HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-20-2012 - 5a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 20, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
Attachment 1 September 18, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting
Attachment 2 October 2, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I DRAFT Attachment 1
2 MINUTES
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 September 18, 2012
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
9 September 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Alice
12 M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Foushee
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
16 Gwen Harvey, Clarence Grier, Michael Talbert, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker(All other
17 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
20 Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places.
21 - White sheets—guidelines for items 6-a and 6-b, Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit
22 Modification — Spence Dickinson; and Class A Special Use Permit — Public Utility Station
23 (Solar Array)
24 - One blue sheet and two white sheets from Commissioner Gordon regarding item 7-c-
25 Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement
26
27 Chair Pelissier introduced Frank Clifton who then introduced Carla Banks, the new
28 Public Affairs Officer.
29 Carla Banks thanked the County Commissioners for bringing her on board.
30
31 PUBLIC CHARGE
32
33 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
34
35 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
36
37 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
38 Don O'Leary spoke on the County's act of high treason by forming an alliance with
39 International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives. He said that the County was using
40 Agenda 21 and terms like "sustainable development". He made reference to the Mountains to
41 Sea Trail and said that the trail follows the waterways and aquifers so perfectly and one might
42 assume that it is deliberate. He said that if the County has enough control of easements and
43 waterways, then it could disallow grazing or fertilizing anywhere near it, taking away the
44 property owners' rights of their own land use. He said that the County refuses to obey the laws
45 of the Constitution.
46
47 Chair Pelissier said that she forgot to mention that Commissioner Foushee could not
48 attend this meeting.
49
50
,
'
2
l b. Matters on the Printed A-genda
2 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
3 bmh»xv)
5 3. Petitions by Board Members
6 Commissioner Hemminger asked that the BOCC write a letter in support of Holden
7 Thorpe to encouraging him to stay in leadership at UNC.
8 Chair Pelissier said that this would be referred to the Agenda Review Team.
10 4. 'Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations
I I a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients
12 The Board presented checks to local artists and nonprofit organizations receiving Spring
13 2012 Orange County Arts Grants.
14 Martha Shannon, staff support for the Orange County Arts Commission, presented
15 these awards. In the Spring 2012, the Arts Commission received a total of$52,546 in grant
16 requests. The awards total $40,482 in Grassroots Program Funds from the Retrolina Arts
17 Council.
19 Spring, 2012 Grant Recipients: Attendees:
21 ArtsCenter- Tracy Thomas
22 Chapel Hill Carrboro Children's Museum — NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT
23 dba Kidzu Children's Museum
24 Chapel Hill Carrboro Public School Foundation- NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT
25 Deep Dish Theater Company- Not AVAILABLE TONIGHT
26 Door to Door of UNC Health Care- Joy Javits
27 Ephesus Elementary School PTA- Nicole Kushner
28 Estes Hills Elementary School- Christine Cohn
29 Franklin Street Arts Collective dba FRANK Gallery— Barbara Tyroler
30 Glenwood Elementary School PTA- Kate Underhill
31 Grady A. Brown Elementary School PTA- Tracy Thomas
32 Hillsborough Arts Council- Heather Delisle
33 McDougle Elementary School PTA- Michelle Melet
34 McDougle Middle School PTA- Michele Melet
35 North Carolina Symphony- Bob &Connie Eby
36 Orange County Artists Guild- Sandy Beeman
L
3
1 Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks- Gerry Williams (Carrboro Music
2 Festival)
3
4 s. Consent Agenda
5 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
6
7 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded Commissioner Hemminger to
10 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 Shown below.
14
15 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
16 d. 2012 Property Tax Releases
17 The Board considered adoption of a resolution to release property values related to one
18 hundred eighty-three (183) requests for property tax release in accordance with North Carolina
19 General Statute 105-381.
20 Commissioner Hemminger said that this is a big number and she asked if this affects
21 the budget.
22 Tax Administrator Duane Brinson said that this corresponds to the annual billing
23 process. Last year the number was twice as much.
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
25 to approve the adoption of a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
26 values related to one hundred eighty-three(183) requests for property tax release in
27 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 a. Minutes
31 The Board approved the minutes from June 7, 14 and August 21, 2012 as submitted by the
32 Clerk to the Board.
33 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
34 The Board adopted of a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
35 thirty-five (35) requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds, in accordance with
36 the NCGS.
37 c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
38 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values
39 related to forty(40) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North
40 Carolina General Statute 105-381.
41 d. 2012 Property Tax Releases
42 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
43 consideration.
44 e. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment#2
45 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
46 2012-13 for Department of Social Services, Health Department, Board of Elections,
47 Planning/Inspections and Orange Public Transportation, and the Department of Environment,
48 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation.
4
1 f. Approval of Financing Arrangement for Efland Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. to
2 Purchase a Fire Engine Truck
3 The Board approved a request from Efland Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. to enter into a
4 financing arrangement to purchase a fire truck for$45,000 from the Company's unassigned
5 fund balance; and authorized the Board of County Commissioners' Chair to sign the appropriate
6 documents related to the financing arrangement.
7 cL. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance WDO) Text Amendment
8 Schedule for November 2012 Joint Quarterly Public Hearing—Outdoor Lighting
9 The Board approved the process components and schedule for a Planning Director initiated
10 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment for the November 19, 2012 Quarterly
11 Public Hearing regarding amendments to existing outdoor lighting regulations.
12 h. Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
13 Water and Sewer Extension Project—Phase 2
14 The Board approved Contract Amendment#3 to the Hobbs, Upchurch &Associates(HUA)
15 contract for design of water and sewer utilities in the extended Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
16 Economic Development District(EDD) area and authorized the Chair and Manager to sign; and
17 authorized the manager to negotiate and sign any changes to the cost of this amendment that
18 may arise once the actual construction cost and scope are known.
19 i. Trustee Appointments to the Orange New Hope Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board
20 The Board appointed Eddie Walker and Brian Blalock to the Orange New Hope Firemen's Local
21 Relief Fund Board.
22 L Trustee Appointment to the Central Orange Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board
23 The Board appointed Jim Fuller to the Central Orange Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board.
24 k. Bid Award—Front End Loading Garbage Truck
25 The Board awarded a bid at a total cost of$252,720 for the purchase of a new Front End
26 Loading Garbage Truck from Carolina Environmental Systems, Inc. (CES) of Kernersville, NC,
27 and authorized the Finance Director to execute the appropriate paperwork.
28 6. Public Hearings
29 a. Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification—Spence
30 Dickinson
31 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and
32 considered a decision on a request submitted by Mr. Spence Dickinson to rezone a 4.003 acre
33 parcel of property to Rural Buffer and modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit(hereafter
34 'SUP')for the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by removing the
35 subject property from its provisions.
36 Chair Pelissier explained the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board
37 recommendation for Spence Dickinson.
38
39 Michael Harvey: Good evening. Tonight's request is to receive the Planning Board
40 recommendation, close the public hearing, make a decision on the request submitted by Mr.
41 Spence Dickinson to rezone an approximately four-acre parcel of property; to rezone the parcel
42 of property from Rural Buffer to Planned Development Housing and remove this parcel from the
43 confines of the existing Class A Special Use Permit for the Parkwood at Blackwood Mountain
44 subdivision. As part of the attachments for the siting, you have the July 11, 2012 Planning
45 Board abstract, the excerpt from the approved May 29t' Quarterly Public Hearing notes; an
46 excerpt from the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular minutes; responses from the
47 applicant regarding conditions associated with this project. In Attachment 5, the Planning
48 Board recommended the Findings of Fact. Attachment 6 is an Ordinance Amending the
49 Orange County Zoning Atlas. Attachment 7 is an Ordinance Denying an Amendment to the
50 Orange County Zoning Atlas. Attachment 8 is a Resolution of Consistency for the 2030
~
5
l Comprehensive Plan. Attachment S is e Resolution of Inconsistency for the 2O3O
2 Comprehensive Plan.
4 Chair Pelissier declared the public hearing re-convened and asked staff to make their
5 presentation.
7 Michael Harvey: You also have a script that was produced by staff, providing you with an
8 outline of the actions that staff will be taking this evening and to aid you in making your
9 motions. Please remember that this is a two-sphered process. You're going to be taking action
10 of modification to a Class A Special Use Permit, specifically removing this lot as shown on the
I I overhead proje'ctor from the confines of an existing Class A Special Use Permit. The second
12 action you're going to take this evening is a legislative action to rezone the subject property to
13 Rural Buffer. As you will remember from meetings past, we have had a new procedure that we
14 had to follow as a result of the State Supreme Court decision on rezoning. Previously,we had
15 combined Statements of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the Ordinance
16 Amending the Zoning Atlas. According to a recent State Supreme Court case,we can no
17 longer do that, which is why you now have two attachments. In this case, I am referring to
18 Attachment 6 and Attachment 8. Attachment 8 states that you are adopting outlining how this
19 project is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please remember that previous to
20 this, or previous to the last meeting when we looked at the Eno Economic Development District,
21 we put this information in one central resolution. We now have to split it out. The cadence for
22 adoption is also specified by the State Supreme Court and that you must adopt an ordinance
23 amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas first, and then adopt a Statement of Consistency to
24 the Comprehensive Plan.
25 Having said that, what I would like to do this evening is briefly review with you the
26 actions of the Planning Board. As you will note from Attachment 5 of your abstract packet,the
27 Planning Board went through the Findings of Fact and determined that the applicant had met
28 his burden with respect to compliance with the individual requirements of the Orange County
29 Unified Development Ordinance for the approval of this request. They also made specific
30 Findings of Fact on the compliance with Section 5.3.2 (8) 2 a, b, and c, with respect to this
31 project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to this proposed amendment
32 would not have a negative impact on adjacent property, and last but not least, the applicant had
33 met his burden of proof that the proposal was consistent with surrounding land use. The
34 Planning Board is recommending unanimous approval of this process and of the proposed
35 rezoning. The applicant specifically in Attachment 4 has indicated his support for the conditions
36 with one exception—the applicant requests that that the Board not impose a condition about
37 the wooded access from this lot of the Pathway Court. As you will recall from the Quarterly
38 Public Hearing, and this is detailed within Attachment 2 of your abstract packet, concerns were
39 expressed by adjacent property owners about the potential for a road or a drive access from
40 this property and ultimately the existing camp property to the east operated by Mr. Dickinson
41 onto Pathway Court. Staff recommended the imposition of the condition at that time. Staff still
42 recommends the imposition of this condition. The applicant respectfully requested in writing
43 that you not impose it. Unless you have any questions, that is the end of my presentation at
44 this time.
6
1
2 Commissioner Jacobs: To the point he just made, do you feel that adequately addressed the
3 concerns of Mr. Lamb that are on page 33 of our packet regarding the impact on the Heartwood
4 development?
5 Michael Harvey: I feel it does and with all due respect to Mr. Dickinson, I take a different
6 viewpoint of why the condition was imposed. As this parcel of property is being removed from
7 the confines of the Heartwood at Blackwood Special Use Permit and is not subject to the
8 conditions of the Special Use Permit or the imposition of fees or other actions by the Heartwood
9 Homeowners Association that is responsible for maintaining Pathway Court, it is my considered
10 opinion that it would not be reasonable for us to allow there to be access onto Pathway Court by
11 the adjacent camp, even though the property has frontage on it and even though there are
12 other lots that were approved after the issuance of the Special Use Permit that have access on
13 Pathway as well. I would argue that the County in hindsight, should have required an
14 amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow for further subdivision activity to occur in the 80's
15 and early 90's, which it did not. We do not need to perpetuate the same mistake, as this
16 property has been removed from the confines and SUP and not subject to the local
17 homeowners control and purview, it is my considered opinion that it should not be allowed to
18 have access on a street that is maintained by that homeowners association.
19
20 Commissioner Jacobs: Just in reading what Mr. Lamb said, I thought he was concerned that
21 the parcel be restricted for use for the septic field and it says, "and no other activities or
22 services or hindrances along the border of the community."
23
24 Michael Harvey: As I articulated that evening and spoke with Mr. Lamb later, it is my position
25 that Mr. Dickinson does have the right to go back to the Orange County Board of Adjustment,
26 which is his plan, in seeking expansion of existing camp retreat center that this property has the
27 ability to utilize for other purposes than just a septic system, allowing for expansion of the
28 existing camp retreat center, and I don't feel it necessary at this special use permit process
29 hinder that ability with the imposition of additional conditions on the use of this parcel. The
30 Board of Adjustment is going to go through a similar public hearing process where adjacent
31 property owners would be notified and allowed to present the case on why that specific land
32 uses should not be allowed. I also don't think there's been any evidence submitted into the
33 record at the Quarterly Public Hearing or at the Planning Board meeting that#1, any proposed
34 redevelopment of this will have a negative impact on adjacent lots, and #2, even if there was it
35 would not germane to this request as this request is intended to solely amend the existing
36 Heartwood SUP to remove this lot. I don't believe it's essential for this Board to impose any
37 additional restrictions other than what the ordinance would impose as part of what's customary.
38
39 Chair Pelissier: As I understand it, the only other person who would speak would be Spence
40 Dickinson.
41
42 John Roberts: If I can address that. This portion of the hearing, the specific purpose, if you
43 allow Mr. Dickinson to speak, you cannot consider what he says as part of your decision
44 making. I recommend that he not be permitted. What his position is has been put in the record
7
1 by Mr. Harvey, but if you allow him to speak to this subject now, what you are in effect doing is
2 accepting additional testimony in a quasi-judicial hearing, which could open the Board's
3 decision up to be overturned in the event of an appeal to Superior Court.
4
5 Chair Pelissier: Are they any other questions of staff? Once we close the public hearing, we
6 can no longer ask any questions of staff. I just want to make sure there are no other questions.
7
8 Commissioner Gordon: I just want to make sure we understood the status of the condition
9 that staff recommended that Mr. Dickinson would like removed. Is it your contention and do I
10 understand it that we impose this condition even though he doesn't agree?
11
12 Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am. The condition is designed to address a community concern as
13 well as preserving the integrity of the SUP process without allowing for additional use of the
14 roadway that was never envisioned in the SUP as originally approved by this Board. And I'm
15 talking about the Heartwood Special Use Permit.
16
17 Commissioner Gordon: So he does not have to agree. There are other situations in which
18 the person would have to agree, but not this one.
19
20 Michael Harvey: Correct.
21
22 Commissioner Yuhasz: Do I understand this correctly that if we impose this condition we are
23 then creating a landlocked parcel?
24
25 Michael Harvey: No sir. As articulated and testified during the Quarterly Public Hearing, Mr.
26 Dickinson is going to be recombining this parcel with a parcel to the east, this camp retreat
27 center property, which has access on Millhouse Road. It will become one large parcel of
28 property designed to support and promote the continued operation of a legally permitted camp
29 retreat center that is operating under the current Class B Special Use Permit issued under the
30 Orange County Board of Adjustment.
31
32 Commissioner Yuhasz: I understand that's the intent, but that won't happen until after this
33 decision is made.
34
35 Michael Harvey: That is also a correct statement.
36
37 Commissioner Yuhasz: And what we are doing,just to be clear, we are imposing a condition
38 not on this property, but on the Special Use Permit that—essentially we are imposing a
39 condition on the remainder of the lots, not on this lot.
40
41 Michael Harvey: What you're essentially doing is caused the existing Special Use Permit to be
42 modified to remove this lot from the confines and regulatory requirement of that permit. You
43 are also stipulating that this particular parcel of property, as it currently exists and as it will exist
44 when recombined with the parcel to the east, will not be allowed to have any drive access onto
45 Pathway Court.
46
47 Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear on where we are imposing that condition. 1
48 don't know whether, in a general rezoning, we are allowed to impose conditions like that.
49
8
1 Michael Harvey: You're not imposing as part of the general rezoning, you're imposing as part
2 of the special use permit line.
3
4 Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear, we're imposing it on the special use permit
5 that sits on the rest of the lots and not on this particular one.
6
7 Michael Harvey: Correct.
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close
9 the public hearing. NOTE — once this is done staff cannot answer questions or provide
10 additional detail.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 The BOCC then took action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact
14 have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny.
15 The cadence on taking action was as follows:
16
17
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
20 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
21 the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development
22 Ordinance, as detailed on pages 39 through 41 of the abstract package.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
27 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
28 the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as
29 detailed on page 42 of the abstract package.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
34 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
35 the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance,
36 as detailed on pages 43 through 46 of the abstract package.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
41 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
42 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as
43 detailed on pages 47 through 48 of the abstract package.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger that
3 there is sufficient evidence in the record that complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the
4 Ordinance in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety, and general
5 welfare if located where proposed in the development and operated as the plan is submitted.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner, McKee seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz finding
10 there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of
11 the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general
12 welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
13 submitted.
14
15 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
16 the record of these proceedings, including:
17
18 • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract,
19 • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
20 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
21 July 11, 2012 Planning Board,
22 . Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning
23 Board regular meeting, and
24 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
25 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
26 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
27 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the LIDO.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding
32 there is sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
33 of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property.
34
35 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
36 the record of these proceedings, including:
37
38 • Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
39 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
40 July 11, 2012 Planning Board, and
41 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
42 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
10
1 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
2 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding
8 that there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
9 of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is
10 in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these
11 regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
12
13 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
14 the record of these proceedings, including:
15
16 • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract,
17 • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
18 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
19 July 11, 2012 Planning Board,
20 • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning
21 Board regular meeting, and
22 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
23 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
24 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
25 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve
29 the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 4 conditions as detailed on page(s) 51 through
30 52 of the abstract package.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 The Board then took action on the ordinance amending the zoning atlas (Attachment 6) and the
35 resolution concerning comprehensive plan consistency(Attachment 8).
36
37 As you may recall, a recent State Supreme Court decision impacted how zoning atlas
38 amendments are processed and acted upon. In the past, staff has produced an
39 Ordinance amending the zoning atlas containing a statement detailing how the
40 amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is
41 in the public interest.
42
43 Now, we are required to take 2 separate actions when dealing with a zoning atlas
44 amendment, specifically:
11
1 • Adoption of an Ordinance approving or rejecting the proposed atlas
2 amendment, and
3 • Adoption of a separate statement denoting the atlas amendment complies
4 with an adopted comprehensive plan. This statement must describe whether
5 the action is: `consistent with any controlling comprehensive plan and explain
6 why the action is reasonable and in the public interest'.
7 It should be noted that according to North Carolina General Statute, this statement is
8 not subject to judicial review.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt
10 the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within Attachment 6 of
11 the abstract package.
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt
14 the Resolution of Comprehensive Plan Consistency as contained within Attachment 8 of the
15 abstract package.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17 b. Class A Special Use Permit—Public Utility Station (Solar Array)
18 The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public
19 hearing, and making a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit(SUP) request submitted by
20 Strata Solar and the Bradshaw Family Partnership proposing the development of a public utility
21 station, solar array, on a 53-acre portion of a 122-acre parcel of property in accordance with the
22 provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter'U DO')
23
24 Chair Pelissier explained that the purpose of this item was to receive the Planning Board
25 recommendation. For Strata Solar the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
26 To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a
27 decision on a Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by Strata Solar and the
28 Bradshaw Family Partnership proposing the development of a public utility station,
29 specfcally solar array, on a 53 acre portion of a 122 acre parcel of property in accordance
30 with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance
31
32
33 Chair Pelissier declared the public hearing re-convened and asked staff to make their
34 presentation.
35
36 Michael Harvey: Good evening, once again, Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, here
37 to present the Planning Board recommendation concerning the issuance of a Class A Special
38 Use Permit to allow for the development of public utilities, specifically the solar array on a 53-
39 acre portion of a 122-acre parcel of property off of White Cross Road in Orange County. As
40 part of this item, you have Attachment 1, which is the July 11, 2012 Planning Board abstract.
41 Attachment 2 is additional information supplied by the applicant at the July 11, 2012 Planning
12
1 Board meeting. Attachment 3 is the excerpts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
2 Attachment 4 is the excerpts of the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board Regular Meeting
3 Minutes. Attachment 5 is a letter from the applicant accepting the recommended conditions.
4 Attachment 6 is the Planning Board recommended Findings of Fact. You also have at your
5 place a script to assist you in making the required motions associated with this project.
6
7 As you will recall, this item was presented at the May 29th Quarterly Public Hearing. There were
8 certain questions asked during the hearing, which we have included in Attachment 1, the
9 Planning Board abstract for your review. You will note that the Planning Board at their July 11th
10 regular meeting found unanimously that the applicant had met their burden with respect to all
11 facets with respect to the project and various standards of the UDO. As we articulated in the
12 script, as well as articulated in Attachment 6, there are specific references with compliance
13 Section 2.2 and 2.7(3) UDO Class A Special Use permit application submittal requirements.
14 Section 2.7.5 indicating that all applicable notification criteria has been adhered to, Sections 3.3
15 and 6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance had been adhered to. As a result the application
16 was deemed to be compliant with respect to UDO submittal requirements. Compliance with
17 Sections 5.9 and 6.8.6, the specific land use regulations governing the development of utilities
18 and development of land use buffers on the property, compliance with the specific findings of
19 fact contained in Section 5.3.2. The Planning Board also made affirmative findings on Sections
20 5.3.2 (A) (2), a, b, and c; all of which is contained within your packet. The Planning Board
21 recommended approval of this project. The Planning staff also supports the issuance of the
22 Special Use Permit. There are going to be a total of six conditions as part of this project. The
23 applicant is technically meeting all of those conditions and we believe there is sufficient
24 evidence articulating this fact already present within the record. I'd be more than happy to
25 answer any questions that you have at this time.
26
27 Commissioner Hemminger: Isn't it possible to put one of these on the screen and group
28 them that way.
29
30 John Roberts: There has to be a record in case it's appealed. Unlike your normal minutes, a
31 quasi-judicial hearing has to be verbatim, so there has to be something for a judge to read if a
32 case is appealed to Superior Court. Putting it up on the screen I don't think transfers very well
33 to a transcript.
34
35 Commissioner Hemminger: It would be helpful, though, I think, for the public to see what
36 we're reading off instead of just reading off very quickly, to be able to see what we're actually
37 doing, because with the dates and times and subsections and numbers, no one is going to be
38 able to track that in the audience.
39
40 John Roberts: I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were saying put it up on
41 the screen and vote on what you see.
42
43 Commissioner Hemminger: I would still prefer to have it on the screen so that they know
44 what we are doing.
13
1
2 Chair Pelissier: I know that it is our plan to arrange to be able to do that for all of our motions.
3
4
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close
7 the public hearing.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings
12 of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or
13 deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
14
15 (NOTE—This script has been written based on the belief the permit will be approved. If
16 not, the Motion from the BOCC would be to reject the Planning Board's recommendation
17 and make a finding the applicant had not met their burden. Please bear in mind if this
18 is the case, there will need to be evidence provided indicating how the BOCC member
19 making the motion arrives at the conclusion the applicant has not met their burden):
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
22 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
23 the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development
24 Ordinance, as detailed on pages 85 through 87 of the abstract package.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to affirm the
29 recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the
30 provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed
31 . on page 88 of the abstract package.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
36 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
37 the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance,
38 as detailed on pages 89 through 90 of the abstract package.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
43 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
14
l the provisions of Section 5.9 and 8.8.0of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance,
2 oa detailed mn pages 81 through 83of the abstract package.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner MoKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemmingmr to �
7 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
8 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as
9 detailed on pages 94 through 95 of the abstract package.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
/+ A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee that there is
15 sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the
16 Ordinance as follows:
18 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2
19 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety
20 and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according
21 to the plan as submitted.
23 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
24 the record of these proceedings, including:
26 0 Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract,
27 * Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
28 a Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
29 July 11, 2012 Planning Board,
30 0 Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning
31 Board regular meeting,
32 0 Additional information supplied to the Planning Board by the
33 applicant at its July 11, 2012 regular meeting, and
34 0 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
35 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
36 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
37 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A)of the UDO.
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41 - A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
42 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2
43 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property.
15
1 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
2 the record of these proceedings, including:
3
4 . Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
5 . Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
6 July 11, 2012 Planning Board,
7 • Testimony from Mr. Richard Kirkland at the May 29, 2012
8 Quarterly Public Hearing relating to the use maintaining and
9 enhancing the value of adjacent property, and
10 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
11 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
12 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
13 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 - A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
17 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2
18 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be
19 located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the
20 County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
21
22 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
23 the record of these proceedings, including:
24
25 0 Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract,
26 • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing,
27 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and
28 July 11, 2012 Planning Board,
29 • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning
30 Board regular meeting, and
31 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form
32 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials
33 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their
34 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve
38 the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 6 conditions as detailed on page 98 of the
39 abstract package.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43
16
1 c. Continued Public Hearing on Zoning Atlas Amendment — Darrell Chandler
2 Conditional Zoning—REDA-CZ-1
3 The Board continued a public hearing on a request submitted by Mr. Darrell Chandler to
4 rezone a 12-acre portion of a 35.8-acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway
5 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning and
6 receive site plan approval for a proposed self-storage facility.
7 Michael Harvey said that this is a continuation of a public hearing. He said that at the
8 August 27th Quarterly Public Hearing, several questions and concerns were raised about the
9 site plan and the project. It was determined that the Board wanted additional review opportunity
10 and requested additional information from the applicant and staff. The Board adjourned the
11 hearing until tonight to solicit additional comment and to have staff address some additional
12 issues. This is slated to go to the Planning Board at the October regular meeting. The
13 Planning Board is asking for additional guidance. The abstract includes responses from the
14 applicant on various issues. He made reference to page 4 of the abstract and the concerns
15 related to transportation and access management issues. He said that the applicant has
16 addressed Transportation Planning staff concerns over turn radiuses around the building of the
17 site plan. Regarding the installation of a well, the applicant will do it if it is required and is
18 investigating this with the Orange County Health Department. He continued to go through the
19 table with the concerns and responses.
20 The applicant is still showing a retail area, which will be offices. It will be limited to the
21 self-storage facility and will consist of storage materials. There is no desire to sell general retail
22 items and the staff recommends that this be a condition that this facility cannot be used as a
23 general retail outlet.
24 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wanted this project to succeed but she does
25 not understand about the water issue and why there would not be a well there.
26 Michael Harvey asked the applicant's representative to respond.
27 Chad Abbott with Summit Consulting said that the applicant does not feel that there is a
28 need for a well. There is a cost issue. He said that a well would have to go across the road
29 and there would have to be an encroachment from DOT. He said that the applicant would
30 rather not have a well.
31 Commissioner Hemminger expressed concern about not having an active water system.
32 Commissioner McKee said that he is wholly supportive of this project, but without water
33 he has a problem. He said that every business has expenses, but he considers water
34 availability as a problem.
35 Chad Abbott said that the applicant does not want to cancel this project just because of
36 a well.
37 Commissioner Hemminger asked how much a well would cost and Michael Harvey said
38 that he will try and get a number for the next Planning Board meeting and before this comes
39 back to the Board on November 20th.
40 Michael Harvey clarified that any conditions imposed have to be mutually agreed upon
41 by both parties.
42 Chair Pelissier said that all County Commissioners have concerns about the water and
43 she suggested giving direction to the Planning Board on how to deliberate on this.
44 Michael Harvey said that it would be good to state for the record what the County
45 Commissioners would like to see regarding documentation from Orange County Environmental
46 Health, Tom Konsler, and others in order to give the Planning Board an idea.
47 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would be willing to listen to a phased approach and
48 the Board agreed.
49 Commissioner Gordon said to ask the Planning Board to consider a phased approach
50 and not necessarily direct it.
17
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board is supportive of this project and they
2 recognize that Mr. Chandler has limited resources, but since this is an entranceway to Orange
3 County, there should be standards in rural areas as in other areas. He asked staff to provide
4 some pictures of other storage units in Orange County that have buffers or clustered buffers so
5 that they can see what it will look like before making a decision.
6 Commissioner Gordon supported this.
7 There was continued discussion about the buffers.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
10 to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
11 to the Board of Commissioners in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular
12 meeting, with specific additional attention on the water issue as well as other issues discussed;
13 and adjourn the public hearing until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning
14 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 7. Regular Agenda
19 a. Siting Criteria for Southern Branch Library—Final Recommendation
20 The Board considered approving the siting and locational criteria governing the review
21 and site selection process for the southern branch of the Orange County library.
22 Library Services Director Lucinda Munger said that this is the updated criteria for the
23 Southern Branch Library and staff has included modifications based on feedback from the work
24 session and from the Carrboro Board of Aldermen in March. The staff has incorporated
25 modifications to the criteria. The first modification is combining the previous Phases 1 and 2
26 into the 1St phase entitled Preliminary Phase, Technical Review, and Assessment. The physical
27 attributes of a site, including environmental factors, various modules of public transportation
28 and access, alignment with planning tools, location, costs, and availability will be taken into
29 account. This phase will be done by internal Orange County staff and is estimated to take
30 anywhere from four to eight weeks, depending on the number of properties under review. Many
31 items can be done simultaneously.
32 Phase 3 in a previous version is now the 2nd phase entitled Primary Phase, Public Input,
33 and Assessment. The Board will put before the community a top site choice or choices after
34 the completion of the technical review and analysis. This portion would involve significant input
35 from residents of the surrounding communities. Estimated time for this phase would be
36 anywhere from three to five months.
37 On August 30th, staff along with Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert, met with
38 Carrboro Manager David Andrews and some of his staff to review the criteria and answer any
39 questions. Mr. Talbert also indicated that this would be brought back at the September
40 meeting. As noted in the agenda, the Town of Carrboro has already begun its own internal
41 process of evaluating sites based on compliance with local development regulations and other
42 processes.
43 The change from the original title—Southern Branch from Southwestern Branch was
44 done after a request from the Board at the June work session expressing the desire to see a
45 clear visual representation as to what constituted Southwest. The map was prepared by Mr.
46 Harvey in Planning. The primary reason for the change from the longstanding title of
47 Southwest is that they wanted to more accurately reflect the area that this library will serve,
48 making sure that it will be seen as an inclusive place to serve the needs of all the surrounding
49 community.
50 Michael Harvey explained why the name was changed from Southwestern to Southern.
18
1 Chair Pelissier said that when this was discussed in June the Board agreed in concept,
2 but this is for final approval.
3
4 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Town of Carrboro was in agreement with the criteria.
5 Lucinda Munger said that the Town Manager would prefer that the Board of County
6 Commissioners vote on this first, but staff has not heard of any problems or objections.
7 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to a grammatical change on page 4. He
8 suggested referring to vision plans instead of planning tools.
9 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to "site conditions, allowances, and constraints"
10 and said to write out what C and A mean.
11 The Board agreed with the suggested changes.
12 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not feel the need to add brown field vs. green
13 field and Commissioner Jacobs said that in his mind it means that the County is weighing those
14 two values as one of the decision points.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that it would be all right.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
18 to:
19 1. Approve the attached Southern Branch Library Locational Criteria; and
20 2. Authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Carrboro that:
21 a. Transmits the Board-approved locational and site selection criteria to the
22 Town, with changes and
23 b. Requests that the Town initiate public solicitation and review of properties for the
24 southern branch of the Orange County library property based on the approved criteria.
25
26 Commissioner Gordon said that there is nothing about costs of construction. It might
27 cost more to construct something on a brown field. She suggested saying something about
28 costs.
29 Frank Clifton suggested adding the words "cost per site acquisition and construction."
30 Commissioner Gordon agreed.
31 Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Jacobs agreed with this amendment.
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 Chair Pelissier suggested that the letter ask Carrboro how to share costs for permits
35 and expediting rezoning. She suggested including this in the correspondence to Carrboro. She
36 would also like the correspondence to provide some explanation of the responses to the
37 suggestions. This is a way to acknowledge that the County understood the comments and the
38 concerns are going to be addressed.
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
40 to accept the friendly amendment made by Chair Pelissier.
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 b. Burlington-Graham and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
44 Planning Organization Boundaries
45 The Board considered receiving information, providing direction, and/or a
46 recommendation on Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundaries within Orange County
47 pending the September 20, 2012 discussion with the City of Mebane.
48 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri introduced Abigaile Pittman,
49 Transportation and Land Use Planner. He made reference to the background information in the
50 agenda packet. The overview of MPOs and RPOs began on page 8 of the packet. He then
19
1 showed maps of the boundaries of the MPOs. There have been many staff meetings and
2 discussions over the last 8-9 months regarding various boundary options. Staff believes that
3 the recommended boundaries will meet the needs of both MPOs. He made reference to a
4 summary of why Option 4 has been recommended and has been determined to be ideal. It
5 meets all of the federal criteria and standards, including all of the urbanized areas.
6 Staff is asking for Board action in support of Option 4 as it has been presented. As
7 indicated in the Manager's Recommendation, if there is support from the Board for Option 4, it
8 should be contingent on agreement from the City of Mebane.
9 Commissioner Gordon said that this is a good proposal and as long as the City of
10 Mebane concurs, then Option 4 is a good choice. She generally supports Option 4.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said that Option 4 is a proposal that Mebane is comfortable with.
12 He made reference to the bottom of page 2 and said that Attachment 5 says that it is an
13 overview of the advantages and disadvantages of Option 4, but he did not get any analysis of
14 these advantages and disadvantages. He wanted to have this for the Board of County
15 Commissioners' consideration.
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
17 approve the recommendation which stated that the BOCC is in agreement with Option 4
18 (attachment 3) and contingent on the City of Mebane discussion and support on September 20,
19 2012 authorizes the MPOs to proceed with its implementation.
20
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 C. Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement
25 The Board discussed various aspects of the Interlocal Implementation Agreement of the
26 Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (IIA/OCBRIP) and provided decisions regarding
27 aspects to be incorporated into the final draft.
28
29 Chair Pelissier said that at the last MPO meeting, she asked staff to come and respond
30 to questions at this meeting.
31 John Roberts said that this Implementation Agreement is referred to in Article 43 of
32 Chapter 105 of the North Carolina General Statutes as the Implementation Agreement. The
33 purpose of this agreement is to provide that the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange
34 County may be reviewed or revised from time to time. There are still several items of
35 disagreement. The biggest disagreement is between Orange County staff and TTA on whether
36 or not the MPO should be a party to the agreement, since the staff believes it should be a two
37 party agreement. It is a decision that the Board of County Commissioners can make whether
38 or not to include the MPO as a party to the agreement. Should the Board choose not to include
39 the MPO as a party, the MPO still will have a significant role in dealing with the plan. It will
40 come down to a decision by the Board of whether to include that organization as a party. The
41 MPO has expressed the desire to be included as a party.
42 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that in June of this year, the Orange County Bus
43 and Rail Investment Plan was approved with conditions, and it will tell how the Yz-cent sales tax
44 will be spent if it is approved in November. The Implementation Agreement contains 14
45 sections. He reviewed each section.
46 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to speak on the signatories on the documents
47 and the letter in the packet from the MPO. She said that since the Board has not yet
48 responded to the MPO, it would be good to at least decide who the parties will be to the
49 agreement.
20
1 Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to introduce this item and to explain the
2 handouts she put at their places. She first reviewed the motion concerning the Bus and Rail
3 Investment Plan which the BOCC had approved.
4
5 Motion from June 5"', 2012 approving the Bus and Rail Investment Plan
6
7 Move that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the Draft Bus and Rail
8 Investment Plan (BRI Plan) in Orange County, contingent on the approval of an Implementation
9 Agreement between Triangle Transit and Orange County, and subject to the following
10 conditions:
11
12 A. That the following inconsistent sections in the BRI Plan be addressed, as shown below
13
14 1. The difference in the cost of the Hillsborough rail station on page 25 (Orange
15 Financial Plan Data) and page 31 (Appendix A, Assumptions)
16
17 REVISION: on Page 25, add a note, referencing the Hillsborough Rail Station,
18 which states that Orange County will only be responsible for a 10% match
19
20 2. The difference in the number of expenditure categories on page 25 (Orange
21 Financial Plan Data- 9 categories), and page 32 (Appendix A, How All Dollars Are
22 Spent- middle pie chart-8 categories)
23
24 REVISION: Change the last bullet, which references the borrowing of$25
25 million, into a Note.
26
27 B. That the language concerning the Implementation Agreement on pages 25 and 26 of the BRI
28 Plan be changed to reflect the actual contents of the agreement, once that agreement is
29 revised.
30
31 C. That the Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement with charts and map be included as an
32 Appendix to the BRI Plan, in substantially the same form as presented on June 5, and with the
33 dollar amounts verified and corrected, as needed.
34
35 ATTACHMENTS (to be included with the cost sharing agreement):
36 LRT Reference Map (Cost Sharing)
37 Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement Charts
38
39 D. That Orange County and Triangle Transit will work together to identify any other
40 inconsistencies, misstatements, or omissions, and to provide the changes to the BOCC before
41 the Implementation Agreement is scheduled for approval by the BOCC.
42
43 The BOCC wishes to note that, even though not all of the stipulations in the BOCC transit plan
44 motion of May 15 were addressed, the BOCC wishes to move the BRI Plan forward at this time,
45 in the manner stated above.
46
47 NOTE: The above attachments (LRT Reference Map and Rail Investment Cost Sharing
48 Agreement Charts) are included in the agenda materials and are hereby included by reference
49 in these minutes.
50
21
1 Commissioner Gordon then went through some background information that she had
2 distributed to the County Commissioners.
3
4 Background Information for Item 7c on the BOCC September 18, 2012 agenda: Transit
5 Interlocal Implementation Agreement
6
7 The following information on the funding process, and on revenues and costs for the Orange
8 County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRI Plan), is provided as background information for the
9 discussion on transit.
10
I 1 1. Funding Process
12
13 A. Federal Funding of Light Rail Transit-Three Critical Points in the New Starts Process
14
15 At the September 12, 2012 meeting of the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee, the
16 TAC received a description of three critical points (benchmarks) in the federal funding process
17 for Light Rail Transit.
18
19 Description of the Phase Time Needed to Accomplish
20 of Development That Phase
21
22 Enter into Preliminary Engineering 2 to 3 years
23 ("get into the pipeline")
24
25 Receive Record of Decision 2 to 3 years
26 (complete Preliminary Engineering)
27
28 Receive Full Funding 3 to 4 years
29 Grant Agreement(FFGA)
30
31 You will note that the total period is about 7 to 10 years. This information should be helpful
32 when the BOCC discusses sections 8 and 10 (the second number 10) of the Implementation
33 Agreement.
34
35 The BRI Plan (page 26) states that the FTA typically considers the FFGA during Final Design.
36 That information might be helpful when the BOCC discusses section 12 (B).
37
38
39 B. State Funding of Light Rail Transit
40
41 The TAC also learned that during the Preliminary Engineering phase would be the time to start
42 contacting the state about funding, with the ultimate goal of receiving a State Full Funding
43 Grant Agreement.
44
45
46 11. Summary of Revenues and Costs in the Orange County BRI Plan
47
48 Appendix A of the BRI Plan includes a page with three pie charts which give a summary of total
49 revenues, total costs, and Orange County costs.
50
22
1 That page is given in the attachment for your review. This information should be helpful when
2 the BOCC discusses sections 8, 12, and 13.
3
4 Chair Pelissier introduced Jim Ward from the Chapel Hill Town Council.
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT:
7
8 Jim Ward, Chairman Chapel Hill Transit Public Transit Committee, said that he would
9 not read the resolution that he just distributed, but he would just go through the gist of it. He
10 said that Chapel Hill Transit is supportive of the process and of the Bus and Rail Investment
11 Plan, but the Public Transit Committee cannot support the current proposed implementation
12 agreement, which unnecessarily restricts Chapel Hill Transit's ability to operate the transit
13 system in a manner responsive and responsible to the interests and needs of the riders and
14 citizens of the community. He said that the current draft of the Implementation Agreement
15 establishes a baseline of the number of hours of route service provided in 2010. The
16 agreement prohibits funds from the local sales tax from being used to support operating costs
17 below this floor. He said that the legislation requires that new funds do not supplant or replace
18 existing funds, not existing hours of service. The latter interpretation could result in their not
19 being able to support new or expanded service. He said that the current language of the
20 agreement does not allow for any funds to be used for relief in the event of state or federal
21 funds should they be reduced. This could force service cuts on established routes, but
22 providing funding for introduction of new service. He said that they would not advocate support
23 for this referendum with the current Implementation Agreement.
24 The resolution is shown below:
25
26 A RESOLUTION FROM THE PUBLIC TRANSIT COMIMTTEE REGARDING THE
27 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE BUS AND RAIL INVESTMENT PLAN IN
28 ORANGE COUNTY
29
30 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit is a public transit provider in Orange County funded by the
31 communities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the campus of the University of North Carolina at
32 Chapel Hill, and
33
34 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit serves the Orange County communities of Chapel Hill,
35 Carrboro, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as scores of rural Orange
36 County families who work in our communities, and
37
38 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit serves a population of over 90,000 persons and provides 7
39 million rides annually, and
40
41 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit and its supporting partners have supported the legislation to
42 provide local option tax, and
43
44 WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit and its partners participated in the development of the Bus and
45 Rail Investment Plan in Orange County, and
46
47 WHEREAS, the Public Transit Committee of Chapel Hill Transit consists of representatives of
48 the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro and the University of North Carolina at Chapel
49 Hill;
50
23
I NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
2
3 The Public Transit Committee of Chapel Hill Transit has endorsed the Bus and Rail Investment
4 Plan in Orange County and the allocation of funds recommended in that plan;
5
6 The Public Transit Committee cannot support an Implementation Agreement that unnecessarily
7 restricts Chapel Hill Transit's ability to operate the transit system in a manner responsive and
8 responsible to the interests and needs of the riders and citizens of our community.
9
10 The Public Transit Committee encourages the development of an implementation agreement
11 that is consistent with the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County and includes
12 appropriate representation from all entities affected by the Bus and Rail Investment Plan and
13 the associated referendum.
14
15 This the 18th day of September, 2012.
16
17
18 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item#1 in the draft implementation plan and
19 said that he believes the Burlington-Graham MPO is not interested in being a part of this
20 implementation agreement.
21 Craig Benedict said that this is correct.
22 Commissioner Hernminger asked Wib Gulley to come forward and said that she would
23 be ok with having the MPO as a third party if there were stipulations that two groups could not
24 outvote the third group. All three have to be in agreement or the process does not go forward
25 or a change does not happen. She said that it is implied that this is true in Section 11, but not
26 really.
27 Wib Gulley said that the intent is that unless each and every party agreed on a change,
28 then there would be no change. This language can be clarified in item 12 to say that each and
29 every party would have to approve of a change.
30 Commissioner McKee said that in section 12, the statement limits this agreement to a
31 two-party agreement. He thinks that the MPO needs to have an advisory role.
32 Wib Gulley said that it now reads as a two-party agreement. If the MPO were added, it
33 would say three entities.
34 John Roberts said that he is comfortable that, regardless of how many parties there
35 are, the current language makes it have to be all three parties or both parties to make effective
36 any material changes. He said that he agrees with Wib Gulley.
37 Commissioner Gordon said that she had expected that there would be language in this
38 agreement to specify a role for the MPO, and that the MPO should have an important role. She
39 said that she had written down some roles that the MPO could play, and also some other
40 suggestions concerning the Implementation Agreement. The suggestions are given in her
41 handout shown below:
42
43
44 Suggested Changes to the Implementation Agreement
45 Alice Gordon -September 18, 2012
46
47 The suggestions given below are the ones that are the most complex. I may also have other
48 comments which I will state at the meeting.
49
50 1. MPO Role
24
1
2 The MPO on June 13, 2012 requested that the BOCC specify a "role"for the MPO in the
3 agreement. Here are some suggestions for specifying what the MPO role would be, instead of
4 being a "party."
5
6 A. After the first paragraph, add the following language (after deleting the letters "DCHC" in the
7 first paragraph):
8
9 The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, the regional
10 transportation planning agency for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area pursuant to US
11 DOT regulation CFR Part 450 and 49 Part 613 ("DCHC"), will have a significant role, as
12 delineated in the provisions and procedures of this agreement.
13
14 B. Add a new paragraph, after section 9 (or another place, as appropriate).
15
16 The first sentence would be:
17 The important role of DCHC in planning for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area is
18 recognized.
19
20 The rest of this paragraph would then need to be developed.
21
22 The paragraph would indicate that the MPO staff would participate in all meetings of the SWG.
23
24 The remainder of this paragraph would then use, as starting point, the language in the side
25 notes made by John Roberts on the last page of the agreement.
26
27 II. Assessment of progress in getting federal and state funding
28
29 Here is suggested language, adding benchmarks and also adding state funding to the
30 assessment process.
31
32 10. (second number 10). Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties
33 agree to assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal
34 pipeline for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding.
35 The rate of progress will be measured by the following benchmarks and timelines: (1) whether
36 the project has.already been allowed to enter Preliminary Engineering (2 to 3 years after
37 submission of the New Starts application), whether the project has already been issued a
38 Record of Decision (additional 2 to 3 years), and the rate of progress being made toward
39 receiving a Full Funding Grant Agreement(additional 3 to 4 years after receiving the Record of
40 Decision). If not, the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and
41 Rail Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and
42 services.
43
44 At the same time, there will be a similar assessment of whether the project is making
45 reasonable progress toward receiving a State Full Funding Grant Agreement. If not, the Parties
46 also agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Plan, as specified
47 above for federal funding.
48
49 111. Definition of"material' change.
50
25
1 In section 12 of the agreement, definitions of material changes are given for several categories
2 of revenues or costs. These definitions are given as percentages.
3
4 The pie charts in Appendix A of the BRI Plan show the dollar amounts for costs and revenues.
5
6 A comparison of section 12 with Appendix A appears to show that the dollar_amounts for a
7 material change could vary between $300,000 and almost$42 million. It would be prudent to
8 recognize dollar amounts, or at least use smaller percentages for large dollar amounts.
9
10 Here are the rough estimates for the five categories, along with total dollar amounts. Also given
11 are the amounts that would be defined as a material change, given the percentages that are
12 specified. All of these numbers would need to be verified by staff, and are given here for
13 illustrative purposes.
14
15 (A) Total revenues= $706.0 million 5% _ $35.3 million
16
17 (B) LRT capital cost= $418.3 million 10% _ $41.8 million, 5% _ $20.9 million
18
19 (C) LRT operating cost = $59.1 million 5% = about$3 million ($2.955 million)
20
21 (D) Overall funds for bus service. This would appear to combine the costs for
22 several categories: MILK bus lanes ($24.5 million), bus operations($106.8 million), buses
23 ($17.6 million), and bus capital projects ($6.7 million).
24 The total amount is$155.6 million. If that total is correct, 5% _ $7.78 million
25 If the MILK project is considered separately, then 5% = about$1.23 million.
26
27 (E) Funds provided to bus operators = 5% or$300,000, whichever is greater, but it is not
28 obvious where this amount would be in the summary information.
29
30 Also in Appendix A there is $19.2 million for debt service. Presumably a lot of that would be for
31 financing the LRT project. In addition, it is not obvious how the $8.9 million for the
32 Hillsborough train station would be handled.
33
34 The handout ends here.
35
36
37 Commissioner Yuhasz asked what would happen with the revenue if there was a
38 material change warranted and the three parties did not agree.
39 Wib Gulley said that the monies would be put in escrow until an agreement would be
40 reached.
41 Frank Clifton said that the issue for him is that all of the costs and projections and
42 revenues should not be allocated or spent without the Board's approval.
43 Wib Gulley said that he agrees with the Manager, but the decision about how to spend
44 the funds needs to have the support of the majority of the Board of County Commissioners
45 before any decision is made.
46 Chair Pelissier said that it is crucial to have the MPO as a signatory. She said that if
47 the plan is not in the MPO Plan, it cannot be eligible for federal funds. She said that it is vital
48 that everything in the plan also be part of the MPO's plans. She said that this is a regional plan
49 and the towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough do not have representation on other transportation
26
1 boards, but do have representation on the MPO. Therefore, the MPO should be part of this
2 agreement.
3 Commissioner McKee said that he does not believe the MPO should be a party to this
4 agreement as a signatory because the Board of County Commissioners was elected by the
5 citizens of Orange County and Triangle Transit is the transportation authority, so these two
6 entities are the two responsible agencies. He said that he needs someone to explain to him
7 how not having the MPO as a signatory to this agreement will cause this plan to crash and
8 burn.
9 Mark Ahrendsen, staff from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Chair of the
10 Technical Coordinating Committee, said that the legislation called for the development of a plan
11 to be approved by three parties—the MPO, Triangle Transit Authority, and the Board of County
12 Commissioners.
13 Commissioner McKee asked what would happen if the MPO were not a signatory.
14 Mark Ahrendsen said that basically two parties could change the plan that three parties
15 approved. This is the fundamental reason.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is in favor of having the MPO to be a part of this
17 plan.
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Ward about the underlying issues on the agreement
19 and item#7. He asked if the disagreement had to do with supplantation or the ability to access
20 additional funds beyond what is currently committed to Chapel Hill Transit as part of the plan.
21 Jim Ward said that the level of funding will be maintained and the Town of Chapel Hill
22 is not asking to supplant any funds with these new revenues. The issue is that there are a
23 number of elements within the Implementation Agreement which are above and beyond what is
24 legally required. The main issue is keeping the floor at the current level of service that was
25 added in 2010.
26 Steve Spade, Chapel Hill Transit Director, made reference to supplantation and
27 hopefully increasing the amount of funds and said that Chapel Hill Transit has supported the
28 cost allocation recommendations in the plan that break out the percentages of the funding that
29 would go to the bus systems after paying for rent. The concern is how to use the funds that the
30 plan allows them to have. Chapel Hill Transit is in support of adding new services, but there are
31 also needs to continue the current operation. He said that they are not out to get more money.
32 Commissioner Jacobs clarified with Steve Spade that it is an issue of reallocating funds
33 within a pool of funds.
34
35 A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to direct
36 staff to include the MPO as a signatory and to include the appropriate language.
37 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
38
39 Frank Clifton clarified that this vote means that all three parties will have to agree
40 before changes are made.
41 John Roberts said that the signatories to the agreement were the main sticking point
42 between Orange County staff and Triangle Transit, and since that has been resolved they can
43 bring the other smaller details back later.
44 Chair Pelissier said that at the Triangle Transit Operation and Finance Committee
45 meeting there was some discussion on this issue and there is a difference between making a
46 legal determination on the definition of supplantation versus a policy decision on supplantation.
47 She said that there was grave concern at this meeting that if Orange County allowed the use of
48 the Y2-cent sales tax that it would probably stop Wake County from ever doing anything and
49 putting it on a ballot. There is a lot of mistrust of government and if the County sells a plan as
27
1 new services and then turns around and uses it for existing services, then the County will lose
2 all credibility of the public.
3 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Commissioner Gordon for her discussion of the MPO
4 role.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would entertain an attempt from Chapel Hill Transit
6 to provide a definition of the change in the document and then ask staff to analyze it. He thinks
7 that the plan will serve people throughout the County. He thinks that most of the staff and
8 elected officials have worked really hard to make sure that there is increased service
9 throughout the County. As long as this basic premise is not being threatened, he is open to a
10 proposal.
11 Commissioner McKee said that this is becoming political. He is not sure that there are
12 a dozen people in Orange County that could give a legally binding definition of supplantation.
13 He does not even understand it fully. He has a real concern that this is a move away from what
14 the County Commissioners should really be doing for the citizens.
15 Commissioner Yuhasz said that 60% of the budget comes from the University and the
16 scenario that the Board has heard is that the University is now putting satellite facilities out and
17 may not need the same kind of services. Unless there is a commitment from the University to
18 maintain their level of funding, there could be a significant drop in the funding to Chapel Hill
19 Transit. He asked if Chapel Hill Transit would make up that significant amount of money from
20 the Y2-cent sales tax, or if Chapel Hill Transit could meet its obligation to maintain the level of
21 funding, much less the level of service. He is not opposed to working something out.
22 Commissioner Hemminger suggested sitting down with both parties and specifying
23 where all of the funds are coming from.
24 Commissioner Gordon said that she thinks they should try and find a way to work with
25 their partners to accommodate the case for changes in the agreement that Chapel Hill Transit
26 has put forward.
27 Chair Pelissier said that her concern is that UNC is not making any contribution to the
28 transit plan but contributes 60% to Chapel Hill Transit. She does not want Orange County
29 subsidizing UNC. She asked Steve Spade if there was any formal agreement about a
30 continued commitment by UNC that does not put Chapel Hill Transit in jeopardy.
31 Steve Spade said that there are a couple of agreements in place. One is that there is
32 an annual agreement that is contractual with a cost allocation formula that determines how
33 each of the partners pay. There are also requirements that UNC will be a member of the
34 partnership as long as there will be development in Carolina North.
35 Discussion ensued between the County Commissioners and Steve Spade.
36 Commissioner McKee noted that the University's ability to fund at any particular level is
37 contingent upon the legislature.
38 Chair Pelissier said that what she hears is that there is no specific direction on this
39 issue, but the parties will continue to work on this issue and see what kind of recommendations
40 will come back.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to be more specific and invite a proposal
42 from Chapel Hill Transit in consultation with other partners to include in the Implementation
43 Agreement that would address the concerns that Chapel Hill Transit has raised without straying
44 beyond the parameters that are already within the agreement.
45
46 A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
47 continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
28
1 Commissioner Gordon then went through the language on item II of her suggested
2 changes, as shown below:
3
4 Il. Assessment of progress in getting federal and state funding
5
6 Here is suggested language, adding benchmarks and also adding state funding to the
7 assessment process.
8
9 10. (second number 10). Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties
10 agree to assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal
11 pipeline for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding.
12 The rate of progress will be measured by the following benchmarks and timelines: (1)whether
13 the project has already been allowed to enter Preliminary Engineering (2 to 3 years after
14 submission of the New Starts application), whether the project has already been issued a
15 Record of Decision (additional 2 to 3 years), and the rate of progress being made toward
16 receiving a Full Funding Grant Agreement(additional 3 to 4 years after receiving the Record of
17 Decision). If not, the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and
18 Rail Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and
19 services.
20
21 At the same time, there will be a similar assessment of whether the project is making
22 reasonable progress toward receiving a State Full Funding Grant Agreement. If not, the Parties
23 also agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Plan, as specified
24 above for federal funding.
25
26 Commissioner Hemminger made reference to section 8 that says that every four years
27 the plan is reviewed by the parties. She thinks that the entities will review all aspects and she
28 does not feel the need to put in benchmarks right now that might be significantly different four
29 years from now.
30 Chair Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Hemminger.
31 Commissioner Jacobs agreed that it may not be appropriate to set benchmarks at this
32 point but they should be built into the process.
33 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the idea of some kind of benchmarks is a good idea,
34 and he suggested taking this back to the technical people for some regional benchmarks.
35 Frank Clifton suggested amending the paragraph indicating that the three entities will
36 come back with a set of benchmarks in four years for further determination.
37 The Board agreed.
38 Commissioner McKee made reference to the margin note, JR13, "The Manager
39 proposes a new subsection to be added, which requires any increase in tax revenues above
40 those forecast to be allocated within the sole discretion of Orange County." He thinks that in
41 order to ensure that this Board can direct funds to local bus service that there needs to be a
42 discretionary amount. He requested that this be included.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is not interested in this and that it is a partnership.
44 Chair Pelissier agreed.
45 Commissioner Gordon made reference to her item II on her sheet regarding State
46 funding. She said that there should be something in the agreement about State funding.
47 Chair Pelissier said that when they spoke of benchmarks, she presumed that they were
48 benchmarks in general and included federal and state.
49 Commissioner Gordon said that in#8 there should be some mention about securing
50 state funding because it is not addressed.
29
1 Chair Pelissier said that the Board is giving general direction to staff and it will come
2 back with appropriate language.
3 Commissioner Gordon made reference to item III on her sheet concerning the
4 definition of"material" change and reviewed this.
5
6 Ill. Definition of"material' change.
7
8 In section 12 of the agreement, definitions of material changes are given for several categories
9 of revenues or costs. These definitions are given as percentages.
10
11 The pie charts in Appendix A of the BRI Plan show the dollar amounts for costs and revenues.
12
13 A comparison of section 12 with Appendix A appears to show that the dollar amounts for a
14 material change could vary between $300,000 and almost$42 million. It would be prudent to
15 recognize dollar amounts, or at least use smaller percentages for large dollar amounts.
16
17 Here are the rough estimates for the five categories, along with total dollar amounts. Also given
18 are the amounts that would be defined as a material change, given the percentages that are
19 specified. All of these numbers would need to be verified by staff, and are given here for
20 illustrative purposes.
21
22 (A) Total revenues = $706.0 million 5% _ $35.3 million
23
24 (B) LRT capital cost= $418.3 million 10% _ $41.8 million, 5% _ $20.9 million
25
26 (C) LRT operating cost= $59.1 million 5% = about$3 million ($2.955 million)
27
28 (D) Overall funds for bus service. This would appear to combine the costs for
29 several categories: MLK bus lanes ($24.5 million), bus operations ($106.8 million), buses
30 ($17.6 million), and bus capital projects ($6.7 million).
31 The total amount is $155.6 million. If that total is correct, 5% _ $7.78 million
32 If the MLK project is considered separately, then 5% = about$1.23 million.
33
34 (E) Funds provided to bus operators = 5% or$300,000, whichever is greater, but it is not
35 obvious where this amount would be in the summary information.
36
37 Also in Appendix A there is $19.2 million for debt service. Presumably a lot of that would be for
38 financing the LRT project. In addition, it is not obvious how the $8.9 million for the
39 Hillsborough train station would be handled.
40
41 Commissioner Gordon noted that the amount of money in a "material" change varies greatly
42 from one category to another.
43
44 Wib Gulley said that A, B, C, D, and E speak to different circumstances. He said that
45 the logic is that you can bring every change to the plan and it has to be brought back to all three
46 parties. Some changes are so small that the thought was to look at meaningful changes only to
47 the plan.
48 Chair Pelissier suggested getting a revised copy at the next meeting and if there are
49 questions, then the County Commissioners can submit those with comments to staff.
30
1 Commissioner Gordon said that the next TAC meeting of the Durham-Chapel Hill-
2 Carrboro MPO is October 10"'. She said that it is critical to have this Implementation
3 Agreement finalized by October 10th before the referendum goes to the voters in November.
4
5 8. Reports
6
7 a. Update on the NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail —Orange County Section
8 The Board considered an update on the progress of establishing a section of the NC
9 Mountains-to-Sea State Trail through Orange County, as directed by the Board in June.
10 Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation Dave
11 Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation.
12 Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw presented a portion of the PowerPoint
13 presentation.
14
15
16 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail
17
18 Orange County Section
19
20
21 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST)
22 What and Where is the MST?
23 • Concept in 1973 (proposed rustic trail thru 37 counties)
24 • Authorized by Gen. Assembly 2000 (NC Park System)
25 1,000-mile footpath (Great Smoky Mtns- Outer Banks)
26 Nearly 530 miles open for use
27 Eastern Piedmont section is challenging
28 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail
29 thru Orange County
30 - Around 28 miles
31 - Eno River-> Hillsborough-> Seven Mile Creek-> Cane Creek
32 - Natural and cultural points of interest along the route
33 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail
34 Segment thru Orange County
35 Partners
36 - State Trails Program (NCDENR &trust funds)
37 - Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail
38 - Orange County
39 - Town of Hillsborough
40 - Eno River State Park
41 - OWASA
42 - Private landowners (voluntary)!
43
44
45 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail
46 thru Orange County
47
48 How We Got Here
49 - State corridor planning sessions 2005-07
50 - State Parks approved Eastern Piedmont Corridor(2008)
51 - BOCC viewed planning corridor(2009)
52 - Review by advisory boards&town councils
53 - BOCC endorsed State's corridor(2010)
54 - Collaborating with Hillsborough
55 - 7-Mile Creek Preserve planning/acquisition
31
1 - Coordinating with OWASA
2
3 OWASA Cane Creek Reservoir Lands
4 - OWASA BoD supports MST initiative (Dec 2009)
5 o Must be consistent with primary mission (providing safe & reliable drinking water)
6 o No compromise of water quality
7 o No expenditure of OWASA funds
8 - Field reconnaissance(still underway)
9 - County/FMST report to OWASA staff(upcoming)
10 - Public input/ involvement(upcoming)
11 - OWASA BoD consideration/approval (upcoming)
12
13
14 Public Information Efforts to Date
15 - Neighborhood meetings &tours (spring/summer)
16 - MST Open House (August 13)
17 - Websites, Email updates, FAQs
18 - Public meetings (Q&A session)
19 - On-line questionnaire (upcoming)
20
21
22 Dave Stancil said that there would be a Q&A forum to allow residents an opportunity to
23 ask their questions.
24
25 Chair Pelissier made note of the time and said that she would cut off public comments at
26 11:25. She said that any other members of the public that wish to make comments may submit
27 them in writing.
28
29 PUBLIC COMMENT:
30
31 Martha Keating read a prepared statement:
32 - 1 am representing all homes who share a border with OWASA land on Thunder
33 Mountain
34 o Art and Martha Keating, 7508 Thunder Mountain
35 o Harry Nelson, 7401 Thunder Mountain
36 o Travis and Prity Kukovich, 7113 Thunder Mountain
37 o Alex and Anne Gordon, 7101 Thunder Mountain
38 o Greg and Linda Smith, 6701 Thunder Mountain
39 - We are the only residents on Thunder Mountain that share property borders with
40 OWASA
41 - We do not represent the entire Thunder Mountain Community
42 - Our 5 households do not oppose the MTS and embrace the potential of having
43 public access to beautiful land that we have been fortunate enough to live near
44 for many years
45 - Our support for this proposed section of the MTS is contingent upon:
46 o The location of the trail being placed on the agreed upon alternate routes
47 (farthest from the houses) by the residents closest to the MTS.
48 o MTS being used as a footpath hike-through section (no bicycles, motorized
49 vehicles, horses, etc.)
50 o MTS being open from dawn until dusk, with no overnight camping or fires
51 permitted
32
1 o The county being able to provide a suitable location for parking at posted access
2 points to divert anyone from parking or accessing the MTS from Thunder
3 Mountain
4 o OWASA's commitment to preserve the scenic beauty of this land such that it is
5 not subjected to timbering
6 - Done properly, we believe this segment of the MTS would have no significant adverse
7 impact to the water quality of the Cane Creek Reservoir
8 - We believe this is a rare opportunity for the residents of this area of Orange County to
9 work together to be part of a positive legacy for generations to come.
10
11 Joe Boyle said that there are supporters and those in opposition to this trail. He wants
12 to learn about this issue. He said that there did not seem to be a market for this trail. He would
13 like to know the original motive for this MTST.
14 Audrey Booth read a prepared statement.
15 "1 am Audrey Booth. It is my pleasure to address the Orange County Commissioners in
16 order to bring a ringing endorsement of the Mountains to Sea Trail and for the local link that we
17 may offer to make it as seamless as possible.
18 We, in the Piedmont, are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of the vision of Western NC
19 environmentalists and decades of fund raising and sweat equity.
20 It is the"Trickle Across NC Theory." We have an opportunity to help "pay it forward"
21 with our region's public and scenic land to extend the trail. The Falls Lake trail and bridges,
22 already paid for and built, await the link from Cane Creek.
23 1 have understanding and respect for the uneasiness that some neighbors from the aera
24 have even though the trail will not be on their personal property. I come from a farm
25 background too and we lived far apart and privately, thanks to the land of others.
26 My 20 years in land conservation in Orange County and the Greenways Commission in
27 Chapel Hill, further taught me the important of addressing that fear of invasion of privacy by
28 fully answering all questions. I understand that has happened. Perhaps a visit to Falls Lake
29 link or other western links in the trail would be reassuring to those who are still uneasy.
30 The Cane Creek trail link is a tiny but sparkling component in an ambitious and
31 wonderful vision of a 930-mile trail from Pilot Mountain to Jockey's Ridge. I sincerely hope that
32 we will contribute a small piece of our gem to "Trail Trickle"through the scenic Piedmont."
33
34 Carl Shy read a prepared statement.
35 "Re: Section of Mountains to Sea Trail Proposed for OWASA Property at Cane Creek
36
37 "My name is Carl Shy. I own property whose southern border is approximately 2,000
38 feet from the proposed MTS trail through OWASA property.
39 1 am strongly in favor of the location of this section of the trail, which will pass through
40 some of the most beautiful parts of Orange County, containing a dense and large variety of
41 native trees and shrubs, rolling landscape and views of the Cane Creek Reservoir. At present
42 most of this OWASA property, other than the waters of the reservoir, are not accessible for
43 public use and enjoyment. I believe that my neighbors will value living close to and having the
44 use of this wonderful recreational asset.
45 Three concerns are commonly raised by persons living near public trails: safety
46 (including crime and trespassing), littering, and decline of property values.
47 Regarding safety, a number of studies have been published on the Internet. One study
48 in particular, performed by the Rail-to-Trail Conservancy, received responses to survey
49 questions from managers of 372 rail-to-trails throughout the U. S. Overall, the results showed
50 that the rate of major crimes is extremely low on trails compared with rates in comparable
33
1 nearby urban, suburban and rural locations. Likewise, minor crimes such as trespassing and
2 graffiti were similarly relatively rare and far less common then in comparable areas.
3 Littering of a minor nature was reported as occurring on only'/4 of the trails. A number
4 of neighborhood groups near trails were organized to monitor sections of trails and to perform
5 periodic clean up. Overall, littering was not considered to be a problem issue.
6 According to evaluations by real estate agents, proximity to trails had no negative effect
7 on property values, and in some cases proximity to trails was considered an asset in the sale of
8 a home.
9 Some recommendations have been proposed in the literature for minimizing potential
10 problems with safety, littering and trespassing:
11 1) Do not allow motor vehicles on trails. Law enforcement officers say a potential
12 criminal is often deterred from criminal action when he/she does not have the use of
13 an escape vehicle.
14 2) Keep the trail clean and well maintained. This discourages littering and other types
15 of trail abuses.
16 3) Foster the organization of volunteer community or neighborhood trail patrols to
17 perform periodic inspection and clean up of trails. The majority of rail-to-trail
18 locations have developed some type of patrol organizations."
19
20 Allan Green lives on the corner of Dairyland and Orange Grove Road. He said that he
21 is an enthusiastic backpacker and he wished he lived on the MTST. He is the Bingham
22 Township representative of the Parks and Recreation Board. He has also hiked the entire
23 MTST section of Orange and Durham Counties. He is in favor of this section being in the
24 OWASA corridor. He hopes that there would be an economic benefit from people using the trail
25 with trail shops, etc.
26 Bonnie Hauser was speaking for Orange County Voice. She lives in Bingham Township
27 and she lives on the swath of the MTST. She said that this is a connector project and connects
28 existing green spaces throughout the state. In Orange County, the trail connects the Eno River
29 State Park, the Occaneechi Speedway Trail, Ayr Mount, and Hillsborough's River Walk. The
30 advantage of having the trail go this route is that the Hillsborough River Walk and Alamance's
31 Haw River Trail get priority for grant funding. She supports the citizens that do not want the trail
32 going through their property. Orange County Voice recommends that work on the Bingham
33 segment of the trail be stopped until some things such as security and safety are clarified.
34
35
36 Christine Silva read a prepared statement:
37 Tuesday, September 18, 2012
38 Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting
39
40 From Christine Silva, Thunder Mt., Efland, NC 27243
41
42 Request to Orange County Board of Commissioners to Create A Motion to Eliminate the
43 Mountain-to-Sea Trail Segment Through the Cane Creek Watershed
44
45 Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns over the proposed
46 Mountain to Sea Trail (MST) through the Cane Creek watershed.
47
34
1 1 respectfully request that my presentation this evening be part of the official record of this
2 meeting.
3
4 It is commendable that through the years, from its creation to the present day, OWASA has
5 steadfastly protected the Cane Creek Reservoir.
6
7 It is also commendable that Orange County has hundreds of miles of trails already in existence
8 for hikers and continues to develop trails to keep our residents and visitors happy and fit.
9
10 Since there are hundreds of miles of trails already in existence in Orange County, the small
11 segment of the proposed MST through the Cane Creek watershed offers no meaningful gain for
12 the county and its citizens.
13
14 It does, however, present serious concerns and loss of privacy in a rural environment.
15 Perhaps, those rural residents who support the Cane Creek segment can offer their driveways
16 to hikers looking for a place to park so they can access the proposed MST Cane Creek
17 segment!
18
19 In years to come, this segment could be detrimental to the peaceful rural Cane Creek
20 community as this area of the township is literally placed on the map.
21
22 There is no controlled access to the Cane Creek segment of the trail. One modest fire and
23 those who rely on the water provided from the Cane Creek Reservoir—Chapel Hill and
24 Carrboro—will be asking questions to the government entities that permitted an unregulated
25 trail through the reservoir. Of course OWASA will come under fire for permitting unregulated
26 access to a trail within yards of the reservoir.
27
28 Furthermore, the area of land behind Thunder Mountain is small and narrow. If the trail is
29 moved one way it is unacceptably close to private residences; and if the trail is moved the other
30 way, it is placed literally on top of the reservoir.
31
32 Years ago, the decision to protect and secure the water supply showed great wisdom and
33 insight into the future. The Orange County Commissioners would be serving the best interest of
34 all who rely on the water today and for years to come, if they eliminate the proposed segment of
35 the MST that goes through the Cane Creek watershed.
36
37 Thus, I want to put forth a request to our Commissioners that they make a motion and vote to
38 eliminate the MST through the Cane Creek watershed.
39
40 Thank you,
41
42 Christine Silva
43
44 cc: Ed Holland (E Holland 0-owasa.org) OWASA
45 Bob Epting (bobepting(cD-g mail.com) OWASA
46
47
48 NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT—
49
35
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
2 to enter into the public record all comments and to submit them to the Clerk, along with all
3 emails.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 b. Landfill Neighborhood Illegal Dumping Cleanup/Collection Update
7 The Board received an update on the landfill neighborhood cleanup activity authorized
8 by the Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) at its March 13, 2012 meeting.
9
10
11 9. County Manager's Report
12 DEFERRED
13
14 10. County Attorney's Report
15 DEFERRED
16
17 11. Appointments
18 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointment
19 The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community
20 Advisory Committee.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
22 to appoint Ms. Teri Driscoll to a one-year training term for the At-Large position with the one-
23 year training term expiring 09/30/2013.
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 b. Advisory Board on Aging—Appointments
27 The Board considered making appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging.
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
29 to appoint Mr. Richard White to a first full term for the At-large Position with the term ending
30 06/30/2015.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
34 to appoint Mr. Daniel Hatley to a first full term, ending on 06/30/2015.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 C. Orange County Arts Commission—Appointment
38 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Arts Commission.
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
40 to appoint Mr. Todd Neal to a partial first term expiring 03/31/2014.
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 d. Board of Health—Appointment
44 The Board considered making an appointment to the Board of Health.
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
46 to appoint Mr. Alexander White to the Citizen/Commissioner position for a first full term expiring
47 06/30/2015.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 e. Orange County Housing Authority Board—Appointments
36
1 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Housing Authority
2 Board.
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
4 to appoint Ms. Diane Beecham to a partial first term expiring 06/30/2014.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
8 to appoint Mrs. Dee Jackola to a partial first term expiring 06/30/2014.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 12. Board Comments
12 DEFERRED
13
14 13. Information Items
15
16 • September 6, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
17 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request for Additional Board Action on Fracking
18 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Earl McKee- Mountains-to-Sea
19 Trail
20 • BOCC Chair Letter Requesting Additional Public Meeting Regarding Mountains-to-Sea Trail
21 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Barry Jacobs- Burlington-Graham
22 MPO
23 • BOCC Chair Letter Requesting Support for Creation of Alternative Energy Task Force
24 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding County's Pet Identification Policy
25 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request That County Ban Certain Wells
26 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Earl McKee- Recognition of
27 Volunteer Fire Departments
28
29 14. Closed Session
30 DEFERRED
31
32 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
33 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
34 143-318.11(a)(5).
35
36
37 15. Adjournment
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
39 to adjourn the meeting at 11:26 P.M.
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
43
44 Donna S. Baker, CMC
45 Clerk to the Board
1
I DRAFT Attachment 2
2 MINUTES
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 October 2, 2012
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
9 October 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier.. and Commissioners
12 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
13 Yuhasz
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey,
17 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker(All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
21 The Chair went through the additional items at the County Commissioners' places:
22
23 - White sheet PowerPoint for item 7-a, Employee Health Insurance and Other
24 Benefits for 2013
25 - PowerPoint for item 7-d—Resolution to Submit Comments Regarding Alternatives
26 for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2040
27 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
28 - Rose sheet—from Commissioner Gordon regarding item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
29 Implementation Agreement
30 - Pink sheet-from Orange County staff for item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
31 Implementation Agreement
32 - Orange Sheet from Orange County Manager for item 7-e, Transit Interlocal
33 Implementation Agreement
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
41 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
42 Michael Muller read a prepared statement.
43 Orange County Commissioners and Staff:
44
45 As residents of Orange County we wholeheartedly approve of your efforts to improve the
46 effectiveness and efficiency of emergency response agencies through better address
47 identification.
48
49 We are 3 households living off Harmony Church Road on an unnamed driveway that was
50 established at a time when there were no requirements for naming private roads.
2
1 Two of the households are occupied by former firefighters, one a former Chief and one a former
2 Captain, each with over 20 years of service and experience with the Cedar Grove Fire Dept.
3 We are well aware of the problems associated with locating a residence in an emergency both
4 day and night. We know it is much easier to locate an address on a main road rather than to
5 find a small drive with an additional name.
6
7 In our case, our 3 addresses are clearly labeled at the main road with official reflective number
8 signs acquired from the Hillsborough Fire Dept. In addition, the same official house number
9 signs are installed along the 3/ mile driveway at appropriate locations to further direct
10 emergency personnel.
11
12 As former emergency responders we also know that the sequential numbering of addresses
13 with properly sized, consistent, and reflective numbers along the roads is an important and
14 effective way to find a house. Enforcing standard number signage on existing roads will better
15 support your efforts to locate structures than adding many newly named small lanes with
16 inconsistently located and sized signs for the many driveways throughout the county.
17
18 There are many different situations in the county and we do not believe that only one solution
19 works in every case.
20
21 Therefore, instead of demanding compliance to a set of seemingly arbitrary rules we are
22 appealing to your common sense in finding the best solution to the problems of locating a
23 house along our many county roads. Why is the number of households set at 3 per drive?Why
24 not 4?Why not 2?
25
26 Also, we are concerned that the tone of your notice, which mentions fines and compliance,
27 even before explaining the ordinance does not actually encourage people to work towards the
28 stated goal of making structures more easily located.
29
30 As you know, changing an address is no small matter and requires a significant amount of time,
31 money, effort, and inconvenience. In the absence of moving to a new residence, this is not
32 something that should be required without the clear and definite benefit of achieving the goal of
33 such a requirement.
34
35 Therefore we ask you to consider our concerns, especially when the stated basis for the
36 address change, i.e. better emergency response, will not be achieved in cases such as ours.
37
38 Attached are photographs of the number signage for our households.
39
40 We look forward to a sensible solution to this issue, Thank You,
41 Sincerely Yours
42
43 Michael Muller and Judy Frank
44 8750 Harmony Church Road
45 Joe and Ann Chockley
46 8740 Harmony Church Road>Steve and Joan Levitt
47 8770 Harmony Church Road
48
49 Jeff Charles, OUT Board member and advocate for bicycles, said that he is here for the
50 Rural Road Safety Coalition. He said that he has noticed a significant increase in hostility and
3
1 frustration between motorists and cyclists over the last couple of years. This has led to
2 dangerous situations on the roads. He said that this group of concerned cyclists and motorists
3 have come together to prepare some common sense guidelines for motorists and cyclists.
4 They are asking the County Commissioners to endorse these guidelines.
5 Jessica Gerry spoke on behalf of Carrboro Planning Board and announced a series of
6 open dialogues for the public on October 15'h, 20, and 30 on affordable housing.
7 Don O'Leary read part of the United States Constitution. He said that Woodrow Wilson
8 agreed to commit high treason and sign the Federal Reserve Act, creating an IRS. He said that
9 the IRS has been in control of this nation ever since. He said that the IRS deliberately created
10 the Great Depression. He said that there is a shift of the power to the United Nations. He said
11 that the last hope is for the local governments to use sovereignty to dismantle out of the control
12 of the government and start new.
13
14 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
15 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
16 below.)
17
18 3. Petitions by Board Members
19 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to petition and set up an alternative
20 sentencing work group to plan for a new jail. The judges, District Attorney, Public Defender,
21 and other members of the criminal justice system should be a part of this work group. He said
22 that the example of the Emergency Services Work Group is a good model.
23 Commissioner Yuhasz seconded Commissioner Jacobs' request.
24
25 4. Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations
26 a. Ian Finley. 2012 Piedmont Laureate—National Arts & Humanities Month
27 The Board was introduced to dramatist Ian Finley, the 2012 Piedmont Laureate, and
28 heard a brief selection from him for National Arts & Humanities Month (October).
29
30 Staff Support for the Arts Commission Martha Shannon said that October is National
31 Arts and Humanities Month. She introduced Ian Finley, a dramatist, as the 2012 Piedmont
32 Laureate.
33 Ian Finley said that he has had the chance to interact with many arts groups throughout
34 Orange County. He is writing a new play, Up from the Ground, based on his interactions with
35 these arts groups and explores the food waste of the piedmont. He said that he has spoken
36 with Noah Rannells at the Processing Center, which has opened his eyes to the value and
37 importance of food.
38
39 5. Consent Agenda
40 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
41 None
42 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
45 to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48
49 a. Minutes —None
50 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
4
1 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
2 35 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
3 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
4 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to
5 sixty-four(64) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North Carolina
6 General Statute 105-381.
7 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
8 The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
9 taxation for the 2012 tax year.
10 e. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
11 Outline/Schedule for UDO Text Amendments Suggested by MuniCode
12 The Board approved the process components and schedule for minor"housekeeping"
13 amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text, currently scheduled for the
14 November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and directed staff to proceed accordingly.
15 f. Floodplain Management Planning Activities within the County
16 The Board received information on the completion of an annual report to the Community Rating
17 Service (CRS) regarding the County's Floodplain Management Program, acknowledged the
18 recertification package has been submitted to CRS for processing, and informed the general
19 public the recertification package as well as other pertinent floodplain mitigation documents are
20 available for review.
21 g_ Amendment to the Orange County Personnel Ordinance Regarding the Employee
22 Performance Evaluation Process
23 The Board approved an amendment to the Orange Code of Ordinances Chapter 28 Personnel,
24 Article VI I, §§ 28-82 through 28-84 as provided in Attachment A, which would remove the
25 operational aspects of the Employee Performance Evaluation Process from the Personnel
26 Ordinance and to the Administrative Rules and Regulations promulgated by the County
27 Manager and to allow an employee's performance evaluation date to remain the anniversary of
28 the original date of appointment or the most recent promotion date, effective July 1, 2012.
29 h. Return of Funds to the County's Emergency Telephone Fund (911)for Funds
30 Transferred to Establish an Emergency Services Capital Reserve within the General
31 Fund and Approval of Budget Amendment#2-A
32 The Board authorized staff to make the appropriate transfer from the General Fund to the 911
33 Fund to resolve the matter with the NC 911 Board, and approved Budget Amendment#2-A.
34 i. Efland Phase 2/Buckhorn Sanitary Sewer Scope Expansion Change Order Approval
35 The Board authorized the Manager to execute the attached change order in the amount of
36 $219,257.78 related to the project scope expansion of the additional gravity sewer outfall
37 connection between the new Brookhollow Road Lift Station and the end-of-life McGowan Creek
38 Lift Station; and authorized the Manager to execute any future change orders for this project up
39 to an amount not to exceed $250,000 in total upon County Attorney review and not to exceed
40 the overall project budget.
41 L Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2013
42 The Board approved the regular meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for
43 calendar year 2013.
44 k. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2012
45 The Board amended its regular meeting calendar for 2012 by changing the location of the
46 BOCC meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 8, 2012 FROM the DSS Offices, 113 Mayo
47 Street, TO the Central Orange Senior Center(Adjoining Triangle Sportsplex), 103
48 Meadowlands Drive, Hillsborough, N. C.
49
50 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
5
1
2 6. Public Hearings - NONE
3
4 7. Regular Agenda
5 a. Emplovee Health Insurance and Other Benefits for 2013
6 The Board considered the County Manager's recommendations for employee health
7 insurance and other benefits for the 2013 calendar year.
8
9 Nicole Clark, Human Resources Director, and Mark Browder from Mark III made this
10 PowerPoint presentation:
11
12 Employee Health Insurance Options and Other Bereft for 2013
13 Background
14 • Orange County provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package
15 Health, dental, vision, life; flexible benefit compensation; employee assistance
16 program; paid leave; contributions to the Local Government Employees'
17 Retirement System and other supplemental retirement plans
18 • Effective January 1, 2012 United Healthcare became the County's provider of health
19 insurance
20 • Point of Service and HDP
21 • Benefits information provided at previous meetings and work sessions during the month
22 of June
23 FY 2012-13 budget includes funding for a 23% increase
24 Medical flexible spending account contribution is$2,500 as of 1/1/13
25 No significant changes to other benefits
26
27 Employee Feedback
28 Prescriptions:
29 • Brand names for certain acid reflux medications were not covered
30 • Limited supplies for migraine and asthma medication
31 • Members had to change prescriptions to get a lower co-pay
32 • All generic prescriptions were not included in Tier 1
33 • Tier I co-pays increased from $0 to $8
34 Services:
35 • Office visit co-pays did not include diagnostic tests
36 • Preventive versus non-preventive services were unclear
37 • Elimination of the obesity surgery
38
39 Employee Survey
40 400 Employees responded
41 73% POS plan participants
6
1 96.6% of POS participants are very familiar or somewhat
2 familiar
3 23% HDP plan participants
4 • 94.2% of HDP participants are very familiar or somewhat
5 familiar
6 • 76% participated in the health assessment
7 • 95%would like to have$0 generic co-pays
8 • 29%would like to reduce prescription costs
9 • 22.8%would like plan improvements, if premiums remained the same or
10 decreased
11 • 34.3%would require employees to improve or maintain good health through
12 smoking cessation and setting weight loss goals
13
14 Renewal Observations:
15 o The UHC Renewal is very competitive, based on the County's claims.
16 o Looking to transition to another carrier will have a nominal financial
17 impact.
18 a Self-funding doesn't provide the County with any savings.
19 o As noted, there are benefits additions that are being recommended.
20 o Adding the obesity coverage would increase rates by nearly 4%, while
21 only a few would utilize the benefit.
22
23 Tables w#►speaficamor r&hatesare k ao►porafed byreferenoe.
24
25 Next Steps
nd
26 • October 2 : BOCC considers and approves the 2013 Employee Benefits Package
th
27 • October 9 : HR Staff begins education process for employees and retirees
nd th
28 • October 22 —November 4 : Online Open Enrollment
th nd
29 • October 29 —November 2 : Mark III and HR Staff conduct numerous open
30 enrollment meetings
31 • December 2012: Educational and Focus Group Meetings Begin
32 • UnitedHealthcare
33 • Self-funded plan design
34 • 2013: Recommendation to the BOCC on plan design for 2014
35
36 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for being responsive to the concerns of the
37 staff. He made reference to the letter from Nicole Clark, Attachment C, and that United
38 Healthcare will attend one focus group. He said that employees are dissatisfied with the
7
1 responsiveness of UHC. He asked if UHC could come for an employee town hall meeting so
2 that it is not so controlled and employees can ask unscripted questions.
3 Nicole Clark said that she would take this to UHC and ask them.
4 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Board went with Option 1 if there would be an
5 opportunity at the next renewal to look at obesity coverage and Mark Browder said yes.
6 Frank Clifton said that the employees he met with as part of the Employee Relations
7 Committee were concerned about the cost of the obesity benefit. The employees would like the
8 County to take steps to encourage these people to change their health habits and/or provide a
9 wellness program before this benefit is implemented.
10 Commissioner Foushee asked if the personnel ordinance reflects what the law requires
11 in terms of eligibility for County Commissioners for retiree health insurance. The employees
12 have to have 20 years of service to be eligible and the County Commissioners only have to
13 serve for eight years. This is not equitable in her opinion. The law requires a minimum of ten
14 years of service before the County Commissioners are eligible. The ordinance should reflect
15 this.
16 John Roberts said that there have been no modifications to the ordinance, but they are
17 forthcoming. The statute states that it applies to any class of former officers and employees of
18 the County.
19 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Board should discuss the time requirement for
20 Board of County Commissioners for eligibility. He thinks that the requirement should also be 20
21 years for the County Commissioners,just like it is for employees.
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
23 Hemminger to approve a 20-year requirement for County Commissioners to be eligible for
24 retiree health coverage.
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
28 Foushee to approve the renewal of the fully-insured health insurance plans with
29 United Healthcare, choosing Option 1, with an overall premium increase of 8.51%.
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 b. _Approval of the Purchase of SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer Aided Dispatch
33 System and Budget Amendment#2-13
34 The Board considered approval of the purchase of the SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer
35 Aided Dispatch system as recommended by the Emergency Services Workgroup; and approval
36 of Budget Amendment#2-13 and authorizing the Chair to sign.
37 Michael Talbert said that the current CAD system is now 20 years old and this
38 equipment has been reviewed by the Emergency Services work group and the Emergency
39 Services consultant. The CAD system that has been ordered will take about 12 months to
40 implement. The initial budget was $640,000, but more money has been moved into the 911
41 fund, and the appropriation would will $485,478 from the E911 Fund for this equipment.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT:
44 Peter Hallenbeck read a prepared statement.
45
46 I'm wearing three hats tonight: Citizen Pete, 20 years with Efland Fire, Deputy Chief Pete, and
47 PageTrack Pete.
48
8
1 What is PageTrack? A little over a year ago, I started a software company that has developed
2 a real time tracking system for fire, EMS, and rescue responders. It's web based and runs on
3 smart phones, Pads, and desktops.
4
5 It is currently being used by many departments in the county. Those departments can use the
6 system for free forever.
7
8 1 am submitting a document with my detailed questions and concerns about the OSSI path that
9 the county is on. There is no easy way to summarize all the points.
10
11 The agenda for this meeting says that after the OSSI demonstration, "The system was well-
12 received by the stakeholders." The problem is that an email was sent out on a Wednesday that
13 gave Fire just two days to voice any concerns about the system. Many concerns that I had
14 voice anywhere from 1 to 5 months ago had not been address by Emergency Services.
15
16 There's been talk of the strained relationship between ES and the fire departments, and the CC
17 said that we all need to communicate better. Well, fire should have voiced any concerns they
18 had, and ES should not have taken silence to be the same as approval. So we are on a path
19 where this is a good chance there will be friction once again between the groups.
20
21 If the fire departments can't use PageTrack with OSSI, and have to switch to the OSSI A.V.L.
22 system, they will lose capabilities they have now while spending as much as nine times as
23 much money. So this lack of communications could cost the fire departments .5 million dollars
24 at start up and $50,000 per year ongoing costs.
25
26 The scheduling of this vote is sad, since the CC will meet with the fire departments in just two
27 days. A communications opportunity lost.
28
29 There's a lot of talk about all the stakeholders having a voice in the development of the system.
30 It seems to me that after the purchase, those options go down substantially.
31
32 So please read my concerns. I want to avoid a situation where a year down the road everyone
33 is yelling at each other because the system is not what they want or cost too much to
34 implement. And even if you approve the purchase tonight, please work with Fire so that you
35 can insure their concerns are met. Historically, Fire has not had much success convincing ES
36 to change how they do things. Deploying this new CAD system is an opportunity to fix that
37 problem and have better emergency service to people that are in trouble.
38
39
40 Commissioner McKee said that there was an opportunity for a demonstration of this at
41 the Emergency Services work group. He said that he felt that the intention is to keep an open
42 dialogue with the fire departments. He does not want to close the door to further dialogue.
43 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the contract could be signed after the meeting with the
44 fire departments and rescue squad on Thursday.
45 Michael Talbert said that the County was offered a special deal to sign the contract
46 before October 5"'. He is not sure there is another clear alternative because this system is also
47 used by the adjoining counties. It is the preferred system across the State.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to sign this contract after the meeting
49 because there may be further information regarding suggestions or modifications from the fire
50 departments.
9
I A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
2 approve the purchase of the SunGard-OSSI E911 Computer Aided Dispatch system, authorize
3 the Chair to sign the contract(after the meeting on October 0), and approve Budget
4 Amendment#2-B.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 c. Draft Town of Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan
8 The Board considered authorizing the Chair to submit a letter submitting preliminary
9 comments to the Town of Hillsborough regarding its draft Future Land Use Plan and receive an
10 update on the joint planning process that is to occur between the Town and County.
11 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altien made a PowerPoint presentation. He
12 said that the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County have been coordinating planning efforts
13 for several years. Current efforts towards joint planning originated in 2005 with a joint task
14 force completing a report identifying principles of agreement as a guide to future planning
15 efforts. In 2006, a Strategic Growth Plan report was completed calling for the preparation of an
16 interlocal agreement, which was also adopted in 2009. The interlocal agreement provides for
17 the adoption of the joint land use plan, adjustments to the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction,
18 and adoption of zoning and subdivision regulations for areas to be covered by the Joint Land
19 Use Plan. The Town of Hillsborough is now taking the first step towards the Joint Land Use
20 Plan and has prepared a draft for public review. The Town held the first of two outreach
21 meetings on September 13th. The 2nd outreach meeting will occur tomorrow morning from
22 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., working towards a target public hearing date of October 18th, followed
23 by a Planning Board recommendation in November and subsequent Board consideration in
24 December.
25 The County's role is to offer preliminary comments to the Town on the draft Future Lane
26 Use Plan as it moves into the public hearing process. The County will not be discussing
27 specifics at this stage, so citizens are encouraged to attend the outreach session and the public
28 hearing to hear the presentation. Planning staff has prepared a draft letter for the Board's
29 consideration as preliminary input to the Town. This letter is in Attachment 4 in the packet on
30 page 5.
31
32 Item 7.c.
33 October 2, 2012
34 BOCC Meeting
35 Hillsborough-Orange Joint Planning Background:
36 Hillsborough-Orange Urban Transition Area Task Force(2005)
37 Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan, Phase I Report(2006)
38 Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan, Phase 11 Agreement(2009)
39
40 Summary of Town of Hillsborough Next SteDS-
rd
41 Second Outreach Session— October 3 , 10:00 AM— 12:00 PM at Town Barn
th
42 Public Hearing — October 18 , 7:00 P.M. at Town Barn
43 Planning Board—November
44 Town Board Consideration—December 2012
45
46 Town of Hillsborough Draft Future Land Use Plan
47 The Manager Recommends the Board:
48 1. Receive the update; and
^
10
1 2. Authorize the Chair to send the attached letter(Attachment 4) submitting preliminary
2 comments to the Town of Hillsborough.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said that there should be some green space as a buffer around
5 the urban areas much like there is a rural buffer between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and
6 Carrboro. He made reference to the third bullet—preference for non-residential uses—and
7 suggested adding, "in an economic development area."
8 Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought the master plan for Waterstone had a hotel
9 proposed there. He would hope to have this kind of plan with Mebane in the near future.
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
I I to update the letter with suggestions and map attachment and authorize the Chair to send the
12 attached letter(Attachment 4)submitting input to the Town of Hillsborough regarding its draft
13 Future Land Use Plan.
15 The changes include: attach "area 5"to the next to the last bullet, add "in economic
16 development districts"to the third bullet, and attach the map as suggested.
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20 d. Resolution to Submit Comments Regarding Alternatives for the Durham-
21 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Orcianization's 2040 Metropolitan
22 Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
23 The Board received a presentation from Lead Planning Agency staff member Andy
24 Henry(Attachment 1) and considered a resolution (Attachment 2) submitting comments to the
25 Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Transportation
26 Advisory Committee(TAC) regarding the Alternatives Analysis of the 2040 Metropolitan
27 Transportation Plan (MTP) and Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).
29 Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced this item.
30 Andy Henry, Planner with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
31 Organization, made a PowerPoint presentation.
33 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)and
34 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
35 Alternatives Analysis
36 What is DCHC MPO?
37 Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro
38 Metropolitan Planning Organization
39 Responsible for long range transportation planning in
40 Durham City and County, and
41 Parts of Orange County and Chatham County.
42 Federal mandate—MPO must plan use of federal transportation funding
43 Policy Board—Transportation Advisory Committee JAC) composed mostly of
44 local elected officials.
46 What is 2040 MTP?
47 u Lists hia wav ransit and other transportation projects to address future
48 transportation defi ncies;through year 2040.
49 17 Assumptions—based on future land use, population and employment.
50 R A Gonstra nt—Anticipated revenues must cover anticipated project costs.
51 Fu—n—cfinq -- Projects must be in MTP to receive state and federal funding (via
52 Transportation Improvement Program—TIP)
11
1 Used for Planning
2 e.g., n development review, use MTP to reserve right-of-way for
3 future highway and fixed guideway projects
4
5
6 What is Alternatives Analysis?
7 u What—
8 Proposed sets of projects/services to meet transportation deficiencies--this is the 1st
9 cut.
10 Why—
11 Determine how project types and individual projects meet future
12 transportation demand.
13 Understand public and local officials preferences.
14 n When—
15 Released August 17, 2012
16 Public input
17 • Workshop at Hillsborough Town Barn, 9/13, 4-7pm
18 • OUTboard
19
20 Highway Projects:
21 Moderate Network
22 Major Projects:
23 - 1-85 widening
24 - 1-40 widening
25 - Old NC 86 widening
26 - US 15-501/NC 54 bypass widening
27 - NC superstreets
28 - US 15-501/NC 54 interchange
29
30 Transit Services:
31 Moderate Network
32 Major Services:
33 - Light Rail Transit(Durham-CH)
34 - Bus service improvements
35 - Bus Rapid Transit in Chapel Hill
36
37 Transit Intensive Network
38 Major Services:
39 - Light Rail Transit extension
40 - Commuter Rail extension
41
42
43 2040 MTP
44 --Next Steps
45
46 - Develop the Preferred Option (release in October 2012)
47 - Get public feedback on the Preferred Option (October through December 2012)
48 - Approve draft 2040 MTP(December 2012)
49 - Adopt after Air Quality Conformity(April 2013)
50
51
52
53 Frank Clifton made reference to the population and employment projections and said
54 that these projections seem high.
55 Chair Pelissier asked if these employment models could be modified.
56 Andy Henry said that they could look at other sources and make adjustments.
57 Discussion ensued concerning whether the population growth rate was accurate.
12
1 Frank Clifton suggested that the Orange County Planning staff and the Towns' Planning
2 staffs get together and identify available building areas within the County and the towns, and
3 then check for the accuracy of the projections for population and employment.
4 Chair Pelissier said that one of the comments should be to ask for a review of the
5 population and employment projections in coordination with the towns.
6 Commissioner Gordon said that one of the comments should be to make the maps
7 clearer by using colors with more contrast. These are the maps on pages 113-124 as well as
8 maps on pages 19 and 130-135.
9 Commissioner Gordon made reference to attachment 4 on page 13 and said that she
10 thought the "Southern Carrboro" area was north of Damascus Church Road and not south.
11 She asked to flag this.
12
13 Commissioner Gordon made suggestions concerning comments to be submitted to the
14 MPO. She referred to attachment 2 on page 11 and attachment 3 on page 12, which were
15 attachments showing possible comments. She suggested using the OUTBoard comments
16 given on page 12, and adding "environmental benefits"to the fifth bullet of the OUTBoard list.
17 The next bullet would be Chair Pelissier's suggestion to ask about the population and
18 employment estimates in collaboration with the towns. The last bullet would be the one about
19 clearer maps, as stated above.
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
21 modify Attachment 2 on page 11 to add the verb"promote"to one of the statements of the
22 resolution; and that the bullet points should be the ones from the OUTBoard shown on page 12,
23 as amended to add the words "environmental benefits"; and with the additional bullets
24 suggested above.
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 The approved motion is as follows:
28
29 Resolution#2012-087
30 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
31
32 A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
33 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
34 COMMITTEE REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OF THE
35 2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE
36 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
37
38 WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in regional transportation planning as a member of
39 the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and
40
41 WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has released
42 the Alternatives Analysis of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Comprehensive
43 Transportation Plan (CTP) for public comment; and
44
45 WHEREAS, Orange County seeks ample opportunities to review and comment on regional
46 transportation plans and policies; and
47
48 WHEREAS, the Orange Unified Transportation Board has submitted comments regarding the
49 Alternatives Analysis for the CTP and 2040 MTP;
50
13
1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
2 recommends to the Transportation Advisory Committee that the 2040 Durham-Chapel Hill-
3 Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Transportation Plan and
4 Comprehensive Transportation Plan give priority to projects that promote alternatives modes of
5 transportation, minimize impacts on the environment and foster economic development
6
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends
8 that the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
9 include/note/suggest/encourage the following:
10
11 ■ A focus on building a sustainable, economical and workable system that builds upon
12 itself with capital investments to lay the groundwork for future innovation.
13
14 ■ The consideration of the larger effects of this plan and that there will be great economic
15 benefits to some elements such as the public transportation projects.
16
17 ■ Inclusion of provisions for staggering implementation of services such that bus ridership
18 can help build future rail ridership once the rail project is completed.
19
20 ■ Ongoing coordination between municipalities within the county and with other
21 jurisdictions in the region on all elements of the regional efforts.
22
23 ■ Choosing a Preferred Option that provides a comprehensive multi-modal system which
24 operates efficiently in the long term and provides the most significant economic,
25 environmental, and societal benefits to the County and the region.
26
27 ■ Reviewing the population and employment projections in collaboration with the
28 municipalities within the Metropolitan Planning Area in Orange County, and
29
30 ■ Clarifying the maps in the Plan by using colors that provide more contrast.
31
32
33 Commissioner Yuhasz asked that the results of the revised estimates be reflected in the
34 alternative projections.
35 Andy Henry said that if the projections were changed, then the model would be run
36 again.
37
38 e. Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement
39 The Board considered adopting the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan
40 (OCBRIP) and associated Interlocal Implementation Agreement.
41 Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners have had many modifications to this
42 draft document and it will be on the screen.
43 John Roberts said that everything in red in the agreement is new from the last meeting.
44 There are some typographical corrections in numbering. In Section 16, subsection d, the
45 annual increase was not included and this has been added.
46 Commissioner Gordon went through her document with suggestions for changes. This
47 was the rose colored sheet.
14
1
2
3 Item 7e-Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement- Paragraph 10
4 PROPOSED CLARIFICATION FROM COMMISSIONER GORDON
5
6 Tonight's meeting agenda includes item 7-e concerning the Transit Interlocal Implementation
7 Agreement.
8
9 1 will be proposing the addition of some clarifying language to Paragraph 10 which deals with
10 benchmarks.
11
12 1 have asked the County Attorney about this clarification and he told me the additional language
13 was fine with him.
14
15 INFORMATION ON PARAGRAPH 10
16
17 Paragraph 10 states that benchmarks will be developed for inclusion in the transit plan, and
18 when that will happen. However, it does not clearly state how and when the benchmarks will
19 actually be used.
20
21 Therefore, tonight I propose that we add the following language to the end of paragraph 10:
22
23 "and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews set out in paragraph 9 above and in
24 paragraph 13 below."
25
26 (Paragraph 9 refers to the four year reviews and Paragraph 13 refers to the eight year review.)
27
28 PARAGRAPH 10 WOULD THEN READ AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate progress in
31 gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the four years
32 following execution of the Agreement, to incorporate these benchmarks and timeline into the
33 Plan during the first four year review, and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews
34 set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below.
35
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
38 approve the changes in the agreement as proposed above.
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 Frank Clifton made reference to paragraph 7 in the light pink handout. He said that
42 Chapel Hill Transit has some concerns and these are included in the orange handout that he
43 had prepared. The handout is shown below.
44
45 BUS SERVICE REVENUE SHARING PROPOSAL (New Services and Support for Existing
46 Services)
47 October 2, 2012
48 Assumptions for clarification:
15
1 1. Prior agreement creates a sharing of revenues allocated for new bus services within the
2 OC Transit Plan based upon a split= CHT 64%, TTA 24% and OPT 12%
3 2. Locally generated vehicle registration fees of$7/vehicle for Orange County= $800,000
4 in 2016
5 3. Projecting a full year generation of all revenues in 2016 produces a total of$7.1 Million
6 in revenues of which $3,702,000 is dedicated for bus services
7 4. By agreement, TTA will forego any direct share of the $7 vehicle registration revenues
8 for Orange County allowing OPT and CHT to share in those revenues for purposes of
9 supporting existing services as outlined below
10 5. The allocation of the$7 vehicle registration fees in Orange County for'optional' use to
11 support either existing or new services will fall within the 64/24/12% bus revenue
12 allocation formula as shown below
13 6. The split of the$7 vehicle registration fees for existing services in Orange County will be
14 split by CHT and OPT based on the ratio of each system's local funding allocation from
15 existing sources each fiscal year as a percentage of the total of the two systems
16 dedicated local revenue allocations. (90 % CHT and 10% OPT(+/-) rounded for
17 simplicity.)
18 Estimated Impacts: Total $ 3,702,000 available bus service revenues for 2016—
19 • CHT would benefit by 64% of the available revenues = $2,369,280 of which up to $
20 720,000 could be used to support existing services provided by CHT with $ 1,649,280
21 going to new services initiated after passage of the referendum.
22
23 • OPT would benefit by 12% of the available revenues = $444,240 of which up to $
24 80,000 could be used to support existing services provided by OPT with $ 364,240
25 going to new services initiated after passage of the referendum
26
27 • TTA would benefit by 24% of the available revenues = $ 888,480 going to new services
28 initiated after passage of the referendum.
29 SUMMARIZING:
30 CHT's $ 720,000 for existing services = 30% of its 64%share of total bus service revenues
31 (2016) and 19.5% of the total bus service revenues (2016).
32 OPT's $ 80,000 for existing services can be allocated for support of existing or new services at
33 the option of the County Commission.
34 TTA receives no revenues for existing bus service support for its Orange County operations.
35 Hand out ends here.
36
37 Frank Clifton said that the staff of all the parties concur that this is the best way to
38 handle this agreement.
39 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to paragraph#7 and asked what would happen
40 if a different Board of County Commissioners in the future wanted to be more aggressive with
16
1 bus service. He asked if it would be considered new and would come under#8 or if it would still
2 be subject to the 64/24/12 split.
3 Frank Clifton said that right now it is set up as the 64/24112 split.
4 Clarifying questions were answered by John Roberts and Wib Gulley.
5 Commissioner McKee said that he does not believe that all issues are worked out. He
6 said that there have been changes all week long, but he is uncomfortable with making a
7 decision on this tonight when he gets the feeling that everything is not worked out.
8 Frank Clifton said that he thinks that all parties have come to a reasonable
9 methodology to produce something that would be acceptable, with the understanding that these
10 issues will be addressed at a later date.
11 John Roberts said that the County Commissioners are being asked to accept the
12 Manager's recommended changes (pink sheet), and once they agree to adopt it, he is going to
13 ask the Board to authorize staff to get the wording correct and make non-substantive changes.
14 The substantive parts of this he believes are agreed to.
15 Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit is comfortable with the wording of services here
16 versus hours.
17 . Commissioner Hemminger said that everyone seems to like the wording of#7. She
18 asked if the orange sheet could be an attachment at the end of the document.
19 John Roberts clarified that the orange sheet would be worked into Section 7, if the
20 Commissioners wished to add that.
21 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is not sure it is a good idea to include the orange
22 sheet as part of the agreement. He thinks that it is an example, but if it is too specific and not
23 real, then it will be confusing. He thinks that paragraph 7 is fine.
24 Commissioner McKee said that there is not enough transparency in this process. He
25 said that this needs to come back and be approved in whole at one more meeting. He said that
26 the County is asking the taxpayers of Orange County to obligate themselves, their children, and
27 their grandchildren for a tax that is being put together piece meal in a rush. He wants to see
28 this in black and white in an organized form.
29 Commissioner Foushee said that she is not sure where#7 is not clear. She thought
30 that everything was clear.
31 Mr. Spade spoke about Chapel Hill Transit's perspective of paragraph#7. He said that
32 over the past couple of weeks there have been numerous conversations with his staff, TTA, the
33 MPO, and the County. He said that Chapel Hill Transit does support this. He thinks that all
34 parties agree that there is a common understanding.
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
36 Foushee to approve paragraph 7 with the two changes on the pink sheet(take out the words "in
37 place" since it is written twice and change the date to June 30th instead of June 31St.) The
38 orange sheet will be an example to be recorded in the record for information only.
39 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
40
41 The Board then discussed Paragraph 8.
42
43 Commissioner Gordon asked about the rationale for 50% of the bus funding to be used
44 for existing services.
45 Frank Clifton said that the plan allocates each year a certain amount for bus services.
46 This is on page 41 of the packet. The Board has already approved the plan that provides for a
47 certain level of funding each year for bus services. The rest of the money goes to light rail.
48 Commissioner Yuhasz asked Wib Gulley about his legal opinion for the$7 vehicle
49 registration fee and the County's use of this money. Wib Gulley said that his legal opinion is
50 that the allocation of the funds that are distributed for bus service, a marker that indicates the
17
1 $7 could be used for existing service, is permitted because that piece of the legislation has no
2 restriction on it.
3 Commissioner Yuhasz asked how what is in paragraph 8 is not already covered in the
4 other parts of the agreement that allow a party to ask for a change in changing circumstances.
5 He made reference to paragraph 11 and said that it should say, "as set out in paragraph 9
6 above," and not"paragraph 7." He said that it seems that what is being said in this section is
7 already being said in the remaining portions of the agreement.
8 Wib Gulley said that there were some concerns expressed and the thought was to
9 explicitly provide for these concerns in a separate paragraph.
10 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would feel more comfortable if this particular
11 provision was made subject to the approvals that exist later in the agreement.
12 Frank Clifton said that the statement"agreed to by the parties in the agreement" should
13 include"all"throughout the agreement. He said that this could be misconstrued to mean a
14 majority and not all of the parties.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to minimize the amount to which the
16 County commits itself to challenging the parameters of the law.
17 John Roberts said that the statute in this case specifically says that the net proceeds of
18 the Y-cent sales tax revenue shall not be used to supplant or replace existing funds. There
19 remains some disagreement. He does not think that this agreement is entirely defensible under
20 the statute.
21 Commissioner McKee said that once again there is an issue that is not worked out. He
22 said that these issues need to be worked out before voting.
23 Wib Gulley said that the concern about new services addressed in paragraph 7 is a
24 higher standard than supplantation. Paragraph 7 states that the existing level of services must
25 be kept in place.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said that the last sentence in Paragraph 8 is what makes him
27 comfortable with it. He asked to keep that sentence or just add it to Paragraph 7.
28 Commissioner Gordon said that Section 8 should be in the agreement.
29 Discussion ensued on Section 8.
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
31 to change the wording of the last sentence in Paragraph 8 to read as follows (and to delete the
32 rest of Paragraph 8): Any change in use of bus service funds in the Plan from support of new
33 services to support of existing services may be made on a temporary or permanent basis, must
34 be agreed to by all of the Parties, and must comply with State law.
35 VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner
36 Yuhasz)
37
38 Commissioner Gordon voted against it because most of Paragraph 8 was eliminated
39 without much consideration.
40 Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is allowing the opportunity to use all of the money
41 to support existing services. He is not sure that this was the intent.
42 Commissioner Hemminger asked that the signatory page spell out all of the group
43 names instead of using abbreviations.
44 Commissioner McKee suggested having this brought back as a clean copy at the next
45 regular meeting to vote on it.
46 Commissioner Hemminger said that the clean copy will be put forth with the minutes.
47 Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board that the Bus and Rail Plan also needs to be
48 approved.
49
'
18
l A motion was made tm Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
2 Fousheeto approve the amended implementation agreenmentmsdiscumeedinthisme«glnQ
3 including all changes in red, with the exception of paragraph 8, which was greatly modified as
4 follows: most of paragraph 0 was deleted except for the last sentence which now reads:Any
5 change in use of bus service funds inthe Plan from support of new services to support of
6 existing services may be made on a temporary or permanent basis, must be agreed to by all of
7 the Parties, and must comply with State law; add ^annuo|" in the document in1O-[); and
Q throughout the document add the word "aU" to^partieo^soit reads"all ofthe parties", where
9 Mm1a include ch to paragraph 10 which would now read as follows:
I I "The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate progress in
12 gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the four years
13 following execution of the Agreement, to incorporate these benchmarks and timeline into the
14 Plan during the first four year review, and to use these benchmarks and timeline in the reviews
15 set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below";
17 And authorize staff to make non-substantive changes to the agreement.
19 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz)
21 The Implementation Agreement, in the form in which it was signed, is as follows:
24 INTERLOCAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
25 FOR
26 ORANGE COUNTY BUS AND RAIL INVESTMENT PLAN
29 This Interlocal Agreement("Agreement") dated 2012 is entered into
30 by and among Orange County,a political subdivision of the State or North Carolina ("'Orange"),
31 the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization,the regional
32 transportation planning agency for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area pursuant to US
33 DOT regulation CFR Part 450 and 49 Part 613 ("DCHC"), and the Research Triangle Regional
34 Public Transportation Authority, d/b/a Triangle Transit,a regional public transportation
35 authority under NCGS 160A("TTA"). Orange, DCHC, and TrA may be referred to individually as
36 "Party"and collectively as"Parties".This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter
37 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes.
39 The Parties each desire to provide for the future transportation needs of Orange County
40 and the surrounding region, understanding that enhanced mobility options will support a high
41 quality of life, strengthen economic development, strengthen human services transportation,
42 support air quality goals,and enhance sustainability;and
44 In accord with NCGS 105-508 et seq. ("Intermodal Act"),TrA developed a financial plan
45 denoted as the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan ("Plan")to set forth certain transit
46 investments over the next twenty-three years. This Plan has been reviewed and approved by
19
1 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC")subject to the approval by the
2 BOCC of a satisfactory Interlocal Implementation Agreement, approved in a similar fashion by
3 the TTA Board of Trustees, and approved in concept subject to a satisfactory Implementation
4 Agreement by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization ("DCHC").
5 In order to provide for effective implementation of the Plan,the Parties hereby agree to the
6 following provisions and procedures:
7
8 1. The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is incorporated into this
9 Agreement in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference. Except as
10 otherwise provided in this Agreement the Plan shall govern the allocation of funding, cost
11 parameters and timetables for delivery of projects and transit services, and the respective roles
12 of the Parties and transit agencies in provision of the projects and services called for therein.
13
14 2. Pursuant to the Levy of Transit Sales Tax Agreement between Orange and TTA
15 dated May 29, 2012,TTA reaffirms its commitment not to levy the Y2 cent transit sales tax until
16 the Orange BOCC adopts a resolution requesting TTA to take such action.
17
18 3. Orange, Durham County("Durham"), and TTA have previously executed an
19 agreement dated May 15, 2012 which allocates the shares of capital and operating expenses
20 for the LRT rail project set forth in the Plan, and that Cost Sharing agreement is incorporated
21 into this Agreement in full and as it may be amended from time to time by reference.
22
23 4. TTA agrees to provide reports to Orange and DCHC on the progress achieved
24 toward implementation of the Plan and any substantial developments in revenues received,
25 project or service cost experienced, or other pertinent factors under the Plan on an annual
26 basis on or before November 1st of each year and as otherwise reasonably requested.
27
28 5. TTA shall work with the Chapel Hill Transit(CHT), Orange Public Transit ("OPT"),and
29 any other Orange County bus transit service provider named in the Plan to develop the process
30 for distribution of funds for bus services each year on a quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed.
31 For purposes of this Agreement the term "bus services" shall include both fixed route and
32 demand response services. As is consistent with the revenues received and the other transit
33 priorities under the Plan,TTA will provide estimated quarterly payments to the bus service
34 providers for service provided with a reconciliation based upon actual expenses incurred by
35 each provider on a subsequent quarterly basis or as otherwise agreed to.
36
37 6. All bus service providers receiving funding under the Plan will provide an annual
38 financial report on existing bus services, their recommendations for new or continuing service
39 priorities,their actual or expected costs and ridership information as reasonably requested to
40 TTA on an annual basis or as otherwise agreed to. It shall be the responsibility of TTA to
41 provide oversight of the new, enhanced or sustained bus services under the Plan to insure
42 compliance with the Intermodal Act requirements. All other legal requirements under federal
43 and state law shall be the responsibility of the respective bus service provider. TTA shall
20
1 include a full descriptive report on bus services delivered under the Plan as a part of its annual
2 reports to Orange and DCHC.
3
4 7. The Plan provides that all funding for bus services will be appropriated on the basis
5 of the following percentages: 64%of such funds to CHT, 24%of such funds to TTA, and 12%of
6 such funds to OPT. The use of these bus service funds shall be limited to support of new bus
7 services above and beyond the existing transit system services in place at the time of the
8 adoption of the local option%Z cent sales tax in November, 2012. However, CHT and OPT may
9 use a portion of the bus service funds provided in the Plan to pay for the increased cost of
10 existing bus services during the duration of this Agreement in the manner described below.
11
12 The "CHT Share" shall be a percentage derived by dividing the CHT local expenditures for bus
13 services each year by the total of local expenditures for bus services by both CHT and OPT in
14 that year. The "OPT Share"shall be a percentage derived by dividing the OPT local
15 expenditures for bus services each year by the total of local expenditures for bus services by
16 both CHT and OPT in that year. The respective CHT and OPT local expenditures for bus services
17 in any year shall be based initially upon the audited financial statements for the fiscal year
18 ending June 30, 2011. Local bus services expenditures shall include assigned overhead without
19 any consideration of federal or state financial assistance. The determination of the CHT Share
20 and OPT Share will be made each year thereafter based upon the most recent audited annual
21 local expenditures for bus service by both.
22
23 CHT may use a portion of the bus services funds provided in the Plan up to a maximum amount
24 that equals the CHT Share percentage of the prior year total receipts from the Orange County
25 local vehicle registration fee of$7.00 permitted by Article 52 of NCGS 105. OPT may use a
26 portion of the bus services funds provided in the Plan up to a maximum amount that equals
27 the OPT Share percentage of the prior year total receipts from the Orange County local vehicle
28 registration fee of$7.00 permitted by Article 52 of NCGS 105.
29
30 8. Any change in use of bus service funds in the Plan from support of new services to
31 support of existing services may be made on a temporary or permanent basis and must be
32 agreed to by all the Parties and comply with state law.
33
34 9. Every four years in a manner that coordinates with DCHC's preparation of anew
35 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and more frequently as reasonably requested by a Party,
36 the full Plan shall be reviewed in detail and assessed for any significant changes to the
37 estimated revenues,to the estimated project or service delivery costs, to project or service
38 priorities therein, to state or federal transit programs or regulations,to success in securing
39 state and federal financial support for the rail and bus projects in the Plan,or any other
40 significant change of circumstance impacting the Plan. This review which shall be conducted as
41 set forth below, and recommended changes to the Plan may be advanced as deemed
42 necessary.
43
44 10.The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline to evaluate
21
1 progress in gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the Plan during the
2 four years following execution of this Agreement and to incorporate these benchmarks and
3 timeline into the Plan during the first four year review and to use these benchmarks and
4 timeline in the reviews set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13 below.
5
6 11. In preparation for the full Plan review set out in paragraph 9 above,TTA will
7 convene a Staff Working Group ("SWG") made up of a voting member and an alternate
8 member from each of the three Parties. The Orange County Manager shall designate the
9 member and alternate from Orange,the Planning Manager of DCHC shall designate the
10 member and alternate from DCHC, and the TTA General Manager shall designate the member
11 and alternate from TTA. These SWG members and alternates shall work collaboratively in
12 developing and preparing the respective report to the Parties. The SWG may also meet from
13 time to time as they deem useful to discuss developments and status of the various transit
14 projects and services under the Plan and to give TTA comments and feedback on the draft
15 annual reports referenced in paragraph 4 above.
16
17 12. If any meeting of the SWG has local urban, rural or regional bus service in Orange
18 County as a part of its agenda,then representatives from CHT, OPT, other bus transit providers
19 in Orange County, and from the towns of Hillsborough and Mebane shall be invited to
20 participate in the meeting. The SWG members shall work openly and collaboratively with
21 these other parties in considering the status and impacts of possible bus service changes to the
22 Plan. The SWG members and the other parties shall strive to reach consensus
23 recommendations for any changes in bus services provided under the Plan in light of their
24 shared interest in maximizing the effective use of scarce transit funding
25
26 13. Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to
27 assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal pipeline
28 for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding and
29 whether the LRT project remains under consideration for state funding. If either funding
30 opportunity is no longer available the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an
31 Alternative Bus and Rail Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding
32 for transit projects and services.
33
34 14. Recommendations for change to the Plan may be made by a Party to this
35 Agreement or by any Orange County resident,group or organization. Recommendations for a
36 change or revision shall be submitted to the General Manager of TTA, who shall forward the
37 recommendation to the SWG for its review, consideration and advice. The SWG shall fully
38 consider any recommendation for change in the Plan and report back to the Parties. The
39 report of the SWG shall include its opinion on the recommended change along with the
40 recommendation itself. In the event that the three SWG voting members cannot agree on a
41 shared opinion of any recommended change,then both majority and minority perspectives on
42 the recommended change may be provided to the Parties. Additionally, any citizen or group
43 may submit its opinion on the recommended change to the Parties as well.
44
22
1 15.Any proposed material change to the Plan shall be effective only upon its approval
2 by each and every Party to this Agreement, namely the Orange BOCC,the DCHC, and TTA.
3
4 16.Any proposed change to the Plan shall be deemed non-material unless it involves
5 one of the following:
6
7 (A) An annual increase or decrease in total revenues from the Plan revenues
8 (sales tax revenues,vehicle registration fee revenues, and rental vehicle tax
9 revenues)of 5% or more;or
10 (B) An annual increase or decrease in the project capital cost(including
11 financing)of the LRT project in the Plan of 10%or more prior to entering
12 final design and 5%or more thereafter;or
13 (C) An annual increase or decrease in the overall project operating costs of the
14 LRT project in the Plan of over 5%or more; or
15 (D) An annual increase or decrease in the overall funds provided for bus service
16 in the Plan of 5%or more; or
17 (E) An annual increase or decrease in the funds provided to Orange, the Chapel
18 Hill/Carrboro/UNC Partnership, or TTA for bus service of more than 5%of
19 the amount provided in the Plan or more than $300,000,whichever is
20 greater.
21
22 A proposed elimination or addition of any fixed guideway capital project shall be considered a
23 material change to the Plan.
24
25 17.Any proposed change to the Plan that is deemed non-material shall be effective
26 only upon its approval by the Orange County Manager,the Planning Manager of DCHC, and the
27 General Manager of TTA. Any change whether material or non-material must be evidenced by
28 a written document signed by all Parties.
29
30 18.The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first above recorded to and
31 including June 30, 2035. Upon its expiration the Agreement may be renewed upon mutual
32 agreement of the Parties. The Agreement may be modified as needed upon mutual agreement
33 of the Parties and may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties or by either of the
34 Parties upon a material breach by the other Party. Any modification must be in the form of a
35 written agreement signed by all Parties.
36
37 Understood and agreed to and effective as of the date written above, by:
38
39
40 Orange County
41
42
43
44
23
1 By:
2 Chair, Board of Commissioners
3
4 Attest:
5
6 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
7
8
9 By:
10
11 Attest:
12
13 Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority,
14 By:
15
16
17 By:
18 David King, General Manager
19
20 Attest:
21
22 Approved as to legal form:
23
24
25 Wib Gulley, General Council
26
27
28 Bus and Rail Investment Plan
29 Craig Benedict said that the changes were addressed from the June 5t' motion and the
30 latest version from last week.
31 Commissioner Gordon said that on page 21 of the agenda materials, there is
32 something wrong with the map and it should be changed.
33 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 27 of the agenda materials. To verify
34 the dollar amounts for the financial data in the Plan, she read the following amounts and totals
35 into the record. The dollar amounts are in "year of expenditure dollars".
36
37 The Light Rail Capital costs are $418.3 million and the Light Rail Operations costs are $59.1
38 million. The total for light rail is $477.4 million.
39
40 The cost for MLK Bus Lanes is $24.5 million.
41
42 Miscellaneous Bus Capital Projects will cost$6.7 million, the cost for Buses purchased is $17.6
43 million, and Bus Operations will cost$106.8 million. The total for these three bus investments
44 is $131.1 million.
45
46 The Hillsborough Intercity Rail Station will cost $8.9 million.
24
1
2 Finally, the amount of debt service payments through 2035 will be$19.2 million, and most if not
3 all of these payments will be used for light rail.
4
5
6 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he thinks that the investment in light rail is a mistake.
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
8 to approve the bus and rail investment plan with the changes suggested in the latest document
9 included with the agenda materials, and to authorize staff to make non-substantive changes.
10 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz)
11
12 8. Reports,- NONE
13
14 9. County Manager's Report
15 Frank Clifton said that the Council of State for N.C. approved the authorization between
16 Orange County and the State of North Carolina's Department of Public Safety for the siting of a
17 future jail along Old NC 86 next to the State prison. The legislative delegation and others
18 assisted with this.
19
20 10. 'County Attorney's Report
21 NONE
22
23 11. Appointments-NONE
24
25 12. Board Comments
26 Commissioner Gordon—none
27 Commissioner Yuhasz—none
28 Commissioner McKee— none
29 Commissioner Hemminger said that Community Home Trust had the Open Doors event
30 and raised $33,000. This is an increase from last year. Also, Triangle J Council of
31 Governments is changing the way it does business to allow for more social interaction and
32 exchanging of information and ideas.
33 Commissioner Foushee—none
34 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out to the public that the County is currently conducting
35 three different surveys for citizens: library services, parks and recreation, and smoking. These
36 surveys can be accessed on the County website.
37 Chair Pelissier asked for two volunteers to be on the Retreat Planning Committee.
38 Commissioner McKee volunteered. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon also
39 volunteered but since the committee only needs one more it was decided that these two
40 commissioners would discuss/decide which one would serve and send that information to the
41 Clerk by the end of the week. ( BOCC Candidate Mark Dorosin has also volunteered to serve
42 on this committee and Commissioner Jacobs was chosen to be the other Commissioner
43 volunteer).
44
45
46 13. Information Items
47
48 September 18, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
49
50 14. Closed Session -NONE
25
1
. 2 16. Adiournment
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
4 adjourn the meeting at 10:27 PM.
5 VOTE UNANIMOUS
6
7 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
8
9 Donna S. Baker, CMC
10 Clerk to the Board