HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-20-2012 APPROVED 2/19/2013
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
November 20, 2012
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
November 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
Gwen Harvey, Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
staff members will be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
The Chair went through the items at the County Commissioners' places:
- White sheet - PowerPoint for Item 4-a, Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report FYE 6/30/2012
- Blue Sheet- Proposed corrections from Commissioner Gordon for Item 5-a, Minutes
- White Sheet - PowerPoint for Item 6-b,Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision —
Dunhill (Weekly Homes LLC) — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional
Comments from the Public or Applicant Accepted)
- White Sheet— PowerPoint for Item 6-c, Zoning Atlas Amendment— Darrell Chandler
Conditional Zoning to REDA-CZ-1 — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional
Comments from the Public or Applicant Accepted)
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
At this time, the Board recognized Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Hemminger,
and Commissioner Yuhasz for their service with Resolutions. This is their last meeting on the
Board of County Commissioners.
Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Valerie Foushee:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
FOR
COMMISSIONER VALERIE P. FOUSHEE
WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Valerie P. Foushee to the Board of
County Commissioners in 2004 and re-elected her again in 2008; and
WHEREAS, her Board colleagues expressed recognition of, and appreciation for,
Commissioner Foushee's service and leadership by electing her as Vice Chair
of the Board of Commissioners for 2008 and Chair of the Board of
Commissioners for 2009 and 2010; and
WHEREAS, Valerie P. Foushee has served the residents of Orange County for many years,
not only as a County Commissioner but also as an active member of her
community; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, Commissioner Foushee became the first female African American to
serve on the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, during her tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Valerie P. Foushee has
shared her talent for leadership and public service through her work on
numerous committees, organizations, boards, and institutes of higher learning
including the Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees;
President, NC Association of Black County Officials; UNC Board of Visitors; NC
Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) Board of Directors; Chair of the
NCACC Healthy Living Task Force; NAACP (Chapel Hill-Carrboro Branch;)
Orange County Social Services Board of Directors; Chapel Hill/Orange County
Visitors Bureau Board of Directors; and the Boys and Girls Club of Eastern
Piedmont Board of Directors, and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Foushee has fought for the rights of residents of Orange County,
her genuine concern for others manifests through her tireless advocacy to
improve the quality of life for the people of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, there comes a time when a person decides to pass the torch and adjust
priorities accordingly;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
officially commends Valerie P. Foushee for her years of distinguished service,
salutes her voluntary decision to pursue higher public office, looks forward to
her continued contributions to the community, and wishes her and her family the
very best in their future endeavors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented to Ms. Valerie Foushee, with a
copy sent to the media, and that the Resolution be spread upon the minutes of
this meeting.
This the twentieth day of November 2012.
Commissioner Foushee thanked the residents of Orange County for the opportunity to
serve all of them and she thanked them for their support. She looks forward to serving this
area in the legislature.
Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Pam Hemminger:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
FOR
COMMISSIONER PAM HEMMINGER
WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Pam Hemminger to the Board of County
Commissioners in 2008; and
WHEREAS, Pam Hemminger has been a resident of Orange County for over 25 years and
has served the residents of Orange County faithfully with honor, integrity and
distinction for the past four years, including being elected by her peers as Vice-
Chair of the Board of Commissioners for 2012; and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Hemminger has always been mindful of the interests and
concerns of Orange County residents and has brought new and innovative
ideas to the Board of Commissioners while continually encouraging the Board
and staff to think "outside of the box"; and
WHEREAS, during her tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Pam Hemminger has
shared her talent for leadership and public service through her work on
numerous boards and commissions including serving as the Commissioner
liaison/member to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, the Community
Home Trust Board, the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council, the
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group, the Workforce Development Board-
Regional Partnership, Triangle J Council of Governments (Alternate) and the
Upper Neuse River Basin Authority (UNRBA), of which she is currently chair;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
officially commends Pam Hemminger for her hard work, dedication and
exemplary service to the people of Orange County, and wishes her and her
family the very best in their future endeavors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented to Ms. Pam Hemminger, with a
copy sent to the media, and that the Resolution be spread upon the minutes of
this meeting.
This the twentieth day of November 2012.
Commissioner Hemminger thanked the Board and said that it was an honor to serve
and she enjoyed working with the Board members and getting to know the incredible staff of
Orange County. She thanked her family for their support throughout these past 4 years.
She is very proud of the work the County Commissioners have all done.
Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Steve Yuhasz:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
FOR
COMMISSIONER STEVE YUHASZ
WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Steve Yuhasz to the Board of County
Commissioners in 2008; and
WHEREAS, Steve Yuhasz has served the residents of Orange County with distinction for the
past four years, including being elected by his peers as Vice-Chair of the Board
of Commissioners for 2011; and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Yuhasz has given freely and unselfishly of his time and energy
and through his foresight and leadership, helped promote progressive changes
and improvements in the operations and services of Orange County
government, while all tempered with common sense, good humor and an
approachable and open demeanor — thus enhancing the quality of life for all
who reside in or visit Orange County; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Steve Yuhasz has
shared his talent for leadership and public service through his work on
numerous boards, commissions and task forces, including the Orange County
Board of Health, the Orange-Person-Chatham Area Programs Board for Mental
Health, the OPC Community Operations Center Advisory Board, Communities in
Schools (CIS), the Solid Waste Advisory Board ( SWAB), the Solid Waste
Elected Officials Work Group, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange Work Group, the
Rogers Road Water and Sewer Work Group, the Orange County Advisory
Board on Aging, Healthy Carolinians, Information Technology Advisory
Committee, and the Research Triangle Regional Partnership (RTRP);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
officially commends Steve Yuhasz for his hard work, dedication and exemplary
service to the people of Orange County, and wishes him and his family the very
best in their future endeavors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented to Mr. Steve Yuhasz, with a
copy sent to the media, and that the Resolution be spread upon the minutes of
this meeting.
This the twentieth day of November 2012.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that it has been a pleasure to work with this Board and the
staff.
Chair Pelissier said that she has enjoyed so much working with all three out-going
Commissioners and she thanked them for their many hours of service to Orange County.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Don O'Leary said that today he has brought the constitution versus the U. N. ICLEI Charter
comparison by Richard Rothchild, a County Commissioner in Maryland. He read from this.
The document basically had statements that were contradictory. He said that the Constitution
represents freedom, but the Article 21 represents government control of all.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to request for staff to take notes at any
public information meeting to share with the BOCC as opposed to summarized notes.
Commissioner McKee agreed.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to a petition that he made on November 8th. He
said that he did not ask what events were being planned by Orange County. He said that
there used to be a person in a position of Veteran's Affairs who organized a Veteran's Day
event that was very well attended. He was encouraging the Board to continue this tradition
when a new person is hired.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FYE 6/30/2012
The Board received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2012.
Assistant County Manager/Chief Financial Officer Clarence Grier said that they will be
presenting the CAFR for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. One of the notable things in the
audit is that Orange County has had a substantial increase in the fund balance and most came
from internal savings from holding positions vacant and consolidation of departments. The
fund balance is approximately 21-22%. The goal is 17%. The audit was performed by Martin
Starnes, CPA of Hickory, North Carolina. Crystal Waddell, Audit Manager, performed the
audit. She presented the financial statement.
Crystal Waddell said that they are waiting on the Local Government Commission to
approve the report, but she anticipates no changes.
Orange County
2012 Audited Financial Statements
Audit Highlights
❑ Unqualified opinion
Staff was fully prepared and cooperative
Budget vs. Actual
General Fund
Tax Collection Percentages
Fund Balance History (General Fund)
Fund Balance
Available fund balance as defined by the Local Government Commission (LGC) is calculated
as follows:
Total Fund Balance
Less: Non spendable (not in cash form, not available)
Less: Stabilization by State Statute (by state law, not available)
Available Fund Balance
This is the calculation utilized as the basis for comparing you to other units and
calculating your fund balance percentages.
Fund Balance Position-General Fund
Total Fund Balance $47,859,506
Non spendable - 34,734
Stabilization by State Statute - 8,399,062
Available Fund Balance $39,425,710
Available Fund Balance 2011 $28,966,701
Increase in Available FB $10,459,009
Available Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures and Transfers out—General Fund
Major Enterprise Funds
SportsPlex Solid Waste
Fund Fund
Total operating revenues $ 2,785,702 $ 8,346,142
Total operating expenses $ 2,691,802 $ 10,525,484
Operating Loss $ 93,900 $ (2,179,342)
Major Enterprise Funds
Cash Flow Unrestricted
Debt Service From Operations Net Assets
Solid Waste $ 554,634 $ 1,001,323 $ 1,854,591
SportsPlex $ 593,685 $ 381,402 $ 972,165
Clarence Grier said that this report is in draft format because there is a re-funding item
that the LGC is still reviewing, but this is 99.9% done.
b. Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) Certificate of
Achievement Award
The Board considered recognizing the Financial Services staff of the Orange County
Finance and Administrative Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers'
Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for the June 30, 2011 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR).
Clarence Grier said that tonight they get to recognize the Finance staff for this GFOA
report. The staff in attendance were Shari Rasberry, Howard Fitz, David Cannel, Michelle
Brooks, Kim Cattrell, Katina Perry, and Phyllis Fontes.
Clarence Grier accepted the achievement award on behalf of the Finance department.
C. Proclamation — Emancipation Proclamation 150th Anniversary
The Board considered approving a proclamation officially commemorating the 150th
anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Colin Austin, Human Relations Commission Co-Chair, said that one of the activities
they have been involved in is to plan to recognize the Emancipation Proclamation. There has
been a subcommittee that has been meeting with other community organizations and leaders
to plan a series of activities. He read the proclamation.
PROCLAMATION
150TH Anniversary of the
EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission is committed to
promoting equal treatment, opportunity and understanding throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, January 1, 2013 will mark the 150th Anniversary of the issuance of the
Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln that declared "that all persons held
as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free"; and
WHEREAS, by this act, thousands of enslaved African men, women and children were
set free from the degradation of human slavery; and
WHEREAS, this Anniversary commemoration recognizes an important period in our
country's history and "provides an opportunity for all people of the United States to learn more
about the past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped the Nation"; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange
County residents to "celebrate in accordance with the spirit, strength, and legacy of freedom,
justice, and equality for all people of America"; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made in the area
of equality during the last 150 years since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation;
NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby
acknowledge the 150th Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 2013 and
encourage and challenge all County residents to learn more about this historic document
throughout the year.
This the 20th day of November 2012.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve a proclamation officially commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation
Proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from September 18 and
October 2, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to her proposed corrections to the October 2,
2012 draft minutes on the blue sheet and she read these:
QUESTIONS/ COMMENTS - CONSENT AGENDA - 20 NOV. 2012 From Commissioner
Gordon
(1) Item 5-a - October 2, 2012 Minutes
The Implementation Agreement approved by the BOCC on October 2, 2012 (and also the
agreement approved by the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee on October 10,
2012) differs from the signed Implementation Agreement in two ways.
To make the minutes reflect what was actually approved by the BOCC, the following changes
should be made. What the BOCC approved in Paragraph 10 was less ambiguous than the
signed version, and what the BOCC approved on the signature page did not have a word
spelled incorrectly. ("General Council" should be "General Counsel.")
A. Page 18
Change line 21 to read as follows:
The Implementation Agreement, in the form in which it was approved at this meeting, is as
follows:
B. Pages 20 and 21
Change line 44 on page 20, and lines 1-4 on page 21 to read as follows:
10. The Parties agree to develop appropriate benchmarks and timeline
to evaluate progress in gaining federal and state financial support for the LRT project in the
Plan during the four years following execution of this Agreement, to incorporate these
benchmarks and timeline into the Plan during the first four year review, and to use these
benchmarks and timeline in the reviews set out in paragraph 9 above and in paragraph 13
below.
C. Pages 22 and 23
Change lines 37-40 on page 22 and lines 1-25 on page 23 to read as follows:
Understood and agreed to and effective as of the date written above, by:
Orange County
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the minutes with the proposed corrections made above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
n. Senior Care of Orange County, Inc. — Revised By-Laws and Lease
Agreement
The Board considered two actions concerning Senior Care of Orange County, Inc. (SC
of OC, Inc.): approval of revised by-laws for Senior Care of Orange County, Inc.; and approval
of a resolution authorizing a lease agreement with Senior Care of Orange County, Inc. and
authorized the Chair to sign.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the by-laws and why it does not say that residents
of the facility need to be residents of Orange County. She also asked why it was not more
than simple majority on the board of trustees. She asked the Board of County Commissioners
if they want to make members in the future be from Orange County, and if they do, then they
would ask staff to figure it out.
John Roberts said that any changes the Board of County Commissioners wants to
make they can make but whatever changes they make to by-laws may not last because this
will no longer be an Orange County board. He said they could tie grant funds to some
requirements that they only serve Orange County residents or something of that nature.
Commissioner Gordon asked if Orange County would have oversight for finances and
John Roberts said no. He said that the services they provide and the clientele they have
presents a substantial risk to Orange County. This is why this organization is being separated.
Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County leases the space to Senior Care of
Orange County, Inc., for a dollar. It is a substantial in-kind donation. She said that the value
of the lease may be more than the grant funding.
Frank Clifton said that the staff is trying to identify those items that are non-direct cash
funding so that future budgets will identify those items and what benefits Orange County is
providing.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the lease agreement could be done if the Board wanted
until December 11 th to consider it and John Roberts said yes.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she is in support of adding something in the lease
agreement to be supportive of Orange County residents, but she does not want to change the
bylaws.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking Janice Tyler to work with the Attorney on this
issue and come to the Board at a subsequent meeting for the County Commissioners to
review.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would want Janice Tyler to weigh in on this issue
but he would not want to prevent the preponderance of the people being served at all because
the organization could not function financially. He wants to make sure that the facility can be
kept open.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
ask staff to bring back this item with recommendations, after the Department on Aging Director
and the County Attorney have reviewed it.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
property tax values for thirty (30) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue in
accordance with NCGS.
C. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for twenty-five (25) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board approved seven (7) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for the 2012 tax year.
e. Approval of Formation of Community Giving Fund for Orange County
The Board approved the formation of a Community Giving Fund for Orange County to raise
and receive donations intended to enhance services and County-supported activities;
authorized the Chair to sign an agreement between Orange County and the Triangle
Community Foundation to establish, manage and administer this Fund, subject to final review
and approval by staff and the County Attorney's Office.
f. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment#4
The Board approved budget, grant and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
2012-13 for Department on Aging, Non-Departmental, Emergency Services, New Hope Fire
Department, Sheriff's Department, Carry Forward, Animal Services, Library, Community Giving
Fund of Orange County, Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center, and School
Capital Projects.
g_ Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Orange
County Schools (OCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#4-A Related
to OCS Capital Project Ordinances
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the application for NC Education Lottery
Proceeds; and approved Budget Amendment#4-A receiving the Lottery Funds and the
amended OCS Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on the State's approval of the
application.
h. Proposal to Upgrade the Audio Visual Equipment at Southern Human
Services Center, and Approval of Budget Amendment#4-113
The Board approved the proposal by Sound Advice, Inc. to upgrade the proposed AV
equipment at SHSC, and approved Budget Amendment#4-B.
L Authorization and Issuance of Up to $20,000,000 General Obligation
Refunding Bonds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing the issuance
of general obligation refunding bonds in the maximum amount of$20,000,000 to refinance
existing County bonds.
L Proposed Land Donation by Dennis and Linda Brooks
The Board accepted the donation of a 1.07-acre parcel in Cheeks Township from Dennis and
Linda Brooks for open space and recreation purposes and authorized DEAPR staff to work
with Dennis and Linda Brooks and the County Attorney to prepare a deed for the transfer of
the subject property to Orange County.
k. Terradotta, LLC Lease Renewal — 501 W. Franklin Street; Suites 105 and
106
The Board renewed a lease with Terradotta, LLC for Suites 105 for $10,728 per year and Suite
106 for $6,432 per year at 501 West Franklin Street through December 2, 2013 and authorized
the Chair to sign.
I. Buckhorn Mebane Utilities Phase 2 Project Easements
The Board authorized the Chair to sign easement documents on behalf of the Board;
authorized the payment of negotiated easement value to individual property owners; and
authorized the County Attorney's office to proceed with legal acquisition of utility easements
with court filings, as necessary.
M. Housing Bond Program — Rusch Hollow
The Board awarded housing bond funds in the amount of$144,304 to Habitat for Humanity for
the construction of a rental duplex in the Rusch Hollow subdivision.
n. Senior Care of Orange County, Inc. — Revised By-Laws and Lease
Agreement
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
consideration.
o. Amending the County Manager's Employment Contract
The Board approved the amendment of the County Manager's employment contract to allow
for an amended hire date and a travel allowance.
6. Public Hearings
a. Smoke Free Public Places
The Board conducted a public hearing to receive comments from the public regarding
smoke free public places and considered approval, by Ordinance, of the Orange County Board
of Health's Smoke Free Public Places Rule adopted by the Board of Health on October 24,
2012 and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Health Director Colleen Bridger introduced this item. She said that the high points are
that the Board of Health passed a rule to prohibit smoking in public places, which is defined
two ways. First of all, if it is a business where the public is invited indoors, those businesses
would be smoke-free. The second group of smoke-free public places would be all of the
property and grounds owned by Orange County government or the municipalities - sidewalks,
vehicles, grounds, and facilities. She said that if the Board of County Commissioners
approves this, the implementation would take effect January 1, 2013 for a soft implementation
and then effective July 1St full implementation would occur.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ariel Smith said that she has been involved with Tobacco Reality Unfiltered and
tobacco prevention work for the past two years. She asked how much people valued the right
to choose what they do with their bodies. She said that this goes beyond personal space.
She said that if you are close enough to smell tobacco smoke it can adversely affect your
health. She said that this ruling is essential. She said that this is the right thing to do.
Laurel McMullan attends UNC-Greensboro and said that she was part of a student
group who asked the Board of Health to help reduce secondhand smoke when she was in high
school. She said that each year 54,000 people die due to secondhand smoke. Secondhand
smoke can cause ear infections and asthma in children.
Melva Fager Okun has a doctorate in public health and has worked as a Senior
Program Manager at NC Prevention Partners for 11 years. She said that she is a national
expert in the area of tobacco free spaces. She also works with every hospital in North
Carolina to go 100% tobacco free campus wide. She said that North Carolina became the first
state in the nation to accomplish this. She spoke about the adverse effects of secondhand
smoke. She said that Durham County has already passed this resolution. She asked the
County Commissioners to please pass this.
Chair of the Board of Health Tony Whitaker thanked the students for encouraging this
resolution. He said that the Board of Health took up this matter formally as part of the 2012-
2014 strategic planning process. On October 24th, the Board of Health approved the smoke-
free public places rule. They are asking for the Board's support of this.
Matthew Kelm is a pharmacist member of the Board of Health. He spoke about his
personal experience with this rule in Durham County. He is a manager of a 24-hour hospital
pharmacy. There are 50 pharmacists and pharmacy technicians that work for him. He said
that prior to his starting this job, about 10% of his staff were smokers. At this point, all but one
of his employees has either ceased smoking or is in a smoking-cessation program. He highly
recommends that the County Commissioners adopt this resolution.
Brinklee Bailey is a senior at Chapel Hill High School. She is also involved in Tobacco
Reality Unfiltered. She is in full support of this resolution in Orange County. She gave some
statistics of secondhand smoke. She particularly spoke about having smoke-free parks
because parks are full of children.
Stephanie Willis is the coordinator of Health Programs and Services at the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools. She acknowledged the work of the Orange County Health Department
Tobacco Reality Unfiltered program, which is a collaboration of the OCS and the CHCCS. She
said that this program has been a part of the overall substance abuse prevention program.
She said that the students have been taking part in peer education of middle school students
of tobacco education. She said that much of the funding for this has been cut at the state
level and some of the programs have been lost.
Kurt Ribisl is a professor at the UNC School of Public Health. He has also spent the
last 18 years studying tobacco use prevention and control strategies. He is a strong supporter
of tobacco-free environments. He spoke about the dangers of cigarette butts such as the
dangers of children putting them in their mouths and the fact that they can kill wildlife.
Senator Ellie Kinnaird said that she is here in support of this ordinance. She said that
Orange County has been a leader in this state and nation and they should continue to be a
leader by passing this ordinance. She said that the cost to the state of smoking-related
illnesses is very high. She praised the students of TRU for getting the word out to their peers.
Representative Verla Insko said that she recently received a letter from the North
Carolina Restaurant Association praising them for the smoke-free laws passed that affect
restaurants and bars. There has been an increase in patronization of restaurants since these
laws took effect.
Laura Parkinson was here representing the American Cancer Society. She spoke in
support of this resolution.
The comments below were submitted via email:
Good Evening. I'm Terri Tyson and I live in Chapel Hill. I have four kids, including triplets and I
am a non-smoker. I've worked in Public Health Promotion and Policy research for over two
years. As a survey researcher, I have contacted Public Health Directors, elected officials and
legislators in all counties in New York and Florida regarding their opinions about local smoking
ordinances in their states.
I believe I am very familiar with most of the local smoking legislation that has been proposed or
passed in those states.
I don't like smoking and was glad when smoking was banned in restaurants; this seemed
reasonable. For me, it was a "Don't Tread on Me" issue. I don't like being around smoke;
smokers have brought a self inflicted, highly addictive health hazard upon themselves.
However, some compassion should be shown. Smokers huddled under a flagpole seem
humiliated. There is only one paragraph in the OC rule describing possible smoking cessation
interventions, mainly focused on county employees.
The government highly taxes cigarettes, yet is dependent on the tax revenue that it brings in;
the tobacco companies would like to see a profit even while paying out lots in the master
settlement agreement, and smokers are caught between the two.
Research shows high taxes do not deter smokers from buying cigarettes; in fact since the tax
does not apply to other tobacco products, the sale of candy flavored cigarillos has increased
dramatically. This is an example of an unintended consequence. The grape flavored cigarillos
are marketed to youth, and for $1.49, they are much cheaper than cigarettes.
Regarding the proposed Orange County smoking rule, I object to the public sidewalk
prohibition. Most sidewalks are owned and maintained by the towns and county, so that covers
almost everywhere. This is too extensive a rule and is rather draconian. Because smokers are
not allowed to smoke anywhere else, including the workplace and the parking lot, they'll be
forced to smoke in their cars. Often they are picking up children, so children are riding in
smoke filled cars.
As part of my survey research, we contacted parents who smoke who called their state's
Quitline. We also asked their children if the parent smokes in the car with the child present.
Your ordinance mentions the harmful effects of smoking in a car even with the windows open.
Please don't rush to legislate something that will end up being more harmful.
This is an unintended consequence of your proposed rule.
Smokers are taxpayers, and remember they are part of the public in public health. A bit of
smoke on a remote sidewalk is much less harmful than children having to endure smoke in a
car.
I highly doubt that prohibiting smoking in all the places mentioned in the rule, including all
public sidewalks, will cause smokers to quit. There will be other negative results, if the sidewalk
portion of the rule is not modified. Please consider limiting the sidewalk rule to areas where
people might congregate, like at a bus stop.
Thanks for your consideration.
Terri Tyson
108 Telluride Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-923-2476
From: Melva Fager Okun (unable to attend but sent an email)
I am so thankful that you are considering passing a tobacco-free public spaces ordinance for
Orange County. I worked with every hospital in NC to pass tobacco-free campus policies &
also helped with our schools going tobacco-free. This will protect everyone from the harmful
effects of exposure to secondhand smoke and will encourage tobacco users to quit. I applaud
you and strong urge you to pass such an ordinance.
Melva Fager Okun DrPH
NC Prevention Partners
919 969-7022 ext. 224
Follow NCPP on Twitter @ncprevention
From: Don Stanford
Phone Number: (919) 942-2889
Message:
This isn't just the obvious and well-documented primary, secondary, and tertiary smoking
problem. Apparently good research suggests that the average smoker consumes 10,000
cigarettes/year yielding about 3.75 Ibs of butts/smoker, most of which winds up as litter. This
is the most common form of litter, and is extraordinarily toxic. Almost all cigarettes now have
filters, and a cigarette filter takes 18 months to ten years (!) to decompose as its contents
leach into the environment.
And don't forget the house fire and wildfire problems - millions of dollars in unnecessary
property damage, not to mention the lives damaged and lost. Please vote to ban smoking in
public places.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner McKee said that since he was 15 years old until 2007 he grew tobacco.
From 1972 to 1983 he was a heavy smoker. He said that this ordinance covers the towns. He
asked the Attorney if the towns' ordinances are more or less restrictive.
John Roberts said that this rule would not impact more stringently any town ordinances.
If the town ordinance is less stringent, the Board of Health ordinance would take precedence.
Commissioner McKee asked if discussions had been held with the municipalities to
make sure that they are all in agreement.
Colleen Bridger said that there was a public leaders' forum for elected officials to
express concerns. The leaders in attendance were supportive and were mainly interested in
the technicalities surrounding the implementation. She and the Chair of the Board of Health
were invited to a meeting of the Town of Hillsborough where the elected officials officially
voiced their concerns. The draft minutes from that meeting are in the packet.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that at the elected officials meeting the Towns of Mebane,
Carrboro, and Chapel Hill were represented, but not Hillsborough.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the regulation of smoking on private property
"where the public is invited." He asked John Roberts to explain "invited." He is concerned
when this affects private property.
John Roberts said that any privately owned commercial establishment where the public
would have reason to go to conduct business by invitation or otherwise, that type of
establishment would be covered under this. It would not cover private residence.
Commissioner McKee asked about the condominiums and common areas.
John Roberts said that condominium owners only own within the walls of the structure.
The association still owns the common areas.
Colleen Bridger concurred with John Roberts regarding the condominiums and that only
common areas would be under this regulation. Regarding the businesses, it is only indoors
and not outdoors.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the fine of$25 for violators and said that
there does not seem to be any consequences if the fine is not paid.
John Roberts said that the statute says nothing more than the payment of the cash
penalty.
Chair Pelissier asked Colleen Bridger to talk about what was discussed in the elected
officials meeting.
Colleen Bridger said that she needed to clarify the office building issue. She said that
the only area that would be covered under this rule would be the common areas in the office
building. One of the significant things they wanted to get across is that this is about education
and empowerment. They want to make sure that people understand where smoking is allowed
and not allowed.
Commissioner Gordon said that she is a strong supporter of smoke-free public places.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that Commissioner McKee did list a wide range of places
where this rule would apply and that is accurate and intentional. He said that there is a wide
range of places where people have smoke imposed on them against their will. The purpose of
this rule is to minimize those types of activities and to protect people who do not want to
smoke or breathe other people's smoke.
Chair Pelissier said that to her this is a no-brainer.
ORD-2012-054
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH RULE
PROHIBITING SMOKING IN COUNTY AND TOWN BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, VEHICLES, AND
PUBLIC PLACES
WHEREAS, in 2009 the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Session Law 2009-27,
which authorized local governments and local boards of health to prohibit smoking in certain
areas; and
WHEREAS, rules adopted by local boards of health are generally applicable throughout the
county of adoption including within town jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2012 the Orange County Board of Health adopted a rule
(Attached hereto as Exhibit 1) prohibiting smoking in County and Town buildings, grounds,
vehicles, and public places; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioners of Orange County, believing it to be in the best interest of the
citizens and residents of Orange County, have determined that the rule by the Orange County
Board of Health prohibiting smoking throughout Orange County is approved.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
the Orange County Board of Health Rule prohibiting smoking in county and town buildings,
grounds, vehicles, and public places is approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve by Ordinance, of the Orange County Board of Health's Smoke Free Public Places
Rule adopted by the Board of Health on October 24, 2012 and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
Commissioner McKee said that he sees this as government overreach. He supports
funding additional educational efforts. He sees this as an overreach on private properties.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he is pleased the County Commissioners are doing this
and he feels that this is in correlation with the values they hold dear in Orange County.
b. Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision — Dunhill (Weekly Homes
LLC) — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from the Public or
Applicant Accepted)
The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
hearing, and making a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit application submitted by
David Weekly Homes LLC proposing a 26 lot single-family residential development off of Mt
Sinai Road in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.7 and 5.15.6 of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
This item was transcribed verbatim as is required for a Class A Special Use Permit.
Michael Harvey: This is a Class A Special Use Permit request for a major subdivision on Mt.
Sinai Road. As is customary, we are going to be asking that this packet of information be
entered into the official record in its entirety and that any additional sworn testimony offered
this evening also be entered into the record. For everyone's edification, this packet contains
the October 3, 2012 Planning Board Abstract Package; additional information supplied to the
Planning Board at the October 3, 2012 meeting; excerpts from August 27, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing minutes; the excerpt of the approved October 3, 2012 Planning Board minutes;
a letter, specifically Attachment 5, from the applicant accepting recommended conditions; the
Planning Board Recommended Findings of Fact; and last but certainly not least, the script for
acting on findings of fact. After a very brief presentation, I will be more than happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation.
AGENDA ITEM:613
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
DUNHILL (WEEKLY HOMES LLC)
• PROJECT INFORMATION:
• PIN: 9881-15-7138
• Size : 68.5 acres
• Zoning: Rural Buffer
• Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer
• Growth Management System Designation: Rural
• Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer— Rural Residential Area
• PROPOSAL:
• Lots a minimum of 2 acres in area. Overall density for project is 1 dwelling unit for
every 2 acres,
• Roads developed to NC DOT public road standard with DOT assuming maintenance,
• Lots 1-22 served by on-site septic systems. Lots 23-26 served by off-site septic area.
Utility easement located outside of proposed right-of-way,
• Development served by community well, located on an open space lot with a picnic
shelter for use by residents,
• Type B — 30 foot perimeter buffer along with street trees and foliage planted in between
individual lots.
SITE PLAN:
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
• Reviewed item at its October 3, 2012 regular meeting.
• Determined project density is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and the Joint
Planning Land Use Plan.
• Board did not recommend imposition of a condition requiring a trail connecting to TLC
owned property.
• Recommended approval finding the applicant complied with the standards of the UDO.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the application,
3. Close the public hearing,
Michael Harvey: There is an existing stream through this portion of the property. You will
recall from the August Quarterly Public Hearing we introduced into the record a letter from
Orange County Erosion Control relating to the completion of a surface water investigation that
certified that the stream does indeed stop and restart, so the applicant is showing the
appropriate buffer on the site plan.
Attachment 6 of this packet is the Planning Board's recommendation with various findings.
You will recall that with Special Use Permits, decisions are based on competent material and
substantial evidence entered into the record. The Planning Board found sufficient evidence in
the record that the applicant complied with all requirements in terms of a Class A SUP
Application and Major Subdivision Applications; that the applicant complied with all
development design criteria; that the applicant had complied with all specific and general
standards in the UDO for the issuance of the special use permit. Ultimately, the Planning
Board recommended the imposition of numerous conditions, which you will find at the end of
Attachment 6 regarding the overall development of this property.
The recommendation tonight is that you receive the Planning Board recommendation; if
necessary, deliberate further; close the public hearing; and that you take action on this request
by utilizing the script staff has provided to you in Attachment 7 to review and approve the
various findings of fact associated with this project; and that ultimately you have a vote to
approve the special use permit and impose the recommended conditions as recommended by
the Planning Board. What the Planning Board has essentially recommended is that you find
the applicant has met their burden with respect to compliance with Section 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and that they have complied with all of the
allocations and requirements. You have the opportunity in affirming this to essentially utilize
and refer the Planning Board recommendation. Having said that, if the motion is to reject this
finding, you're going to have to come up with your rationale for the evidence that's in the
record justifying that finding. As I move on, the Planning Board has voted to affirm that the
applicant has met their burden with respect to complying with Section 2.7.5 of the UDO. This
section deals specifically with public notice and public advertisement. They determined that
there was sufficient evidence in the record and to make this an affirmative finding.
The next motion will be concerning to affirm or reject compliance with Section 7.14.2. Once
again, the Planning Board voted unanimously to find that there was sufficient evidence in the
record to make this determination. The next motion will deal with affirming or rejecting
compliance with Section 5.15.6 of the UDO, which deals with the special use permit composed
within the subdivision. Once again, the Planning Board voted unanimously to find that the
applicant complied.
Next, you're going to be asked to affirm or to reject the Planning Board's finding with respect to
compliance with Section 5.3.2b where the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with
the adequacy of proposed sewage storage facilities and adequacy of public safety protection.
The Planning Board made an affirmative finding that the developer had met their burden.
Last, but certainly not least, is the finding of the general regulatory standards as contained
within Section 5.3.2.a.2.a. The first one being is that the use will maintain or promote the
health, safety, or general welfare. Within the script and within Attachment 6, which is the
findings of fact, you will note that the Planning Board made several references to evidence
entered into the record and how they confirmed their finding. The same with Section
5.3.2.a.2.b, which was a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed use
maintain the value of contiguous property. Again, you will note the Planning Board made an
affirmative finding, listing specifically those items in the record that would justify their finding.
Finally the Planning Board made an affirmative finding with respect to 5.3.2.a.2.c that the use
is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and it is in compliance with the plan for
physical development of the County as provided in these regulations, specifically the UDO and
the Comprehensive Plan.
Madame Chair, I would be happy to answer questions at this time, however, before questions
are asked I would ask that the Board acknowledge and have a motion to place this agenda
packet into the record.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
place this agenda packet into the record.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Pelissier: So we can have further discussion before we close the public hearing,
because after that, we cannot. Any questions, any comments before we close the public
hearing?
Commissioner Jacobs: I have several questions. I have a question for the County Attorney
about the applicant's assertion that a condition that the Triangle Land Conservancy might
close a trail that could result in an invalidation of their special use permit. Have I heard that
correctly? Could you just address whether that is in fact a valid assertion?
John Roberts: I don't remember hearing that. Is that in the packet somewhere?
Commissioner Jacobs: I thought that's what Mr. Harvey said.
Michael Harvey: That's correct. It's actually contained in Attachment 2. As a summary, the
Triangle Land Conservancy indicated that they would allow a trail to be extended. They
require the applicant to bear some financial burden and pay for stewardship and that TLC
technically reserves the right to limit or require the trail to close in the event it became a
potential hazard on the property. The applicant's response, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat,
essentially indicates that they would not want to go to the expense of developing and installing
the trail if it is subject to be closed by TLC, and #2, if they are required to have the trail which is
subsequently required to be closed they would not want to create a situation causing a
technical violation of the SUP and therefore risk having the SUP revoked.
John Roberts: I don't know that this Board or any board could mandate that they open a trail
on another property. I don't agree that that's something within this Board's power. If the
mandate is that they maintain a trail on this portion of the property, all they would have to do is
do that to remain in compliance with their special use permit. There can be no mandate that
they open a trail on another property.
Commissioner Jacobs: If I can follow up, theoretically, if the trail connection is made to the
TLC property, then it would be up to either the developer or the homeowners' association to
negotiate with Triangle Land Conservancy whether or not there would be an adequate
connection.
John Roberts: That is correct.
Commissioner Jacobs: Another question I had, on page 6, the fifth bullet: "BOCC members
requested additional information on the operational parameters of the off-site septic field. The
applicant agreed to supply additional information." Is that additional information in here about
how this system is going to work across the property? Let me add that one reason that I ask
is, those of us who remember the Piney Mountain subdivision on Mt. Sinai Road, it was a
development that had a state-approved system, a pumping system, and it was not adequately
installed or maintained, and the City of Durham and OWASA had to come in through the rural
buffer and bring water and sewer. I'm sure we don't want to get into a situation where we
create a public health hazard. I was hoping that there would be additional explanation of how
this was going to work, especially since we're not privy to the details of the homeowners'
association based on our own regulations. Do we have more information?
Michael Harvey: Commissioner Jacobs, staff has commented on that issue within the
abstract. What was provided to staff by the applicant in addressing that very question is
contained within additional correspondence, which you will find beginning on page 10. On
page 12, specifically focusing on the trail, this was an email from Jeff Masten. Beginning on
page 14, you have the applicant written responses to all questions from the Quarterly Public
Hearing, which includes, beginning on page 23, the applicant provided additional groundwater
data to address this very issue. Ultimately this represents the applicant's response to your
inquiry. I would also remind the Board, at the August Quarterly Public Hearing, a
memorandum was entered into the record from the Orange County Health Department. This
memorandum contained a statement by the sanitarian indicating he had no concerns over the
system. It also contained the state-mandated regulatory requirements for off-site systems,
specifying how outside systems are to be operated, functioning, and maintained. I believe
comments were made at the August Quarterly Public Hearing that it would be inspected every
five years, that there were HOA requirements in terms of maintenance and guaranteeing the
adequacy of the system and maintenance of the common septic area. The Planning Board
recommended in addition that the easement language be reviewed and approved by Tom
Konsler as well as the County Attorney before final project location. Unfortunately, specific
information was not provided on the actual pump system proposed for use to get affluent to
these off-site septic areas in order to relay that information to you this evening
Commissioner Yuhasz: I would like to ask a follow-up question about that. These remote
systems are individual systems in a remote area, not a common system, is that correct?
Michael Harvey: That's correct, and that's one of the conditions.
Commissioner Yuhasz: So, if there was a failure, it would be a failure of just one system.
Michael Harvey: That's correct.
Commissioner Yuhasz: So it's really not the same kind of situations that we faced at Piney
Mountain where there was a community system that failed catastrophically and affected many
houses.
Michael Harvey: Not knowing much about Piney Mountain, I'm sorry for my ignorance.
Chair Pelissier: I want to follow up on that too. I think I read in the abstract somewhere that
those sites had to have a repair site as well.
Michael Harvey: That's a correct statement.
Chair Pelissier: So they have to have a repair field, just like any individual system has to
have a repair field.
Michael Harvey: Correct, and that's also articulated in the Orange County Health
Department's memorandum that was entered into the record at the August 27th Quarterly
Public Hearing.
Commissioner Jacobs: I suppose either the Attorney or the Planning Director or Mr. Harvey
could answer this. We specifically do not ask to see a homeowners' association agreement
before we approve a development. Why is that? Is that beyond our purview? Did we decide
that it's too intrusive? The reason I ask is because we're being assured by the developer that
the homeowners' association is going to be diligent in caring for this, but we don't actually get
to see what the agreement is.
John Roberts: That is a policy I'll defer to the Planning Director on.
Michael Harvey: I can answer unless the Director wishes to respond directly. Typically, one
of the reasons we don't ask for that documentation is because it's a private agreement. We
impose the conditions that actually stipulate or require the physical development of the
project. Private homeowner's documents establish local development criteria controlling
development consistent with any imposed conditions or county regulations. Typically this has
been a staff review. The condition imposed with most subdivisions is that the County Attorney
and Planning Director review and approve the homeowners' association document and certify
that it complies with all conditions associated with approval of the project. We typically do not
ask that it be created ahead of time because we don't know how it's going to be developed,
what conditions are going to be imposed, what's going to be included, or the information that's
going to be necessary in order to address any concerns expressed at any of the public
hearings.
Commissioner Jacobs: So, if I may make a comment. There's a lot of discussion in the last
session of the legislature about homeowners' associations and what they do and fail to do.
One of the reasons that I asked the developer for more information about how the
homeowners association was going to deal with this remote septic area was because we do
not get to see the homeowners' association agreement. And since the developer did not aim
to give us that information, we're just going to have to hope that a group of people who may
not necessarily ever look at that field, because they don't live anywhere near it, are going to
maintain its public health and safety.
Michael Harvey: I just want to remind the Board that obviously any agreement associated
with the outside septic areas is going to be reviewed by the County Attorney and the
Engineer. Obviously, Environmental Health has to be involved, not only in permitting, but also
in approving the language of the governance of the outside septic.
Commissioner Gordon: I would just like the follow up on the off-site septic. So specifically
what you're saying is Environmental Health said that this was alright.
Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am. They said that the system has to be permitted, but they do not
see any issues that would prevent an off-site system from being developed.
Commissioner Gordon: In terms of the evidence submitted. Some of it was written
evidence. As I recall, there was a lot of evidence that needed follow up. I didn't know the
status of that.
Michael Harvey: My answer to that is that you have sworn testimony that has been placed
into the record, you have written responses to various questions entered into the record, you
have staff memorandum detailing the approvability of the project entered into the record, all of
which represents the competent testimony and material evidence that can be utilized to render
a decision. The Planning Board has obviously determined there is sufficient evidence in the
record, including responses to concerns, justifying a recommendation to approve the project.
Items that are here this evening will also be entered into the record.
John Roberts: The record before you is the only record or evidence that you can consider in
making a decision. You're not getting more evidence tonight, because that is not the purpose
of what this was, but the Planning Board received considerable additional information that you
did not hear at the Quarterly Public Hearing, so what they received is now for your
consideration.
Commissioner Gordon: The last thing is a requirement about whoever reads the motion.
There is a burden to cite evidence. What I recall from other times is, the burden of proof
varies. There are all these rules about it, but what seems to be operative here is whichever
motion you make, you need to cite the evidence.
Michael Harvey: We provided you a script.
Commissioner Gordon: I know there is a script, but it says to cite the evidence.
Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am. The script actually provides you the mechanism where you can
do that if you're affirming the Planning Board recommendation. If you choose not to affirm the
Planning Board recommendation, it is up to the councilmember making that motion to enter the
evidence into the record justifying that motion. Let me also clarify that when you get to the
provisions of Section 5.3.2, a, b, and c, which are the general findings at the end, you will have
to indicate that information verbatim as identified in the script. A Commissioner making that
motion will have to read that into the record verbatim.
John Roberts: If a Commissioner believes that the record does not have enough competent
material or substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof, that can be
substituted into some of these motions. You do not have to go back and look at specific line
items in the record and say that, `this is what I don't agree with." You can set aside the entire
record and say, "I do not believe that this record has enough competent material and
substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof."
SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON DUNHILL— DAVID WEEKLY HOMES LLC
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Pelissier: We need to turn to motions. We can turn to page 136. Actually it really
starts on page 137, the first motion. I will ask that whoever is making the motion read the
motion as it is written here and when we get to the part where we have to actually cite the
evidence, it's all written here. And we have it up here on the screens.
a. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's
compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract
package.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's
compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract package.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's
compliance with the provisions of 7.14.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract package.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's
compliance with the provisions of 5.15.6 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract package.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's
compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract package.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Gordon: I do not find in the record enough competent material or substantial
evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof.
Commissioner Jacobs: You're talking about `e', Commissioner Gordon?
Commissioner Gordon: B, actually. This is the one that has sewage disposal facilities. It is
5.328.
Commissioner McKee: To be specific, I am now reading the handout. I make a motion to
affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance
with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
as detailed within Attachment 6 of the abstract package.
Commissioner Gordon: What I was going to say is that I did not find enough competent
material or substantial evidence in the record to meet the applicant's burden of proof.
John Roberts: That's correct, and what that deals with is the standards for a special use
permit, "use will maintain and promote public health, safety, and general welfare," etc.
Commissioner Jacobs: I agree with Commissioner Gordon, I think the developer could have
easily satisfied my concerns and just did not choose to do so. So I left wondering whether we
do have sufficient substantial evidence.
John Roberts: If I could correct my previous statement. B is for the specific standards.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
f. A motion will need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2(A)(2) of the
Ordinance.
i. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
Yuhasz that there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with
Section 5.3.2 (A)(2)(a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
Chair Pelissier: I think here we actually have to also add Commissioner McKee to make a
complete motion. If you look on page 139 we actually have to cite all material evidence. If
you'll just continue the motion starting at the top of 139.
John Roberts: You don't have to read each bullet. If you want to site the page number and
the bulleted information, I'm comfortable that it's adequate to defend this in the event of any
litigation.
Commissioner McKee: Then I have one more sentence to read at the top of page 139. This
motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these
proceedings, including the bullets listed on the top % of page 139 of Attachment 7.
• The August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing agenda packet and the October 3, 2012
Planning Board agenda packet containing the following information:
• The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 of the August
27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project will not impact the value of
adjacent property contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• The environmental report contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing package
• Various letters from the State Department of Cultural Resources indicating no significant
impact as the result of the proposed development contained within Attachment 1 of the August
27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• Staff memorandum contained within Attachment 3 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
• The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012, addressing
questions about the project. and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will have to
specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing
the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a).
Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't feel that there is enough competent material or
substantial evidence in the record to meet the applicant's burden of proof. These are general
findings and the others were specific.
Commissioner Jacobs: I think that the fact that we asked for additional information that
would have satisfied some of the Commissioners' concerns and it was not given shows that
there is disrespect to the Commissioners, the residents, and the environment and we should
not just accept that this is the way we do business in Orange County.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
ii. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project
complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain
the value of contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material
and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including the bullets
listed in the top % on page 140, Attachment 7.
• The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 of the August
27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project will not impact the value of
adjacent property contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• Applicant testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3,
2012 Planning Board meeting. and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
the project's lack of compliance with established standards. If the motion is to find there is
insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
(b), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and
explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are
in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b).
Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't believe that the record shows enough competent
material and substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
iii. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner
McKee finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies
with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and the use is incompliance with the plan for the
physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the
Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence
entered into the record of these proceedings, including: bulleted items at the top
of page 141, Attachment 7.
• The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 of the August
27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
• The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012, addressing
questions about the project and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the Commissioner making the motion will have to
specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing
the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)(2) (c).
Commissioner Gordon: Same statement. There is not enough competent material and
substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
7. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the Special Use Permit with the conditions attached as listed within Attachment 6.
Commissioner Gordon: Mr. Attorney, do I have to make that same statement here?
John Roberts: You can again make that statement at that point.
Commissioner Gordon: I don't believe there's enough competent material and substantial
evidence in the record to meet the applicant's burden of proof.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)
C. Zoning Atlas Amendment — Darrell Chandler Conditional Zoning to REDA-
CZ-1 — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from the Public or
Applicant Accepted)
The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
hearing, and making a decision on a Zoning Atlas amendment request submitted by Mr. Darrell
Chandler to rezone a 12-acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to
NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional
Zoning and receiving site plan approval for a proposed self-storage facility.
Michael Harvey went through this item. He said that they are now required to have two
separate statements for rezoning. There also has to be a separate resolution establishing the
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or lack thereof. There will have to be two actions.
The Board will have to either approve attachment 8 and 10 in that order and then make a
decision that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or it will deny it and
adopting a resolution that the project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
AGENDA ITEM:6C
CONDITIONAL ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN
DARRELL CHANDLER SELF STORAGE
• PROJECT INFORMATION:
• PIN: 0910-34-5040
• Size : 35.8 acres. Property is separated by Mile Branch Road.
• Zoning: Agricultural Residential
• Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential
• Growth Management System Designation: Rural
• PROPOSAL:
• Build out of project will include maximum of 13 individual storage buildings containing
approximately 400 individual storage lockers,
• Development intended to be completely located south of Mile Branch Road,
• Site enclosed by chain link fence with barbed wire on top,
• Applicant proposing land use buffer along majority of property line — not proposing to
plant foliage along common property line with cement plant
• No septic or well proposed for project,
• Access shall be off of Mile Branch through security gate,
• Applicant intends to have small office for storage rental and some retail (i.e. sale of
packing supplies, tape, etc.) associated with storage business. This office will be
located across the street from the self-storage lockers,
• Applicant is proposing limited storage of vehicles on property (i.e. outdoor storage of
parked vehicles)
• SITE PLAN — PHASE I:
• SITE PLAN — BUILD OUT:
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
• Reviewed item at its October 3, 2012 regular meeting.
• Board members determined proposed land use buffers along NC 57, Mile Branch
Road, and adjoining property lines were acceptable and did not recommend
augmentation.
• Board members recommended a condition requiring a well be installed after Phase 1 of
the project is completed
• Board voted unanimously to recommend approval
RECOMMENDATION:
• Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
• If necessary, deliberate further on the application,
• Close the public hearing
The conditions are on pages 92-93 and there are 14 of them, and he listed them:
1. The property shall be utilized only as a self-storage facility developed consistent
with the submitted site plan.
2. Staff shall prepare a "Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements"
outlining all conditions and development limitations associated with this project that
the applicant shall record within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office within
12 months of approval.
This document shall include an explanation of the allotment of impervious surface
limits supporting the development of the proposed self-storage facility as well as the
applicant's remaining property.
3. The proposal calls for the development of the project is 2 phases. Prior to the
commencement of the earth disturbing activity for Phase 2 of the project, the
applicant shall apply for and install a well in accordance with applicable Orange
County Health Department requirements.
4. Retail sales from the proposed rental office shall be limited to packing supplies (i.e.
boxes, table, packing materials, etc.) and shall not involve the sale of general retail
items such as food, drinks, or other similar items not consistent with the use of the
property as a self-storage facility.
5. The applicant shall be required to obtain final approval for the proposed dumpster
pad location from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the commencement of earth
disturbing activity.
6. The applicant shall be required to obtain stormwater and erosion control permits
from Orange County Erosion Control prior to the commencement of earth disturbing
activity.
7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a driveway permit from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of earth disturbing
activity.
The applicant shall provide the Orange County Planning Department with a copy of
this permit.
8. The applicant shall be required to obtain building permits from the Orange County
Inspections Department prior to the commencement of construction activity.
9. The applicant shall be required to obtain sign permits from the Planning Department
in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance.
10. The applicant shall be required to maintain all required land use buffers in
perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance.
11. No ancillary commercial or residential use of individual storage facilities shall be
permitted. This includes the use of storage facilities for automotive repair or retail
sales.
The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents
informing clients of the prohibition.
12. No hazardous materials shall be stored on the property.
The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents
informing clients of the prohibition.
13.All required landscaping, as denoted on the site plan, shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the units to be rented/occupied.
14. The applicant shall contract with a private solid waste contractor to remove trash
from the site consistent with the submitted site plan and in accordance with the
Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked about condition 2 and said that it is not tied to any
specific development activity.
Michael Harvey suggested that when making the motion to revise condition 2 that staff
record the final agreement within 90 days from approval.
John Roberts asked Mr. Chandler if he was ok with the condition and he said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to condition #13 and landscaping. He said that
the accepted build out for Phase I did not have landscaping.
Michael Harvey said that if the site plan is approved then the landscaping has to be
installed as construction commences consistent with this approval.
Commissioner Jacobs said that staff was good enough to provide the information that
was requested. He made reference to page 61 and said that he cannot tell about the buffer on
this page or on page 54.
Michael Harvey said that on page 61 there is a continuous buffer. Regarding page 54,
this is an intermittent buffer.
Commissioner McKee made reference to page 54 and said that a buffer will be much
smaller when it is planted.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to amend condition 2 to read as follows:
"Staff shall prepare a `Declaration of Development Restrictions and requirements' upon
the approval of this conditional use and that such declaration shall be recorded at the Orange
County Registrar of Deeds office prior to commencement of construction activity.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve, with the amended language for condition 2, the Ordinance Amending the Orange
County Zoning Atlas, including the imposition of recommended conditions, as contained within
Attachment 8.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants this project to move forward but she still
has concerns about the well.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to amend the motion to revise condition
3 to have a well built at the beginning of Phase 1 rather than the end.
John Roberts said that if another condition is changed then they would have to reopen
the public hearing.
Commissioner McKee said that he is one that has concerns about this well but this has
gone through the entire process and now it is so late in the game to amend a major part of this
parcel.
VOTE ON COMMISSIONER GORDON'S AMENDMENT: Ayes, 1 (Commissioner Gordon);
Nays, 6
Motion failed.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon — because of the well)
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve the Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
as contained within Attachment 10.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he has concerns about the landscaping. He hopes that
this will work out well for everyone concerned.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs requested that they switch item 7-e and d and all agreed.
(MOVE 7-e up).
7. Regular Agenda
a. Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services and 911/
Communications Center Operations Study
The Board considered accepting the Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency
Medical Services & 911/Communications Center Operations Study dated October 2012, which
has been reviewed and evaluated by the Emergency Services Workgroup (ESW) along with
input from stakeholders.
Michael Harvey introduced this item.
The Orange County 911 Center is the public safety answering point for residents to
access emergency services agencies. It originated in the former Orange County Sheriff's
Office at Columbia and Rosemary Streets in Chapel Hill. It is a branch of Orange County
Emergency Services and is staffed by dedicated professionals around the clock.
On December 13, 2011 the Board discussed the Emergency Medical System Delivery and
E911 Communications Center improvements. There was consensus that the County needed to
develop a strategic plan to improve the County's Emergency Management Services Delivery
System and E911 Communications Center. The Charge for the ESW included reviewing
alternatives and making recommendations for the following:
• System improvements for EMS Ambulance response times including but not
limited to equipment, staffing, facilities and/or a strategic plan, to define data
elements for meaningful analytical data as related to ambulance response time
and to discuss and review that data.
• Improvements for the E911 Communications Center including but not limited to
technology, equipment, staffing, training and/or a strategic plan.
On March 22, 2012 the Board approved a contract with Solutions for Local Government, Inc. to
develop a multi-year strategic plan addressing Emergency Medical Services System and E911
Communications Center needs.
At the August 30, 2012 Board Work Session, Mr. Steve Allan presented the final draft of the
Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services & 911/Communications Center
Operations Study. Mr. Allan held meetings with stakeholders, presented and discussed the
Report, answered questions and solicited input. There was also one meeting for the general
public on September 27, 2012. The Final Report is presented for the Board to accept.
There is no financial impact to accepting the Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency
Medical Services & 911/Communications Center Operations Study. Recommendations from
the Emergency Services Workgroup were incorporated in the Fiscal 2012-13 Annual Budget
and Capital Investment Plan. Additional recommendations, from the Emergency Service
Workgroup, will be presented to the Board regarding the implementation of recommendations
included in the Study.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
accept the report.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner McKee said that it has been brought to his attention that since the work
group has worked on these, the Board may want to hold R-7 for now. There have been some
questions related to this recommendation.
b. Implementation Strategy from the Emergency Services Workgroup on
Recommendations from the Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services
& 911/Communications Center Operations Study, and Approval of Budget Amendment
#4-C
The Board received an implementation strategy from the Emergency Services
Workgroup regarding recommendations included in the Comprehensive Assessment of
Emergency Medical Services & 911/Communications Center Operations Study, considered
approving Budget Amendment#4-C for $414,500 in the current fiscal year, and incorporating
the recommendations into the Budget & Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process for Fiscal Year
2013-14.
Michael Talbert reviewed these recommendations and said that the work group agreed
with these but wanted to move faster on some.
Emergency Services Workgroup is recommending the following implementation strategy from
the recommendations included in Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services
& 911/Communications Center Operations Study.
R-1. OCEMS should adjust Medic 5 and Medic 8 coverage hours.
The Workgroup recommends keeping 5 ambulances operational around the clock and add
new
12 hour peak load ambulances as new ambulances are staffed and placed in service.
R-2. OCEMS should add an additional AILS Ambulance 9:00 am-9:00 pm, 12 hours/day, 7
days/week.
The Workgroup recommends a new 9am — 9-pm peak load ambulance and evaluate after 6
months to verify that the new ambulance has helped bring down the average number of move-
ups. This ambulance was approved in Fiscal 2012/2013 and will be placed in service as soon
as new staff is trained and the new unit is available.
R-3a. Utilize available SORS/BLS ambulance for non-emergency patient transports.
R-3b. OCEMS should bring on line and staff a BLS ambulance to provide non-emergency
patient transports.
The Workgroup recommends combining R-3 & R-3b into one recommendation. County staff
and SORS are directed to collect & analyze additional call volume data bring back a
recommendation to the Emergency Services Workgroup by January, 2013.
R-4. Assess Fire Department capabilities to meet BLS First Responder response time
objectives.
R-5a. Schedule and implement Fire Department, Medical First Responder initiative which
includes performance objectives.
R-5b. Staff and equip four(4) EMS Quick Response Vehicles (QRV's) for assignment,
initially, 12hours/day, 7 days/week with shift start/end times to be determined by EMS.
The Workgroup recommends combining R-4, R-5a, and 5b into one recommendation. A
working group, comprise of Emergency Services staff, representatives from Chief's Council,
representatives from South Orange Rescue Squad and the County Medical Director is directed
to discuss these issues and bring back a recommendation to the Emergency Services
Workgroup by January, 2013.
R-6. Staff& equip six (3) 12 hour/7 day ALS ambulances at appropriate staging/base
facility locations within (1) Zones 1 & 2, (2) Zones 5 & 7 and (3) Zones 6 & 8.
The Workgroup recommends that EMS staff and the County's Medical Director prepare a
detailed 5-year implementation schedule for recommendation R-6 and brings back a
recommendation to the Emergency Services Workgroup by December 11, 2012.
R-7.DEFER --Hire a Paramedic Level Shift Supervisor @ 24/7.
The Workgroup recommends hiring 4 new Paramedic Level Shift Supervisor positions
immediately. The Study recommends 5.1 position for a 24/7 Shift Supervisor, but Emergency
Services staff recommended only 4 positions. This is recommended to be funded in the current
fiscal year, at an estimated annual cost of$267,500.
R-8. Prepare a detailed Space Needs Assessment that addresses the essential building
and site requirements to accommodate a stand-alone, functional, code compliant EMS
base facility that can serve as a prototype for all future facilities.
R-9. Identify a minimum of nine (9) strategic locations, preferably no less than one (1)
location within each major zone previously identified, for the potential location in each of
a future EMS base.
R 10. The County should purchase/obtain identified sites (and/or buildings) for
development.
R 11. Procure EMS base planning and design services.
R 12. Advertise, bid, and commence construction on designated EMS base facilities.
The Workgroup recommends tabling recommendations R-8, R-9, R-10, R-11 and R-12. EMS
staff is directed to proceed with a space needs assessment while simultaneously exploring the
option of co-locating EMS Ambulances at fire departments. Staff is to bring back a
recommendation to the Emergency Services Workgroup by January, 2013.
R-13. Hire a full-time, dedicated Data System Manager to be located as close as possible,
preferably adjacent to the Communications Center, and answerable first to the
Communications Center Operations Manager.
The Workgroup recommends hiring a dedicated full-time Data System Manager immediately in
the current fiscal year, at an estimated annual cost of$74,250.
R-14. Hire a full-time, dedicated Training/Quality Assurance Officer to be located as close
as possible, preferably adjacent to the Communications Center, and answerable first to
the Communications Center Operations Manager.
The Workgroup recommends hiring a dedicated full-time Training/Quality Assurance Officer
immediately in the current fiscal year, at an estimated annual cost of$72,800.
R-15. Anticipating increasing responsibilities due to the number of new personnel
forthcoming, hire an additional full-time Training/Quality Assurance Officer no later than
the end of year-3.
The Workgroup recommends hiring an additional dedicated full-time Training/Quality
Assurance
Officer during year-2 or Fiscal 2014/2015, at an estimated annual cost of$72,800.
R-16. Prepare a schedule for the hiring and training of the identified Telecommunicator
positions and identify the date to begin solicitation and acceptance of applications.
R-17. Hire 17 new, full-time Telecommunicators.
The Workgroup recommends combining R-16 and R-17 into one recommendation. The Fiscal
2012/13 Budget includes 4 new full-time Telecommunicators, which are included with the total
of 17 recommended by the Study. The Workgroup recommends combining R-16 & R-17 to hire
and train 13 new full-time Telecommunicators over 3 Fiscal Years. Recommending that 4
fulltime Telecommunicators be added in Fiscal 2013/14, 4 additional Telecommunicators in
Fiscal 2014/15, and 5 Telecommunicators in added in Fiscal 2015/16. The total position added
over 3 years will be 13 Telecommunicators, with the estimated total cost of$585,000.
R-18. Purchase necessary AVL vehicle hardware for each new EMS vehicle purchased to
enable compatibility with newly purchased CAD software and existing AVL system
hardware.
Necessary AVL vehicle hardware already in place, no action needed.
R 19. Following the installation of recently purchased Communications Center software
and the training of in-house personnel; organize and provide informational meetings to
emergency service system members, particularly Fire Departments and Law
Enforcement, with regards to the system's capabilities and the information that will be
available to them for their use.
OSSI Software has been purchased and the 12 month installation process has started. The
Workgroup recommends that the 911 Users Group be resurrected to meet at least 6 times per
year and provide input for the 911 Communications installation and setup of the OSSI system.
R 20. From the Workgroup:
The Workgroup recommends that Page Track software, currently in use by the Fire
Departments, be incorporated into the OSSI system if possible and utilized by 911
Communications. If Page Track remains a standalone system, it is recommended that 911
Communications use the system to support OSSI when possible.
The Workgroup recommends funding $414,500 as outlined in the recommendations
background in the current fiscal year and incorporate the remaining recommendations into the
Fiscal Year 2013-14 Annual Budget & CIP process.
Chair Pelissier took a poll to see if Board of County Commissioners wanted to continue past
10:30pm. The Board all agreed.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
receive the implementation strategy from the Emergency Services Workgroup regarding
recommendations included in the Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical Services
& 911/Communications Center Operations Study; approve Budget Amendment#4-C for
$414,500 in the current fiscal year; and incorporate the recommendations into the Budget &
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process for Fiscal Year 2013-14.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Board thanked Steve Allen for working on this report for Orange County.
c. Establishment of a Community Loan Fund for the Water and Sewer Connections
for Efland and Rogers Roads Residents, and Approval of Budget Amendment#4-D
The Board considered approving the establishment of a Community Loan Fund for
water and sewer connections for residents of the Efland and Rogers Road areas of Orange
County, and approving Budget Amendment#4-D.
Clarence Grier introduced this item. He said that in previous discussions with the
Board, it was decided to start a small loan fund for this purpose. The recommendation is to
start a Community Loan Fund with a $100,000 appropriation from the General Fund available
fund balance. All loans would range from $3,500 to a max of$10,000, and carry a low interest
rate of 1-2% over a maximum period of 10 years. A 0.25% administrative fee would be added
to each loan to cover the administration of the loan.
Frank Clifton said that this loan is to assist people from running water and sewer lines
from the street to their homes.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought the County had developed a loan fund
through OCIM for people in Efland. Clarence Grier said that this is part of that discussion
instead of going through OCIM.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve the establishment of a Community Loan Fund for water and sewer for
residents of the Efland and Rogers Road areas of Orange County, and approve Budget
Amendment#4-D an appropriation of General Fund available fund balance of$100,000.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Recommended Uses of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance, as of June 30,
2012
The Board considered recommendations for the use of the General Fund unassigned
Fund Balance in excess of the BOCC's fund balance policy.
Clarence Grier introduced this item.
On April 5, 2011, the BOCC adopted a fund balance policy that states:
The County will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the General Fund of
17% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures each fiscal year. The
amount of unassigned fund balance maintained during each fiscal year should not fall
below 8% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures, as recommended
bythe North Carolina Local Government Commission (Attachment 1).
Over time, the County's financial reserves grew. On June 30, 2012, the general fund's
unassigned fund balance totaled $39.6 million (Attachment 2). Of this amount, $3.2 million was
appropriated, prior to the end of the fiscal year. After these appropriations, the general fund's
unassigned fund balance was $36.4 million, which illustrated a 125% increase in the
unassigned fund balance since June 30, 2009 (Attachment 3). Additionally, this represented
20.77% of budgeted general fund operating expenditures or $6.6 million, as of June 30, 2012.
For the current fiscal year, the County has appropriated $4.8 million of the excess fund
balance.
The $3 million appropriated to establish and fund the Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB)
Trust was a Manager recommendation as part of the fiscal year June 30, 2013 Operating
Budget to fully fund the total required OPEB contribution for the current fiscal year. It has been
recommended by the Local Government Commission (LGC) and the Bond Rating Agencies
that the County addresses the funding of its OPEB liability. Without addressing this growing
liability, which currently totals $64 million, the LGC and the Bond Rating agencies have
informed staff that the County's ability to issue debt in the future could be limited. Additionally
staff recommends that the BOCC consider the suggested uses of the $1.86 million available
unassigned balance outlined in attachment 2.
Clarence Grier said that if this is addressed, then Orange County would be an AAA
County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
appropriate the Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) money of$3 million and defer the
other items until the regular budget cycle.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Review of Draft Recommendations from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
Task Force
The Board considered the draft recommendations from the Historic Rogers Road
Neighborhood Task Force and provided guidance to the Task Force and the Assembly of
Governments.
Michael Talbert said that the task force is not ready to disband yet and they want to
continue their work. He said that attached to the abstract are draft recommendations prior to
the joint meeting with the AOG. He read the draft recommendations.
Recommendations to the Assembly of Governments
Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
November 14, 2012
Recommendations:
1. That the Task Force continue to meet, to address the Charge of the Task Force, for an
additional 6 months with the original composition of the Task Force.
2. That the costs of both a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements be shared by the
local governments, at the same costs sharing percentages as outlined in the 1972 Landfill
Agreement, 43% for Orange County, 43% for The Town of Chapel Hill and 14% for The Town
of Carrboro.
3. That the governing boards continue to appropriate funds, originally budgeted to reimburse
the Solid Waste fund for the purchase of the Greene Tract, for both a New Community Center
and Sewer Improvements. Funds budgeted in Fiscal 2012/2013 for the Greene Tract are as
follows; $90,549 for Orange County, $90,549 for The Town of Chapel Hill and $29,524 for The
Town of Carrboro. The governing boards are also encouraged to locate other funding sources
for a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements.
Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center:
1. That the Hogan-Rogers House no longer be considered as an option for a
Neighborhood Community Center. The St Paul's AME Church is working with the
Chapel Hill Preservation Society to save the structure.
2. That the Managers recommend to the Task Force a contract between Habitat, Orange
County, the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill for the construction of a new
Rogers Road Community Center with a budget not to exceed $700,000 that is in compliance
with North Carolina public bidding requirements and is approved by County and Towns
Attorneys.
3. That the County creates long-term agreements, as need, with Habitat and the
Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association. The agreement(s) shall provide for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of a new Rogers Road Neighborhood Community
Center. Additional agreements, if needed, shall provide for services, programs & activities to
be provided in the Center. All agreements will be reviewed and approved by County Attorney.
County Sewer District:
1. That the Managers explore the creation of a County Sewer District for all property owners in
the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood that are not currently served by a municipal sewer
system and would benefit from the installation of sewer infrastructure to serve the Rogers
Road Neighborhood.
a. That the towns participate with the possible creation of a County Sewer District, which could
overlap town boundaries, by resolution to such inclusion.
b. That a County Sewer District would make special assessments against benefited property
within the district to cover the costs of constructing, extending or improving sewage disposal
system. The basis of any special assessment would be determined at a later date after
investigating development potential and the number of possible dwelling units. A special
assessment would share the costs of the sewer system with current benefited property
(homeowners) and undeveloped land for future development.
c. That the Managers work with the Attorneys to create criteria that would enable homeowners,
that have lived in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood before 1972, to connect from the
sewer system free of charge and recommend a sliding scale fee structure for homeowners that
move to the Neighborhood between 1972 and 2012.
Commissioner Hemminger made reference to recommendation #1 and said that the
representation shall remain the same parties and not necessarily the same people. She said
that there had been a neighborhood meeting where individuals came to the meeting and
people went door to door if people were interested in sewer connections, and there was
interest.
Commissioner Foushee said that she is pleased that the Board of County
Commissioners allowed her to serve on this task force and that she is proud that this Board
stepped up and did the best they could for this community. She said that if the Board wanted
her to stay and work for the next 6 months then she would.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she would also be willing to stay and work with this
task force if needed.
Commissioner McKee made a motion to continue the appointments of Commissioner
Foushee and Commissioner Hemminger on this task force.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the composition would have to be changed in order
to do this.
Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Hemminger said that they could be appointed as ex-officio officers. She
said that the two County Commissioners coming on have been involved in the meetings.
Commissioner McKee said that in the interest of continuity, he would like to see them
continue in some manner.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she and Commissioner Foushee would be at the
Assembly of Governments meeting to answer questions.
Commissioner Jacobs endorsed Commissioner McKee's sentiment and said that at the
December 11 th meeting they can raise this issue and find a way to engage Commissioner
Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Foushee if
they envision that before the six months expires that this group will talk about other phases of
what can be done or if this would conclude the work of the task force.
Commissioner Hemminger said that they were concerned about the water and sewer
issue and this is why they asked to extend the task force.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was any thought of any charge going beyond the
community center and Commissioner Hemminger said that there was none discussed.
Commissioner Foushee said that what has made this task force so successful is that
they knew the charge and they never strayed from that charge.
Commissioner McKee made reference to item 1-b on the sewer item and asked if the
sewer district would include the historic neighborhood.
Michael Talbert said that this is the intent. The Planning Directors from the Towns of
Carrboro and Chapel Hill are going to figure out how many lots would benefit from this system.
Commissioner McKee said that his concern would be assessments against some of the
historic homes and he is not sure how this will be implemented. He does not want these folks
to be burdened with an assessment.
Frank Clifton said that one of the underlying issues is that once sewer is brought into
this neighborhood, the property will be changed dramatically and some properties will be ready
for development expansion. They are trying to come up with some methodology that any
development that comes in will have to bear some of the cost of the water and sewer.
Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the payments budgeted for the Greene Tract
that were earmarked for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. He asked if there were plans to
make up the $200,000+ from the Enterprise Fund.
Frank Clifton said that the purpose of the Managers recommending continuation of
those funds is because they are already budgeted with each budget as an annual expense out
of the general fund. The Enterprise Fund will be reimbursed within the next years.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the historic neighborhood and said that there
is another hurdle regarding protecting the integrity of the existing historic Rogers Road
community when you change the character of the development that is possible. He hopes that
there is discussion about staying ahead of the curve instead of playing catch up. Once the
sewer goes in, there will be other pressures on the neighborhood. He wants the neighborhood
to be in control of its destiny instead of the development community being in control.
Commissioner Foushee agreed and said that this should be a discussion point in the
AOG meeting.
Commissioner Gordon said that it seems to her that they needed clarification on some
issues. For the community center, she wants to make it clear that they need to finish the task
and then keep moving forward with the center.
Michael Talbert said that the intent of the task force is to continue to meet for 6 months.
He said that the report at the AOG is just an interim report.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the task force wanted the AOG to bless their
th
community center on December 6
Frank Clifton said that Orange County will continue to be the lead agency.
8. Reports
NONE
9. County Manager's Report
Frank Clifton commended Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Hemminger, and
Commissioner Yuhasz for their service to Orange County on the Board of County
Commissioners.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts agreed with Frank Clifton and commended Commissioner Foushee,
Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner Yuhasz.
11. Appointments
a. Human Relations Commission —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to appoint Matthew Prentice to the Carrboro position with a first partial term expiring
June 30, 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
Commissioner Gordon said that the DCHC MPO TAC approved the MPO boundaries
between the Burlington-Graham MPO. There was also a public hearing on the 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the preferred option, and that will be coming to the Board
for comment. There was also a public hearing on the 2014-2020 Draft Transportation
Improvement Program, which will also be coming back for comment.
Commissioner McKee said that he appreciated having served with Commissioner
Foushee, Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner Yuhasz.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she is sad to be leaving and she has loved this
experience.
Commissioner Foushee thanked the residents of Orange County for this opportunity.
She said that Orange County's staff is second to none. She said that she takes no credit for
anything they have done because this is a team.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he appreciated the opportunity to serve in this
government.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he and the Chair met with elected officials in Chapel
Hill about the library progress on interoperability. There will be a meeting with Chapel Hill in
March on some of the progress made. Hopefully, they will come back in the fall with more
detail on how to work together on library services.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners got a letter from an elected
official who wants to serve on one of the County's boards not as an elected official. He thinks
that there is a policy related to this and it should be shared with this elected official because it
has come up before. He said that the County does not do this.
Commissioner Jacobs expressed appreciation to Commissioner Foushee,
Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner Yuhasz. He said that he considered them his
friends.
Commissioner Gordon thanked Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Hemminger,
and Commissioner Yuhasz for their outstanding service to Orange County.
13. Information Items
• November 8, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report for Period Ending November 1, 2012
• Solid Waste Convenience Center Salvage Shed Policy Revision
• Eno Economic Development District Engineering Progress Update
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request from Commissioner Gordon — Proposed Letter to
Chancellor Holden Thorpe Thanking UNC for Land Allocation to NC Botanical Gardens
• BOCC Chair Letter to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorpe Expressing Gratitude for Land
Allocation to NC Botanical Gardens Mason Farm Biological Reserve
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request from Commissioner Barry Jacobs - BOCC
Recognitions at Meetings to Honor Local Residents and their Contributions
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Two Requests from Commissioner Barry Jacobs - Elections
Report and Veterans Recognition
14. Closed Session
15. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board