HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-08-2012 - 5a 1
1 DRAFT Attachment 1
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 September 6, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday,
10 September 6, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
14 Yuhasz
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey,
18 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
22 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
23
24 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda
25 The Chair reviewed the items at the County Commissioners' places.
26 - Yellow sheet had revisions to item 5-i —Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch &
27 Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Extension Project—
28 Phase 2. The revision was removing the $30,000 that was already allocated.
29 - Colored maps for item 6-a —Public Hearing for the Eno Economic Development
30 District (EDD) Area Land Use and Zoning Amendments.
31
32 Chief Financial Officer Clarence Grier introduced Nicole Clark, the new Orange County
33 Human Resources Director.
34
35 PUBLIC CHARGE
36
37 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
38
39 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
40 a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda
41 Don O'Leary said that his wife fled from Vietnam in 1994 with her family. They came
42 here on political asylum due to being persecuted by the Communists. She is highly intelligent
43 and he told her that what happened there would not happen here. He said that his backyard is
44 infiltrated with ICLEI and a pattern of Communist activity. He said that he is a lawful man of
45 peaceful means. He said that he would not want any harm to come to any of the County
46 Commissioners. He said that others do not share his philosophy.
47
48 b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda
49 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
50 below.)
2
1
2 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
3 NONE
4
5 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
6 a. "The Nature of Oranqe" Photoqraphy Contest
7 The Board recognized the winners and thanked all participants of"The Nature of
8 Orange" 2012 Photography Contest hosted by the Department of Environment, Agriculture,
9 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR).
10 DEAPR Director Dave Stancil introduced the three winners of the "The Nature of
11 Orange" 2012 Photography Contest in two categories —youth and adult, hosted by the
12 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. He showed slides of the
13 photographs. The photographs will be on tour at the Orange County Library, the Visitor's
14 Bureau, and the Link Government Services Center.
15
16 Winners:
17 Butterfly Blues — First Place Youth — Kirby Lau
18 My Home Road — Second Place Youth — Delaney Morley
19 My Paintbrush —Third Place Youth — Kirby Lau
20
21 Fews Ford — First Place Adult— Richard Robinson
22 Early Morn Swing — Second Place Adult— Lisa Tate
23 Yard Critter—Third Place Adult— Steve Cook
24
25 Chair Pelissier congratulated them all on behalf of the board.
26
27 5. Consent Aqenda
28 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
29 5-g
30
31 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
34 to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 a. Minutes
38 The Board approved the minutes from May 1, 24 and June 5, 12, 19, 2012 as submitted by
39 the Clerk to the Board.
40 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
41 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related
42 to 11 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with the
43 NCGS.
44 c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
45 The Board adopted a resolution to release property values, which is incorporated by
46 reference, related to seven (7) requests for property tax release and/or refund in
47 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
48 d. 2012 Property Tax Releases
3
1 The Board adopted a resolution to release property values, which is incorporated by
2 reference, related to thirty-nine (39) requests for property tax release in accordance with
3 North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
4 e. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
5 The Board approved one (1) untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
6 taxation for the 2012 tax year.
7 f. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2011-12
8 The Board received the tax collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent taxes,
9 approved the accounting thereof, and upon acceptance of the reports, issued the Order to
10 Collect for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and authorized the Chair to sign.
11 g_ Voluntary Aqricultural District Desiqnation — Parker Farm
12 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
13 consideration.
14 h. Provision of Services to Administer Oranqe Person Chatham Mental Health Excluded
15 Liabilities
16 The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement through which Orange County will
17 provide certain administrative functions for the dissolving entity known as Orange Person
18 Chatham Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Authority d/b/a
19 OPC Area Program ("OPC") and authorized the Chair to sign.
20 i. Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch &Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
21 Water and Sewer Extension Proiect— Phase 2
22 The Board approved the contract amendments and process budget amendments;
23 authorized the Chair to sign on behalf of Orange County; and authorized the Manager to
24 sign permit applications or other documents related to the permitting with bid results for
25 Buckhorn Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Project— Phase 2 to be brought to the BOCC for
26 approval in the Fall 2012 and other documents related to the design and permitting of
27 Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 Extension.
28 i Memorandum of Aqreement between the NC Sedimentation Control Commission and
29 Oranqe County
30 The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina
31 Sedimentation Control Commission and Orange County, North Carolina for the purpose of
32 clarifying roles in the enforcement of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, N.C.
33 General Statute Chapter 113A Article 4 and any rules adopted pursuant to the Act and
34 authorized the Chair to sign.
35 k. Approval of Expanded Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Map
36 The Board approved the Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Map which has been expanded
37 to include properties within six road miles of Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company Station
38 2.
39 I. Approval of Expanded Central Oranqe Fire Insurance District Map
40 The Board approved the Central Orange Fire Insurance District Map which has been
41 expanded to include properties within six road miles of Orange Rural Fire Department
42 Station 3.
43 m. Approval of Expanded East Alamance Fire Insurance District Map
44 The Board approved the expansion of the East Alamance Fire Insurance District.
45
46 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
47
48
49 g_ Voluntarv Aqricultural District Desiqnation — Parker Farm
4
1 The Board considered an application from the Parker family to certify 293 acres of the
2 Parker farm within the Caldwell voluntary agricultural district, and enroll the lands in the
3 Voluntary Agricultural District program.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said that he pulled this to recognize the family that entered into a
5 voluntary agricultural district and cared enough about conserving agriculture in Orange County.
6 The Parker family is putting 293 acres into the program and this pushes Orange County to over
7 3,000 acres that are in voluntary agriculture districts.
8 Dave Stancil said that the Parker family is present tonight.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
11 approve an application from the Parker family to certify 293 acres of the Parker farm within the
12 Caldwell voluntary agricultural district, and enroll the lands in the Voluntary Agricultural District
13 program.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 6. Public Hearinqs
17 a. Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Land Use and Zoninq
18 Amendments
19 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and
20 considered a decision on County-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Zoning
21 Atlas.
22 Chair Pelissier said that this public hearing is only open to receive the Planning Board
23 recommendation and written comments. She asked the County Attorney to explain why oral
24 comments are not being considered at this time.
25 John Roberts said that the reason this Board cannot hear oral comments at this meeting
26 is because the UDO requires both legislative and quasi-judicial hearings conducted during the
27 QPH and reconvene the public hearings for the purpose of receivinq the Planninq Board's
28 recommendation and to receive anv written comments. He has previously verbally informed the
29 BOCC that in his opinion, once the public hearing is adjourned for that purpose further oral
30 testimony/comment should not be accepted at the reconvened public hearing and once the
31 original hearing takes place, it is referred to the Planning Board.
32 By ordinance the County Commissioners cannot receive any more oral comments and
33 secondly, important legal reason to avoid accepting further oral testimony/comment once a
34 motion is made and passed wherein the sole stated purpose of adjourning and reconvening the
35 public hearing is to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and to receive written
36 comments. If an individual attends the QPH and offers testimony or comments but does not
37 attend the reconvened hearing because the individual reasonably expects no further oral
38 testimony/comment will be accepted and oral testimony/comment is then accepted to which the
39 individual cannot respond, that individual may then have grounds to appeal whatever decision
40 or policy the BOCC enters.
41 Chair Pelissier said that although people have signed up to speak, some have sent
42 written comments already.
43
44 Written comments are shown below:
45
46
47 From: Chris Kelsey Imailto:kelsey chris(a7hotmail.com�
48 Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:30 PM
49 To: Craig Benedict; Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger (External); Valerie Foushee; Alice
5
1 Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz
2 Subject: BOCC Agenda Item- Eno Economic Development District
3
4 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
5 As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, I would implore you NOT to accept
6 the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be
7 discussed tomorrow night.
8 You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural
9 residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our
10 neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification AND Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based
11 on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still
12 desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a
13 number of non-residential entities. This would negatively impact our neighborhood in many
14 ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc).
15 Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create
16 conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban
17 growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent.
18 I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should
19 either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this
20 economic development district.
21 Sincerely,
22 Chris Kelsey
23 208 Weldon Ridge Court
24 Durham, NC 27705
25
26
27 Letter from Phillip Gunter:
28
29 Dear Commissioner Pelissier:
30
31 Thank you for your service to the citizens of Orange County. As I have noted in previous
32 letters, because of the diversity of land use and interests among your constituents, your job
33 must often be a daunting task.
34
35 Regarding the rezoning issue in the Eno District, I remain concerned about the proposed
36 changes. I attended the last meeting of the Planning Board (August 1, 2012). The revised
37 proposal was approved, but not unanimously. Two board members in attendance voted against
38 the proposal. They asked some good questions. At that meeting, I heard no good answers to
39 those questions and concerns.
40
41 My original concerns that I expressed to you in my letters of February 19, 2012; May 11, 2012;
42 and May 21, 2012 remain: 1) storm water runoff; 2) noise pollution; and 3) air pollution. Since
43 then, a letter written to you by Dr. Jon Arvik addressed in detail the well-defined and
44 scientifically documented health dangers and risks caused by open-air grinding, crushing, and
45 shredding of trash and construction debris. This activity is already "permitted" by Orange
46 County on Mount Hermon Church road.
47
48 My first two concerns, storm water runoff and noise pollution, still exist, but for the time being
49 are dwarfed by the obvious immediate health-threatening particulate pollution of the air we
50 breathe. We can filter the water we drink. We can wear noise suppressing ear plugs; however,
6
1 we must breathe the air. Since the onset of open-air grinding, crushing and shredding on Mt.
2 Hermon Church Road, my daughter has been diagnosed with asthma. She has been
3 prescribed a medication for that serious condition.
4
5 To protect the health of the citizens of Orange County, your help is requested in two ways:
6 1. Issue no more permits for businesses that might add to the particulate air pollution
7 problem. This includes already existing business that might wish to expand.
8 2. Seek ways to cause existing business to take all necessary steps to eliminate any
9 sources of particulate air pollution that existing in their business operations.
10
11 To do anything less is to further endorse what has already been permitted and will likely
12 encourage and attract to the Eno District other businesses which may create additional air
13 pollution.
14
15 I feel certain that most Orange County citizens would agree that subordinating the protection of
16 the health and welfare of citizens and the protection of the environment to the desires for
17 economic development and attempting to increase the tax base is always a mistake.
18
19 At the August 1, 2012 meeting of the Planning Board, in response to Dr. Arvik's letter, Mr. Craig
20 Benedict, Director of Planning Department, reported that his department is beginning a process
21 to evaluate the particulate air pollution problems in the Eno District. Because this is a matter of
22 public health, I request that you urge him and his staff to expedite this process and to cease
23 issuing permits to businesses whose activities might further deteriorate the quality of the air we
24 breathe.
25
26 Thank you for your careful consideration of the proposals before you. I encourage you to delay
27 consideration of this rezoning proposal until adequate air pollution monitoring and control
28 procedures are in place.
29
30 Sincerely,
31
32 C. Phillip Gunter
33 4411 Hwy 70 E
34 P. O. Box 507
35 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
36
37 Cc: Commission for the Environment
38 Planning Board
39 Planning Department
40 County Manager
41
42
43 From: Sarah Glass �mailto:sarahmqlass(a7qmail.coml
44 Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 2:54 PM
45 To: Bernadette Pelissier
46 Subject: Re: Opposition of Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals
47
48
49 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
50
7
1 My name is Sarah Glass and my husband and I live in Weldon Ridge neighborhood along old
2 NC 10. As you may recall we both spoke in opposition to the EDD plan at the last BOCC
3 meeting (I'm the pregnant one). Unfortunately we are personally unable to attend the meeting
4 tomorrow night, but would like to express our continued opposition to the current Eno Economic
5 Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed at that time.
6
7 You heard significant opposition to ANY changes to the current land use classification and
8 zoning of the area along Old NC10 at the last meeting. The current Land Use Classification
9 AND Zoning is "Rural Residential".
10
11 Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning,
12 but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which
13 allows a number of non-residential entities. Although we appreciate the planning board's
14 attention to the public opinion as represented by maintaining the rural residential zoning, we
15 also think the land use classification should STAY as RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Any change
16 otherwise would negatively impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on
17 two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc).
18
19 Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create
20 conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban
21 growth plan.
22
23 Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent.
24
25 *As one of you mentioned at the last meeting, NO PROPOSAL regarding zoning and land use
26 has been passed without the approval of the residents that are affected.* Clearly the residents
27 do NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION. I urge you to oppose this
28 proposal- and that the land use classification should either *remain residential or the region
29 around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. *
30
31
32 Sincerely,
33
34 Sarah and Oliver Glass
35
36 From: Jennifer Sharpe
37 Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 5:08 PM
38 To: Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger (External); Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon
39 (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz
40 Subject: zoning of Old NC 10
41
42 Dear County Commissioners:
43
44 My name is Jennifer Sharpe and I live on Old NC 10 Hwy. I have been to all the meetings
45 having to do with the zoning of land on Old NC and will be attending on 9/6 to again strongly
46 protest any land along Old NC 10 being zoned anything but "Rural Residential".
47
48 I was troubled by an email sent by our unofficial "organizer", Chris Kelsey, reminding us of the
49 date of the next meeting. He indicated that the Planning Department was retaining rural
8
1 residential zoning, but still wants to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to
2 EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities.
3
4 I research land use classification and zoning and the difference between the two.
5
6 I found that a Land Use Map is a graphic representation of physical uses of land. These land
7 use maps are highly visible within most community plans, often showing both current land use
8 and plans for future land use. Land Use Maps identify land uses by category. These typically
9 include Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Natural Areas, Agricultural, and Civic uses. Land
10 Use maps can be either very broad or very detailed depending on the context or reasoning
11 behind creating the map. The land use map is an important tool for identifying existing
12 conditions and for working toward a vision for the community.
13
14 On the other hand, a Zoning Map is a graphic depiction of the boundaries for which a certain
15 set of standards or regulations have been adopted by a governmental entity. The zoning map
16 typically provides predictability for the residents and development community as to what type of
17 land uses may be expected and allowed within each zone district. Land is divided into zone
18 districts from the zoning code which describes the intent and regulations of each particular zone
19 category. A typical zone district will set forth regulations for permitted land uses, building height,
20 density, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc.
21
22 So, to summarize, a Future Land Use Map generally reflects the pattern of development that
23 the community desires to see in specific areas, whereas the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map
24 establish the actual use of land including the density, intensity, height, and form of
25 development.
26
27 I also found out that if a property owner wants to develop or use their property in ways that do
28 not conform to their current zoning regulation, they must apply for a change in their zoning
29 classification, also referred to as a rezoning. Zoning regulations, and the rezoning process, are
30 often a key part of implementing area plans.
31
32 All this research led me to one scary conclusion: that if you all approve the land use
33 classification to be changed to EDE-1, you are making a decision that would go against the
34 vision and desires of the community regarding future land use. Furthermore, you are making it
35 that much easier for an individual land owner who may want to have their land rezoned in the
36 future to suit their own needs without regard to the vision and desires of the community. The
37 rezoning is more likely to be approved if the land use is already classified non-residential.
38
39 Finally, this is what Wikipedia says about Land Use:
40
41 "The major effect of land use on land cover since 1750 has been deforestation of temperate
42 regions. More recent significant effects of land use include urban sprawl, soil erosion, soil
43 degradation, salinization, and desertification. Land-use change, together with use of fossil
44 fuels, are the major sources of carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas. According to a
45 report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, land degradation has been
46 exacerbated where there has been an absence of any land use planning, or of its orderly
47 execution, or the existence of financial or legal incentives that have led to the wrong land use
48 decisions, or one-sided central planning leading to over-utilization of the land resources - for
49 instance for immediate production at all costs." Sound familiar?
50
9
1 "As a consequence the result has often been misery for large segments of the local population
2 and destruction of valuable ecosystems. Such narrow approaches should be replaced by a
3 technique for the planning and management of land resources that is integrated and holistic
4 and where land users are central. This will ensure the long-term quality of the land for human
5 use, the prevention or resolution of social conflicts related to land use, and the conservation of
6 ecosystems of high biodiversity value."
7
8 That's how it should be done. Like my neighbor Barbara said in her earlier letter to you:
9 Sustainability is sometimes better than growth. I think she speaks for everyone who lives on
10 Old NC 10 Hwy and it's surrounding community.
11
12 Sincerely,
13
14 Jennifer Sharpe, MSW, LCSW
15
16 Orange County Health Department
17
18
19
20 From: Tonya Lamm �mailto:tonva.lamm(a7qmail.coml
21 Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 8:49 PM
22 To: Bernadette Pelissier
23 Subject: Dont EDE-1 old NC-10
24
25 The land use classification around Old NC-10 should be removed from the economic
26 development district, and not be classified EDE-1.
27
28 Old NC-10 is a beautiful rural residential road. The current Land Use Classification*AND
29 *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to
30 retain its rural residential zoning, but desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural
31 residential to EDE-1, which allows for non-residential entities. This would *negatively *impact
32 our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses,
33 depress home values, etc).
34
35 Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create
36 conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban
37 growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.*
38 *
39 *
40 I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should
41 either remain residential or the region around Old
42 NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district.
43
44 Sincerely,
45
46 Tonya Lamm
47 6408 Mt Hermon Church Road
48 Durham
49
50 From: Marjorie Scheer �mailto:mariorie.scheer(a7qmail.coml
10
1 Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 9:18 PM
2 To: Bernadette Pelissier; Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee;
3 Steve Yuhasz; Pam Hemminger (External)
4 Subject: Maintain our rural neighborhood please!
5
6 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
7
8 As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, I would implore you *NOT* to accept
9 the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be
10 discussed tomorrow night.
11
12 You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural
13 residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our
14 neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification *AND *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based
15 on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still
16 desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a
17 number of non-residential entities.
18 This would *negatively *impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane
19 road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc).
20
21 Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create
22 conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban
23 growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.*
24 *
25 *
26 We would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification
27 should either remain residential or the region around Old
28 NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district.
29
30 Thank you for reading this.
31 Most sincerely,
32
33 Marjorie Scheer and Maximino Vargas
34 3726Jackson Road
35 Durham, NC 27705
36
37
38
39 Planning Director Craig Benedict presented this item. These amendments have been
40 on the public hearing in February and May. These amendments are related to the area in the
41 County near the intersection of I-85 and US 70 along the eastern border of Orange County next
42 to the City of Durham and Durham County. He showed this area on a map. He said that this
43 section of the County has some potential for growth. He said that 84% of the total County is
44 intended for low-density and agricultural use. This area is designated for focused growth with
45 an urban intensity.
46 The land use amendments include three areas: Area I is Whisper Pines development
47 as a residential node, Area II is an economic development category (low-intensity business or
48 residential), and Area III will go from rural-residential to economic development. There is no
49 rezoning recommended to an EDD II category except for the right-of-way by I-85. They are
50 suggesting leaving the zoning in place by the Whisper Pines development. There is a change
11
1 from the original land use and zoning submittals based on community input. The entire zoning
2 of the land south of the railroad tracks and north of Old NC 10 is being deleted. The zoning of
3 the mobile home park is also being deleted and the mobile home park is being left as is.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
5 to receive the Planning Board recommendation and close the public hearing.
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 67 and the minutes from the last public
9 hearing where the County Commissioners asked for more information. He said that he does
10 not see this information in the packet. One of the items is more information regarding the City
11 of Durham's Urban Growth Boundary where it goes into Orange County.
12 Craig Benedict said that there are links to the small area plan on the website.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner McKee also asked about links to railroad
14 crossings so that the Planning Board could see them and also the public.
15 Craig Benedict said that he believes there are links to these. He apologized if they were
16 not there.
17 Commissioner Gordon said that some areas are changed for land use regulations but
18 not for zoning and she questioned that.
19 Craig Benedict said that the land use changes just involve area 2 and 3 and the
20 resolutions refer to those areas. The first one is from a commercial node. The second one is a
21 land use change of 130 acres from commercial node to economic development. The third area
22 is 181 acres. These are noted on pages 74 and 75.
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
24 to approve the Resolution Amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as
25 contained within Attachment 14 (pages 74-77).
26
27 Commissioner Jacobs said that this is inconsistent with Commissioner Gordon's
28 comments.
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
30 amend Commissioner Yuhasz's motion to delete the area south of the railroad and north of NC
31 10, which is 95.72 acres.
32 A question was raised concerning which motion should be voted on first.
33 John Roberts said that this is not a friendly amendment. The motion to amend the first
34 motion takes precedence.
35 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Planning Board has reviewed this and the County
36 Commissioners originally suggested trying to conform the economic development district to the
37 Durham Urban Services Boundary as much as possible. He thinks that the Planning Board
38 recommendation is consistent with what the County Commissioners asked it to do.
39 Commissioner McKee concurred with Commissioner Yuhasz.
40 Commissioner Gordon said that the reason she made the motion is that the County
41 needs to plan this area as it wants it to be used. She said that the land use should not be
42 changed.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Eno EDD was done in a collaborative nature with
44 the citizens over a period of time. He said that public hearings are not a good way to have
45 communication with the public because there is no great interchange. He wants to make sure
46 that the public feels like they have had an adequate say. It has been pretty clear from the
47 comments that people are not comfortable with this. He is in favor of the amendment to the
48 motion.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz said that Orange County is about to make a substantial
50 investment on behalf of all citizens in Orange County in engineering water and sewer into this
12
1 economic development district. Without an appropriate land use plan in place, the decisions
2 made with regard to how to install this infrastructure will be constraining as a result of an
3 inadequate land use plan.
4 Chair Pelissier called the question.
5 Vote on motion to amend:
6 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs); Nays, 5
7 MOTION FAILED
8
9 Vote on original motion:
10 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
11
12 Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks that there is no hurry for this, but once again,
13 this Board has hurried to a decision and he thinks the people that live in this area will regret
14 this.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to respect the citizens'
16 wishes.
17 Commissioner Foushee said that the system is what it is and she does take exception
18 that this Board rushed to a decision. She said that the County spent a large amount of time
19 with this plan. She said that the County Commissioners make decisions with the thinking in
20 mind that is best for Orange County.
21 Chair Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Foushee's comments and said that she
22 understands when there are concerns when the County does land use changes.
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
24 approve the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within
25 Attachment 15 (page 78):
26 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
29 to approve the Resolution Concerning Statement Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive
30 Plan as contained within Attachment 17 (page 82).
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 7. Reqular Aqenda
34
35 a. Review of the Interim Report from the Historic Roqers Road Neiqhborhood
36 Task Force
37 The Board reviewed the Interim Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
38 Task Force dated August 22, 2012.
39 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert reviewed this item. The task force has been
40 meeting since April and will be back to the Board at the Assembly of Governments meeting in
41 December for a full and final report. The only immediate impact is that the Board of County
42 Commissioners in the FY 2011-12 appropriated $120,000 for a reserve for the Rogers Road
43 community.
44 The report is shown below. The major sections are Introduction, Sewer Service,
45 Neighborhood Community Center, and Potential Next Steps. The maps and appendices
46 reference in the report can be found in permanent agenda files in the Clerk to the Board's office
47 as well as part of the agenda abstract on the county website: www.oranqecountv.nc.qov
48
49
50
13
1 INTRODUCTION
2
3 In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill operated by
4 the Town of Chapel Hill. Orange County assumed operational control of the landfill as the result
5 of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough)
6 and the County. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with this landfill for 40 years.
7 Over many years, residents representing the Rogers Road area have voiced concerns about
8 various operational elements associated with the landfill and the impact on the Rogers Road
9 Neighborhood. The Neighborhood is geographically split by the Town of Chapel Hill Joint
10 Planning Transition Area and Town of Carrboro. Orange County, as the current owner/operator
11 of the landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road
12 Community.
13
14 A number of local government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in
15 the Rogers Road Community and they are as follows:
16
17 1. The Solid Waste Fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange
18 Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area.
19 2. Solid Waste installed gas flares to reduce odors.
20 3. The Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road.
21 4. Orange County initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells
22 remaining in the adjoining neighborhoods.
23 5. The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the appropriation of$750,000
24 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance in the Fiscal 2011/12 Annual Budget to establish
25 a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund and established a $5.00 tipping fee
26 surcharge per ton as long as the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road
27 Remediation Reserve Fund. The surcharge generated $216,462 for Fiscal 2011/12
28 and is estimated to create $222,500 for Fiscal 2012/13, which will bring the total
29 amount available for the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund to $1,188,962.
30 6. A partnership with Orange County and the University of North Carolina created a Landfill
31 Gas to Energy Project that commenced operation on January 6, 2012 and will have
32 an immediate and noticeable impact on the odor created by the operation of the
33 landfill. The project will further provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC,
34 reducing dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon
35 emissions.
36 7. On October 4, 2011 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorized
37 staff to proceed with a "one-time" effort to clean-up illegal dump sites within three-
38 fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary, at no cost to the individual property
39 owners.
40
41 At the January 26, 2012 Assembly of Governments meeting, the Orange County Board of
42 Commissioners and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service and a
43 community center for the Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys have
44 concluded that use of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Rogers Road
45 Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and would subject the local
46 governments to legal challenges. Funding for a community center does not have a relationship
47 to Solid Waste and could not be funded from Solid Waste reserves. Therefore, funding for
48 either the extension of sewer services and/or a community center will have to come from the
49 County's and Towns' other general revenue sources. There was also significant discussion on
50 January 26 regarding the creation of a task force to address the issues.
14
1
2 On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the Creation of a
3 new Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to address sewer service and a
4 community center. The composition of the Task Force was to include two members appointed
5 by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two
6 members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA).
7
8 Appointed Task Force Members:
9
10 David Caldwell: RENA
11 Robert Campbell: RENA
12 Valerie Foushee: Orange County
13 Pam Hemminger: Orange County
14 Michelle Johnson: Carrboro
15 Sammy Slade:Carrboro
16 Penny Rich: Chapel Hill
17 James Ward: Chapel Hill
18
19
20 Charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force:
21 The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make
22 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the
23 Carrboro Board of Aldermen for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and the
24 financial impact to the County & Towns, for the following:
25
26 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously
27 approved public water connections in the area.
28
29 2. A Neighborhood Community Center.
30
31
32 The Task force is also directed to:
33 a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of
34 August, 2012 and;
35
36 b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012.
37 Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 21, 2012
38
39 Boundaries of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood:
40 The Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force approved that the Neighborhood be
41 defined as the area identified by the September, 2011 map identifying available water service
42 and approved for water service improvements by the Orange County Board of Commissioners
43 on October 4, 2011.
44
45
46 SEWER SERVICE
47
48 The first charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate the
49 possibility of providing sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by
50 the previously approved public water connections in the area.
15
1
2 Assessment of Septic System Service in the Rogers Road Neighborhood:
3 The County completed a survey of the Rogers Road Neighborhood in February, 2010. The
4 Orange County Health Department, along with RENA, the UNC School of Public Health, and
5 Engineers Without Borders, participated in a survey of wells and septic systems. There were
6 forty-five (45) septic systems included in the survey, and twelve (12) were failing at that time. Of
7 the twelve malfunctioning septic systems, seven (7) were further classified as maintenance-
8 related failures, while five (5) were found to be end-of-life failures. Further investigation
9 revealed that for the five end-of-life failures, there was no suitable soil for an on-site repair.
10 The Environmental Health Department revisited the five properties and discovered that two of
11 the properties are vacant, two are seasonal failures, and one has had patchwork done on it, but
12 not a long-term solution. All of the five septic systems identified would benefit from the
13 installation of a public sewer system.
14 In 2011, Orange County received $75,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
15 funds for the infrastructure hookups in the Rogers Road Neighborhood. In order to receive
16 connection, the homes had to be close enough to an existing water and/or sewer line so that no
17 extension of service lines would be required for connection. Additionally, homeowners had to
18 meet certain income eligibility requirements. There have been five homes connected to Orange
19 Water and Sewer Authority) OWASA sewer as a result of this grant.
20
21
22 OWASA Sewer Concept Plan:
23 OWASA is the water & sewer utility for the area and as such, it investigated the concept of
24 providing sewer service as part of the Town of Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan. On
25 February 8, 2011 OWASA provided an updated concept plan and cost estimate for the Rogers
26 Road Small Area Plan Study Area for $3.4 million. This early concept plan was completed
27 based on the Chapel Hill Small Area Plan which is a geographically different area than the
28 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood sewer concept. There is also some difference in routing
29 some of the main outfalls. In the current estimate, OWASA needed to avoid the area of
30 contamination coming out from the Carrboro section that required more line with deeper
31 excavation. Most importantly, in the earlier estimates the availabilities fees were not included or
32 the cost of extending a lateral from the main line to the property
33 On May 16, 2012 OWASA staff provided a concept plan, layout, and cost estimate for providing
34 sewer service to the area that was delineated by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
35 Force at the April 30, 2012 meeting. The concept plan is the most efficient way to serve the
36 defined Rogers Road Neighborhood and does not consider adjoining neighborhoods. All the
37 green areas show where sewer service is already available. The dark green areas are parcels
38 that have connected to the OWASA service. The light green areas have not connected. The
39 86 parcels in yellow are the properties that would be served by the conceptual sewer layout.
40 The concept map also breaks down the sewer service into 8 sub-areas with the number of
41 parcels served and cost per parcel. The 8 red lines represent the possible sub-areas of the
42 sewer infrastructure that could be considered, if the entire concept project is not feasible. The
43 sewer infrastructure routing was estimated based on the topography taken from maps rather
44 than from any field work. In order to get to a greater level of detail or certainty on the cost,
45 some field work would be required. There are two brown areas on the map that the County has
46 identified as some subsurface disposal or some suspected contamination. Without any further
47 investigation, the sewer line has been routed no closer than 100 feet of that margin.
48
49 The total construction and installation cost for the concept level sewer is approximately $5.8
50 million. It would serve 86 additional parcels of land. The concept costs include construction,
16
1 engineering design, administrative and contingency for possible rock. The topography of the
2 neighborhood is complex and the land falls in several different directions. This concept plan
3 does not include the costs of any property acquisitions or easement acquisitions. The
4 availability hookup charge for each of the parcels is based on an assumed average house size
5 of 2,500 square feet. When a customer connects to the OWASA water and sewer system,
6 there is a one-time fee that is estimated to be $4,300 for the concept plan.
7
8 Cost estimate Summarv:
En ineerin , Desi n and Permittin 376,350
Construction Cost 3,763,506
Construction Administration 188,175
Construction Inspection 188,175
20% Contingency 903,241
Sub Total 5,419,447
Service Availabilit Fees 368,768
Total 5,788,215
9
10
11 The concept does not include the cost to actually connect individual homes to the sewer
12 system. Those costs will vary on the configuration of the lot and the distance from the house to
13 the main sewer line. Those costs are typically the costs of the homeowner and are estimated to
14 be about $20/foot. The connections to an individual house would be provided by a private
15 plumbing contractor.
16 The next step to move the concept plan forward would be to begin the preliminary engineering
17 and design work. Engineers would be hired to take this concept, go out in the field and start the
18 process of data collection and defining the details of the concept. OWASA has estimated the
19 preliminary engineering costs would be $376,350. That is a rough estimate based on what is
20 known of the area so far. A completed preliminary engineering and design will be necessary to
21 complete a Community Development Block Grant application.
22
23 Sewer Recommendations:
24
25 The Task Force has discussed all or part of the proposed $5.8 million dollar sewer concept
26 plan, but has not yet recommended moving forward with this concept plan, pending an
27 agreement on a cost sharing plan for sewer improvements.
28
29
30 Grant Opportunities for Sewer Infrastructure:
31
32 The Task Force explored several grant opportunities to fund the sewer improvement for the
33 Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Task Force was furnished a list of possible grant
34 opportunities from RENA including the following:
35
36 Community Development Block Grants
37 Department of Health and Human Services
38 Department of Housing and Urban Development
39 Environmental Protection Agency
17
1 Federal Highway Funds
2 Clean Water Trust Fund
3 Bernard Allen Fund
4
5 These are mostly federal grant opportunities which are administered through the State. After
6 reviewing all of the grant opportunities the Task Force was able to identify only two possible
7 grants to fund sewer infrastructure, a Community Development Block Grant or a Clean Water
8 Trust Fund Grant.
9
10 Lastly they contacted Congressman Price's office, and those federal grants are no longer
11 available.
12
13 Michael Talbert said that there is no grant money that the County would qualify for at this time.
14
15
16 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CENTER:
17
18 The second assignment of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate
19 the possibility of providing a Neighborhood Community Center to the Historic Rogers Road
20 Neighborhood.
21
22 Hogan-Rogers House:
23 The Preservation Society of Chapel Hill compiled a report on the historic Hogan-Rogers House
24 as a potential Neighborhood Community Center for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood,
25
26 The St. Paul A.M.E. Church has purchased the Hogan-Rogers House and property surrounding
27 it in order to build a new church complex on the site. Plans call for removal and/or demolition of
28 this historic house as early as 2013. The Preservation Society began working with the Rogers-
29 Eubanks Neighborhood Association, St. Paul Church, and Habitat for Humanity to relocate and
30 restore this home that holds over 170 years of history for Chapel Hill's white and black
31 community. Currently, the house is listed on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
32 survey conducted in 1999.
33
34 Habitat for Humanity has graciously indicated its support by donating two lots to relocate the
35 home. The historic home would have to renovated and used as a center for neighborhood
36 programs and activities. Habitat's support for the home's relocation and restoration is
37 contingent on a commitment of funding allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood to
38 complete the project.
39
40 Blake Moving Company, Inc. presented an estimate of $740,499 see Estimated presented to
41 Rogers Road Task Force below, for the relocation of the Hogan-Rogers home to Purefoy
42 Drive. Habitat has determined that the first two lots in the Phoenix Place subdivision, which are
43 at the corner of Purefoy Drive and Edgar Street, would be the best location for the relocation of
44 the structure. Blake presented examples of historical structures that the company has
45 successfully moved.
46
47 Blake's assessment of the historic home is that structure is sound, some repairs need to be
48 made after it is moved, and there will not be any issues with the relocation of the home. An
49 architect/engineer will have to be engaged to design the foundation of the relocated structure
50 and remodeling of the interior of the home.
18
1
2 St. Paul A.M.E. Church is completing the permitting and compliance phase of the project and
3 anticipates getting through that process by late fall. The Church will go through the bidding
4 process to select a site work contractor probably in late August/early September. The site work
5 would start the latter part of the year depending on the weather. The phasing for building and
6 construction for the buildings will not start until the first of the next year at the earliest.
7
8 The Church will work with the Rogers Road Neighborhood to relocate the Hogan- Rogers
9 House. Gloria Shealy, Project Manager has requested a timeline to relocate to the adjacent
10 site. Because the Church is anxious to begin construction as soon as possible, time is of the
11 essence to relocate the Hogan-Rogers House.
12
13 Construction of a New Facility:
14 If it is not feasible or practicable to move and restore the Hogan-Rogers House, the Historic
15 Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is investigating the possibility of constructing a new
16 Community Center on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will support the
17 construction of a new facility if the facility is used as a center for neighborhood programs and
18 activities. The donated site could support a facility of up to 3,000 Sq. Ft. with an estimated
19 budget of $500,000. Habitat's support for the community center will be contingent on a
20 commitment of funding allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood to complete the project.
21
22 A proposed community center must meet NC State Building Code and obtain a Building
23 Permit. The Town of Chapel Hill advises consulting an architect/design professional on the cost
24 and specific code requirements. In addition, the site layout must receive zoning approval and
25 meet the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance requirements regarding site layout and
26 process.
27
19
l��tir�at��ar�s�i�t�c�tcr�c��c�:s I�o�t1"I"�a�k k�arcc c�ta()�14bCa112
�l;akc�vC�vin�C:eroz�wpa�y,.]'n�.szrb�rsias the ia�l�wwan�es�a¢nr���lfaa'the ttelcrcaCivza taf tkae�'�r���n-�c�gers&��m�aw
t�n f'u��9i�y I?rdve.1 h�w estizxu�ce ai,sca'aa�cpudes�xR�pcepa ftycrotua�„1an�r�d�tfl�ras,r��rers�9�e➢in��c�sts aa�ci
as�d�lia>�a�.
3.'l��lbc��ti�an-Tn�laa2le��s w➢d��i��wa�k t+s pr�p�a��he d���e�E�ti�f��e r�lt'o�ati�wr�.l'7��Irac;ci��trra a,x4"��h�h�sxa���vwit.�a
Thc h�a�c bcizt��eft tn a lc�'e1}�nsA¢acr�nw�ca�a fo�tiaa�,aa l�scrruesrt ln�a�ht. ��'�,��aC9.C��
2 �nraclA,�a�fiar�1ae rcrute-[aa�laa�es�wla�ceanexak mf��fcw�t p�pe i��a dr��ta c➢a4cka.Pl��xaa�c�taa�racta�l��IC t�wer
�h��"r�ar�r��ae�,�c�c�a�G araa.Fi�a¢�cav�ul rrt'�➢ek�ri,s'f�`�asr�t9�e rr�tr¢��titar�axzsgi¢��szte,ir����ati�aa,�l��c�Crta�rzn„�c��s,
aemd fnund�Yic�oa�ehrit. $l1,➢Gf➢.��3
3.�a:cavati�srz�rf�re�s�ai9s a4 neew sat�.l'uM•nicl��n�,c�arr�ia�ta@r#c�II l�:e r�as��@te haqu��5ate��p tc��.5 t��t.
�"otnp�actira�Fill iracludin��atginc�ring fi,es: �21,;Z:�a.t��Y
4.�cscat`rn�s,f��tadad��s�s,b�e�aaerat sQKala-�'rac'�2aaa�s�`vvAdt4a�'„dep��1�°"(iasc9�acies trcrria..�+sr�@ rebar}.
D°�aa�nc��tarans araclra�9e�I�"xeinf'or�d w�ll oa��he ti�r�r�t amd sides.T�pmck'a daz,�lude�fcatanda4a�aat Se���va l��e,�rroent
de�sth�daa�t��r�['rrfapa��ctan�ti�aa�s�rrr�a�vR�ac�iau�g�r�ess.��nnt si�le�waa�ka�ncluc�e�H.�a��r�ch a�lraizas s�nd.
^��b�apre>�r�,ra,�. �6U,2-0�3.��h
5.�3rackfiil�fto�as�ral��,ain.st fec��ret anvd side.w�aBls.Side slopes a+�tae tdp�r��. .�a�,`��d).UtiB
d Rcr.���u��r�ck�ararch��Qnrav�l�fd�bras zncltir�cd i��2.k�a�p�rovc vanvt sidiat�Ftcaa�s�vc s&�a�a�l�si�6o�,�.
Pait�y aW��1 rural k�ca�cs,�e�a�rear I�,rpa�6�r��in'�;trepair aa.��vesqs�r f���aru.ia��. �6S,��Q.S��)
?.�e�nc>v�vtr�}�&tih�ngl�s6t4iz��,r�p��r n�il h�?les iaz Is�p Mae�3n�r,p,au.nt r�aaa�ae�e qf dwe�lim,� �35,(YfBt�.O�l
ti.T�e��c�ve rtrr�f—rc�shcet and ara�lall aacww rc�a�f �U,C�d�.17�1
��.'k�sktaxcture��d r�bt�iltt Pr���p�rcB� y;t a,61��(�.(1(1
1U.kt.��ala�warac9rrw� $21,�5U.UU
l l.�1"cvv��Nua�a�ai���3 le����9s $'a�,o�UC1.G0
1:?.�t�rsa�rv�ald p�5t€r,ioz�t�a99��7d�"iaaxslre sla���aeac�l� �U,��tHk.l��
1"a.fl�c�s�ir�.z�ci r�fla.nish�all wes<aei flat��s �;21?,41U�4.{Dt)
�4.A9.I�rw�nca;fu���a�sliaert;e� �3£�,4p4�.Q4
I�5.P'+Y�+�r ca�bnr��a�a��hrcata���7rr�ak➢��nrse �12O,Q�&3.�C1�
16.New�d,c�r�¢s fat�sx�rar�cl ba�ac�: 57;50{l.d��
fl7.Nc�w�ae3c9itf�n $&�J,DO[}.DO
1�.&v4�}t�atii��4(�-1:"Jr?�t:,ti�ac:l weark„e0.rc�.� $48„(t�p,�}(3
t�.�l�c�trac����w�ra����, �5],0��.[Y
"�+aaa� $7�{D,�91.f�t)
1
2 Neighborhood Community Center Options:
3
20
1 On June 27, 2012 the Task Force approved the following recommendations:
2
3 1. The Task Force recommends that the Hogan-Rogers House be saved to be used for a
4 Community Center in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood.
5
6 2. That the County be asked to increase the amount of funding that has already been
7 budgeted to relocate the Hogan-Rogers House from $120,000 to $202,743. This
8 amount will fund removing the back porch, grading, and excavation of the new site,
9 footings, foundation, and basement slab. See Hogan — Rogers House Minimum
10 Restoration Costs below.
11
12
13 On August 22, 2012 the Task Force endorsed investigating the construction of a new
14 Community Center.
15 1. The Task Force is investigating the possibility of constructing a new Community Center
16 on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will support the construction of
17 a new facility if the facility is used as a center for neighborhood programs and activities.
18 The donated site could support a facility of up to 3,000 Sq. Ft. with an estimated budget
19 of up to $500,000.
21
�log�n-Ra��ars���s�e�'Ior�im�nz�Y�esta�'�;�i�r� C+�s�ks
�l�ke fi�Ia��n��'a�psa�y,�r��.suCamit�i�re i`�R1�r^w;'r�aa�e�t�irm�ute �"��^t�e tela��ti�rz�a�
t��c I:�o�a��-���;a��f►�rme an Pu��r�f�y�riwc,'"Chi�esfia��t�al�r�a�acl�ade�site pr���
fa�ak�M��,„fi�t�r�d��i��n�,rem��9�1��^�c�st��,�+�s��ditoca��.
�w I�e�tac��-�aqn- Iruc�aa�as�Il�r^e�w+ar�t�r�r�p��rr�t�w�d�vcl���r�f�ar r�1���tir��a.
�te'1u-��t�v��rf Ck�e�um�+wit�tka�e��a�a�e bei��r��'t i�a�I�v�l�o�it�r�ov�.r�fa[wkin�„��
1a�r�.��rr��r�t��ei�trl. ��9y�6!�,�4
2.Ura�c�i��fc�ar th�raut�-�n���ac��s�1'�ce�aae�t af ����a�rt�ri�a�ia�a�r�u���itc�.
�i�c���c+�ar���ac��al����'il��ver tri��;����w�c1 a�j��e�t�a�re�,�r��av�l���cbri���'�r�rn
tl��ri�ut��n�1'+��i�t�ti����te���alYe�vn�b�c1�r��a�n,�rees,�n�f+�un�l��ioe de�ri�.
�a1�,�6C�»��1
�,��rc�v��er,�af���ws�ils at r�e�v�itc Fwurni��a��c�x�a�a�ct�C��e���tc��isc the h�r�s�
site r�����'.�i fc�t. C'a�m��e�i�����'�ncla�di�s�c�u����er���fe��s �21,2�+b.Od�
�.'k"c�a�ira�,f�eurt�l�tir���,�b��a�m������wa-�'�ratii��s=v�Kdt�►�',�le�atk�1�'��i�etude�
howiz�aaa�M r�^��r�.�ouma��ti�a����ra��ur�e a 1�'D>�cix�f"aa�c����1��rr�the�rn�t�.r�d�id�s.
��c�ar��i���a��Ees fa�u�c�a��ion fi�n�ra havYerw�e�t c���th r�u��ta c�r��a�+�i�o����u���s��l
a��a�c�kirr�a�rc�cc��.k r��►t^��d�w��k��nclu�ec�»�`;rez�ch�r�ims����aatc�pr€r��n�»
���,��3wQ�
�.��ack��1,��trrp�cMac���a�ins��e•��t�:n��sac�+�w��Y:�.�v�e��a�a,�tn��rk���ar�a��,
��«��4,�0
�.�te;��v��,��k q�u�ch,�erna��1���9ebr��9r��e1��3��1 i��R 2.�ternca►�e esizayl�i��i��.
���r�i�►ve�1m:���;��sauc��ce��,�^��G�r�l�r��.�l��r�e�,,re�ar"�la�a�id�����r��;a�ar i:�ap�rc��r+�r
Caran�zn�. '6�a�,+fW1�.��
°�"�rtal ar�iniAnum restar�.t��a� c�sts '��q�",74�
1
2 FINANCIAL IMPACTAND COSTS SHARING OPTIONS
22
1 The Task Force has consensus that there are needs in the Rogers Road Neighborhood that
2 should be addressed by the Task Force. The Task Force has investigated two possible
3 solutions in the Rogers Road Community and the estimated costs are as follows:
4 Installing sewer infrastructure for 86 defined parcels in the Rogers Road Neighborhood
5 $ 5,788,215
6 Relocating and Renovating the Hogan-Rogers House for a Neighborhood Community
7 Center
8 $ 740,499
9 Total Financial Impact $6,528,714
10
11 The Task Force is investigating and evaluating five different cost sharing options for the Rogers
12 Road Neighborhood as outlined below:
13 1. The first option is based on the Municipal Solid Waste (tonnage) delivered to the Landfill
14 by each municipality during Fiscal 2010/11.
15
16 2. The second option is based on the original Landfill Agreement between the Towns and
17 the County dated November 30, 1972.
18
19 3. The third possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This is the
20 method the Board of County Commissioners has selected to distribute Sales Tax
21 revenues between the County and the Towns.
22
23 4. The fourth option is based on County and Towns Ad Valorem Property Taxes Levied by
24 each municipality for Fiscal 2011/12. This is an alternative method the Board of County
25 Commissioners could consider to distribute Sales Tax revenues between the County
26 and the Towns.
27
28 5. The fifth possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This option is not
29 weighted and uses only the rural population of Orange County compared to the Towns.
30
31 See the Spreadsheet:
23
Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
CostSharingOptions
8/22/2012
1 Fisca12010/11 2 1972
MSW Volume Landfill Agreement
Annual
Tons/Yr. Percent Payment Percent
Carrboro 6,650 19% $ 29,524 14%
Chap Hill 15,008 42% $ 90,549 43%
Hillsboroug 3185 9%
Orange County 10,497 30% $ 90,549 43%
Total 35,340 100% $ 210,622 100%
3 County Population Est. 4 Fiscal 2012/13
SalesTax Distribution Ad Valorem PropertyTax
Method Property
Population Percent Tax Levy Percent
Carrboro 19,665 9% 11,611,958 5%
Chapel Hill 54,582 25% 34,116,234 16%
Special Districts 235,387 0%
Du rh a m 30 0% 49,416 0%
Hillsborough 6,113 3% 4,705,799 2%
Mebane 1,801 1% 1,114,495 1%
Orange County 134,325 62% 136,382,728 64%
School District 19,260,309 9%
Fire Districts - _ 3,979,116 2%
Total 216,516 100% 211,455,442 100%
5 County Population Est.
Fiscal 2012/13
Population Percent
Carrboro 19,665 15%
Chapel Hill 54,582 41%
Durham 30 0%
Hillsborough 6,113 5%
Mebane 1,801 1%
Orange County 52,134 39%
Total 134,325 100%
1 6.
24
1 Cost Sharing Recommendations:
2
3 On August 22, 2012 the Task Force approved the following recommendation:
4
5 The Task Force recommends that the County and Town Managers collectively discuss and
6 formulate a fair and equitable cost sharing recommendation for the Task Force to consider.
7 Options 2 & 4 are no longer being considered by the Task Force, therefore the
8 recommendation should be based on options 1, 3, and /or 5. The cost sharing recommendation
9 will be reviewed by the Task Force and could be applied to funding Sewer Infrastructure and a
10 Community Center.
11
12 POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS:
13 Formulate recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council
14 and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on the following unresolved issues:
15 1. Providing sewer service to the Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined in the Task Force
16 Charge.
17 a. Determine which grant opportunities are possible and probable and worthy of
18 consideration.
19 b. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources.
20 2. Moving and renovation of the Hogan-Rogers House for a Neighborhood Community
21 Center.
22 a. Define a moving and renovation project team.
23 b. Create a timeline for moving and renovating the house.
24 c. Create and approve a capital and/or operating budgets for the Community Center
25 d. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources.
26 3. Complete investigating is the possibility of constructing a new Community Center on the
27 two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity.
28 a. Create and approve a capital and/or operating budgets a new Community Center
29 b. Create a timeline for constructing a new Community Center.
30 a. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources.
31 4. Agree on a strategy to educate and promote the recommendations of the Historic
32 Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to all three local governments.
33
34 Report ends here.
35
36 Frank Clifton said that the numbers on the utilities only include sewer. He said that he
37 has had a discussion with the director of Habitat of Humanity and they may want to contract
38 with Habitat to be the project manager.
39 Commissioner Hemminger said that she and Commissioner Foushee served on this
40 task force and she has met with Habitat about this issue several times. Habitat for Humanity
41 would be willing to be the coordinator. They are not allowed to be contractors for anything other
42 than residential, but they could help coordinate this community center. Habitat has not brought
43 this to its board yet and is waiting on the recommendation. There are several concerns about
44 the property and the commitment of funding, etc. Habitat for Humanity is an eager partner, but
45 they want assurances. She hopes to move forward with this community center before the
46 landfill closes.
25
1 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if anyone had talked to OWASA about this sewer. He said
2 that this is a significant amount of money to pay for a sewer.
3 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the minutes from June 5th and that there was
4 a request by him and Commissioner Jacobs for the County to investigate a low-cost loan
5 program for people to hook up to the system. He asked about the progress on this.
6 Frank Clifton said that nothing has been done yet. He said that the County has already
7 approved paying the connection fees for the water system, but there have been no takers.
8 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to encourage the County's partners to
9 have a conversation with OWASA to see if there is something that can be done.
10 Commissioner Hemminger said that it is a complicated and complex issue. She said
11 that the County can run sewer, but cannot guarantee if people want to hook up. She said that
12 the school system is still interested in the Greene Tract for a future school.
13 Commissioner McKee made reference to the community center and said that the landfill
14 belongs to the County and is operated by Orange County and all citizens pay taxes to the
15 County. He would like to see this Board move ahead with the community center, and if there
16 are no partners, so be it. He supports building a new center if needed as quickly as possible.
17 Commissioner Foushee said that she appreciated Commissioner McKee's comments.
18 She said that the Board made a commitment to this community that the outcomes would be
19 different. She said that the County may not get financial assistance from the towns and she
20 sees the towns using this as a delay tactic. She wants to make a commitment as a Board to
21 ensure that the community center is built. She does not think that the Board needs to take on
22 as a task preserving the Hogan-Rogers House. She would like to see it renovated with some
23 private funds.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with what his peers have said regarding how
25 to proceed. He made reference to the list on page 5 regarding local government initiatives that
26 have been accomplished. One of the concerns is getting the speed limit reduced and someone
27 has done this. He does not know which government entity did this. He said that this should be
28 recognized. He made reference to item #1 and the $650,000 to extend water service and said
29 that this was a decision of this Board.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there has been any discussion about selling the joint part
31 of the Greene Tract to help pay for some of the sewer costs.
32 Frank Clifton said that the Managers have talked about this but not the politicians.
33 Michael Talbert said that the task force did discuss this and there was confirmation that
34 the school system was still interested but it was not part of the charge of the task force.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is curious about another possibility for funding and
36 asked if anyone had discussed putting the upcoming items (middle school for CHCCS, jail, etc.)
37 in the closure of the landfill with a bond.
38 Frank Clifton said that one of the key elements is the 15% of the total operating budget
39 for debt service.
40 Commissioner Foushee said that there was a comment made in the task force that the
41 County should pay for this and when she asked how the County would pay for it, there was a
42 clear suggestion that the County raise taxes.
43 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there has been any discussion about putting in
44 infrastructure and how this would affect the neighborhood. Commissioner Foushee said that
45 this was not part of their charge.
46 Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to move forward with the community
47 center and do it expeditiously. She would like more information on the pros and cons of having
48 a new facility or renovating the old house.
26
1 Chair Pelissier said that she favored a new facility for the community center. She
2 suggested that the County make a commitment in January to take action after the final report at
3 the Assembly of Governments meeting in December.
4 Commissioner Hemminger said that she does not want to wait until January.
5 Commissioner Foushee said that she would not be here in January so she wanted to
6 make a comment. She said that, as public servants, they do not always get it right. The
7 County Commissioners have taken a lot of criticism from the towns about the closure of the
8 landfill. She said that she understands that it was clear to all of the RENA community that if the
9 landfill had not closed, they would not be having this conversation about a mitigation plan now.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
12 for intent to:
13 • move forward with a new"green" community center;
14 • to ask the Manager to find $380,000 more to move into the fund already established
15 with $120,000;
16 • to work with RENA and Habitat for Humanity on the design and implementation of this
17 community center;
18 • to ask the towns to contribute computer supplies, permitting costs, connection costs
19 and the first 12 months of utilities towards this project;
20 • to ask the towns to expedite the permitting process; and
21 • to be able to start immediately to bring this project back to the BOCC October meeting
22 to finalize going forward.
23
24 Michael Talbert said that the segments of sewer were designed without regard to the
25 other surrounding land. It could be designed completely different if other neighborhoods were
26 included. Regarding debt service, the County would be at or near 15% up until 2016-17. The
27 $6.5 million, including the $740,000, plus all of the sewer, if financed for 20 years would require
28 debt service of about $450,000.
29
30 PUBLIC COMMENT:
31 Mark Dorosin is the Managing Attorney at the UNC Center for Civil Rights. He was
32 representing the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). He made reference to
33 the question of cost and said that this is not the most efficient way to serve the community. He
34 said that OWASA does not have a prohibition on using pumps. He said that this may be an
35 opportunity to engage with OWASA to get its board members to put this issue back on the
36 table. He said that a commitment without a commitment to funding is no commitment at all. He
37 is encouraged to hear the Board's discussion. He said that the report suggests that water is
38 available all throughout the community. He does not think that a lot of the people in the
39 community know that there is money available. He said that most people need help with the
40 costs of hooking up to the system. Regarding the community center, he said that he was taken
41 aback that Chapel Hill was talking about zoning and planning restrictions that it intends to
42 impose on this property (i.e., 3,000 foot setbacks). He said that he is encouraged to hear the
43 commitment to the community center, because when this first started the priority was the sewer.
44 Commissioner Hemminger restated her motion.
45 Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking staff to come back with information on the
46 Hogan House and the costs of deconstructing it. He said that when the County did the water
47 line before, staff went house-to-house and some people were afraid. He said that there has to
48 be a better way to engage the community.
27
1 Commissioner Hemminger asked if there was money set aside for citizens to connect to
2 the water system.
3 Frank Clifton said that there is money set aside for the purpose of paying the charges of
4 OWASA (permits, connection fees, etc.). What is not set aside is the cost to the run the line
5 from the house.
6 Commissioner Hemminger agreed with Commissioner Foushee and said that the Hogan
7 house is not sustainable for long-term usage. She wants the house to be saved. She
8 suggested engaging Habitat for Humanity on how to save this house.
9 Commissioner McKee said that the funding should be concentrated on the services to
10 the community and helping mitigate the environmental issues such as the smell.
11 Frank Clifton suggested adding to the motion for the Town of Chapel Hill to do an
12 expedited approval process for this facility.
13 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he supports having a new structure for the community
14 center. He also supports modifying the motion to include the Manager's suggestion of an
15 expedited process.
16 Commissioner Hemminger said that she supports the modification of the motion.
17 The motion was amended to include the request to ask the towns to expedite the
18 permitting process.
19 Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee should
20 make a personal call to the members of the task force to inform them of the Board's motion of
21 intent.
22 Frank Clifton said that the issue of the Greene Tract could be put on the table at the
23 Assembly of Governments meeting.
24 Commissioner Gordon said that it has to be an open discussion about the Greene Tract,
25 and also the school system may weigh in that they need more than one site for future schools.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said that he wonders about the 3,000 square foot building and he
27 hopes that the Board discusses the possibility of building a bigger community center. He wants
28 this facility to meet the needs of the community.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 b. Oranqe County's Recommendations Reqardinq Goals for Inclusion in the
33 North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2013-14 Leqislative
34 Goals Packaqe
35 The Board considered a Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations
36 Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners'
37 (NCACC) 2013-14 Legislative Goals Package and authorizing the Chair to sign.
38 Greg Wilder said that every two years there is a process to develop these goals. The
39 purpose is to develop a consensus across the state for issues that can guide the General
40 Assembly for the next two years. The deadline for submittal of goals is September 17, 2012.
41 The Legislative Issues Work Group has met, which consists of Commissioners Jacobs and
42 McKee as well as staff inembers and the County Attorney. The work group has developed a
43 proposed resolution, which is Attachment 2 on page 30.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said that the work group tried to take goals from before, goals
45 from the Commission for the Environment, and moving up to a higher visibility some of the
46 issues that have been discussed for years, such as the homestead exemption. He made
47 reference to the recycling of electronic waste and said that Orange County is subsidizing this
48 90%. In other places there is a fee when the equipment is purchased that helps pay for this.
49 Chair Pelissier made reference to item #8 and said that there was some discussion that
50 this could be dealt with more effectively by engaging the fire departments.
28
1 Michael Talbert said that staff contacted White Cross Fire Department, which has a
2 temporary permit to continue to do what it does, but there is no guarantee at any one point that
3 the State would not change the rules. There is not a permanent permit to continue to dispose
4 of the waste.
5 Chair Pelissier said that she brought this forward to the Environmental Steering
6 Committee, and it was suggested that there might be more success if the Fire Chiefs
7 Association lobbied on this. She would like to encourage other parties to get involved in this.
8 Chair Pelissier said that another goal of the steering committee was to enhance river
9 basin and monitoring of streamline rule-making. This was intended to address the fact that the
10 way all the rules have been made up do not require the monitoring directly of all of the water
11 bodies.
12 A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to add
13 this item into the list of goals: Enhance river basin monitoring and streamline rule-making.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said that they did not look at the NCACC goals, but only the
15 Orange County specific goals.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
20 approve a Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for
21 Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2013-14
22 Legislative Goals Package and authorize the Chair to sign.
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 Commissioner McKee asked that a letter be written from Chair Pelissier to the Chief's
26 Council in reference to Orange County's support of item #8 in the resolution:
27
28 8) Support actions to change North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) wastewater
29 system classification rules which currently classify a spray irrigation system such as one utilized
30 by volunteer fire departments as "commercial". When the flow generated by the system is
31 domestic quality/non-industrial process wastewater, the system should be held to the same
32 monitoring and testing standards as a residential wastewater system under DWQ jurisdiction. In
33 the alternative, volunteer fire departments should be excluded entirely from the "commercial"
34 classification. The annual inspections and testing costs associated with a "commercial"
35 designation for a spray irrigation system serving a volunteer fire department can be several
36 thousands of dollars. Accounting for the type of flow actually treated by a system rather than
37 assigning a blanket "commercial" designation would significantly reduce volunteer fire
38 departments' annual costs across the state.
39
40 8. Reports-NONE
41
42 9. County Manaqer's Report
43 Frank Clifton said that there will be two upcoming retirements — Emergency Services
44 Director Frank Montes de Oca and Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey.
45 Also, the County has completed the process for the hiring of a Public Affairs Officer and
46 she is Carla Banks and will be starting on September 17tn
47
48 10. County Attorney's Report
49 None
50
29
1 11. Appointments
2
3 a. Chapel Hill/Oranqe County Visitor's Bureau —Appointment
4 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors
5 Bureau.
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
7 Foushee to appoint Jack Schmidt to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau to serve a
8 partial term ending December 31, 2012 and representing the Orange County Lodging
9 Association.
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 12. Board Comments
13 Commissioner McKee said that South Orange Rescue Squad provides a lot of
14 assistance for UNC football games. He said that there are a lot of other people that help with
15 the Emergency Services Department.
16 Commissioner McKee said that Eno Fire Department will be dedicating Station #2 this
17 Saturday at 9:00 a.m. There will also be a lunch fundraiser. Efland Fire Department will be
18 having a supper fundraiser on the same day.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said that he attended the open house for the Southern Human
20 Services Center Master Plan. He said that Chapel Hill is in the process of doing a small area
21 plan for Estes Road/MLK Boulevard area.
22 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the problem that staff addressed at the
23 Eurosport Soccer Complex. He appreciated that staff was aggressive in coming up with
24 solutions. He said that when this was first sited in this area, it was intended to be used as a
25 jump start for economic development. The person that wrote in to complain about some of the
26 conditions there pointed out that this complex was drawing 7,000 people on the weekend and
27 that this was an economic development opportunity and the County should take advantage of it.
28 It was an indirect compliment to the County Commissioners' thinking ten years ago.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Hillsborough Arts Council is hosting a jazz festival
30 on September 15th at Moorefields from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Also, the Eno Farmers Market
31 is hosting a Harvest Dinner on September 15th at 6:00.
32 Commissioner Hemminger said that she had a tour of the jail today and she
33 complimented the staff at the jail, which is a very small space.
34 Commissioner Gordon — none
35 Commissioner Yuhasz— none
36 Commissioner Foushee —none
37 Chair Pelissier said that the Bus-on-Shoulder system started in July and at the last TTA
38 meeting it was discussed that this is used on a daily basis and there have not been any
39 problems. She highlighted that for the last 18 of the 19 months, ridership with TTA has
40 consistently increased by 15-18%.
41 Chair Pelissier said that she is getting involved in NC Tomorrow, which is a statewide
42 effort. The goal of this project is to identify the places in the region for a comprehensive unified
43 economic development plan. There were 15 focus groups this summer where people identified
44 statewide goals. The report will be done by the end of the year.
45
46 13. Information Items
47
48 • August 21, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
49
50 14. Closed Session
30
1 NONE
2
3
4 15. Adiournment
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
6 adjourn the meeting at 9:58 PM.
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
10
11 Donna S. Baker, CMC
12 Clerk to the Board
13
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 2
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
6 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
7 JOINT MEETING
8 September 13, 2012
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel
11 Hill—Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Thursday
12 September 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
14 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Earl McKee
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Steve Yuhasz
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
18 Clarence Grier and Michael Talbert, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair ponna Coffey
21 and Board Members Lawrence Sanders, Steve Halkiotis, Anne Medenblik, Debbie Piscitelli, and
22 Tony McKnight. Superintendent Patrick Rhodes was also present.
23 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Stephens
24 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
25 PRESENT: Chair Mia Burroughs and Board Members James Barrett, Jamezetta Bedford, Mike
26 Kelly, Gregory McElveen, and Annetta Streater. Superintendent Tom Forcella was also
27 present.
28 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
29 Michelle Brownstein
30
31
32 Welcome and Openinq Remarks Chair Pelissier, Chair Coffev and Chair
33 Burrouqhs)
34
35 Chair Pelissier said that these items were discussed at the school collaboration meeting
36 and brought forth for the full boards to discuss.
37 Chair Burroughs and Chair Coffey did not have any remarks.
38 Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Yuhasz would be unable to attend tonight.
39
40 1. Pre-K and School Enrollment—Oranqe County Schools
41 Superintendent Rhodes made a PowerPoint presentation.
42
43 The financial support of the Board of County Commissioners has been, and continues to
44 be, critical to the success of Orange County Schools.
45 Milestones
46 ✓ Student achievement and proficiency continue to rise
47 ✓ Achievement Gap continues to close
48 ✓ Graduation Rate over 85%
49 ✓ Lowest Dropout Rate on record —2.37%
50 ✓ S.A.T. and A.C.T. scores exceed state and national averages
2
1 ✓ Record $5.7 million in scholarships awarded
2 ✓ Nationally recognized Common Core
3 initiatives
St
4 Engaging Students Through the District's 21 Century Classrooms & Initiatives
5
6 ✓ Transforming traditional classrooms to digital
7 ones that allow for anytime, anywhere access
8 to lessons, assignments & learning tools
9 ✓ Integrating S.T.E.M. (science, technology,
10 engineering and mathematics) initiatives with
11 literacy and social studies skills at all levels
12 ✓ Increasing rigor at all levels
13 ✓ College and Career Readiness
14
15 One to One Initiative
16 The quarter-cent sales tax approved by the voters in November of 2011 allowed the district to
17 move forward with the initiative.
18
19 2012-2013
20 ✓ All teachers received new/replacement
21 laptops
22 ✓ 3,980 students in grades 6-12 received
23 laptops
24 ✓ E.C. and special needs students received
25 adaptive technology
26
27 2013-2014
28 ✓ 1,076 students in grades 4 and 5 will receive
29 technology devices
30
31 ✓ Students in grades K-3 will receive increased
32 classroom access to laptops and other
33 electronic devices
34
35
36 New Growth on the Horizon
37
38 Waterstone and Forest Ridge Developments
39 ✓ 377 Single Family Homes
40 ✓ 164 Townhouses
41
42 Membership versus SAPFO
Day 10 SAPFO Capacity Available LOS Capacity
Membership Seating
3
High Schools 2,308 2,518 210 2,770
Middle Schools 1,672 2,166 494 2,383
Elementary 3,401 3,694 293 4,063
Schools
TOTALS 7,381 8,378 997 9,216
1
2
3 Membership versus SAPFO with Revised OHS Capacity
4
Day 10 SAPFO Capacity Available LOS Capacity
Membershi Seatin
Hi h Schools 2,308 2,371 63 2,608
Middle Schools 1,672 2,166 494 2,383
Elementary 3,401 3,694 293 4,063
Schools
TOTALS 7,381 8,231 850 9,054
5
6 High School Capacity
7
Membershi Ca acit LOS Ca acit 110%
Cedar Ridge 1,089 1,000 1,100
109% of capacity
Orange High 1,219 1,518 1,670
80% of ca acit
Oran e Hi h 1,219 1,371 1,508
89% of capacity
8
9 Superintendent Rhodes said that he has included a letter from Hillsborough Planning
10 Director Margaret Hauth talking about the Waterstone and Forest Ridge developments. The
11 plans are approved and there are 495 units coming online in 2013-14. He also pointed out a
12 letter that was sent to the Board of County Commissioners last spring from the Chair and Vice-
13 Chair highlighting some of the growth, especially in Mebane, which has not been included in this
14 report.
15
16 Anne Medenblik arrived at 7:10 PM.
17
18 Superintendent Rhodes referred to the Pre-K chart in the green folder. The idea was to
19 highlight the impact of Pre-K on enrollment. There are 9 classrooms dedicated to pre-k
20 classrooms. Their board is committed to every child and the Pre-K programs have been
21 expanded since State funds have become available to them.
22 Commissioner Hemminger asked if there were more children needing Pre-K than there
23 was space and Superintendent Rhodes said yes.
24 Commissioner Gordon made reference to Attachment 1, page three at the top in the
25 abstract, and the last paragraph. She read this:
26 "The effect of adding Pre-K capacity and decreasing K-5 capacity would also affect the
27 Orange County/Boards of Education school construction standards, which attempt to develop
28 schools with certain rated capacity." She asked for an explanation of this.
29 Superintendent Rhodes said that the last elementary school was constructed in 2002
30 and none of the other OCS elementary schools were designed for Pre-K, but CHCCS has been
31 able to include Pre-K in its new school construction standards.
4
1 Frank Clifton said that the standard classroom is not suitable for Pre-K.
2 Gregory McElveen arrived at 7:26 PM.
3
4 Superintendent Rhodes highlighted the need for County support for school capital
5 needs.
6 Commissioner Foushee arrived at 7:29 PM.
7
8 2. Pre-K and School Enrollment— Chapel Hill — Carrboro Citv Schools
9 Superintendent Forcella thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their continued
10 support. He said that CHCCS is just hanging on until Elementary#11 comes online.
11 Assistant Superintendent of Support Services Todd Lofriese made a PowerPoint
12 presentation.
13
14 Pre — K/Head Start Program
15 Joint Boards Meeting
16 September 13, 2012
17 Presentation Overview
18 • Classroom Overview
19 • Program Data & Demographics
20 • Program Impacts
21 • SAPFO Considerations
22 • Moving Impacts
23
24 Classroom Overview
25 • 18 Classrooms
26 • All of our 10 elementary schools
27
28 3 Types of Classrooms
29 • "Regular" - Head Start, NC Pre-K, and Tuition
30 • "Inclusive" or "Blended" —above + 4 EC spots
31 • "System Level" —All EC, very small class size
32
33 Classroom Staffing
34 • 1 Birth to K certified teacher
35 • 1 TA with early childhood credentials
36 • 1 additional TA in EC Classrooms
37 • Head Start Required Services
38 ➢ Family Services
39 ➢ Health
40 ➢ Dental
41 ➢ Education
42
43 Program Data & Demographics
44 • Enrollment: 222 (some are dual enrolled)
45 ➢ Head Start: 136
46 ➢ NC Pre K: 96
47 ➢ Tuition: 42
48 ➢ EC: 40
49
50 Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
5
1 • Black: 47
2 • White: 53
3 • Asian: 32
4 • Hispanic: 76
5 • Multi/Biracial: 14
6
7 Wait list
8 • Head Start: 69
9 • NC Pre-K: 73 (20-Head Start/NCPre-K)
10 • Tuition: 2
11
12 Program Impacts
13 Frank Porter Graham Studies
14 • Children who attended NCPre-K classes perform better in elementary school
15 than matched children who did not, at least through third grade
16 • Children who attended public school NCPre-K perform better than children who
17 attended private child care NCPre-K classes
18
19 Program Impacts
20 Head Start/NC Pre-K Students 2010-11
21 Fall Sprinq
22 Language 58% 91%
23 Literacy 59% 91%
24 Mathematics 56% 88%
25 Approaches to Learning 55% 90%
26 Social and Emotional Learning 64% 90%
27 Physical Health & Development 77% 96%
28
29 Program Impacts
30 ESL Students 2011-12
31 Improvement in English Language Skills
32 Number of children achieving mastery at level
33 Fall Sprinq
34 Novice 54 13
35 I ntermediate 25 31
36 Advanced 10 31
37 Superior 1 12
38
39 SAPFO and Enrollment#s
40 DPI /SAPFO Elem. Capacity 5,244
41 105% LOS 5,506
42 Est. Current Enrollment 5,520
43 Estimated Available Seats (14)
44
45 SAPFO Considerations
46 • New schools are built with one Pre-K (non-capacity) room
47 • Old schools lack support spaces, some core educational spaces, and classroom
48 dimensions are smaller
49 • Mobiles are used to supplement older schools
50
6
1 SAPFO Considerations
2 • 15 students per classroom
3 • EC Pre — K class counts are much smaller
4 • Pre — K (18 classrooms) currently equates to about 70% of our average elementary
5 school (25 classrooms)
6
7 Moving Costs
8 • Room Requirements
9 ➢ Bathrooms
10 ➢ Exterior Entrance
11 ➢ Building, Health, and Fire Safety Codes
12 ➢ Licensing time and expenses
13 ➢ Lost income
14 • Furniture Needs
15 • Separate and age appropriate playground
16
17 Family Impacts
18 • Disruption of delayed start or abbreviated start
19 • Uncertainty with last minute changes in location
20 • Pick up and drop off challenges
21 • Impact on their employment
22
23 Staff Impacts
24 • Disrupts PLC groupings
25 • Disrupts teacher/school relationships
26 • Administrative time spent on the move rather than curriculum, program monitoring, and
27 staff development work
28 • Staff Stresses
29
30
31 Commissioner Gordon said that there was a 20-year period where no new schools were
32 built anywhere in Orange County. Both school systems have old schools. The Commissioners
33 need to be proactive in looking at Pre-K but also remember the old schools, and the renovations
34 that are needed, when funding for capital needs is discussed.
35 CHCCS Chair Mia Burroughs asked Margaret Samuels to come up and address the
36 issue of public Pre-K slots competing with private providers.
37 Margaret Samuels said that there are now two rulings that say that Pre-K needs to
38 expand. It was asked that the appeals court go straight to the Supreme Court to get a ruling,
39 and the Supreme Court said no. Now it hinges on what the legislature decides to do. She
40 explained how the partnership between public and private entities worked. The majority of the
41 slots are in the two school systems and administered by the school systems.
42 Chair Pelissier said that she is interested in knowing if kids that attend public versus
43 private schools do better in schools.
44 Linda Hynmen, Program Manager of Orange County Partnership for Young Children,
45 said that some of the barriers in private childcare facilities are the fact that they do not have
46 traditional staff to collaborate with or the ongoing professional development that the schools are
47 able to offer. Regarding requirements, the private providers in Orange County are equal to both
48 school systems.
49 Chair Pelissier said that the County could develop a policy going forward to make sure
50 new schools have adequate capacity for Pre-K.
7
1 Commissioner Hemminger said that they need to think about each school taking one
2 classroom and making it a Pre-K classroom for the older schools.
3 3. County Update Pre-K Enrollment Impact on the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
4 Ordinance
5 Craig Benedict said that each school that exists today has a Department of Public
6 Instruction capacity. If the schools considered changing a K-5 classroom to a Pre-K classroom,
7 the school systems would have to lower the capacity for that school and the available seats for
8 SAPFO would go down.
9 Commissioner Hemminger asked if mobile classrooms were included in SAPFO and the
10 answer was no. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have six mobile units for Pre-K right now.
11 Orange County Schools have none.
12 Commissioner Gordon said that one of the reasons the older schools have not been able
13 to keep up is because the funding of new schools is given priority. She said that it is not right to
14 have such a difference in the older and the newer schools.
15 Commissioner Hemminger said that she does not see the school systems getting rid of
16 Pre-K classes because the SAPFO numbers are going up. She said that older facilities do not
17 make the education, but the programs do.
18 Steve Halkiotis agreed with Commissioner Hemminger and said that we are notjust
19 programs. He said that the County needs to talk about comparing apple to apples. The Board
20 of County Commissioners has historically been supportive of schools. He suggested getting a
21 small group together and trying to figure out how to have a minimum of one Pre-K classroom
22 per school.
23 OCS Chair ponna Coffey agreed with Mr. Halkiotis and Commissioner Hemminger and
24 said that Pre-K is part of a longstanding culture that makes Orange County a caring and
25 compassionate place to live.
26 Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to look at both the Pre-K and the older
27 schools. It is complicated and a phased program will be needed for both.
28 Mia Burroughs said that both districts are here to acknowledge what they are currently
29 doing and these Pre-K numbers are making the SAPFO numbers incorrect. She said this was
30 on the agenda so they could know the reality of the Pre-K issue and to acknowledge it.
31 Chair Pelissier suggested taking the next step and inviting Margaret Samuels from
32 Orange County Partnership for Young Children and involve her in the conversation.
33 Jamezetta Bedford said that the school systems may need to adjust/revise the SAPFO
34 numbers to accommodate Pre-K classrooms.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is no coherent, universal approach between the
36 two school systems and the County for providing Pre-K opportunity. He would still like to talk
37 about this. He is not willing to have that conversation tied to SAPFO yet.
38 Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and said that the purpose of
39 Pre-K is "readiness." Pre-K prepares children to come to kindergarten ready.
40 Frank Clifton suggested broadening the discussion that the model should be to build
41 Pre-K classrooms with the building of new schools.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said that the first discussion should be articulating the values and
43 policies and the second discussion is what to do about it.
44 Jamezetta Bedford said that CHCCS spent some time with Frank Porter Graham Child
45 Development Center and there was a partnership. She said that CHCCS has a philosophy,
46 which is that children need to be in Pre-K at the school that they will attend if possible and the
47 curriculum and staffing from age 3 through 3�d grade should overlap. She said that the school
48 board would be glad to share the information. She does not think a whole year should be spent
49 on the philosophy.
50 Chair Pelissier said that she hears that everyone acknowledges that Pre-K is needed.
51 The implications for SAPFO need to be balanced within the entire County budget.
8
1
2 4. County Update - Overview of the County Capital Proiects — Next Five Fiscal Years
3 Chief Financial Officer Clarence Grier gave an overview of the County's CIP budget.
4 This was attachment 1. The total County CIP for 2012-2017 is $193,272,983. Of that, County
5 projects are approximately $122 million and school projects are about $71 million over that five-
6 year period.
7 Frank Clifton said that 15% debt capacity is what the Local Government Commission
8 looks for in debt capacity before lending money.
9 Commissioner Hemminger said that she asked for this item because she wanted to let
10 the school boards know that the county has to balance needs for both school districts and the
11 County capital needs, while being at a slow economic growth. She said that the County
12 Commissioners cannot add in those projects that they want to add in both for the schools and
13 the County because of limited resources while trying to meet demands.
14 Clarence Grier said that the County is looking at an increase of 8% for employee health
15 insurance for next year.
16 Frank Clifton said that the County has deferred the revaluation until later because the tax
17 base has had no growth. The law requires a revaluation every eight years.
18 James Barrett said that although a library is great, there is impact to not doing schools in
19 this CI P.
20 Commissioner McKee said that he is not willing to let the schools fall down around them
21 but he feels that the programs and the employees at schools are more important than the brick
22 and mortar. He said that he would prefer to build a school than a library. He is concerned
23 about how the additional taxes affect the low-income.
24 Steve Halkiotis asked for a chart of County projects, with costs and timelines. He said
25 that the school boards need to understand the County needs.
26 Commissioner Hemminger said that there are also some very serious emergency
27 services needs as well as jail overcapacity needs that need to be addressed.
28 Frank Clifton said that the capital outlay items are detailed within the County's budget
29 document.
30 Chair Pelissier said that a summary is needed to give to the school boards and not the
31 entire County budget.
32 Clarence Grier said that he would provide a summary.
33 Chair Pelissier said that the collaboration work group talked about doing an assessment
34 of the older schools in both systems, and they will be discussing this going forward.
35
36 The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM.
37
38 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
39
40 Donna S. Baker, CMC
41 Clerk to the Board
42