Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-06-2012 APPROVED 11/8/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING September 6, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda The Chair reviewed the items at the County Commissioners' places. - Yellow sheet had revisions to item 5-i —Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Extension Project— Phase 2. The revision was removing the $30,000 that was already allocated. - Colored maps for item 6-a —Public Hearing for the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Land Use and Zoning Amendments. Chief Financial Officer Clarence Grier introduced Nicole Clark, the new Orange County Human Resources Director. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda Don O'Leary said that his wife fled from Vietnam in 1994 with her family. They came here on political asylum due to being persecuted by the Communists. She is highly intelligent and he told her that what happened there would not happen here. He said that his backyard is infiltrated with ICLEI and a pattern of Communist activity. He said that he is a lawful man of peaceful means. He said that he would not want any harm to come to any of the County Commissioners. He said that others do not share his philosophy. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) NONE 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. "The Nature of Oranqe" Photoqraphy Contest The Board recognized the winners and thanked all participants of"The Nature of Orange" 2012 Photography Contest hosted by the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). DEAPR Director Dave Stancil introduced the three winners of the "The Nature of Orange" 2012 Photography Contest in two categories —youth and adult, hosted by the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. He showed slides of the photographs. The photographs will be on tour at the Orange County Library, the Visitor's Bureau, and the Link Government Services Center. Winners: Butterfly Blues — First Place Youth — Kirby Lau My Home Road — Second Place Youth — Delaney Morley My Paintbrush —Third Place Youth — Kirby Lau Fews Ford — First Place Adult— Richard Robinson Early Morn Swing — Second Place Adult— Lisa Tate Yard Critter—Third Place Adult— Steve Cook Chair Pelissier congratulated them all on behalf of the board. 5. Consent Aqenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 5-g • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from May 1, 24 and June 5, 12, 19, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 11 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with the NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution to release property values, which is incorporated by reference, related to seven (7) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. 2012 Property Tax Releases The Board adopted a resolution to release property values, which is incorporated by reference, related to thirty-nine (39) requests for property tax release in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. e. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved one (1) untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2012 tax year. f. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2011-12 The Board received the tax collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent taxes, approved the accounting thereof, and upon acceptance of the reports, issued the Order to Collect for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and authorized the Chair to sign. g_ Voluntary Aqricultural District Desiqnation — Parker Farm This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. h. Provision of Services to Administer Oranqe Person Chatham Mental Health Excluded Liabilities The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement through which Orange County will provide certain administrative functions for the dissolving entity known as Orange Person Chatham Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Authority d/b/a OPC Area Program ("OPC") and authorized the Chair to sign. i. Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch &Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Extension Proiect— Phase 2 The Board approved the contract amendments and process budget amendments; authorized the Chair to sign on behalf of Orange County; and authorized the Manager to sign permit applications or other documents related to the permitting with bid results for Buckhorn Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Project— Phase 2 to be brought to the BOCC for approval in the Fall 2012 and other documents related to the design and permitting of Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 Extension. i Memorandum of Aqreement between the NC Sedimentation Control Commission and Oranqe County The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission and Orange County, North Carolina for the purpose of clarifying roles in the enforcement of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, N.C. General Statute Chapter 113A Article 4 and any rules adopted pursuant to the Act and authorized the Chair to sign. k. Approval of Expanded Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Map The Board approved the Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Map which has been expanded to include properties within six road miles of Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company Station 2. I. Approval of Expanded Central Oranqe Fire Insurance District Map The Board approved the Central Orange Fire Insurance District Map which has been expanded to include properties within six road miles of Orange Rural Fire Department Station 3. m. Approval of Expanded East Alamance Fire Insurance District Map The Board approved the expansion of the East Alamance Fire Insurance District. • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda g_ Voluntary Aqricultural District Desiqnation — Parker Farm The Board considered an application from the Parker family to certify 293 acres of the Parker farm within the Caldwell voluntary agricultural district, and enroll the lands in the Voluntary Agricultural District program. Commissioner Jacobs said that he pulled this to recognize the family that entered into a voluntary agricultural district and cared enough about conserving agriculture in Orange County. The Parker family is putting 293 acres into the program and this pushes Orange County to over 3,000 acres that are in voluntary agriculture districts. Dave Stancil said that the Parker family is present tonight. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve an application from the Parker family to certify 293 acres of the Parker farm within the Caldwell voluntary agricultural district, and enroll the lands in the Voluntary Agricultural District program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Public Hearinqs a. Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Land Use and Zoninq Amendments The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on County-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas. Chair Pelissier said that this public hearing is only open to receive the Planning Board recommendation and written comments. She asked the County Attorney to explain why oral comments are not being considered at this time. John Roberts said that the reason this Board cannot hear oral comments at this meeting is because the UDO requires both legislative and quasi-judicial hearings conducted during the QPH and reconvene the public hearings for the purpose of receivinq the Planninq Board's recommendation and to receive any written comments. He has previously verbally informed the BOCC that in his opinion, once the public hearing is adjourned for that purpose further oral testimony/comment should not be accepted at the reconvened public hearing and once the original hearing takes place, it is referred to the Planning Board. By ordinance the County Commissioners cannot receive any more oral comments and secondly, important legal reason to avoid accepting further oral testimony/comment once a motion is made and passed wherein the sole stated purpose of adjourning and reconvening the public hearing is to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and to receive written comments. If an individual attends the QPH and offers testimony or comments but does not attend the reconvened hearing because the individual reasonably expects no further oral testimony/comment will be accepted and oral testimony/comment is then accepted to which the individual cannot respond, that individual may then have grounds to appeal whatever decision or policy the BOCC enters. Chair Pelissier said that although people have signed up to speak, some have sent written comments already. Written comments are shown below: From: Chris Kelsey (mailto:kelsey chris(a�hotmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:30 PM To: Craig Benedict; Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger (External); Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz Subject: BOCC Agenda Item- Eno Economic Development District Dear Orange County Commissioners, As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, I would implore you NOT to accept the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed tomorrow night. You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification AND Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. This would negatively impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent. I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Sincerely, Chris Kelsey 208 Weldon Ridge Court Durham, NC 27705 Letter from Phillip Gunter: Dear Commissioner Pelissier: Thank you for your service to the citizens of Orange County. As I have noted in previous letters, because of the diversity of land use and interests among your constituents, your job must often be a daunting task. Regarding the rezoning issue in the Eno District, I remain concerned about the proposed changes. I attended the last meeting of the Planning Board (August 1, 2012). The revised proposal was approved, but not unanimously. Two board members in attendance voted against the proposal. They asked some good questions. At that meeting, I heard no good answers to those questions and concerns. My original concerns that I expressed to you in my letters of February 19, 2012; May 11, 2012; and May 21, 2012 remain: 1) storm water runoff; 2) noise pollution; and 3) air pollution. Since then, a letter written to you by Dr. Jon Arvik addressed in detail the well-defined and scientifically documented health dangers and risks caused by open-air grinding, crushing, and shredding of trash and construction debris. This activity is already "permitted" by Orange County on Mount Hermon Church road. My first two concerns, storm water runoff and noise pollution, still exist, but for the time being are dwarfed by the obvious immediate health-threatening particulate pollution of the air we breathe. We can filter the water we drink. We can wear noise suppressing ear plugs; however, we must breathe the air. Since the onset of open-air grinding, crushing and shredding on Mt. Hermon Church Road, my daughter has been diagnosed with asthma. She has been prescribed a medication for that serious condition. To protect the health of the citizens of Orange County, your help is requested in two ways: 1. Issue no more permits for businesses that might add to the particulate air pollution problem. This includes already existing business that might wish to expand. 2. Seek ways to cause existing business to take all necessary steps to eliminate any sources of particulate air pollution that existing in their business operations. To do anything less is to further endorse what has already been permitted and will likely encourage and attract to the Eno District other businesses which may create additional air pollution. I feel certain that most Orange County citizens would agree that subordinating the protection of the health and welfare of citizens and the protection of the environment to the desires for economic development and attempting to increase the tax base is always a mistake. At the August 1, 2012 meeting of the Planning Board, in response to Dr. Arvik's letter, Mr. Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Department, reported that his department is beginning a process to evaluate the particulate air pollution problems in the Eno District. Because this is a matter of public health, I request that you urge him and his staff to expedite this process and to cease issuing permits to businesses whose activities might further deteriorate the quality of the air we breathe. Thank you for your careful consideration of the proposals before you. I encourage you to delay consideration of this rezoning proposal until adequate air pollution monitoring and control procedures are in place. Sincerely, C. Phillip Gunter 4411 Hwy 70 E P. O. Box 507 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Cc: Commission for the Environment Planning Board Planning Department County Manager From: Sarah Glass (mailto:sarahmqlass(c�qmail.coml Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 2:54 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier Subject: Re: Opposition of Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals Dear Orange County Commissioners, My name is Sarah Glass and my husband and I live in Weldon Ridge neighborhood along old NC 10. As you may recall we both spoke in opposition to the EDD plan at the last BOCC meeting (I'm the pregnant one). Unfortunately we are personally unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night, but would like to express our continued opposition to the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed at that time. You heard significant opposition to ANY changes to the current land use classification and zoning of the area along Old NC10 at the last meeting. The current Land Use Classification AND Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. Although we appreciate the planning board's attention to the public opinion as represented by maintaining the rural residential zoning, we also think the land use classification should STAY as RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Any change otherwise would negatively impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent. *As one of you mentioned at the last meeting, NO PROPOSAL regarding zoning and land use has been passed without the approval of the residents that are affected.* Clearly the residents do NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION. I urge you to oppose this proposal- and that the land use classification should either *remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. * Sincerely, Sarah and Oliver Glass From: Jennifer Sharpe Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 5:08 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger (External); Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz Subject: zoning of Old NC 10 Dear County Commissioners: My name is Jennifer Sharpe and I live on Old NC 10 Hwy. I have been to all the meetings having to do with the zoning of land on Old NC and will be attending on 9/6 to again strongly protest any land along Old NC 10 being zoned anything but "Rural Residential". I was troubled by an email sent by our unofficial "organizer", Chris Kelsey, reminding us of the date of the next meeting. He indicated that the Planning Department was retaining rural residential zoning, but still wants to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. I research land use classification and zoning and the difference between the two. I found that a Land Use Map is a graphic representation of physical uses of land. These land use maps are highly visible within most community plans, often showing both current land use and plans for future land use. Land Use Maps identify land uses by category. These typically include Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Natural Areas, Agricultural, and Civic uses. Land Use maps can be either very broad or very detailed depending on the context or reasoning behind creating the map. The land use map is an important tool for identifying existing conditions and for working toward a vision for the community. On the other hand, a Zoning Map is a graphic depiction of the boundaries for which a certain set of standards or regulations have been adopted by a governmental entity. The zoning map typically provides predictability for the residents and development community as to what type of land uses may be expected and allowed within each zone district. Land is divided into zone districts from the zoning code which describes the intent and regulations of each particular zone category. A typical zone district will set forth regulations for permitted land uses, building height, density, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc. So, to summarize, a Future Land Use Map generally reflects the pattern of development that the community desires to see in specific areas, whereas the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map establish the actual use of land including the density, intensity, height, and form of development. I also found out that if a property owner wants to develop or use their property in ways that do not conform to their current zoning regulation, they must apply for a change in their zoning classification, also referred to as a rezoning. Zoning regulations, and the rezoning process, are often a key part of implementing area plans. All this research led me to one scary conclusion: that if you all approve the land use classification to be changed to EDE-1, you are making a decision that would go against the vision and desires of the community regarding future land use. Furthermore, you are making it that much easier for an individual land owner who may want to have their land rezoned in the future to suit their own needs without regard to the vision and desires of the community. The rezoning is more likely to be approved if the land use is already classified non-residential. Finally, this is what Wikipedia says about Land Use: "The major effect of land use on land cover since 1750 has been deforestation of temperate regions. More recent significant effects of land use include urban sprawl, soil erosion, soil degradation, salinization, and desertification. Land-use change, together with use of fossil fuels, are the major sources of carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas. According to a report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, land degradation has been exacerbated where there has been an absence of any land use planning, or of its orderly execution, or the existence of financial or legal incentives that have led to the wrong land use decisions, or one-sided central planning leading to over-utilization of the land resources - for instance for immediate production at all costs." Sound familiar? "As a consequence the result has often been misery for large segments of the local population and destruction of valuable ecosystems. Such narrow approaches should be replaced by a technique for the planning and management of land resources that is integrated and holistic and where land users are central. This will ensure the long-term quality of the land for human use, the prevention or resolution of social conflicts related to land use, and the conservation of ecosystems of high biodiversity value." That's how it should be done. Like my neighbor Barbara said in her earlier letter to you: Sustainability is sometimes better than growth. I think she speaks for everyone who lives on Old NC 10 Hwy and it's surrounding community. Sincerely, Jennifer Sharpe, MSW, LCSW Orange County Health Department From: Tonya Lamm (mailto:tonya.lamm(c�qmail.coml Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 8:49 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier Subject: Dont EDE-1 old NC-10 The land use classification around Old NC-10 should be removed from the economic development district, and not be classified EDE-1. Old NC-10 is a beautiful rural residential road. The current Land Use Classification*AND *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain its rural residential zoning, but desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows for non-residential entities. This would *negatively *impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.* * * I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Sincerely, Tonya Lamm 6408 Mt Hermon Church Road Durham From: Marjorie Scheer (mailto:mariorie.scheer(a�qmail.coml Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 9:18 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier; Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz; Pam Hemminger (External) Subject: Maintain our rural neighborhood please! Dear Orange County Commissioners, As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, I would implore you *NOT* to accept the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed tomorrow night. You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification *AND *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. This would *negatively *impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.* * * We would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Thank you for reading this. Most sincerely, Marjorie Scheer and Maximino Vargas 3726 Jackson Road Durham, NC 27705 Planning Director Craig Benedict presented this item. These amendments have been on the public hearing in February and May. These amendments are related to the area in the County near the intersection of I-85 and US 70 along the eastern border of Orange County next to the City of Durham and Durham County. He showed this area on a map. He said that this section of the County has some potential for growth. He said that 84% of the total County is intended for low-density and agricultural use. This area is designated for focused growth with an urban intensity. The land use amendments include three areas: Area I is Whisper Pines development as a residential node, Area II is an economic development category (low-intensity business or residential), and Area III will go from rural-residential to economic development. There is no rezoning recommended to an EDD II category except for the right-of-way by I-85. They are suggesting leaving the zoning in place by the Whisper Pines development. There is a change from the original land use and zoning submittals based on community input. The entire zoning of the land south of the railroad tracks and north of Old NC 10 is being deleted. The zoning of the mobile home park is also being deleted and the mobile home park is being left as is. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the Planning Board recommendation and close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 67 and the minutes from the last public hearing where the County Commissioners asked for more information. He said that he does not see this information in the packet. One of the items is more information regarding the City of Durham's Urban Growth Boundary where it goes into Orange County. Craig Benedict said that there are links to the small area plan on the website. Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner McKee also asked about links to railroad crossings so that the Planning Board could see them and also the public. Craig Benedict said that he believes there are links to these. He apologized if they were not there. Commissioner Gordon said that some areas are changed for land use regulations but not for zoning and she questioned that. Craig Benedict said that the land use changes just involve area 2 and 3 and the resolutions refer to those areas. The first one is from a commercial node. The second one is a land use change of 130 acres from commercial node to economic development. The third area is 181 acres. These are noted on pages 74 and 75. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Resolution Amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as contained within Attachment 14 (pages 74-77). Commissioner Jacobs said that this is inconsistent with Commissioner Gordon's comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to amend Commissioner Yuhasz's motion to delete the area south of the railroad and north of NC 10, which is 95.72 acres. A question was raised concerning which motion should be voted on first. John Roberts said that this is not a friendly amendment. The motion to amend the first motion takes precedence. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Planning Board has reviewed this and the County Commissioners originally suggested trying to conform the economic development district to the Durham Urban Services Boundary as much as possible. He thinks that the Planning Board recommendation is consistent with what the County Commissioners asked it to do. Commissioner McKee concurred with Commissioner Yuhasz. Commissioner Gordon said that the reason she made the motion is that the County needs to plan this area as it wants it to be used. She said that the land use should not be changed. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Eno EDD was done in a collaborative nature with the citizens over a period of time. He said that public hearings are not a good way to have communication with the public because there is no great interchange. He wants to make sure that the public feels like they have had an adequate say. It has been pretty clear from the comments that people are not comfortable with this. He is in favor of the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Yuhasz said that Orange County is about to make a substantial investment on behalf of all citizens in Orange County in engineering water and sewer into this economic development district. Without an appropriate land use plan in place, the decisions made with regard to how to install this infrastructure will be constraining as a result of an inadequate land use plan. Chair Pelissier called the question. Vote on motion to amend: VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs); Nays, 5 MOTION FAILED Vote on original motion: VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks that there is no hurry for this, but once again, this Board has hurried to a decision and he thinks the people that live in this area will regret this. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to respect the citizens' wishes. Commissioner Foushee said that the system is what it is and she does take exception that this Board rushed to a decision. She said that the County spent a large amount of time with this plan. She said that the County Commissioners make decisions with the thinking in mind that is best for Orange County. Chair Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Foushee's comments and said that she understands when there are concerns when the County does land use changes. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within Attachment 15 (page 78): VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Resolution Concerning Statement Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as contained within Attachment 17 (page 82). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Review of the Interim Report from the Historic Roqers Road Neiqhborhood Task Force The Board reviewed the Interim Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force dated August 22, 2012. Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert reviewed this item. The task force has been meeting since April and will be back to the Board at the Assembly of Governments meeting in December for a full and final report. The only immediate impact is that the Board of County Commissioners in the FY 2011-12 appropriated $120,000 for a reserve for the Rogers Road community. The report is shown below. The major sections are Introduction, Sewer Service, Neighborhood Community Center, and Potential Next Steps. The maps and appendices reference in the report can be found in permanent agenda files in the Clerk to the Board's office as well as part of the agenda abstract on the county website: www.oranqecounty.nc.qov INTRODUCTION In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill operated by the Town of Chapel Hill. Orange County assumed operational control of the landfill as the result of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) and the County. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with this landfill for 40 years. Over many years, residents representing the Rogers Road area have voiced concerns about various operational elements associated with the landfill and the impact on the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Neighborhood is geographically split by the Town of Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area and Town of Carrboro. Orange County, as the current owner/operator of the landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road Community. A number of local government initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of life in the Rogers Road Community and they are as follows: 1. The Solid Waste Fund paid $650,000 to extend public water service by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to the Rogers Road area. 2. Solid Waste installed gas flares to reduce odors. 3. The Town of Chapel Hill initiated bus service on Rogers Road. 4. Orange County initiated a no-fault well policy to deal with failing drinking water wells remaining in the adjoining neighborhoods. 5. The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the appropriation of$750,000 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance in the Fiscal 2011/12 Annual Budget to establish a Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund and established a $5.00 tipping fee surcharge per ton as long as the landfill is operational to fund the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund. The surcharge generated $216,462 for Fiscal 2011/12 and is estimated to create $222,500 for Fiscal 2012/13, which will bring the total amount available for the Rogers Road Remediation Reserve Fund to $1,188,962. 6. A partnership with Orange County and the University of North Carolina created a Landfill Gas to Energy Project that commenced operation on January 6, 2012 and will have an immediate and noticeable impact on the odor created by the operation of the landfill. The project will further provide a long-term renewable energy source to UNC, reducing dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions. 7. On October 4, 2011 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with a "one-time" effort to clean-up illegal dump sites within three- fourths of one mile of the landfill boundary, at no cost to the individual property owners. At the January 26, 2012 Assembly of Governments meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service and a community center for the Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys have concluded that use of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. Funding for a community center does not have a relationship to Solid Waste and could not be funded from Solid Waste reserves. Therefore, funding for either the extension of sewer services and/or a community center will have to come from the County's and Towns' other general revenue sources. There was also significant discussion on January 26 regarding the creation of a task force to address the issues. On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the Creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to address sewer service and a community center. The composition of the Task Force was to include two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). Appointed Task Force Members: David Caldwell: RENA Robert Campbell: RENA Valerie Foushee: Orange County Pam Hemminger: Orange County Michelle Johnson: Carrboro Sammy Slade: Carrboro Penny Rich: Chapel Hill James Ward: Chapel Hill Charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force: The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and the financial impact to the County & Towns, for the following: 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously approved public water connections in the area. 2. A Neighborhood Community Center. The Task force is also directed to: a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of August, 2012 and; b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 21, 2012 Boundaries of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood: The Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force approved that the Neighborhood be defined as the area identified by the September, 2011 map identifying available water service and approved for water service improvements by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on October 4, 2011. SEWER SERVICE The first charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate the possibility of providing sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously approved public water connections in the area. Assessment of Septic System Service in the Rogers Road Neighborhood: The County completed a survey of the Rogers Road Neighborhood in February, 2010. The Orange County Health Department, along with RENA, the UNC School of Public Health, and Engineers Without Borders, participated in a survey of wells and septic systems. There were forty-five (45) septic systems included in the survey, and twelve (12) were failing at that time. Of the twelve malfunctioning septic systems, seven (7) were further classified as maintenance- related failures, while five (5) were found to be end-of-life failures. Further investigation revealed that for the five end-of-life failures, there was no suitable soil for an on-site repair. The Environmental Health Department revisited the five properties and discovered that two of the properties are vacant, two are seasonal failures, and one has had patchwork done on it, but not a long-term solution. All of the five septic systems identified would benefit from the installation of a public sewer system. In 2011, Orange County received $75,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the infrastructure hookups in the Rogers Road Neighborhood. In order to receive connection, the homes had to be close enough to an existing water and/or sewer line so that no extension of service lines would be required for connection. Additionally, homeowners had to meet certain income eligibility requirements. There have been five homes connected to Orange Water and Sewer Authority) OWASA sewer as a result of this grant. OWASA Sewer Concept Plan: OWASA is the water & sewer utility for the area and as such, it investigated the concept of providing sewer service as part of the Town of Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Plan. On February 8, 2011 OWASA provided an updated concept plan and cost estimate for the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Study Area for $3.4 million. This early concept plan was completed based on the Chapel Hill Small Area Plan which is a geographically different area than the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood sewer concept. There is also some difference in routing some of the main outfalls. In the current estimate, OWASA needed to avoid the area of contamination coming out from the Carrboro section that required more line with deeper excavation. Most importantly, in the earlier estimates the availabilities fees were not included or the cost of extending a lateral from the main line to the property On May 16, 2012 OWASA staff provided a concept plan, layout, and cost estimate for providing sewer service to the area that was delineated by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force at the April 30, 2012 meeting. The concept plan is the most efficient way to serve the defined Rogers Road Neighborhood and does not consider adjoining neighborhoods. All the green areas show where sewer service is already available. The dark green areas are parcels that have connected to the OWASA service. The light green areas have not connected. The 86 parcels in yellow are the properties that would be served by the conceptual sewer layout. The concept map also breaks down the sewer service into 8 sub- areas with the number of parcels served and cost per parcel. The 8 red lines represent the possible sub-areas of the sewer infrastructure that could be considered, if the entire concept project is not feasible. The sewer infrastructure routing was estimated based on the topography taken from maps rather than from any field work. In order to get to a greater level of detail or certainty on the cost, some field work would be required. There are two brown areas on the map that the County has identified as some subsurface disposal or some suspected contamination. Without any further investigation, the sewer line has been routed no closer than 100 feet of that margin. The total construction and installation cost for the concept level sewer is approximately $5.8 million. It would serve 86 additional parcels of land. The concept costs include construction, engineering design, administrative and contingency for possible rock. The topography of the neighborhood is complex and the land falls in several different directions. This concept plan does not include the costs of any property acquisitions or easement acquisitions. The availability hookup charge for each of the parcels is based on an assumed average house size of 2,500 square feet. When a customer connects to the OWASA water and sewer system, there is a one-time fee that is estimated to be $4,300 for the concept plan. Cost estimate Summary: Engineering , Design and Permitting 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 Availability Fees 368,768 Total 5,788,215 The concept does not include the cost to actually connect individual homes to the sewer system. Those costs will vary on the configuration of the lot and the distance from the house to the main sewer line. Those costs are typically the costs of the homeowner and are estimated to be about $20/foot. The connections to an individual house would be provided by a private plumbing contractor. The next step to move the concept plan forward would be to begin the preliminary engineering and design work. Engineers would be hired to take this concept, go out in the field and start the process of data collection and defining the details of the concept. OWASA has estimated the preliminary engineering costs would be $376,350. That is a rough estimate based on what is known of the area so far. A completed preliminary engineering and design will be necessary to complete a Community Development Block Grant application. Sewer Recommendations: The Task Force has discussed all or part of the proposed $5.8 million dollar sewer concept plan, but has not yet recommended moving forward with this concept plan, pending an agreement on a cost sharing plan for sewer improvements. Grant Opportunities for Sewer Infrastructure: The Task Force explored several grant opportunities to fund the sewer improvement for the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Task Force was furnished a list of possible grant opportunities from RENA including the following: Community Development Block Grants Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Funds Clean Water Trust Fund Bernard Allen Fund These are mostly federal grant opportunities which are administered through the State. After reviewing all of the grant opportunities the Task Force was able to identify only two possible grants to fund sewer infrastructure, a Community Development Block Grant or a Clean Water Trust Fund Grant. Lastly they contacted Congressman Price's office, and those federal grants are no longer available. Michael Talbert said that there is no grant money that the County would qualify for at this time. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CENTER: The second assignment of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate the possibility of providing a Neighborhood Community Center to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. Hogan-Rogers House: The Preservation Society of Chapel Hill compiled a report on the historic Hogan-Rogers House as a potential Neighborhood Community Center for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, The St. Paul A.M.E. Church has purchased the Hogan-Rogers House and property surrounding it in order to build a new church complex on the site. Plans call for removal and/or demolition of this historic house as early as 2013. The Preservation Society began working with the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association, St. Paul Church, and Habitat for Humanity to relocate and restore this home that holds over 170 years of history for Chapel Hill's white and black community. Currently, the house is listed on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation survey conducted in 1999. Habitat for Humanity has graciously indicated its support by donating two lots to relocate the home. The historic home would have to renovated and used as a center for neighborhood programs and activities. Habitat's support for the home's relocation and restoration is contingent on a commitment of funding allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood to complete the project. Blake Moving Company, Inc. presented an estimate of $740,499 see Estimated presented to Rogers Road Task Force below, for the relocation of the Hogan-Rogers home to Purefoy Drive. Habitat has determined that the first two lots in the Phoenix Place subdivision, which are at the corner of Purefoy Drive and Edgar Street, would be the best location for the relocation of the structure. Blake presented examples of historical structures that the company has successfully moved. Blake's assessment of the historic home is that structure is sound, some repairs need to be made after it is moved, and there will not be any issues with the relocation of the home. An architect/engineer will have to be engaged to design the foundation of the relocated structure and remodeling of the interior of the home. St. Paul A.M.E. Church is completing the permitting and compliance phase of the project and anticipates getting through that process by late fall. The Church will go through the bidding process to select a site work contractor probably in late August/early September. The site work would start the latter part of the year depending on the weather. The phasing for building and construction for the buildings will not start until the first of the next year at the earliest. The Church will work with the Rogers Road Neighborhood to relocate the Hogan- Rogers House. Gloria Shealy, Project Manager has requested a timeline to relocate to the adjacent site. Because the Church is anxious to begin construction as soon as possible, time is of the essence to relocate the Hogan-Rogers House. Construction of a New Facility: If it is not feasible or practicable to move and restore the Hogan-Rogers House, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is investigating the possibility of constructing a new Community Center on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will support the construction of a new facility if the facility is used as a center for neighborhood programs and activities. The donated site could support a facility of up to 3,000 Sq. Ft. with an estimated budget of $500,000. Habitat's support for the community center will be contingent on a commitment of funding allocated to the Rogers Road Neighborhood to complete the project. A proposed community center must meet NC State Building Code and obtain a Building Permit. The Town of Chapel Hill advises consulting an architect/design professional on the cost and specific code requirements. In addition, the site layout must receive zoning approval and meet the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance requirements regarding site layout and process. Estimate presented to Rogers Road Task Force on 06/06/12 Blake Moving Company,Inc.submits the following estimate for the rclocation of the Hogan-Rogers home on Purefoy Drive.This estimate also includes site prep,footing,foundations,remodeling costs and additions � 1.Relocation-Includes all prep work to prepare the dwelling for relocation.Relocation of the home with the home Ueing lefr in a level position over a footing at bascment height. $39,860.00 2.Grading for the route-Includes placement of a 2 foot pipe in a drain ditch_Placiug compactable fill over the pipe and adjacent area.Removal of debris from the route and e�sting site,including Uack room,trees, and foundation debris. $11,160.00 3.ExcavaYion of topsoils at new site.Furnishing compactable fill to raise the house site up to 25 feet. Compacting fill including engineering fees: $21,230.00 4.Footings,foundations,basement slab-Pootings=width 2',depth 10"(includes horizontal reUar). Noundations include a 12"reinforced wall on the front and sides.Porch includes foundation from Uasement depth due to compaction issues and relocation process.Front sidewalks included.French drains and waterproofmg. $60,243.00 5.Backfill of topsoil against front and side walls.Side slopes to be tapered �5,250.00 6.Remove bac;k porch Removal of debris incladed in#2.Remove vinyl siding,Remove shingle siding. Putty all nail holes,repair lap siding,repair improper framing. $65,000.00 7.Remove vnryl shnigle siding,repair nail holes in lap siding,paint outside of dwelling $35,000.00 8.Remove roof—re-sheet and install new roof $40,000.00 9.Kestructure and rebuild front porch $15,000.00 , 10.Replace windows $21;250.00 11.New plumbing 3 levels $30,000.00 12.Remove old plaster,install and finish sheet rock $40,000.00 13.Rcpair and refuush all wood floors $20,0�0.00 14.Allowance for appliances $30,000.00 15.New cabinets throughout house $120,000.00 16.New doors front aud back 57,500.00 ' 17.New addition $80,000.00 18.Mechanical(ITVAC,duct work,etc.) $48,000.00 ��� 19.Elcctrical rcwu�ing $51,000.00 ' Total $740,499.00 � � Neighborhood Community Center Options: On June 27, 2012 the Task Force approved the following recommendations: 1. The Task Force recommends that the Hogan-Rogers House be saved to be used for a Community Center in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. 2. That the County be asked to increase the amount of funding that has already been budgeted to relocate the Hogan-Rogers House from $120,000 to $202,743. This amount will fund removing the back porch, grading, and excavation of the new site, footings, foundation, and basement slab. See Hogan — Rogers House Minimum Restoration Costs below. On August 22, 2012 the Task Force endorsed investigating the construction of a new Community Center. 1. The Task Force is investigating the possibility of constructing a new Community Center on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will support the construction of a new facility if the facility is used as a center for neighborhood programs and activities. The donated site could support a facility of up to 3,000 Sq. Ft. with an estimated budget of up to $500,000. Hogan -Rogers Hosue Minimum Restoration Costs �lak�1!lls�ving�ompany,Ts�e.��b�its the fo�lowing�s�i�naie far the relocatitara csf t�e���;an-�oge�°s hnm�oa�P�arefay llrivc.Thi�es ` �te�lso incIndes site�r��r, ftaod°an��f�a�tnd�tions,t°e�node9�ng eost€and addifiaons, 1,Iteioc�ti�n- Ia�c��des al]prep�va�rk to prepar�thc a3w��ilis���csr r�Icec�atinx�. I;etaca��n€af the�csme�it�t t�e hotne J�ei��teft i��Ie�et pe��itcan over�[4�ting at base�r�e�t lteig}�t. �3q,��i�.p�} 2.�x��cii��fc�r�he rc�u#e-�nele�c�es placement of a 2 fc��t�i�e in a drain diteh. Pla�efng cc����cta3��e�Il€�ver the�i�e��ad ad,�acea�i aa°ea.Re�nt�val of tiebri�frtrm �he r�ufe ancl�xisfin�site,i�eiudi�g�acl�rva�,tre�s,at�ei fo�mdation del�ris. $�Y,Pts#�,i}f� 3,Excaw�ti�,n af topso'als r�#ffiew site. �'urnishing eam�a�tatale�el�tc��ai�e tthe��oazse si#e up�a 2.;`s feet. Cc�inpacting�Tl�rccludl�ng�ngineerit�g f�es �21,���.{}fl 4.�'�aatings,foundati��ss,basemea�t�lab-�ontiu�;�=vvic3t�i 2',c3e�sth l�i"(ia�elu+des hs�raa,az��}rei�ac�),�'o�a�data�ng incl�de a 12"t°eirtforced�a�ll c�c�tt��f�°astt a�r�d sides. Parch inef�des�'a datic�m frc�an baseu�ent deg�tt�due tcr cas��sactfan issues and reice�atia��ra�ess.k�r�ont sidew�iks�r�ctud�d.Fr��c�t€�raia�s as�ci waterpracsfin�;, � �D�Ug&i4..F.L7� S.�3�c�S�Ci c�f tapsail againsk frssc�t�nd sid��va�is.Side slc��es ta be tapered. �5,?SQ�.O� �i>�erumve��cl����sr�h,�emvvaD of de��is incia�c�ed�ra#Z.Re�nv�v�nyl sidin�, I���a€=�s�afn��l�s�c���ge P'utt�a[4 nai�h�sle�,t�e�ss�i����idi��,�p�[r muzpr�p�r � fxaanit��;. ��iS,ti0tl.i►tl Total minimum restoration costs $202,743 FINANCIAL IMPACT AND COSTS SHARING OPTIONS The Task Force has consensus that there are needs in the Rogers Road Neighborhood that should be addressed by the Task Force. The Task Force has investigated two possible solutions in the Rogers Road Community and the estimated costs are as follows: Installing sewer infrastructure for 86 defined parcels in the Rogers Road Neighborhood $ 5,788,215 Relocating and Renovating the Hogan-Rogers House for a Neighborhood Community Center $ 740,499 Total Financial Impact $6,528,714 The Task Force is investigating and evaluating five different cost sharing options for the Rogers Road Neighborhood as outlined below: 1. The first option is based on the Municipal Solid Waste (tonnage) delivered to the Landfill by each municipality during Fiscal 2010/11. 2. The second option is based on the original Landfill Agreement between the Towns and the County dated November 30, 1972. 3. The third possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This is the method the Board of County Commissioners has selected to distribute Sales Tax revenues between the County and the Towns. 4. The fourth option is based on County and Towns Ad Valorem Property Taxes Levied by each municipality for Fiscal 2011/12. This is an alternative method the Board of County Commissioners could consider to distribute Sales Tax revenues between the County and the Towns. 5. The fifth possible solution is based on County and Town populations. This option is not weighted and uses only the rural population of Orange County compared to the Towns. See the Spreadsheet: Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force Cost Sharing Options 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% Chapel Hill 15,008 42% $ 90,549 43% Hillsborough 3185 9% Orange County 10,497 30% $ 90,549 43% Total 35,340 100'�0 $ 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 am 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'�0 211,455,442 100% 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'�0 6. Cost Sharing Recommendations: On August 22, 2012 the Task Force approved the following recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the County and Town Managers collectively discuss and formulate a fair and equitable cost sharing recommendation for the Task Force to consider. Options 2 & 4 are no longer being considered by the Task Force, therefore the recommendation should be based on options 1, 3, and /or 5. The cost sharing recommendation will be reviewed by the Task Force and could be applied to funding Sewer Infrastructure and a Community Center. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS: Formulate recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on the following unresolved issues: 1. Providing sewer service to the Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined in the Task Force Charge. a. Determine which grant opportunities are possible and probable and worthy of consideration. b. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources. 2. Moving and renovation of the Hogan-Rogers House for a Neighborhood Community Center. a. Define a moving and renovation project team. b. Create a timeline for moving and renovating the house. c. Create and approve a capital and/or operating budgets for the Community Center d. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources. 3. Complete investigating is the possibility of constructing a new Community Center on the two lots donated by Habitat for Humanity. a. Create and approve a capital and/or operating budgets a new Community Center b. Create a timeline for constructing a new Community Center. a. Agree collectively on costs sharing and possible funding sources. 4. Agree on a strategy to educate and promote the recommendations of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to all three local governments. Report ends here. Frank Clifton said that the numbers on the utilities only include sewer. He said that he has had a discussion with the director of Habitat of Humanity and they may want to contract with Habitat to be the project manager. Commissioner Hemminger said that she and Commissioner Foushee served on this task force and she has met with Habitat about this issue several times. Habitat for Humanity would be willing to be the coordinator. They are not allowed to be contractors for anything other than residential, but they could help coordinate this community center. Habitat has not brought this to its board yet and is waiting on the recommendation. There are several concerns about the property and the commitment of funding, etc. Habitat for Humanity is an eager partner, but they want assurances. She hopes to move forward with this community center before the landfill closes. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if anyone had talked to OWASA about this sewer. He said that this is a significant amount of money to pay for a sewer. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the minutes from June 5th and that there was a request by him and Commissioner Jacobs for the County to investigate a low-cost loan program for people to hook up to the system. He asked about the progress on this. Frank Clifton said that nothing has been done yet. He said that the County has already approved paying the connection fees for the water system, but there have been no takers. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to encourage the County's partners to have a conversation with OWASA to see if there is something that can be done. Commissioner Hemminger said that it is a complicated and complex issue. She said that the County can run sewer, but cannot guarantee if people want to hook up. She said that the school system is still interested in the Greene Tract for a future school. Commissioner McKee made reference to the community center and said that the landfill belongs to the County and is operated by Orange County and all citizens pay taxes to the County. He would like to see this Board move ahead with the community center, and if there are no partners, so be it. He supports building a new center if needed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Foushee said that she appreciated Commissioner McKee's comments. She said that the Board made a commitment to this community that the outcomes would be different. She said that the County may not get financial assistance from the towns and she sees the towns using this as a delay tactic. She wants to make a commitment as a Board to ensure that the community center is built. She does not think that the Board needs to take on as a task preserving the Hogan-Rogers House. She would like to see it renovated with some private funds. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with what his peers have said regarding how to proceed. He made reference to the list on page 5 regarding local government initiatives that have been accomplished. One of the concerns is getting the speed limit reduced and someone has done this. He does not know which government entity did this. He said that this should be recognized. He made reference to item #1 and the $650,000 to extend water service and said that this was a decision of this Board. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there has been any discussion about selling the joint part of the Greene Tract to help pay for some of the sewer costs. Frank Clifton said that the Managers have talked about this but not the politicians. Michael Talbert said that the task force did discuss this and there was confirmation that the school system was still interested but it was not part of the charge of the task force. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is curious about another possibility for funding and asked if anyone had discussed putting the upcoming items (middle school for CHCCS, jail, etc.) in the closure of the landfill with a bond. Frank Clifton said that one of the key elements is the 15% of the total operating budget for debt service. Commissioner Foushee said that there was a comment made in the task force that the County should pay for this and when she asked how the County would pay for it, there was a clear suggestion that the County raise taxes. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there has been any discussion about putting in infrastructure and how this would affect the neighborhood. Commissioner Foushee said that this was not part of their charge. Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to move forward with the community center and do it expeditiously. She would like more information on the pros and cons of having a new facility or renovating the old house. Chair Pelissier said that she favored a new facility for the community center. She suggested that the County make a commitment in January to take action after the final report at the Assembly of Governments meeting in December. Commissioner Hemminger said that she does not want to wait until January. Commissioner Foushee said that she would not be here in January so she wanted to make a comment. She said that, as public servants, they do not always get it right. The County Commissioners have taken a lot of criticism from the towns about the closure of the landfill. She said that she understands that it was clear to all of the RENA community that if the landfill had not closed, they would not be having this conversation about a mitigation plan now. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz for intent to: • move forward with a new "green" community center; • to ask the Manager to find $380,000 more to move into the fund already established with $120,000; • to work with RENA and Habitat for Humanity on the design and implementation of this community center; • to ask the towns to contribute computer supplies, permitting costs, connection costs and the first 12 months of utilities towards this project; • to ask the towns to expedite the permitting process; and • to be able to start immediately to bring this project back to the BOCC October meeting to finalize going forward. Michael Talbert said that the segments of sewer were designed without regard to the other surrounding land. It could be designed completely different if other neighborhoods were included. Regarding debt service, the County would be at or near 15% up until 2016-17. The $6.5 million, including the $740,000, plus all of the sewer, if financed for 20 years would require debt service of about $450,000. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Dorosin is the Managing Attorney at the UNC Center for Civil Rights. He was representing the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA). He made reference to the question of cost and said that this is not the most efficient way to serve the community. He said that OWASA does not have a prohibition on using pumps. He said that this may be an opportunity to engage with OWASA to get its board members to put this issue back on the table. He said that a commitment without a commitment to funding is no commitment at all. He is encouraged to hear the Board's discussion. He said that the report suggests that water is available all throughout the community. He does not think that a lot of the people in the community know that there is money available. He said that most people need help with the costs of hooking up to the system. Regarding the community center, he said that he was taken aback that Chapel Hill was talking about zoning and planning restrictions that it intends to impose on this property (i.e., 3,000 foot setbacks). He said that he is encouraged to hear the commitment to the community center, because when this first started the priority was the sewer. Commissioner Hemminger restated her motion. Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking staff to come back with information on the Hogan House and the costs of deconstructing it. He said that when the County did the water line before, staff went house-to-house and some people were afraid. He said that there has to be a better way to engage the community. Commissioner Hemminger asked if there was money set aside for citizens to connect to the water system. Frank Clifton said that there is money set aside for the purpose of paying the charges of OWASA (permits, connection fees, etc.). What is not set aside is the cost to the run the line from the house. Commissioner Hemminger agreed with Commissioner Foushee and said that the Hogan house is not sustainable for long-term usage. She wants the house to be saved. She suggested engaging Habitat for Humanity on how to save this house. Commissioner McKee said that the funding should be concentrated on the services to the community and helping mitigate the environmental issues such as the smell. Frank Clifton suggested adding to the motion for the Town of Chapel Hill to do an expedited approval process for this facility. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he supports having a new structure for the community center. He also supports modifying the motion to include the Manager's suggestion of an expedited process. Commissioner Hemminger said that she supports the modification of the motion. The motion was amended to include the request to ask the towns to expedite the permitting process. Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee should make a personal call to the members of the task force to inform them of the Board's motion of intent. Frank Clifton said that the issue of the Greene Tract could be put on the table at the Assembly of Governments meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that it has to be an open discussion about the Greene Tract, and also the school system may weigh in that they need more than one site for future schools. Commissioner Jacobs said that he wonders about the 3,000 square foot building and he hopes that the Board discusses the possibility of building a bigger community center. He wants this facility to meet the needs of the community. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Oranqe County's Recommendations Reqardinq Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2013-14 Leqislative Goals Packaqe The Board considered a Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2013-14 Legislative Goals Package and authorizing the Chair to sign. Greg Wilder said that every two years there is a process to develop these goals. The purpose is to develop a consensus across the state for issues that can guide the General Assembly for the next two years. The deadline for submittal of goals is September 17, 2012. The Legislative Issues Work Group has met, which consists of Commissioners Jacobs and McKee as well as staff inembers and the County Attorney. The work group has developed a proposed resolution, which is Attachment 2 on page 30. Commissioner Jacobs said that the work group tried to take goals from before, goals from the Commission for the Environment, and moving up to a higher visibility some of the issues that have been discussed for years, such as the homestead exemption. He made reference to the recycling of electronic waste and said that Orange County is subsidizing this 90%. In other places there is a fee when the equipment is purchased that helps pay for this. Chair Pelissier made reference to item #8 and said that there was some discussion that this could be dealt with more effectively by engaging the fire departments. Michael Talbert said that staff contacted White Cross Fire Department, which has a temporary permit to continue to do what it does, but there is no guarantee at any one point that the State would not change the rules. There is not a permanent permit to continue to dispose of the waste. Chair Pelissier said that she brought this forward to the Environmental Steering Committee, and it was suggested that there might be more success if the Fire Chiefs Association lobbied on this. She would like to encourage other parties to get involved in this. Chair Pelissier said that another goal of the steering committee was to enhance river basin and monitoring of streamline rule-making. This was intended to address the fact that the way all the rules have been made up do not require the monitoring directly of all of the water bodies. A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to add this item into the list of goals: Enhance river basin monitoring and streamline rule-making. Commissioner Jacobs said that they did not look at the NCACC goals, but only the Orange County specific goals. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve a Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2013-14 Legislative Goals Package and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner McKee asked that a letter be written from Chair Pelissier to the Chief's Council in reference to Orange County's support of item #8 in the resolution: 8) Support actions to change North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) wastewater system classification rules which currently classify a spray irrigation system such as one utilized by volunteer fire departments as "commercial". When the flow generated by the system is domestic quality/non-industrial process wastewater, the system should be held to the same monitoring and testing standards as a residential wastewater system under DWQ jurisdiction. In the alternative, volunteer fire departments should be excluded entirely from the "commercial" classification. The annual inspections and testing costs associated with a "commercial" designation for a spray irrigation system serving a volunteer fire department can be several thousands of dollars. Accounting for the type of flow actually treated by a system rather than assigning a blanket "commercial" designation would significantly reduce volunteer fire departments' annual costs across the state. 8. Reports-NONE 9. County Manaqer's Report Frank Clifton said that there will be two upcoming retirements — Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca and Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey. Also, the County has completed the process for the hiring of a Public Affairs Officer and she is Carla Banks and will be starting on September 17tn 10. County Attorney's Report None 11. Appointments a. Chapel Hill/Oranqe County Visitor's Bureau —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to appoint Jack Schmidt to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau to serve a partial term ending December 31, 2012 and representing the Orange County Lodging Association. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner McKee said that South Orange Rescue Squad provides a lot of assistance for UNC football games. He said that there are a lot of other people that help with the Emergency Services Department. Commissioner McKee said that Eno Fire Department will be dedicating Station #2 this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. There will also be a lunch fundraiser. Efland Fire Department will be having a supper fundraiser on the same day. Commissioner Jacobs said that he attended the open house for the Southern Human Services Center Master Plan. He said that Chapel Hill is in the process of doing a small area plan for Estes Road/MLK Boulevard area. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the problem that staff addressed at the Eurosport Soccer Complex. He appreciated that staff was aggressive in coming up with solutions. He said that when this was first sited in this area, it was intended to be used as a jump start for economic development. The person that wrote in to complain about some of the conditions there pointed out that this complex was drawing 7,000 people on the weekend and that this was an economic development opportunity and the County should take advantage of it. It was an indirect compliment to the County Commissioners' thinking ten years ago. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Hillsborough Arts Council is hosting a jazz festival on September 15th at Moorefields from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Also, the Eno Farmers Market is hosting a Harvest Dinner on September 15th at 6:00. Commissioner Hemminger said that she had a tour of the jail today and she complimented the staff at the jail, which is a very small space. Commissioner Gordon — none Commissioner Yuhasz— none Commissioner Foushee —none Chair Pelissier said that the Bus-on-Shoulder system started in July and at the last TTA meeting it was discussed that this is used on a daily basis and there have not been any problems. She highlighted that for the last 18 of the 19 months, ridership with TTA has consistently increased by 15-18%. Chair Pelissier said that she is getting involved in NC Tomorrow, which is a statewide effort. The goal of this project is to identify the places in the region for a comprehensive unified economic development plan. There were 15 focus groups this summer where people identified statewide goals. The report will be done by the end of the year. 13. Information Items • August 21, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board