatever is correct.
4. Initial costs and revenues
Throughout the BRI Plan, the initial costs/revenues are usually given in 2011 dollars, but
sometimes they are given in 2012 dollars. Why aren't 2012 dollars used? In any case, it
would be more consistent if the dollar amounts for the initial costs/revenues were stated using
just 2011 or 2012 dollars.
Levy Aqreement
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve the Orange County and Triangle Transit Levy of Transit Sales Tax.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
ORANGE COUNTY and TRIANGLE TRANSIT
LEVY OF TRANSIT SALES TAX
An INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated
between the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle
Transit ("TTA"), a three county regional transportation authority organized pursuant to NCGS
Chapter 160A et. seq., and Orange County ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of
North Carolina. TTA and the County may be collectively referred to (together the "Parties").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County and TTA, have determined that it is in the best interest of
Orange County citizens for them to coordinate the planning, construction and expansion of
public transit services in order to provide efficient and effectively linked transit services to the
residents of, the employees and employers in, and the visitors to the Orange County area; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that an efficient and effective transit system
is crucial, in concert with other transportation, land use, and economic development initiatives,
to maintain a high quality of life, appropriately to support future development, and to provide
transportation options to the current and future residents, employees and employers of the
Orange County area; and
WHEREAS, the Parties understand that new county-wide tax levies authorized by the
North Carolina General Assembly in NCGS Chapter 105, Article 43 ("Article 43") will be paid by
residents and businesses in all locations within the County; and
WHEREAS, these Article 43 tax levies should be invested to the highest degree
possible so that the return on investment accrues to Orange County's quality of life, tax base,
and retail sales proceeds, which can create long term financial sustainability for public transit;
and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority granted by NCGS
Chapter 160A, Article 20.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and assurances
contained herein, and the mutual benefits to result therefrom, the Parties agree as follows
1 1. That this Agreement does not indicate approval of the Orange County Bus and Rail
2 Investment Plan ("Orange BRI Plan") by the Orange County Board of County
3 Commissioners ("Orange BOCC").
4
5 2. That this Agreement does not require or bind the Orange BOCC to approve, set or
6 schedule a referendum for voter approval of a transit sales tax.
7
8 3. TTA agrees that it will not levy the transit sales tax in Orange County pursuant to Article
9 43 unless the Orange BOCC by Resolution requests TTA to levy this tax.
10
11 .
12 Cost Sharinq Aqreement
13 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the operational costs should be at the same
14 percentage as the capital costs.
15 Chair Pelissier said that if this is not approved, then the negotiations with Durham
16 must be started again.
17 (The three Commissioners who were involved in the negotiations with Durham County
18 were asked if they had specifically discussed the operations and maintenance costs with
19 Durham. They said they had not, since they had thought they were discussing both capital as
20 well as operation and maintenance costs.)
21 Commissioner Jacobs said that, based on the compromise Durham County made in
22 capital, Orange County still comes in ahead of where it started.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
25 Jacobs to approve the current Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for LRT Rail Project.
26 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee)
27
28 ORANGE COUNTY, DURHAM COUNTY and RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC
29 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
30 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
31 COST SHARING FOR LRT RAIL PROJECT
32
33
34 This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") dated , 2012 is entered into
35 by and between Orange County ("Orange"), a political subdivision of the State or North
36 Carolina, Durham County ("Durham"), a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and
37 Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle Transit ("TTA").
38 Durham, Orange, and TTA may be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as
39 "Parties". This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina
40 General Statutes.
41
42 Whereas, the Parties each desire to provide for the future transportation needs of
43 Durham and Orange, understanding that enhanced mobility options will support a high quality
44 of life, strengthen economic development, and enhance sustainability; and
45
46 Whereas, Durham and Orange mutually desire to support and share the costs for the
47 planning, construction, operation, and maintenance (collectively "Costs") of a 17.3 mile
48 passenger rail service running from Durham to Orange along a corridor as outlined in
49 Attachment One, containing 17 stations, four of which are located in Orange County, and
1 utilizing light rail vehicles (`LRT Project") as an important element in meeting their future
2 transportation needs and supporting efficient, sustainable development patterns; and
3
4 Whereas, the Parties acknowledge that the LRT Project will be managed, planned,
5 constructed, maintained and operated by the TTA according to each jurisdictions Bus and Rail
6 Investment Plans ("BRI Plans") as respectively adopted or subsequently modified by the
7 Parties, which plans, once adopted shall be incorporated herein by reference; and
8
9 Whereas, pursuant to NCGS §105-508.2 (Article 43) and Chapter 105 Articles 50 and
10 51, revenues will be collected by the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue
11 and distributed to TTA to fund public transportation in TTA's jurisdiction including the
12 construction, maintenance and operation of the LRT Project; and
13
14 Whereas, the Parties have bargained to agreement on an equitable division of
15 responsibility to pay for the Costs of the LRT Project.
16
17 Now therefore, in light of the mutual covenants contained herein and provided that the
18 LRT Project moves through planning and construction as set forth in the BRI Plans as may be
19 modified from time to time, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
20
21 1. The total capital cost for the LRT Project through 2035 is estimated to be $1.378
22 billion dollars as of the date of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement
23 capital costs include only planning and construction of the LRT Project ("Capital
24 Costs") which is estimated at 13 years and are a portion of the total Costs. Over the
25 coming years the Parties acknowledge that the LRT Project will move from
26 preliminary to final design, which will result in a more precise project description and
27 more accurate Capital Costs. As a result of this and as with any major capital
28 project planned and constructed over a number of years, the Parties understand
29 that the estimated Costs of the LRT Project may be subject to change and
30 adjustment.
31
32 2. Subject to Section 5 herein and based upon a total Capital Cost estimate of $1.378
33 billion for the LRT Project, it being anticipated the LRT project will be funded 50%
34 by the federal government and 25% by the state government, Durham's share
35 (including federal, state and local transit tax proceeds) of this total shall be $1.061.8
36 billion and Orange's share (including federal, state and local transit tax proceeds) of
37 this total shall be $316.2 million. This division of responsibility for Capital Costs
38 reflects percentage shares of 77.05% for Durham and 22.95% for Orange.
39
40 3. Subject to Section 5 herein, and due to the change in costs following planning and
41 construction, the Parties agree that the division of responsibility for operations and
42 maintenance costs of the LRT Project in percentage shares of 76.05% for Durham
43 and 23.95% for Orange.
44
45 4. The Parties agree that the funds used to pay for the Costs of the LRT Project shall
46 come from the '/2 cent transit sales tax revenues received pursuant to NCGS 105-
47 508.2 and other transit revenues which may be used for this purpose, including but
48 not limited to rental car taxes and vehicle registration fees levied and received
49 pursuant to Chapter 105 Articles 50 and 51 by TTA. TTA shall allocate and pay for
1 the respective shares of planning, construction, operations, and maintenance Costs
2 from the revenues received in accordance with this Agreement and the BRI Plans.
3
4 5. The Parties agree that should the revenues discussed in Section 4 generated in
5 Orange and Durham counties be insufficient to meet each jurisdiction's share of
6 Costs, then neither party shall be obligated to use other revenues to pay its share of
7 Costs.
8
9 6. In the event Capital Costs exceed the current estimated total of $1.378 billion, the
10 Parties agree to discuss a response to this situation. Such response may include
11 but not be limited to a schedule delay in one or more aspects of the LRT Project, a
12 reduction in the scope of the LRT Project, a combination of these measures,
13 discontinuation of the LRT Project, or other reasonable steps to mutually address
14 the increased Capital Costs of the LRT Project.
15
16 7. TTA shall provide an annual report on the collection, allocation, and expenditure of
17 those funds to the governing boards of Durham and Orange. TTA shall provide to
18 the governing boards of Durham and Orange copies of its annual audit reports as
19 those reports are related to the collection of transit revenues in Durham County and
20 Orange County, including funds collected pursuant to NCGS Chapter 105 Article
21 43.
22
23 8. Further, all of the Parties and any transit provider receiving funds pursuant to this
24 Agreement shall use the net proceeds to supplement and not to supplant or replace
25 existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems. The Parties
26 shall address this supplantation issue in each Party's Implementation Agreement.
27
28 9. The Parties agree that Durham and TTA shall enter into an agreement pursuant to
29 NCGS 105-508.1(2) ("Durham Implementation Agreement").
30
31 10. The Parties agree that Orange and TTA shall enter into an agreement pursuant to
32 NCGS 105-508.1(2) ("Orange Implementation Agreement").
33
34 11. If, during the term of this Agreement, state and/or federal funds to be used for the
35 LRT Project are cancelled, terminated, withdrawn, or otherwise become unavailable
36 for the LRT Project, the Parties agree the funds generated by the sales tax levied
37 pursuant to NCGS 105-509 and any other funds collected for the LRT Project shall
38 be re-allocated through the process set forth in each Party's Implementation
39 Agreement and the reallocation of funds shall be incorporated into the BRI Plans.
40
41 12. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first above recorded to and
42 including June 30, 2035. Upon its expiration the Agreement may be renewed upon
43 mutual agreement of the Parties for successive three-year terms.
44
45 13. The Parties agree to review this Agreement and to make any needed modifications
46 to its terms not more than once every three years.
47
48 14. The Agreement may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties or by one
49 or more of the Parties upon a material breach by any of the Parties. In the event of
50 termination prior to the expiration of the original term, or any agreed upon extension
1 thereto, the Parties shall determine what obligations remain and how to equitably
2 distribute such obligations as they relate to the LRT Project.
3
4 Any amendment, renewal, or termination of this Agreement must be in the form of a
5 written instrument approved by the governing Boards of the Parties.
6
7 15. This Agreement shall be governed by and in accordance with the laws of the State
8 of North Carolina. All actions relating in any way to this Agreement shall be brought
9 in the General Court of Justice in the County of Durham and the State of North
10 Carolina.
11
12 16. Except to the extent provided otherwise in this Agreement, it is agreed that the
13 Orange County Manager shall designate persons to carry out Orange County's
14 obligations under this Agreement, the Durham County Manager shall designate
15 persons to carry out Durham County's obligations under this Agreement, and the
16 General Manager of TTA shall designate persons to carry out TTA's obligations
17 under this Agreement.
18
19 17. Ownership of Improvement. All equipment acquired under this Interlocal Agreement
20 shall be the property of TTA or another entity under separate agreement and shall
21 be subject to disposition as required under applicable law.
22
1
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have approved this Agreement and have caused
3 it to be signed by the Chair of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, attested to
4 by the Clerk of the Orange County Board, and by the Chair of the Durham County Board of
5 County Commissioners, attested to by the Clerk of the Durham County Board, and by the
6 General Manager of TTA and it is effective as of the year and day first written above.
7
8
9 Implementation aqreement
10 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the second page about the advisory board.
11 She said that the Board needs to discuss the membership of this board. The proposed
12 board's membership shows one representative each from Chapel Hill Transit, Hillsborough,
13 and Mebane but this representation does not correspond with the relative distribution of
14 population in these geographic areas. Chapel Hill Transit would include both Chapel Hill and
15 Carrboro, and this area has the majority of the population in Orange County.
16 Commissioner Jacobs suggested putting the transit item first on the June 5th agenda.
17 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 8 on the BRI plan and said that she does not
18 think that five years is an appropriate timeframe.
19
20 8. Reports
21 NONE
22
23 9. County Manaqer's Report
24 NONE
25
26 10. County Attorney's Report
27 NONE
28
29 11. Appointments
30 a. Advisory Board on Aqinq —Appointment
31 The Board considered making an appointment to the Advisory Board on Aging .
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
33 to appoint Ms. Donna Prather to an At-Large position on the Advisory Board on Aging with a
34 term ending June 30, 2014.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 b. Affordable Housinq Advisory Board (AHAB)—Appointment
38 The Board considered making an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory
39 Board.
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
41 appoint Ms. Martha Hoyleman to the At-Large Position on the AHAB with a term ending June
42 30, 2015.
43 VOTE: UNAIMOUS
44
45 c. Aqricultural Preservation Board —Appointments
46 The Board considered making appointments to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
48 to appoint:
49
1 Ms. Renee McPherson —to the Cane Creek/Buckhorn Voluntary Ag District position.
2 Mr. Howard McAdams, Jr. to an At-Large Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
3 Mr. Joe Thompson to an At-Large Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
4
5 VOTE: UNANI MOUS
6
7 d. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointments
8 The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
10 appoint:
11
12 Ms. Aviva Scully to the Town of Chapel Hill position with a term ending June 30, 2015
13 Ms. Lori Lumpkin to the Non — Municipality position with a term ending June 30, 2015
14 Ms. Jean Merritt to the Animal Handler/Trainer position with a term ending June 30,
15 2013.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 e. Board of Health —Appointments
20 The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
22 to appoint:
23
24 Dr. Michael Carstens to the optometrist position with a term ending June 30, 2015
25 Mr. Corey Davis to the BOCC/Citizen position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
26 Mr. Tony Whitaker to the Engineer Position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 f. Chapel Hill Board of Adiustment—Appointments
31 The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said that this board and the Chapel Hill Planning Board need
33 some kind of orientation to the County's policies, etc. regarding planning.
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
35 appoint Dr. Timothy Peppers, Sr. to the JPA position with a term ending June 30, 2015; and
36 Ms. Jennifer Amter to the ETJ position with a term ending June 30, 2015.
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 g_ Chapel Hill Planninq Board —Appointment
40 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
42 appoint Deborah Fulghieri to the ETJ position on the Chapel Hill Planning Board with a term
43 ending June 30, 2015.
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 h. Oranqe County Alcoholic Beveraqe Control (ABC) Board —Appointments
47 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage
48 Control Board.
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
2 Hemminger to appoint Greg Jarvies to the At-Large position with a term ending June 30, 2015;
3 and Rosa Tilley to a second term ending June 30, 2015.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that in the letter sent from this board, there was
7 a notation about Keith Cook remaining as Chair.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
10 Hemminger that Keith Cook remain as Chair on the Orange County ABC Board.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 12. Board Comments
14 Commissioner Foushee — none
15 Commissioner Gordon — none
16 Commissioner Hemminger— none
17 Commissioner McKee — none
18 Commissioner Yuhasz—none
19 Commissioner Jacobs —none
20 Chair Pelissier—none
21
22 13. Information Items
23
24 • May 1, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
25 • Memo from Planning Department to BOCC Regarding NCDOT Eubanks Road
26 Realignment Options
27 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Special Advisory Committees
28
29 14. Closed Session
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
31 Hemminger to go into closed session at 11:12 PM for the purpose of:
32
33 Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
34 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board regarding the
35 cases of Orange County v. Eno River Parking Deck and Orange County v. Town of
36 Hillsborough."
37 and
38 143-318.11(a)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
39 businesses in the area served by the public body.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee
45 to reconvene into open session at 11:40 p.m.
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 15. Adiournment
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
2 adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
6
7 Donna S. Baker, CMC
8 Clerk to the Board