HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-19-2013 - 5a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 19, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): Under Separate INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cover Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
Attachment 1 December 11, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting
Attachment 2 January 24, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting
Attachment 3 January 29, 2013 BOCC Work Session
Attachment 4 February 12, 2013 BOCC Work Session
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 1
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 December 11, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 December 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Renee Price, and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bernadette Pelissier
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
17 Gwen Harvey, Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
18 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24 Chair Jacobs recognized Michael Talbert who introduced the Orange County
25 Emergency Services Director Mr. Jim Groves, who will be joining Orange County in January.
26 He comes from an international consulting firm in emergency management.
27 Jim Groves said that he was looking forward to serving Orange County residents.
28
29 Frank Clifton presented Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey with roses and
30 recognized her because this is her last meeting. Gwen Harvey is retiring at the end of
31 December after 10 years with Orange County. He said that she is very passionate about her
32 work to Orange County and to the citizens of Orange County.
33 Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said thank you to all that she has worked with.
34 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:04 PM.
35 Chair Jacobs thanked Gwen Harvey for her service.
36
37 PUBLIC CHARGE
38
39 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
40
41 2. Public Comments
42 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
43 Don O'Leary said at the last meeting, it was nice to see the other side of the
44 Commissioners at the reception and the administration of oaths. He said that if Orange County
45 continues down the current path of ICLEI and Agenda 21, it is putting future generations in
46 jeopardy. He said that this is illegally throwing the citizens of Orange County under the bus.
47
48 Robin Jacobs, Executive Director of the Eno River Association, said that the association
49 is appreciative of Orange County's efforts to preserve the environment. She presented the
50 2013 Eno River Association calendars to the Board of County Commissioners.
2
1 Chair Jacobs said that at their places is a yellow sheet that goes with item 7-b, Support
2 for Hillsborough to Clayton Segment of the NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail.
3
4 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
5 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
6 below.)
7
8 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
9 Commissioner Gordon said that in December 2011 the Board of County Commissioners
10 adopted the Road Naming and Addressing Ordinance in an effort to expedite the delivery of
11 emergency services. Her petition is for the Tax Administration to provide a report on the status
12 of the addressing ordinance, including at least the following items:
13 1) Give a summary of the work done and the progress made during 2012;
14 2) Describe the plan and timing for the implementation in 2013;
15 3) Describe what residents should do now to comply with the ordinance.
16
17 Commissioner Gordon said that she consulted with the Tax Administrator and he said
18 that he could present a report on this in February 2013. She asked that this report be
19 presented at that time.
20 Commissioner Price said that about a year ago when the Board of County
21 Commissioners was going through streamlining of the boards and commissions, the
22 Commission for Women was sunset. She would like to revisit this and possibly bring this
23 commission back.
24
25 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
26 NONE
27
28 5. Consent Agenda
29 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
30 None
31
32 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
35 approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 Commissioner Dorosin said that it might be useful for the audience if the consent
40 agenda was displayed on the screens.
41 Chair Jacobs said that this is now a petition.
42
43 a. Minutes
44 The Board approved the minutes from October 11, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the
45 Board.
46 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
47 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor
48 vehicle property tax values for twenty-three (23) taxpayer requests that will result in a
49 reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
50 c. Personal Property Tax Releases/Refunds
3
1 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to change property
2 tax values for one hundred seventy-three (173) tax notices, which will create property tax
3 releases and/or refunds that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with North
4 Carolina General Statute 105-325(a)(4).
5 d. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
6 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
7 tax values for thirteen (13) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue, in
8 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
9 e. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
10 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to nine (9)
11 untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2012 tax
12 year.
13 f. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment#5
14 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2012-
15 13 for Emergency Services; Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks and
16 Recreation; and Department of Social Services.
17 g Application for North Carolina Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City
18 Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment #5-A Related to
19 CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
20 The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign an application to the North Carolina
21 Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) to release funds from the NC Education Lottery
22 account related to FY 2012-13 debt service payments for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City
23 Schools, and approved Budget Amendment#5-A (amended School Capital Project
24 Ordinances) contingent on the State's approval of the application and authorized the Chair
25 to sign.
26 h. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
27 Outline/Schedule for UDO Text Amendments to Revise Requirements Related to
28 Schools Adequate Public Facilities
29 The Board approved the process components and schedule for text amendments to the
30 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text, currently scheduled for the February 25, 2013
31 Quarterly Public Hearing.
32 i. Impact Fee Reimbursement Request
33 The Board approved an impact fee reimbursement request from Habitat for Humanity of
34 Orange County, NC, Inc. for $104,720 for eleven (11) homes recently constructed in the
35 County.
36 L Purchase of One (1) Ambulance from Excellance, Incorporated
37 The Board approved and authorized Emergency Services and Financial Services staff to
38 proceed with the immediate plan to purchase one (1) ambulance from Excellance, Inc. and
39 execute the appropriate paperwork.
40 k. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Durham for Waste Transfer Station Use
41 The Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Durham for authorization to
42 use the Durham Waste Transfer Station for a period of five years and authorized the
43 Manager to sign.
44 I. Implementation Strategy from the Emergency Services Workgroup of
45 Recommendations from the Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Medical
46 Services & 911/Communications Center Operations Study
47 The Board approved proceeding with establishing and hiring for the four new Paramedic
48 Level Shift Supervisor positions; instructed staff to bring back at an upcoming meeting a
49 budget amendment for $267,500 in the current fiscal year; and incorporated the other
50 remaining recommendations into the Budget and CIP process for Fiscal Year 2013-14.
4
1
2 6. Public Hearings
3
4 a. Public Transit Implementation Resolutions
5 The Board conducted a public hearing on, and considered approval of, resolutions
6 authorizing Triangle Transit Authority ("TTA") to levy a 'A-cent transit tax in Orange County,
7 authorizing Orange County to levy a $7 vehicle registration tax in Orange County, and an
8 additional $3 vehicle TTA registration tax in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
9 Chair Jacobs read the above statement.
10 John Roberts said that many meetings have been spent discussing transit and these are
11 the next steps in the process, for Durham County and Orange County to request that TTA levy
12 the 'A-cent sales tax and the additional vehicle registration fee and tax.
13
14 PUBLIC COMMENT:
15 Dave Laodicina thanked the County Commissioners for pursuing this transit plan. He
16 said that this is a start, but there are many pieces to it. He said that urban centers will be built
17 where people live and work and will be built around the transit stations. He is ready for this plan
18 to get started.
19 Bonnie Hauser spoke for Smart Transit for Orange County, which is a group of Town
20 and County citizens. She said that they support transit but they do have questions about the
21 plan. She said that Orange County plans to spend $660 million over the next 23 years; 70% of
22 which, about $500 million, will go to light rail service. The plan relies on federal and state
23 grants. According to the plan, Orange County will add 34,000 bus hours in the first four years,
24 about 18% to a base of 203,000 hours. By contrast, Durham will add 50,000 in the first three
25 years, about 28%. Wake County, who has not yet endorsed the plan, will double its bus hours
26 if it chooses to opt in. Charlotte spent 10 years building bus service in preparation for light rail.
27 She said that frequent, convenient bus service is essential to build transit ridership. She
28 showed a spreadsheet from the transit plan appendices that show how transit dollars will be
29 spent between now and 2020. She said that from the start, the bulk of the funds will go to Light
30 Rail Transit and not bus service as has been represented to the public.
31 In addition to the sales tax, the Board will consider a $10 vehicle registration fee, a 30%
32 increase to the $33 fee; 50% if you count the $5 that TTA has already levied. No other county,
33 including Durham or Charlotte, has levied the transit fee. She said that once the County levies
34 the tax or fee, it authorizes TTA to move forward. Changes are governed by the
35 implementation agreement, which requires approval by TTA, the MPO, and the Board of County
36 Commissioners to make any changes. She asked the Board to please consider what happens
37 to the ability to negotiate on behalf of Orange County once it levies the taxes and fees.
38 Del Snow read a prepared statement:
39 "I'm Del Snow and I'm the chair the Chapel Hill Planning Board. I am proud that our
40 board is decidedly pro-transit, and although we are pleased that the voters have shown their
41 support for a '/2 cent sales tax, we have informed the Town Council that we do not support the
42 MPO 2040 transportation plan that the TTA plan is based on. Our unanimous decision was
43 based on many factors. Because of time constraints, I will share only some of them with you
44 tonight.
45 The Planning Board is encouraging the use of responsible data-based decision
46 practices. In view of that, we have serious questions about the plan's population projections.
47 Although a specific critical mass is needed to support transit, no data was presented proving
48 that Chapel Hill could successfully absorb the quantity of housing and commercial building
49 necessary for the type of transit proposed. A significant drawback to the plan is that it does not
50 support many of the Future Focus areas established by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. These
5
1 areas, restricted to transit corridors, will most likely accommodate much of the projected growth
2 for Chapel Hill. The small area plans that will be produced are expected to create density
3 downtown, the length of MLK, Jr. Blvd, along 15-501 south and north near Ephesus Church
4 Road. The Board believes that it is the Comprehensive Plan that should drive growth and
5 development, and that a transit plan should be used to support that vision. We also noted the
6 plan's shortcomings in serving the decentralizing hospital system, two Durham Tech Campuses
7 and the county's two economic development zones. Light rail's very narrow area of impact
8 provides the least flexibility in response to our changing growth patterns.
9 It is the Planning Board's opinion that flexible, frequent and more extensive bus service,
10 along with safe bike lanes and sidewalks, would better meet the needs of commuters and
11 transit users, and at a lower cost per rider. The Planning Board is particularly concerned that
12 the transit plan offers minimal improvement in travel times, which to us, is essential in order to
13 encourage ridership and benefit the taxpayers who are funding it. Our consensus was that
14 given the percentage of trips that will still occur by car, the low percentage of transit ridership,
15 and the level of congestion remaining, we have not met the goals of a comprehensive transit
16 plan, and will not achieve our transportation or environmental objectives.
17 As you know, based partly on our input, the town council has created a new
18 transportation workgroup—which could be an asset to the county if you opt to delay the tax and
19 work to correct the deficiencies in the transit plan. You have my commitment to provide a rapid
20 response on issues brought to the Chapel Hill planning board.
21 The Planning Board will continue to encourage the Council to align transportation
22 improvements with the future focus areas and to consider the dynamics of a more 21 century
23 plan by incorporating forward-looking demographics such as population aging, new home-
24 workplace trends, on-line education opportunities, environmental protection and serving the
25 broadest range of the County residents.
26 You are making a pivotal decision that will impact all of the County for a long time. As
27 the chair of the CH Planning Board, I know that we all want to make the most responsible and
28 supportive decision for Orange County. Because the County will lose important negotiating
29 leverage if you approve the tax tonight, I ask that you please consider a delay so that you can
30 make sure that the transit plan is truly aligned to the priorities of the towns, the county and
31 UNC.
32 Linda Haac serves on Carrboro's Transportation Advisory Board. She said that she is
33 speaking about the comments from her board on the 2040 Transportation Plan. She said that
34 the plan needs to be fiscally constrained. She said that one thing that surprised her board was
35 that the road miles did not change much with the inclusion of light rail. There was also great
36 concern about the model used. It appeared to not explore different scenarios. She said that
37 another board member expressed that transit investment should be paired with transportation
38 demand management. There was also concern that the plan did not account for greenhouse
39 emissions. She asked the Board to think about these things before making a decision.
40 Sam Gharbo lives in Efland. He said that he is glad that Orange County is increasing its
41 infrastructure. He said that the plan has a backbone with no real extending ribs to support it.
42 The plan should reach into the rural areas of Orange County because this would be a catalyst
43 for growth. He said that it would be great to be able to get on a bus in Efland and get to places
44 in a reasonable amount of time.
45 Tish Galu read a prepared statement:
46 "I am Tish Galu. I am speaking tonight on my experience with many who use or would
47 like to use the bus system for transportation. I was on the Orange County Partnership to End
48 Homelessness for two years and in that time helped to begin Support Circles for the Homeless.
49 While researching this program I spoke to individuals in residential facilities and in the shelters.
50 In addition, I have been part of a ministry that has helped to provide furniture to over 70
6
1 individuals/families transitioning out of these facilities into rental housing. Most in this transition
2 phase have jobs —jobs that barely support them. But almost all do not own cars as they cannot
3 afford the cost of the car, the upkeep, the insurance, or the licensing. These are the individuals
4 that need public transportation to get to their jobs and do their shopping. I know and have
5 worked with these families that are currently taking buses to their work — but for some —a 15-20
6 minute car ride takes 2 hours or more to get to work and three bus changes. And because
7 these individuals work on Sundays —there is no bus service at all. Some have relied on taxi
8 service —which can cost most of their salary for that day! Or they lose the opportunity to work
9 on the weekend. And the same thing happens when bus service is reduced when school is out.
10 Since 60% of the cost of the bus service is currently supported by UNC, they have tailored the
11 service to students. But when the students are not in school, it does not mean that the workers
12 are not there! The workers are the forgotten entity in this agreement. The hospital is still open
13 7 days week and UNC staffs are still working when students are not there. In addition the
14 hospital and school is expanding their clinics and campus outside Chapel Hill. And workers in
15 our community need the transportation to get to their work that may not be at UNC. That said,
16 we are very pleased that the plan now includes some service on Sundays and when school is
17 not in session, but it does not go nearly far enough to meet the needs of the residents of our
18 community. The current setup of lines needs to be expanded so residents can access the bus
19 lines to go work, shopping, or the library more easily. When it takes two or three bus changes
20 and an hour or more just to go shopping at the grocery store—you're not likely to choose this
21 route. What it does is deter you from using the bus because of the way the lines are currently
22 set up. The "hub" is currently the hospital/UNC. We need to determine where there should be
23 more "hubs" in the community and start to realign the plan to meet the needs of those that can
24 and want to utilize the bus lines. And of course align them with Durham's and other bus lines to
25 have an integrated plan.
26 The transit plan needs to be evaluated to assist those who need transportation to work,
27 to shop and to live in Orange County. This is your opportunity to look at funding significantly
28 increased service for increased use by our residents not just the students, to reevaluate the
29 plan to meet the needs of the entire community. Now is the time for better research, better
30 planning and better allocation of the money for this project to truly meet the needs of our
31 community.
32
33 Jeanne Brown read a prepared statement.
34 "I am a resident of southern Chapel Hill and, as a visually impaired individual who is
35 unable to drive, I am a transit supporter. During the past year I was a regular participant in the
36 Chapel Hill 2020 "Getting Around" group which focused on transportation issues. As a group,
37 including our staff liaisons, we agreed that Chapel Hill Transit does a good job of serving the
38 UNC/UNC healthcare downtown campus but did not feel that it does a good job serving the
39 broader community.
40 By way of example, I often talk to people about the benefit to our town of having the bus
41 system provide service to University Mall or the intersection near Estes and Franklin. From
42 those locations, riders can access Harris Teeter Grocery store, Walgreen pharmacy, the library,
43 post office, banking, doctor's offices, and more. But to get to those locations from all but a
44 couple of Chapel Hill's neighborhoods requires using multiple buses, a significant amount of
45 walking and, quite frankly, a lot of time.
46 For instance, for those living IN Southern Village, a mid-day trip to the library at 100
47 Library Drive using Chapel Hill Transit would take 2 hours and 5 minutes and involve taking 2
48 buses and walking 1.3 miles. Alternatively, the travel time can be reduced by using both TTA
49 and Chapel Hill Transit buses, walking 1.65 miles and paying a $2.00 fare.
7
1 From Meadowmont, a mid-day trip to the library takes a minimum of 1 hour and 10
2 minutes and involves 2 buses with 3 different walking legs. Two hours from Southern Village
3 and an hour and ten minutes from Meadowmont— and those are only one way. Factoring in a
4 round trip, then a one hour visit to the library for a meeting or to check out books turns into a 2
5 to 4 hour trip —assuming the buses are running on time. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a
6 transit system that serves those without cars or who cannot drive. Nor is it a transit system that
7 will get people out of their cars. And, as we look to the future, it is not a transit system that is
8 aligned with our land use plans and economic goals because it does not efficiently or effectively
9 serve Carolina North, new UNC healthcare sites or new retail and office at Ephesus Church
10 Road. Tonight I ask that you ensure that your decisions tonight and in the future protect our
11 existing bus service and provide for expansion of that service in ways that serve our community.
12 You can do this in many ways:
13 1. Given that federal New Starts funding is several years away, explore whether it is
14 possible to redirect some of the early sales tax dollars towards our local bus systems as
15 a means for replacing buses or taking care of other much-needed transit projects.
16 Given the fact that funding for new buses is 80% federal, 10% state and 10% local,
17 redirecting the initial $3.3 million dollars in this first year could translate into $30million in
18 new buses or equipment!
19
20 2. Make certain that overruns in TTA's Light Rail project, should it be approved, do not
21 take away from funding for local bus services.
22
23 3. Make certain that, should the county collect excess transit sales taxes in the future that
24 those funds are reallocated to local transit projects.
25
26 4. If federal funding for this project is not approved, I'd like to know your exit strategy.
27 Thank you."
28 Dave Carter read a prepared statement:
29
30 Vehicle Tax is Unfair and Premature
31
32 "I'm Dave Carter and have spent a lot of time talking to our citizens over the last year. It
33 is my impression that our citizens not only do not understand the transit plan - but they are
34 unaware of the fee or what it will be used for.
35 Today, nearly every county in North Carolina - including Charlotte, charges residents
36 $28 to register a car. Randolph County charges $29. Since Triangle Transit has already added
37 $5 to the fee, Orange, Durham and Wake residents pay $33. Tonight you are considering
38 adding $10 - that's a total increase of 50%.
39 Over 23 years, the fee produces $22 million - or about 3% of the transit's $600 million in
40 funds.
41 The vehicle fee is a small portion of the funds and places an inappropriate burden on
42 many residents who will not be served by transit and who rely on the cars to get to work or
43 transport their families. Rural residents who tend to have more vehicles per household will
8
1 incur the greatest burden with the least benefit. Rural attitudes were reflected in their
2 overwhelming opposition to the plan.
3 Tonight - on behalf of the growing number of citizens who want good transit, I ask that
4 you do not levy the vehicle fee. There are too many important issues that need to be worked
5 out. It's possible that Orange County can achieve many of its transit goals without ever adding
6 a vehicle fee.
7 As you now know, Durham has levied their sales tax, but not the vehicle fee. They feel
8 that it's important to have an interlocal agreement in place with the Durham city bus service
9 provider to assure that they will use the funds to advance transit goals. Orange County has no
10 similar agreement with Chapel Hill Transit, UNC or Orange Public Transit.
11 Durham County also wants to first to educate the public on the transit plan and how the
12 fees will be used. In doing so, Durham will have the opportunity to feature a park n ride in
13 Rougement and regional bus service to Wake County for their rural residents - a great time and
14 money saver - because these residents will no longer have to go through the city of Durham or
15 pay to park in the Capitol City. In contrast, Orange County is asking rural residents to pay
16 fees to fund Chapel Hill's free bus service. It's simply not fair.
17 Please wait to levy the vehicle until you've had a chance to educate the public, work out
18 the agreements with the bus service providers, and correct the rural/urban inequity built into the
19 funds."
20
21 Damian Seils encouraged the Board to adopt the three resolutions and said that the
22 Board already adopted the transit plan. He said that the transit plan describes both how transit
23 investments will be used and the funding sources. He said that the Board has adopted this and
24 the voters approved the levy of the 'A-cent sales tax.
25 Tony Blake said that he doubted that many residents are opposed to transit but they are
26 opposed to how the monies are being spent. He asked what would happen if the tax is not
27 matched by the government. He asked why Chapel Hill was advocating a transit program —
28 TTA - that is less successful than Chapel Hill Transit. He said that this was not a transit plan
29 but a transit trophy. He said that the people that need the services most are unlikely to benefit
30 from this plan. He said that Eno and Buckhorn economic development districts should be
31 included in this discussion.
32 Wib Gulley said that he is here to answer questions along with other staff from Triangle
33 Transit.
34
35 EMAILS—PUBLIC COMMENT
36
37 From: Troy Rountree
38 Phone Number: 9196070109
39 Message:
40 Come on guys don't make all your citizens pay for something used by a small percentage.
41 There has to be a better way! This kind of thing is why our county cannot come together on
42 anything. Rethink this, do we really need to tax the citizens that have no use for this and make
43 it free for the ones that do???
44
45 From: Robin Lackey
46 Phone Number:
47 Message:
48 Hi, I just wanted to voice my concern on the taxes that will be discussed tonight. For one thing
49 the taxes are totally unfair all the way around. I and many neighbors do not have any use of the
50 transit system, so why should we have to pay for it? It does not benefit anyone in the rural
9
1 areas. To me this is just another way of giving some and not all a "free ride". I as a farmer, am
2 taxed to death as it is. I pay this county over $4000.00 in taxes now and that's just property
3 taxes. Seeing as how I own several tagged vehicle's, I'll also be paying more too. I hope you all
4 see fit to vote all these taxes down for now. "Working" people have a hard enough time making
5 ends meet now. If these taxes pass, you all are doing nothing but enabling "entitlement".
6
7 From: Carol Carden
8 Phone Number: 9197328018
9 Message:
10 You all plan to vote on some new vehicle tag fees this evening and this citizen would like to say
11 I am VERY much against these fees! Why is it that the citizens of rural Orange County have to
12 continually support the needs of Chapel Hill???!!! The vehicle tag fees that you will be
13 considering tonight benefit only those in Chapel Hill and do nothing for the rural citizens!
14
15 I've worked in Chapel Hill for 25 years now and very rarely take advantage of the transit system
16 in this town. If Chapel Hill needs money for the Transit System they need to go back to selling
17 bus passes like they did years ago. The transit system is basically for the students anyway, so
18 have them buy bus passes to use the transit.
19
20 Rural citizens can NOT afford to bear another burden of Chapel Hill and the greedy
21 commissioners from Chapel Hill. It saddens me to see our county overrun by folks who weren't
22 even born here! Native citizens to this county are now the minority but yet we are asked to
23 support those who MOVED here from other states. I wish you all would go back to where you
24 came from!
25
26 Sincerely,
27 Carol Carden
28
29
30 From: Renee Parker
31 Phone Number:
32 Message:
33 Dear Commissioners,
34 Please consider what you may or may not impose on the people in this county with the
35 proposed vehicle tag fees or tax increase. Is it really fair to tax the whole county and only part of
36 it will benefit (Chapel Hill)? I live in rural Northern Orange Co. I do not have access to busses or
37 transportation for me to make my deliveries to the other end of the county from my farm. How
38 will this increase benefit me or my neighbors? Please do not impose more cost to the residents
39 of this county.
40
41 From: Rachel Hawkins
42 Phone Number: 919-732-9820
43 Message:
44 It is with regret that I must say that I can see no benefit to the Northern Orange County
45 residents (past Hillsborough city limits that the transit system will accommodate so very few that
46 I really do not believe we should levy that tax.
47 If the people in Chapel Hill and town of Hillsborough want transit - they should be the ones
48 levied. As for the other remaining population in Orange County - they are struggling to pay
49 health increases, tax increases, food increases, housing increases, gas increases, upcoming
50 electric bill increases, etc. To add more taxes and more taxes is NOT the solution and it would
10
1 NOT benefit MOST of the citizens of Orange County. I see EMPTY buses WAITING for riders
2 every day, and they make their run religiously. People are not taking advantage of this service
3 NOW, so what would be the difference. I know the economics are felt in 20 years, but right
4 now - I would like to suggest you HOLD off...on the NEW Vehicle TAXES and the Transit Tax
5 leverage. Thank you.
6
7 From: Jason Baker
8 Sent: Dec 10, 2012 12:33 PM
9 Subject: Please vote to levy funds for our transit future
10 Dear Chairman Jacobs and members of the County Commission,
11
12 I am unable to attend Tuesday's hearing on taking the next steps in the implementation of the
13 transit plan, but want to ask you to move swiftly to allow the collection of desperately-needed
14 money for our transit future. Let's start collecting these funds as soon as possible.
15
16 I have heard that you may have been lobbied by a small but vocal segment of the community,
17 who opposed the transit plan in the first place, to delay you implementation of the transit
18 revenue streams. I implore you to recognize this for what it is, a mere stalling tactic, and to
19 move with haste to implement the will of the voters.
20
21 The transit plan is a huge investment, for sure, but a crucial one. Every extra day delayed
22 in implementing the plan sets us back. The time for action is now. Yes, there will be hiccups
23 along the way, but the plan which you have helped to build is solid, and now has the proven
24 support of the voters. The pressures of climate change, social inequity, and economic woes
25 won't cease building if the plan is delayed, but our ability to combat them will undoubtedly suffer
26 if we don't begin to set aside money immediately. I have faith, as you should, in your own ability
27 to work through any issues which may arise, in consultation with your staff and the steadfast
28 help of our local and regional partners. You have far more options for control of our transit
29 infrastructure with money in hand than without.
30
31 Please move us forward tomorrow night. Thank you.
32
33 Jason Baker
34 PO Box 14
35 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
36 (919) 442-8278
37
38
39
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
42 close the public hearing.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Commissioner McKee said that he has for the past year ranted and raved about the
46 transit plan and he continues to oppose this plan. He does not feel like the light rail component
47 is suitable for the present tax base. He said that Orange County does not need this light rail,
48 but the bus system needs to be fleshed out more into the rural areas of the County.
49 Commissioner Price asked about recommendations 'a' and 'b' and which one is
50 preferable.
11
1 Frank Clifton said that recommendation `B' would be the preferred option.
2 Commissioner Gordon said that if the Board approves recommendation `B', then the
3 agreement should be no longer than four years and then it should be reviewed.
4 Commissioner Rich said that there is something that states there will be a review of the
5 allocation formula yearly. She asked what allocation this includes.
6 Frank Clifton said that the agreement on the $7 fee is based on the existing funds for
7 transit. The distribution formula itself will be reviewed annually.
8 Commissioner Gordon said that she acknowledged what has been said tonight and that
9 there were arguments on both sides. She said that in their comments about the plan people
10 made important points. She said that the situation is that Orange County has signed the Bus
11 and Rail Investment Plan and approved it, and it has approved the Implementation Agreement
12 and the Cost-Sharing Agreement. The other part of this relates to levying the fee now or
13 waiting until next year.
14 Wib Gulley said that the funds raised in Orange County are from four different funds
15 going into the plan and he listed these:
16 - 1A-cent sales tax
17 - $7 vehicle fee
18 - $3 increase in the regional vehicle registration fee
19 - rental cars that are attributed to Orange County
20 Wib Gulley said that the $7 comes to the County by statute is required to be spent on
21 transportation. He said that the control is within the plan that has been adopted. He said that
22 the question is really administration of the fees.
23 Commissioner Gordon said that there is a way to change the agreements. She said that
24 there are three entities that have to agree to change the agreements: Orange County Board of
25 County Commissioners, Triangle Transit, and the DCHC MPO TAC.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich
27 to choose Option B:
28 Orange County creates an agreement with the NCDMV for direct disbursement of
29 revenues to TTA with similar reporting as noted above each November, and that this agreement
30 be for a period not longer than four years. The period of time would be coordinated with the
31 four-year review specified in the Implementation Agreement.
32 Commissioner Gordon asked Frank Clifton if it would be best to specify the timing.
33 Frank Clifton said that he would need to work with NCDMV and staff can work this in.
34 Commissioner McKee said that if the Board passes this motion they would be making
35 the same mistake they have been doing for years and getting the priorities out of order. He
36 said that Orange County did not coordinate with the Towns regarding the plans for transit
37 before approving the Implementation Agreement. He said that the County did not work in
38 concert with the Towns. Also, the County approved the $7 vehicle registration fee that has not
39 been levied.
40 Commissioner Gordon said that it is appropriate to consider recommendations to
41 approve the three attached resolutions.
42 Chair Jacobs said that the abstract is confusing and it does not lay the order of actions
43 that Commissioner McKee is advocating.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said that it was not clear that Commissioner Gordon was making
45 a motion to levy the fee. He echoed what Commissioner Gordon said about the agreements
46 and negotiations that had been made and the vibrant discussion of the community. He said
47 that it would represent bad faith if the Board now backtracked. He said that Orange County
48 would get into a bad place as a community if they only want to pay taxes for services that they
49 do not need. He said that a lot of people pay school taxes and they do not have children. He
50 said that he is in favor of approving the resolutions.
12
1 Commissioner Price said that she is leaning toward Commissioner McKee's concerns.
2 She said that the vehicle registration fee is a burden to some people. She said that there
3 needs to be more robust bus service. She said that it is a lot of money to put into light rail at
4 this time.
5 Commissioner Rich said that she was on the Chapel Hill Town Council and they spoke
6 about this plan in depth. She said that it is her understanding that the first monies that come in
7 will go to bus transit. Wib Gulley verified this.
8 Commissioner Rich asked how quickly the funds will be coming in and Wib Gulley said
9 that it would be as soon as summer or early fall.
10 Commissioner Rich said that she is strongly in favor of this and she is excited to vote for
11 this.
12 Commissioner Price said that the rural areas of the County are not getting the bus
13 service that they deserve. She is really concerned that most of the funds are going to Chapel
14 Hill. She would like to see more because Hillsborough and Efland have grown. There needs to
15 be a more comprehensive bus service in this area.
16 Chair Jacobs said that Chair Pelissier could not be here tonight but she has been
17 supportive of this plan throughout. He made reference to Commissioner Gordon's point that
18 the Board has already made all of these decisions. He said that there will be more robust bus
19 service as the additional funds come forward. He suggested that these concerns be made
20 known to Triangle Transit. He said that the light rail system will particularly serve workers. He
21 said that he does not believe Triangle Transit has been forthcoming about implementing park
22 and ride lots in Cedar Grove, Buckhorn, and the Eno EDD. These things are planned. He said
23 that everything they do is not a quid pro quo and is not always based on where we live. He said
24 that it is a group effort.
25 Chair Jacobs said that he would suggest that the Board look at the second page of the
26 abstract and the first decision is approving the 1A-cent transit tax; the second decision would be
27 the $7 vehicle registration fee, which has two options and Commissioner Gordon made a
28 motion regarding which option to use; and the third decision would be the $3 Triangle Transit
29 vehicle registration tax.
30 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Rich that the future is now. He said
31 that approximately 30,000 people in Orange County said `no' to the 1A-cent sales tax. He made
32 reference to the $7 vehicle registration fee and said that he is not aware of any other fee where
33 people without access to cars will have to pay a fee for a service that will be provided free to
34 other citizens. For this reason, he cannot support the $7 registration fee because it is
35 fundamentally unfair.
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
37 approve the resolution regarding the 1A-cent transit tax, which will allow TTA to levy the tax
38 pursuant to its statutory authority. This resolution is necessary because TTA previously entered
39 into a "Do Not Levy" agreement with Orange County in which TTA agreed not to levy the tax
40 until requested to do so via a resolution by Orange County.
41
42
43 Res. 2012-112
44
45 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
46 RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO LEVY
47 THE ONE HALF CENT
48 (1/2 ¢) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TAX APPROVED BY THE VOTERS OF ORANGE
49 COUNTY
13
1 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has adopted the Orange County Bus
2 and Rail Investment Plan; and
3 WHEREAS, the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan provides for the levy and
4 disbursement of the one half cent (1/2 ¢) public transportation tax authorized by North Carolina
5 General Statute Chapter 105, Article 43; and
6 WHEREAS, in June 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners entered into an
7 agreement with the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority providing that
8 in the event the tax referendum was successful the Research Triangle Regional Public
9 Transportation Authority would not levy the one half cent ('A ¢) public transportation tax until
10 requested to do so by a resolution of the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and
11 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012 the voters of Orange County approved via referendum the
12 levy of the one half cent ('A ¢) transportation tax.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
14 hereby authorizes the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority to levy the
15 one half cent ('A ¢) public transportation tax approved by the voters of Orange County.
16 This the 11th day of December 2012.
17
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
20
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
23 approve the resolution levying the $7 new vehicle registration tax.
24
25 Res. 2012-113
26
27
28 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION LEVYING A SEVEN
29 DOLLAR ($7.00) VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED IN
30 ORANGE COUNTY
31
32 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has adopted the Orange County Bus
33 and Rail Investment Plan; and
34 WHEREAS, the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan provides for the levy and
35 disbursement of the seven dollar ($7.00) motor vehicle registration tax authorized by North
36 Carolina General Statute §105-570; and
37 WHEREAS, Orange County and one or more municipal corporations in Orange County operate
38 public transportation systems.
39 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
40 hereby levies the seven dollar ($7.00) motor vehicle registration tax as authorized by North
41 Carolina General Statute §105-570 with said motor vehicle registration tax being effective July
42 1, 2013.
14
1 This the 11th day of December 2012.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the
4 resolution "ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION LEVYING A
5 SEVEN DOLLAR ($7.00) VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES
6 REGISTERED IN ORANGE COUNTY"
7
8
9 VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price)
10
11
12 Commissioner Gordon restated her previous motion about Option B:
13 Orange County creates an agreement with the NCDMV for direct disbursement of
14 revenues to TTA with similar reporting as noted above each November, and that this agreement
15 be for a period not longer than four years. The period of time would be coordinated with the
16 four-year review specified in the Implementation Agreement.
17 Commissioner McKee said that it makes better sense to have a method of
18 disbursement.
19 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Price)
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
22 approve the resolution authorizing the $3 additional TTA vehicle registration tax.
23
24 "ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
25 RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO LEVY
26 THE FULL EIGHT DOLLAR ($8.00) VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES
27 REGISTERED IN ORANGE COUNTY"
28
29
30 VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price)
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
33 request an annual update from TTA on the collection and disbursement of all taxes it is
34 authorized to administer for the OCBRIP and authorize the Chair to sign the three resolutions.
35 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 0
36
37 Chair Jacobs said that he hoped that Triangle Transit would follow up about discussions
38 about rural transit.
39
40 b. Proposed Grant Submittal to the North Carolina Department of
41 Transportation (NCDOT) —Targeted Transit Assistance Program (TTAP)
42 The Board conducted a public hearing on a proposed grant submittal for North Carolina
43 Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 5310 funds — Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
44 Disabilities Program — and considered authorizing the Chair to sign the grant application and
45 related certifications and assurances.
46 Department on Aging Director Janice Tyler introduced this item. This grant submittal
47 would address the need as identified in the 2012-17 Master Aging Plan (MAP):
48
49 MAP Objective 2.5: Orange County will encourage transportation services that enable
50 community mobility for older adults. Strategy 2.4.3 recommends that the Department on Aging
15
1 in collaboration with the Orange County Planning Department designate an aging-related
2 Mobility Manager to coordinate with other transportation providers to assist older adults across
3 Orange County.
4
5 The project is called STEAMM — Senior Transportation Expansion Access and Mobility
6 Management. The STEAMM project is proposed as a collaborative venture between the
7 Orange County Department on Aging, Orange County and Chapel Hill public transit systems
8 and various other non-profits and faith based organizations within the County and volunteers
9 who are willing to provide driving services to older adults. The total funding for the two-year
10 period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 for mobility management is $153,802. The
11 grant funding request to NCDOT for the two-year period would total $138,421 and the 10%
12 local match over the two-year period would be $15,381.
13
14 PUBLIC COMMENT:
15 Alex Castro is a member of the Advisory Board on Aging and he said that he has talked
16 to people about the issue of transportation for the aging population. He said that he thinks that
17 there are people that are willing to help out but there is a lack of organization. He said that
18 there needs to be a mechanism in place to take advantage of the technology available to get
19 this project going. He recommends the County consider applying for this grant.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
22 close the public hearing.
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
26 direct staff to develop the grant application and authorize the Chair to sign the grant application
27 and related certifications and assurances, once completed by staff, for submittal by the
28 December 28, 2012 deadline.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 7. Regular Agenda
32
33 a. Approval of Temporary Emergency Storm Debris Management Sites
34 The Board considered endorsing the designation and permitting for temporary
35 emergency storm debris management sites within the County as part of the Disaster Debris
36 Management Plan.
37 Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson made a PowerPoint presentation.
38 Solid Waste staff has been working with Emergency Services staff for several months in
39 order to develop a comprehensive emergency debris management plan for the County. The
40 purpose of the plan is to be prepared to handle the quantities of debris produced by severe
41 storms such as an ice storm, major flood, hurricane, or tornado. In June of 2011 the BOCC
42 approved a contract with Neel-Schaffer to perform storm event operations monitoring and
43 reporting in order to properly document to FEMA so reimbursements can be maximized. Since
44 that time a Disaster Debris Management Plan has been drafted and is being finalized.
45
46 POTENTIAL EMERGENCY STORM DEBRIS MANAGEMENT AREAS
47 ORANGE COUNTY
48 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
49 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SITES
16
1 Eubanks Road (Existing site located at Landfill) - 4.9 Acres
2 Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center - 4.5 Acres
3 Future Northeast District Park - 39.6 Acres (North), 5.28 Acres (South)
4 Future Millhouse Road Park - 14.9 Acres
5 Eubanks Road (Landfill) - 4.9 Acres
6 Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center - 4.3 Acres
7 Future Northeast District Park — 39.6 Acres
8 North Side - 5.28 Acres
9 Future Millhouse Road Park - 14.9 Acres
10 Future Blackwood Farm Park - 12.4 Acres
11 Vincent Site - 4.4 Acres
12
13 Gayle Wilson said that staff is proposing that Site B — Future North East Park (Mincey
14 Road sector only ) and Site C — Future Millhouse Road Park as expanded — be authorized for
15 permitting as temporary storm debris management sites. These would be in addition to the
16 small existing permitted Eubanks Road landfill site.
17 Clarifying questions of the County Commissioners were answered by staff.
18 Commissioner Gordon said that she is concerned that two of these sites are parks and
19 that extensive clearing would have to be done.
20 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director Dave
21 Stancil said that on the Millhouse Road Park there is not a master plan or conceptual plan and
22 the proposed areas to be cleared are ones that would have been cleared eventually. On the
23 NE District Park, this area was identified as being used for something such as this along with
24 the park site.
25 Commissioner McKee said that the Millhouse site is two small tracts of three acres each
26 and these are not large areas. He said that it would be put back after it was used and he does
27 not have any problems with this. This is just planning ahead for something in the event of an
28 emergency.
29 Commissioner Price said that she was concerned about the conservation easement site
30 and she wants to respect the owner's wishes of not having any solid waste on the site.
31 Chair Jacobs said that the public should be confident that this would be done in the
32 most environmentally friendly manner.
33 Chair Jacobs said that the Board needs to start discussions about a conceptual plan for
34 the Millhouse Road Park.
35 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
36 1) Endorse Site B - Future Northeast District Park site (5.28 acres) and Site C — Future
37 Millhouse Road Park (expanded) site (approx. 14.9 acres) for inclusion in the Orange County
38 Emergency Management Plan as temporary emergency storm debris management sites and
39 authorize staff to proceed to obtain state permits for the sites; and 2) authorize the Manager to
40 inquire with the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) as to whether TLC would be amenable to
41 modifying the current conservation easement to allow use of the larger northern area of Site B -
42 Future Northeast District Park property as a temporary emergency storm debris management
43 site. These emergency sites would not be used longer than 6 months.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
17
1 b. Support for Hillsborough to Clayton Segment of the NC Mountains-to-Sea
2 Trail
3 The Board received an update on the progress of establishing a continuous section of
4 the NC Mountains-to-Sea State Trail from Hillsborough to Clayton (Wake County) and offered
5 guidance as desired.
6 DEAPR Director Dave Stancil said that this segment is from Hillsborough to the east.
7 He introduced Kate Dixon, Executive Director of the Friends of the Mountains to Sea Trail.
8 Kate Dixon, Executive Director of the Friends of the Mountains to Sea Trail, said that
9 this trail is part of the state parks system. She made reference to the maps at the County
10 Commissioners' places. She said that this is multi-governmental effort and it was proposed
11 years ago, but did not take off until about 10 years ago. She said that the green area is the trail
12 and the red on the map is where the trail is envisioned to go. She said that there is a lot of
13 progress being made on the trail in our area. When the trail comes together from Hillsborough
14 to Clayton there will be 150 miles of trail system. Hillsborough is working on a river walk, which
15 will also be part of the MTST. She made reference to the draft resolution and said that there
16 are gaps in the trail system within the Eno River State Park and this resolution is urging the N.
17 C. Division of State Parks to make closing these gaps a high priority. She introduced Robin
18 Jacobs of the Eno River Association.
19 Robin Jacobs said that the Eno River Association is excited about the MTST because
20 the association has been maintaining a lot of the trail within the park. She said that these gaps
21 in the trails within the park are a high priority. She said that it would help for the County
22 Commissioners to express support for this.
23 Commissioner McKee noted that the first page of the abstract that this action has
24 nothing to do with the planning corridor along the Bingham Township.
25 Commissioner Gordon asked what it would take to close the gaps.
26 Kate Dixon said that it would involve land acquisition and a road.
27 Commissioner Gordon noted that there is no financial impact associated with this item
28 for Orange County.
29 Commissioner McKee made reference to the sections of private landowners and asked
30 if there was intent to use imminent domain if negotiations break down and Kate Dixon said no.
31
32
33 RES-2012-115
34 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
35
36 Resolution Urging the North Carolina Division of State Parks To Make Closing the
37 Mountains-to-Sea Trail Gaps Within the Eno River State Park One of its Highest Priorities
38
39 WHEREAS, North Carolina's Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) runs 1,000 miles from the Great
40 Smoky Mountains to the Outer Banks to showcase North Carolina's natural, rural and cultural
41 features; and
42
43 WHEREAS, the MST is a unit of the State Park System created and maintained in partnership
44 with local, state and federal governments and citizen groups; and
45
46 WHEREAS, the existing and planned route of the MST from the Town of Hillsborough east
47 follows the Eno River to Falls Lake and the Neuse River; and
48
49 WHEREAS, the MST will stretch continuously for 150 miles between the Town of Hillsborough
50 and the Town of Clayton when it is complete; and
18
1
2 WHEREAS, all of the land for the MST in Durham and Wake counties and in Clayton from the
3 Wake county line to Sam's Branch has been acquired and construction is expected to be
4 complete by the end of 2013; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough and Classical American Homes are now building a
7 Riverwalk along the Eno River that is part of the MST; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the only missing links in the trail route between Clayton and Hillsborough are in
10 Orange County within the area identified for acquisition within the master plan for the Eno River
11 State Park; and
12
13 WHEREAS, Orange County is eager to see completion of a 150-mile continuous stretch of the
14 MST from Clayton to Hillsborough;
15
16 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
17 urges the NC Division of State Parks to make closing the gaps within the trail in Eno River State
18 Park one of its highest priorities.
19
20 This the 11th Day of December 2012.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
23 adopt the proposed resolution — Urging the North Carolina Division of State Parks to Make
24 Closing the Mountains-to-Sea Trail Gaps Within the Eno River State Park One of its Highest
25 Priorities.
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 c. Approval of the Establishment of Three (3) New Fire Service Districts to
29 Improve Property Insurance Ratings and Lower Homeowners' Insurance Costs
30 The Board considered approving the establishment of three (3) new Fire Service
31 Districts to improve insurance rating, improve fire coverage, and lower insurance costs for
32 property owners outside of six (6) road miles from the nearest station in the existing Southern
33 Triangle Fire District.
34 Michael Talbert said that this is the next step from the November 13th meeting regarding
35 setting up a fire service district. Since November 13th, the Town of Chapel Hill has met and
36 directed staff to proceed. It will be back on the Town of Chapel Hill agenda in January. The
37 Town of Carrboro approved moving forward with modifying the existing fire service district. The
38 action tonight will lead to other actions. The North Chatham Fire Department Board of
39 Directors has to approve this, the State Fire Marshal's Office will have to approve the maps,
40 there will be a public hearing in January, and if everyone approves then it will move forward.
41 Michael Talbert gave some background for the new County Commissioners. He made
42 reference to the maps and showed the old North Chatham fire district. For the South Orange
43 and the other districts, everyone's taxes will go up to make this happen. For North Chatham,
44 the rate will be 8.8 cents. For the Greater Chapel Hill district, there will be a tax rate of 10
45 cents.
46 The recommendation is to approve the establishment of the three new Fire Service
47 Districts and instruct staff to proceed with the additional steps needed to establish the three
48 new Fire Service Districts before July 1, 2013.
49 Frank Clifton said that the decision will depend on the Town of Chapel Hill if they agree
50 on the proposal.
19
1 Commissioner McKee said that the residents in this area will see no change in the
2 actual service provision.
3 Commissioner Rich asked why this would be approved without Chapel Hill's approval.
4 Michael Talbert said that there is only one meeting in January in order to have a public
5 hearing and execute this before February 1St
6 Commissioner McKee said that without all of the entities willing to participate, this plan
7 will fall apart. He said that there are not many other options available for the 112 homeowners
8 that are experiencing very high insurance rates and with the possibility of having no fire
9 insurance.
10 Chair Jacobs said that annexation will probably come up at the public hearing and the
11 County Attorney may need to report on the new changes to the annexation process.
12 Commissioner Gordon made reference to Attachments 6 and 12 and asked what parts
13 are being removed besides the area in yellow.
14 Commissioner McKee suggested looking at Attachment 9.
15 Michael Talbert pointed out these areas on the map. He said that if Chapel Hill says
16 that the 112 has to be annexed or they will not be serviced, then the plan falls apart.
17 Commissioner Gordon said that the approval should be of the intent to set up these
18 districts.
19 Michael Talbert said that the February 1st deadline is from the state and if all falls apart,
20 they have new drafts of contracts to fall back on.
21 Michael Talbert said that the intent is to make the new fire insurance district for North
22 Chatham one in the same with the fire service district.
23 John Roberts said that the fire protection district does not go away. All this will do, if a
24 fire service district is created, is bypass the fire protection district. He said that the language
25 does not matter because the service district is not created until the Board of County
26 Commissioners adopts a resolution and holds a public hearing prior to the adoption of the
27 resolution.
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
29 adopt the Manager's recommendation to express its intent to establish three (3) new Fire
30 Service Districts and instruct staff to proceed with the additional steps needed to establish
31 these districts before July 1, 2013; without yet establishing these districts.
32 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the last clause was really needed, "without yet
33 establishing these districts."
34 Commissioner Gordon said that if it can be done this way, then it is fine. She agreed to
35 take out "without yet establishing these districts."
36 Commissioner McKee agreed.
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 8. Reports-NONE
40
41 9. County Manager's Report
42 Frank Clifton said that the County's Social Services operates the Toy Chest this time of
43 year for families in need. He encouraged everyone to contact Social Services to help with this.
44
45 10. County Attorney's Report
46 John Roberts reminded everyone that Social Services also does the Toys for Tots
47 program.
48
49 11. Appointments
50 a. Orange County Commission for the Environment—Appointment
20
1 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Commission for
2 the Environment.
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
4 appoint Mr. David Neal to the Orange County Commission for the Environment with a term
5 expiring December 31, 2015.
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 b. Triangle Transit Special Tax Board —Appointments
9 The Board considered making appointments to the Triangle Transit Special Tax Board.
10 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
11 appoint Commissioner Pelissier to the Triangle Transit Special Tax Board.
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
14 appoint Commissioner Gordon to the Triangle Transit Tax Board.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Discussion ensued as to whether or not Commissioner Pelissier could serve on this
18 board since she is already the Orange County representative to Triangle Transit. If for some
19 reason she could not serve, the Board, on a motion by Commissioner Rich, seconded by
20 Commissioner Dorosin, voted unanimously to appoint Commissioner Price to the Triangle
21 Transit Special Tax Board.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 The Clerk was asked to contact Triangle Transit for the eligibility requirements for this
25 board and to provide this information to the Board.
26
27 c. Designation of Voting Delegate for All NCACC and NACo Meetings for
28 Calendar Year December 1, 2012-2013
29 The Board considered making appointments for delegates to NCACC and NACo.
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
31 nominate Commissioner Price as the Voting Delegate for All NCACC and NACo Meetings for
32 Calendar Year December 1, 2012-2013.
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 Chair Jacobs said that two Commissioners wanted to do this and two have agreed to
36 alternate years. Commissioner Price will do 2013 and Commissioner Rich will do 2014.
37
38 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
39 Commissioner Gordon distributed a handout about an accident on Mt. Carmel Church
40 Road and Bennett Road. She made reference to the letter and said that the letter is urging that
41 something be done at this intersection because there have been multiple accidents there.
42 Commissioner Rich said that she followed up with Roger Stancil and what NCDOT will
43 be doing here. She said that NCDOT is scheduled to receive recommendations next month.
44 She suggested getting these recommendations.
45 Chair Jacobs made reference to the front page story in the Raleigh News and Observer
46 about a bridge in Orange County and NC 751 that has seen at least one fatal accident and
47 several other accidents since 2007. He suggested seeing where this stands in NCDOT
48 priorities.
49 Chair Jacobs said that by the time the County Commissioners can reconvene and hold a
50 public hearing to review the legislative agenda, the legislature will already be in session.
21
1 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that she heard from Representative lnsko that for
2 governmental entities the deadline is March 3rd
3 Greg Wilder said that in past years the representatives have been appointed before the
4 holiday break.
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
6 add this appointment to the agenda.
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 Chair Jacobs asked who would like to serve on the Legislative Issues Work Group and
10 Commissioner Dorosin volunteered.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
13 nominate Commissioner McKee as the other legislative representative.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners received an email from Triangle J
17 Council of Governments regarding some issues about changing the way in which North
18 Carolina levies taxation.
19 Chair Jacobs said that the retreat committee met again and they hope to review the
20 notes to get to the Board by the end of the year.
21 Chair Jacobs said that they are hoping to reestablish the Chair/Vice-Chair/Manager to
22 meet with their counterparts, starting with Durham County, regarding proposed agenda items
23 for Board of County Commissioners to submit.
24 Chair Jacobs congratulated other retirees in the County - Charles Blackwood from the
25 Sheriff's Department and Tommy Jones from the Orange Grove Fire Department.
26
27 13. Information Items
28
29 • December 3, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
30 • Tax Collector's Report for Period Ending November 30, 2012
31 • Update on Outside Bookdrop at Orange County Library
32 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request from Commissioner Earl McKee Suggesting the
33 Board Recognize Local Athletic Teams for Advancement in Recent Local/State/National
34 Championships
35 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request from Commissioner Alice Gordon Suggesting the
36 Board Review/Revise the 2013 Meeting Calendar
37
38 14. Closed Session -NONE
39
40 15. Adjournment
41 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
42 adjourn the meeting at 10:17 PM.
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Barry Jacobs, Chair
46
47 Donna S. Baker, CMC
48 Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 2
2 DRAFT
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 January 24, 2013
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday,
10 January 24, 2103 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
17 Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members
18 will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25 The Chair went through the items at the County Commissioners' places:
26
27 - Blue sheet—for item 7-a, Review of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
28 Force
29 - Yellow sheet— also for item 7-a
30 - White sheet— PowerPoint for item 6-d, Unified Development Ordinance Text
31 Amendments — Outdoor Lighting — Public Hearing Closure and Action
32
33 PUBLIC CHARGE
34
35 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
36
37 2. Public Comments
38 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
39 Don 0' Leary said that the President has committed an act of war against Orange
40 County regarding Article 21 of ICLEI. He said that this is a conspiracy. He made
41 reference to his website: www.ocnc.weeblv.com. He said that he is not trying to scare or
42 threaten, but he is trying to warn people.
43
44 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
45 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
46 below.)
47
48 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
2
1 Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners have done a lot of work on advisory
2 boards and there was discussion about several things. She asked that when individuals leave
3 advisory boards because of expired terms that the Chair writes a thank you letter.
4 Also, she would like to have a different application process for the Planning Board,
5 Equalization and Review, Board of Adjustment, and OWASA. These applications need to be
6 more thorough.
7 Chair Jacobs said that the Chair could have a letter sent to people who finish their terms
8 without having it brought back to the Chair and the Vice-Chair. The second issue will be
9 referred to the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Manager.
10
11 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
12
13 a. Proclamation Recognizing UNC Women's Soccer 2012 NCAA
14 Championship
15 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the UNC women's soccer team for
16 winning the 2012 NCAA Division I Women's Soccer National Championship and authorizing the
17 Chair to sign.
18 Chair Jacobs recognized UNC Women's Soccer Coach Anson Dorrance and the
19 resolution honoring them.
20
21 Commissioner Rich read the proclamation:
22
23 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
24
25 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON
26 UNC WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM WINNING THE
27 2012 NCAA SOCCER NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
28
29
30 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2012, the University of North Carolina women's soccer team
31 captured the NCAA Division I Women's Soccer National Championship; and,
32
33 WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Anson Dorrance, a member of the National
34 Soccer Hall of Fame, UNC earned its 21st NCAA title, its 22nd national title overall
35 since 1981; and,
36
37 WHEREAS, the top-ranked Tar Heels completed the season undefeated in their final six games
38 to finish with a 15-5-3 record; and,
39
40 WHEREAS, by this 2012 victory, in a time when collegiate soccer has reached parity, UNC
41 women's soccer continues to perform at the forefront of the sport; and,
42
43 WHEREAS, UNC women's soccer has become legendary in the world of soccer, with many of
44 its graduates representing the United States in the Olympics since women's
45 soccer became an Olympic sport in 1996; and,
46
47 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Tar Heels have
48 brought honor upon themselves, the University of North Carolina, Orange County
49 and the State of North Carolina;
50
3
1
2 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
3 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the University of North Carolina
4 women's soccer team, for the Tar Heels' outstanding achievement, and for their
5 inspiration to youth across the nation through their dedication, teamwork, and
6 athletic prowess.
7
8
9 This the twenty-fourth day of January 2013.
10
11 Anson Dorrance thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their commitment to
12 soccer in Orange County and introduced members from his team.
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
14 adopt the proclamation recognizing the UNC women's soccer team for winning the 2012 NCAA
15 Division I Women's Soccer National Championship and authorize the Chair to sign.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 b. Proclamation Recognizing East Chapel Hill High School Field Hockey Team
19 2012 State Championship
20 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the East Chapel Hill High School's
21 Field Hockey Team winning the 2012 State Championship and authorizing the Chair to sign.
22
23 Commissioner Gordon read the proclamation.
24
25 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
26
27 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON
28 EAST CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL'S FIELD HOCKEY TEAM WINNING THE
29 2012 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
30
31
32 WHEREAS, on November 10, 2012, the East Chapel Hill High School's Field Hockey Team
33 captured the N. C. High School Field Hockey Association's State Championship;
34 and,
35
36 WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Susan Taylor, the East Chapel Hill High
37 School's Field Hockey Team earned its fifth consecutive state title; and,
38
39 WHEREAS, the Wildcats completed the season without a loss, finishing with a 19-0-1 record;
40 and,
41
42 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Wildcats have
43 brought honor upon themselves, East Chapel Hill High School, the Chapel Hill /
44 Carrboro School District and Orange County;
45
46
47 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
48 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the East Chapel Hill High
49 School Field Hockey Team, for the Wildcats' outstanding achievement, and their
4
1 inspiration to youth across North Carolina through their dedication, teamwork, and
2 athletic prowess.
3
4 This the twenty-fourth day of January 2013.
5
6 Coach Susan Taylor thanked the Board of County Commissioners for this honor. She
7 said this was one of the best seasons they have ever had. She introduced her team members.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
10 adopt the proclamation recognizing the East Chapel Hill High School's Field Hockey Team
11 winning the 2012 State Championship and authorize the Chair to sign.
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 c. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board Update Presentation
15 The Board received a brief presentation from Tony DuBois, General Manager of the
16 Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, and provided feedback.
17 General Manager Tony DuBois said that the Orange County ABC board is a legal sub-
18 division of the state and Commissioner McKee is the liaison. The mission statement is to serve
19 the County responsibly and never sell to anyone under the age of 21. He reviewed the annual
20 report information. The next plan is to move the office and warehouse location from US 70 to a
21 location on Valley Forge Road. Construction started this week with the remodel of the
22 Employment Security Office.
23 ABC Finance Director Ron McCoy said that this past year was historical for revenues in
24 their business, and sales in Orange County so far this year are very high. He said that the new
25 warehouse will allow them to become more efficient and profitable. He said that the board has
26 increased its contributions to the County and law enforcement by $30,000 for a total of
27 $650,000, which is a 4.8% increase over the previous year and exceeds the mandated
28 requirements set forth by the General Assembly. To support law enforcement, the board is
29 distributing $4,500 to the Town of Hillsborough Police; $13,300 to the Town of Carrboro Police;
30 $18,445 to the Town of Chapel Hill Police; and $88,755 to the Orange County Sheriff's
31 Department. To support alcohol education in schools, the board has given $38,000 to the
32 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools and $35,000 to the Orange County Schools. To support
33 community outreach, the board has granted $28,000 to El Futuro; $11,000 to Carpe Diem;
34 $10,000 to the Orange County Drug Court; and $8,000 to Orange Partnership for Mental
35 Health.
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the plan for the old warehouse and it was answered
37 that it was for sale.
38
39 d. Affordable Housing Performance Report
40 Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes presented this annual
41 report/calendar on behalf of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. During the last fiscal year,
42 they spent $472,522 in public dollars for affordable housing.
43
44 Chair Jacobs recognized Representative Valerie Foushee, who was in attendance.
45
46 e. Human Relations Month Proclamation
47 The Board considered officially proclaiming the month of February as "Human Relations
48 Month" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign the proclamation.
49 Human Relations Commission Member Joe Pochek read the proclamation:
50
5
1
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3
4 PROCLAMATION
5
6 HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH
7
8 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that in order to
9 achieve justice and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to
10 create an atmosphere where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated, and
11 therefore continue to promote the ideal of social justice for all; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has diligently served
14 Orange County since 1995 and remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity
15 and understanding throughout the community; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's
18 Civil Rights Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual's race,
19 color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, veteran status and familial status; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange
22 County residents, as individuals, to take a stand against social injustice and continue to work
23 together to make freedom, justice, and equal opportunity available for all; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made thus far
26 towards equality and leading the challenge for equal opportunity using all the means at our
27 disposal;
28
29 NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
30 February 2013 as "HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH" in Orange County and challenge our
31 residents to promote the ideology of social justice for all by celebrating and encouraging
32 multiculturalism in the County and encouraging all residents to embrace diversity in Orange
33 County.
34
35 This the 24th day of January, 2013.
36
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
39 adopt the proclamation officially proclaiming the month of February as "Human Relations
40 Month" in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Commissioner Price recognized subcommittee members that have been participating in
44 the 150th year of the Emancipation Proclamation.
45
46 f. Voluntary Agricultural District Designation for Multiple Farms — Rogers
47 (Three Farms/Landowners); Shambley; and Lackey
48 The Board considered applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying
49 farmland within the Cedar Grove, Buckhorn, and Caldwell voluntary agricultural district, and
6
1 enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) program and
2 authorize the Chair to sign the associated documents.
3 Gail Hughes with the Soil and Water Conservation Office from the Department of
4 Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, made a PowerPoint presentation.
5
6 Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and
7 Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) Program
8
9 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program
10 Benefits of Agricultural Districts
11 ➢ Provides a voluntary way to support the conservation of rural communities;
12 ➢ Makes public more aware of the local agricultural community;
13 ➢ Provides fresh food, fiber, and other agricultural products to Orange County residents
14 and visitors;
15 ➢ Notice of agricultural district is recorded at County Land Records office; therefore, the
16 landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits.
17 ➢ Provides increase in wildlife habitat, supports clean air and water quality.
18
19 The Rogers' Family Farms
20 Cedar Grove Voluntary Agricultural District - Carr Community
21 William "Larry" and Yvonne Rogers:
22 ➢ Six parcels of land totaling 386.56 acres;
23 ➢ Includes poultry and beef cattle operation;
24 ➢ Cropland includes: soybeans, wheat and grains, hay/grassland;
25 ➢ Includes pasture and managed forestry/woodland
26 William "Billy" and Sonya Rogers:
27 ➢ One parcel of land totaling 18.67 acres
28 ➢ Cropland: soybeans and wheat/grain crops
29 Linwood "L.J." and Nancy Rogers:
30 ➢ Four parcels of land totaling 376.46 acres
31 ➢ Cropland includes: soybeans, tobacco, wheat/grains, hay/grassland
32 ➢ Includes managed forestry/woodland
33 Rogers Farm total acres in VAD = 781.69 acres
34
35 Shambley Dairy Farm
36 Morris and Shirley Shambley
37 ➢ Buckhorn Voluntary Agricultural District
38 ➢ Three parcels of land totaling 260.58 acres
39 ➢ Awarded State Soil and Water Conservation Farm Family of the Year in 1998;
40 ➢ Former dairy farm, currently raises beef cattle;
41 ➢ Cropland includes: soybeans, corn, wheat/grain crops, hay/grassland;
42 ➢ Farmland also includes pasture and managed forest/woodland
43
7
1 Beaver Creek Farm
2 Mike and Robin Lackey
3 ➢ Caldwell Agricultural District
4 ➢ Two parcels of land totaling 61.3 acres
5 ➢ Farm operation includes swine and beef cattle
6 ➢ Cropland includes: hay/grassland and pastures
7 ➢ Farm also includes managed forest/woodland
8 VAD/EVAD program:
9 ➢ Currently 17 farms in the program = 3249 acres
10 Consideration for VAD program approval:
11 ➢ Five farms totaling 1104 acres (rounded)
12 ➢ Will increase total to 4353 acres in VAD/EVAD program
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
15 certify the five farm properties noted above totaling 1,103.57 qualifying farmland, designate
16 them as a Voluntary Agricultural District farms within the Cedar Grove, Buckhorn, and Caldwell
17 Agricultural Districts, and authorize the Chair to sign the associated documents.
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 g_ Captain John S. Pope Farm National Reciister Nomination
21 The Board considered the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission's
22 recommendation that the Captain John S. Pope Farm be submitted for listing in the National
23 Register of Historic Places and authorizing the Chair to sign the associated letter.
24 Rich Shaw Land Conservation Manager introduced a new staff member; Cultural
25 Resources Coordinator Peter Sandbeck.
26 Peter Sandbeck said that he was appearing on behalf of the Historic Preservation
27 Commission. He said that Mr. Pope was unable to be there tonight. He said that this is a
28 working farm, but it is significant. It is also a century farm and has been operated by the same
29 family for over 100 years. He made a PowerPoint presentation of pictures. This farm is located
30 on Efland-Cedar Grove Road.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
33 approve the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation that the
34 Captain John S. Pope Farm be submitted for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
35 and authorize the Chair to sign the associated letter.
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 5. Consent Acienda
39 A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve
40 those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 a. Minutes
45 The Board approved the minutes from October 16, 25 and November 19, 2012, as submitted by
46 the Clerk to the Board.
8
1 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
2 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
3 property tax values for seventy-eight (78) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of
4 revenue, in accordance with the NCGS.
5 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
6 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
7 values for eighty-three (83) taxpayer requests that will result in a reduction of revenue, in
8 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
9 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
10 The Board approved sixteen (16) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad
11 valorem taxation for the 2012 tax year.
12 e. Adjustment to Salary Range Minimums
13 The Board approved a two percent (2%) increase in all salary range minimums to correspond to
14 the two percent (2%) Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase authorized in the approved FY
15 2012-13 budget effective July 1, 2012.
16 f. Position Establishment Request - .50 Medical Office Assistant Position
17 The Board approved the reclassification of a vacant 1.0 full time equivalent (FTE) Public Health
18 Nurse II (PHN II) position into 1.5 FTE Medical Office Assistant (MOA) positions, allowing the
19 1.5 FTE MOA positions to provide improved front desk and clinic support in handling increased
20 patients and help promote more efficient service delivery.
21 9_ Performance Agreement with Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
22 The Board approved the 2012-2013 performance agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill
23 and the Visitors Bureau and authorized the Manager to sign.
24 h. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment#6
25 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2012-13
26 for Visitor's Bureau; Library; Emergency Services; Department on Aging; Department on
27 Environment, Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation (DEAPR); and Social Services.
28 i. Proposal for 9-1-1 Recorder Replacement/ Upgrade and Approval of Budget
29 Amendment #6-A
30 The Board approved the replacement of the current 9-1-1 recorder, and approved Budget
31 Amendment#6-A.
32 L Extension of Audit Services and Contract with Martin Starnes & Associates, CPAs,
33 P.A.
34 The Board approved the extension of the contract with Martin Starnes & Associates, CPAS,
35 P.A. of Hickory, North Carolina to conduct auditing services for Orange County in the amount of
36 $85,800, and authorize the Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the Board pending staff
37 and Attorney review.
38 k. NC State Firemen's and Rescue Squad Annual Certification Roster
39 The Board approved the certification requirements for the Assistant Fire Marshals to participate
40 in the North Carolina State Firemen's Association for the year 2013 and authorized the Chair to
41 sign.
42 I. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
43 The Board considered three changes in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar
44 for 2013 as follows:
45 - Changing the BOCC Regular meeting from December 17, 2013 TO December 10,
46 2013, and this meeting will be held at the Southern Human Services Center, 2501
47 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, N.C.
48 - Changing the location of the February 12, 2013 BOCC work session FROM
49 Southern Human Services Center TO the Link Government Services Center, 200
50 South Cameron St., Hillsborough
9
1
2 Staff is requesting this change because the agenda for the Work Session will include the
3 discussion of four County facilities located in Hillsborough. First, the opportunity to
4 renovate the Whitted Building for a Board Meeting Room/Arts Performance Place.
5 Second, the possibility of a stand-alone BOCC meeting facility at the current Government
6 Services Annex location. Third, the possible relocation of the Board of Elections to the Link
7 Government Services Center. Fourth, planned maintenance and repair expenditures for
8 Fiscal Year 2013/2014 at the Environment and Agriculture Center and alternatives for the
9 highest and best use of the facility. All Board members have not likely seen all of these
10 facilities. Asset Management Services would like to provide the opportunity for a tour of the
11 facilities before the scheduled work session for new or current Board members that would
12 like to see these facilities before the Work Session. Decisions regarding the future uses of
13 these facilities will impact the 2013-18 Capital Investment Plan.
14 - Changing the March 12, 2013 BOCC Work Session FROM Link Government
15 Services Center TO Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
16 Chapel Hill (since the February 12, 2013 Work Session would be moved from
17 Southern Human Services Center to Link Government Services Center and staff
18 tries to balance the number of meetings between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough).
19 -
20 m. Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award
21 The Board accepted an Emergency Solutions Grant award of$162,673 from the State of North
22 Carolina, and authorized the execution of the associated State Contract and a sub-recipient
23 contract with the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service by the County Manager upon contract
24 review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.
25 n. Nicotine Replacement Therapy
26 The Board approved the appropriation of$25,000 from the County's unassigned General Fund
27 fund balance to support this five-month pilot project, with the understanding that staff will
28 evaluate results from the pilot program and determine if additional funding to support the
29 program in FY 2013-2014 is warranted. If approved, staff will present a budget amendment to
30 appropriate the funds at an upcoming Board meeting.
31 o. McGowan Creek Interceptor Project— Engineering Contract Award
32 The Board awarded the engineering contract to McGill Associates of Hickory, NC in the amount
33 of$94,200 for the design, permitting, bid management and construction phase management of
34 the McGowan Creek Interceptor project; approved funding the project's design costs and other
35 costs within budget out of County funds until the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan process is
36 finalized; and authorized the Chair to sign the contract on behalf of the Board of County
37 Commissioners, subject to final review by the County Attorney.
38
39 6. Public Hearings
40 a. Draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
41 The Board held a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
42 for Orange County's rural areas.
43
44 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri said that this is for the rural areas of
45 Orange County. He introduced Sarah Lee from NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch.
46 Sarah Lee made a PowerPoint presentation.
47
48 Orange County Draft
49 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
10
1
2 *Rural Area*
3 • NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
4 • January 24, 2013
5 • Public Hearing
6 • Overview
7 • Review of a Comprehensive Transportation Plan
8 • Draft maps and recommendations
9 • Input provided and next steps
10 • MPO / RPO Areas
11
12 What is a CTP?
13 (Comprehensive _Transportation Plan)
14 • 4 maps and cover sheet with supporting documentation
15 • Long-range (25-30 years), multi-modal, fiscally unconstrained (no funding or priorities)
16 — Highway, Public Transportation, Rail, Bicycle, Pedestrian
17 • Replaces previous thoroughfare plans
18 • Provides a "needs list" for year 2035 (high-level planning)
19 • Developed by steering committee with representation from NCDOT, Orange County
20 planning, OUTBoard, and Triangle Area RPO
21 — Coordination with surrounding MPOs and counties
22 • Designed to be easily updated in order to remain relevant
23
24 Why Develop a CTP?
25 • It's the law— GS 136-66.2
26 • Recommendations address future travel demand — not just for vehicles, but for all
27 modes
28 — Ensures that data and projections are in place to support projects
29 — Informs future land use planning and corridor protection
30 • Documentation is customer-friendly and easy to update
31 • A well-informed public
32 — Public workshops are included
33 — Local officials are regularly updated
34 — Plans available on NCDOT website
35
36 Public Transportation and Rail Map
37 - References "The Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County"
38 - Intended to be updated
39
40 Bicycle Map
41 - Incorporates County's bicycle plan and connections to DCHC recommendations
42 - Includes SPOT projects
43
44 Pedestrian Map
45 - Incorporates County pedestrian plan that is currently under development
11
1
2 Previous Input on Recommendations
3 • Planning Board, September 2011
4 • Public drop-in session, September 2011
5 • Public comment website, open through September 26
6 • Committee meeting, September 21
7 - Reviewed input and finalized draft recommendations for presentation to BOCC in
8 October 2011
9 • Orange County Planning staff review of Technical Report and edits incorporated by
10 NCDOT staff, December 2012
11
12 Addressing Input on Recommendations
13 October 2011 BOCC
14 • Discussion of county bicycle plan being recreational, and adding more commuter-based
15 routes, while being mindful of traffic and safety
16 - Coordination by Orange County staff with draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropoliton
17 Transportation Plan (MTP) resulted in minor deletions and additions to CTP
18 bicycle recommendations
19 - Verbiage added to Chapter 1 (p. 1-15) of report to reflect combined recreational
20 and commuting opportunities
21 • Discussion of park and ride lots regarding traffic analysis and specifics for the lots
22 - Verbiage added to Chapter 2 (p. 11-6) of report to clarify that specific information
23 would be developed at a later date, and that the CTP identifies the general areas
24 of anticipated need
25 • Verbiage added to report in Chapter 2 (P. 11-1 and 11-3/4) to reflect NCDOT project
26 implementation process and elaborate on project proposal details with regards to NC 86
27 expressway recommendation
28
29 Next Steps
30 • OUTBoard recommendation in February
31 • Adoption of 5 maps by Orange County in March
32 • Endorsement of 5 maps by TARPO
33 • Adoption of 5 maps by NCDOT
34 • Technical report review by external contacts
35 - Orange County, multiple NCDOT contacts, TARPO
36 • Technical report finalized by NCDOT and distributed
37 - Consideration of entire report by Orange County if desired
38 • Thank you! Questions?
39 Orange County CTP Website:
40 http://www.ncdot.org/-tpb/planning/orangecounty.html
41 Sarah E. Lee Scott Walston
42 Transportation Engineer Triangle Unit Supervisor
43 NCDOT TPB NCDOT TPB
12
1 (919) 707-0946 (919) 707-0941
2 selee @ncdot.gov swalston @ncdot.gov
3 Tom Altieri Matt Day
4 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Senior Planner
5 Orange County Triangle Area RPO
6 (919) 245-2579 (919) 558-9397
7 taltieri @co.orange.nc.us mday @tjcog.org
8
9 More info at www.ncdot.org/-tpb
10
11 Manager Recommendation
12 1. Receive the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
13 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public and BOCC comment on the proposed
14 Plan.
15 3. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard with a request that a recommendation be returned to
16 the BOCC in time for the March 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting.
17 4. Adjourn the public hearing until March 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
18 OUTBoard's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
19
20
21 In answer to questions about park and ride lots, it was answered that the park and ride
22 lots are consistent with the bus and rail investment plan. Regarding funding, the CTP does not
23 address this aspect. It is a long-range vision.
24
25 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 92 and asked if these were adopted
26 definitions of facilities. Sarah Lee said that these are standardized definitions that DOT uses.
27 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 101 and said that there should be some
28 kind of"key" for these definitions on this page.
29 Sarah Lee said that on page 100 it lists out the various abbreviations.
30 Commissioner Gordon asked what kind of input is needed from the County
31 Commissioners.
32 Sarah Lee said that at this point they would like the agreement on the proposals when it
33 comes back in March.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked for an explanation of how the CTP and the transportation
35 plan for the County would work together.
36 Tom Altieri said that the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan does address the
37 entire county. Part of this has to do with the organizational structure of transportation.
38 Commissioner McKee said that it is important to keep in mind that these various plans
39 have different funding sources and are controlled by different entities. While they overlap, they
40 do not necessarily work that close together. He said that they are basically talking about two
41 very different transportation plans.
42
43
44
45 PUBLIC COMMENT:
46 Ed Flowers said that the County Commissioners need to address a current need. He is
47 a farmer in Hillsborough and he shared some concerns about transportation for the senior
13
1 population and it needs to be expanded. He said that seniors have physical issues such as
2 diabetes and hypertension, which require diuretics, and these people would be unable to ride a
3 bus for an hour because of the effects of the diuretics. He spoke in support of expanding the
4 transportation service for seniors.
5 Alex Castro, Jr. lives in Bingham Township and is the Vice-Chair of the Advisory Board
6 on Aging and a member of the OUTBoard. He said that he will speak about his own personal
7 opinions. He said that he has gathered much information on transportation and it concerns him
8 that the transportation planning involves two MPOs, six counties, and one RPO. He applauded
9 the Planning department for trying to track of all of this. He said that all of this is burdensome
10 on the staff. He thinks that there needs to be some consolidation in this area to deal with the
11 transportation. He agreed with Ed Flowers on the need for expansion of transportation service
12 for senior citizens.
13 Bonnie Hauser spoke about the controversy on the Mountains to Sea Trail running
14 through Bingham Township. She said that the State is looking at combining the Mountains to
15 Sea Trail with cycling trails in certain places. She asked if this might be an option in Bingham
16 Township.
17
18 Commissioner McKee said that this is a NCDOT plan but Orange County does not have
19 a lot of control of this plan. He assured the Board that the other counties involved have been
20 more than fair in the allocation of funding and the project, etc.
21 Chair Jacobs made reference to the first page of the abstract and said that the plan is
22 not fiscally constrained. He said that at this point this plan is not grounded in fiscal reality yet.
23 He said that his opinion is that NCDOT wants to make NC 86 a boulevard from Caswell County,
24 which is now a two-lane road. He said that this will be a bottleneck.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich
27 to:
28 1. Receive the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Attachment 4);
29 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public and BOCC comment on the proposed
30 Plan;
31 3. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard with a request that a recommendation be returned to
32 the BOCC in time for the March 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting; and
33 4. Adjourn the public hearing until March 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
34 OUTBoard's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 b. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and
39 Capital Grant Application for FY 2013/2014
40 The Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina Community
41 Transportation Program (CTP) grant application by Orange Public Transportation for FY 2013-
42 2014; considered approving the grant application that includes adopting a resolution authorizing
43 the applicant to enter into an agreement with North Carolina Department of Transportation; and
44 considered authorizing the County Attorney to complete the necessary certifications and
45 assurances.
46 Transportation Administrator Al Terry presented this item. He said that the certifications
47 of assurances that are normally attached to this have not come in from NCDOT yet.
48
49 PUBLIC COMMENT:
14
1 Alex Castro said that Orange County should support and fund OPT in any way possible.
2 If Orange County can get a grant, then it should ask for it. He said that OPT needs to be
3 expanded on the capital side.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
5 1. Close the public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed grant application;
6 2. Approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2013-2014 in
7 the total amount of$185,605, with a local match of$27,841;
8 3. Authorize the County Attorney to complete the necessary certifications and assurances
9 which have been requested from NCDOT;
10 4. Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program
11 Resolution, and sign the annual certified statements of participation when they are
12 completed; and
13 5. Accept and budget the receipt of the CTP grant once awarded.
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin verified that the request is for money for administration and no
16 capital items.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 c. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text— Incorporate
21 Changes Suggested by MuniCode (UDO/Zoning 2012-15) - Public Hearing Closure and
22 Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)
23 The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, closed the public hearing,
24 and considered a decision on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Unified
25 Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate changes suggested by MuniCode, a corporation
26 retained by Orange County to codify the County's ordinances.
27 Planner Perdita Holtz said that these amendments were suggested by MuniCode. The
28 Planning Board considered these amendments and voted unanimously to recommend approval.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
31 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval;
32 2. Close the public hearing; and
33 3. Adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 2 which authorizes the text amendments.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 d. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments — Outdoor Lighting
38 (UDO/Zoning 2012-014) - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
39 Accepted)
40 The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, considered closing the
41 public hearing, and considered making a decision on Planning Director initiated text
42 amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) modifying outdoor lighting
43 regulations.
44 Planner Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation.
45
46
47 JANUARY 4, 2013
48 PUBLIC HEARING
49 AGENDA ITEM 6D:
50 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT— OUTDOOR LIGHTING
15
1 • PROCEDURAL NOTE:
2 The reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and
3 any additional written evidence submitted since the November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public
4 Hearing.
5 This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public. While the BOCC may ask
6 staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public shall not be
7 solicited.
8
9 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
10 • Clarify existing regulations.
11 • Add new definitions of light trespass, mercury vapor luminaire, light pollution, etc. to
12 Article 10 as recommended during Phase 1 of the UDO.
13 • Eliminate multiple definitions of the same term within Article 10 of the UDO.
14 • Address concerns expressed by Orange County Department of Environment Agriculture
15 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) over height restrictions for athletic field lights. Height on
16 athletic field lights has been raised from 80 to 100 feet in Urban areas and from 60 to 90
17 feet in Rural areas.
18
19 ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHT ISSUE:
20 • 2 poles aimed at same
21 • aiming point but note difference in impact of spill and glare
22 • on adjacent properties. Restricting mounting height
23 • aggravate, not improve, the impact of spill and glare light
24
25 PLANNING BOARD:
26 • Planning Board reviewed at its December 5, 2012 regular meeting.
27 • Voted to modify height limits on athletic field lights. 2 members voted to eliminate
28 regulation altogether.
29 • Voted unanimously to approve amendment package as contained in Attachment 2.
30
31 RECOMMENDATION:
32 The Manager recommends the Board:
33 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
34 2. Close the public hearing; and
35 3. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 2 which
36 authorizes the text amendments.
37
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
40 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
41 2. Close the public hearing; and
42 3. Adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 2 which authorizes the text amendments.
43
16
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 7. Regular Agenda
4 a. Review of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
5 The Board reviewed and discussed the outcomes from the Historic Rogers Road
6 Neighborhood Task Force and the future of the Task Force.
7 Michael Talbert presented this item and gave a summary of the process that started
8 about a year ago, including a brief history of the process.
9
10 Beginning in 1972 the landfill was opened by the Town of Chapel Hill and in
11 1999 Orange County assumed ownership and operation of the Eubanks Road Landfill. The
12 Historic Rogers Road Community has continued to cope with the Landfill for 40 years. The
13 Community is geographically split by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Orange County as
14 the current owner/operator of the Landfill is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to
15 the Historic Rogers Road Community.
16
17 On May 17, 2011 the Board received a request from the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
18 Association (RENA) recommending actions to mitigate the long and short term impacts of
19 Orange County's Landfill and Solid Waste operations on the health, safety and welfare of the
20 Historic Rogers Road — Eubanks Road Community.
21
22 On January 26, 2012 the Board and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer service
23 and a community center for the Historic Rogers Road Community. County and Town Attorneys
24 have concluded that utilization of Solid Waste reserves to extend sewer service to the Historic
25 Rogers Road Community is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes and could
26 subject the local governments to legal challenges. Therefore, funding for either the extension of
27 sewer services and/or a community center will need to come from the County's and Towns'
28 other general revenue sources.
29
30 On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the Creation of a
31 new Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force to address sewer service and a
32 community center and approved the Charge. The composition of the Task Force was to include
33 two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed
34 from the County; and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
35 Association.
36
37 The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make
38 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and
39 the Carrboro Board of Alderman for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and
40 the financial impact to the County& Towns, for the following:
41
42 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the previously
43 approved public water connections in the area.
44
45 2. A Neighborhood Community Center.
46
47 The Task force is also directed to:
48 a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of August,
49 2012 and;
50 b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012.
17
1
2 On December 6, 2012 the Assembly of Governments received an interim report from the
3 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and held a lengthy discussion on the
4 accomplishments of the Task Force. One of the recommendations from the Task Force was
5 that the Task Force continue to meet for an additional six months to address the Charge with
6 the original composition of the Task Force. Attachment 2 is an excerpt from the Draft Minutes
7 of the December 6, 2012 Assembly of Governments Meeting. Town Board Members and
8 County Commissioners voiced their opinions concerning the continuations of the Task Force
9 and the issues that are still unresolved. Since the meeting was a Work Session, no decisions
10 were made and the future of the Task Force was referred back to the Board of Commissioners.
11
12 The Chair instructed staff to solicit input from former Commissioners Valerie Foushee and Pam
13 Hemminger regarding the need for the Task Force to continue and their possible willingness to
14 continue to serve as a member of the Task Force. Both former Commissioners Foushee and
15 Hemminger believe that the work of the Task Force is not complete as Charged and would urge
16 the Board of Commissioners to continue the Task Force. Valerie Foushee does not think she
17 could an effective member of the Task Force at this time, but would continue to support the
18 Board in this effort in any way she can. Pam Hemminger indicated a willingness to continue.
19
20 Recommendations from the Task Force that have been acted on:
21 1. On September 6, 2012 Orange County approved the County's intent to moving forward
22 with a new "green" community center, work with RENA and Habitat for Humanity on the
23 design and implementation of the community center. Ask the town to contribute computers,
24 supplies, permitting costs, connection costs and the first 12 months of utilities toward this
25 project. Ask the towns to expedite the permitting process.
26
27 2. On September 18, 2012 the Town of Carrboro approved the Town's intention to contribute
28 not more than $900,000 for the Town's portion of the Community Center and cost of the
29 Sewer Project.
30
31 3. On October 16, 2013 the Board approved a Capital Project of$500,000 for a one-time
32 capital contribution for the Construction of a Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
33 Community Center.
34
35 4. On November 20, 2012 the Board approved a Budget Amendment of$150,000 of
36 additional funding for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Community Center,
37 increasing the total project budget to $650,000.
38
39 5. There was consensus at the Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012 that
40 the governing boards will continue to appropriate funds, as previously budgeted to
41 reimburse the Solid Waste fund for the purchase of the Greene Tract, for both a New
42 Community Center and Sewer Improvements. Funds budgeted in Fiscal 2012/2013 for the
43 Greene Tract are as follows; $90,549 for Orange County, $90,549 for The Town of Chapel
44 Hill and $29,524 for The Town of Carrboro. The governing boards are also encouraged to
45 locate other funding sources for a New Community Center and Sewer Improvements.
46
47 6. That the County and Town Managers continue to explore the creation of a County Utility
48 District for all property owners in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood that are not
49 currently served by a municipal water and sewer system and would benefit from the
50 installation of sewer infrastructure to serve the Rogers Road Neighborhood
18
1
2 Several questions to be answered:
3
4 1. Does the Task Force need to continue to function?
5
6 2. If so, who should be appointed to serve (several changes within the membership have
7 occurred due to changes in elected positions of the former members)?
8 Note: the Towns will also need to formalize their continued participation and representatives.
9
10 3. If the Task Force continues, does the Charge need to be modified and/or adefinitive time line
11 set for a final report from the Task Force.
12
13 4. Based upon recent input from legal Counsel from the Towns, does the Community Center
14 Project move forward as a `County Only' project or does the County await further input from the
15 Towns?
16
17 Chair Jacobs said that there are two letters from the public at their places: one from
18 Justice United and one from Council Member Lee Starrow with a petition.
19
20
21 PUBLIC COMMENT:
22
23 Tish Galu made reference to the letter from Justice United. She reiterated what the letter says.
24 She said that this is from the Strategy Team. She reiterated the importance of continuing the
25 task force and completing the charge, which is to provide sewer service in this area and
26 complete the community center.
27
28 January 16, 2013
29
30 Dear Orange County Commissioners:
31
32 On Thursday, December 6, many Justice United members attended the Assembly of
33 Governments meeting in great anticipation of affirmation of the resolutions adopted by the
34 Rogers Road Task Force. The Task Force has been working for six months to move forward
35 with fulfilling the last remaining items from the Mitigation Plan. We have been working with
36 RENA for four years to fulfill the promises made to the community.
37
38 The Task Force recommended that plans move forward with the community center construction
39 with costs not to exceed $700,000. Habitat will be providing the two lots and guidance with the
40 design of the structure. The County will lease the land to RENA who has prepared a business
41 plan for ongoing maintenance of the building and program development. What remains is
42 working out the lease agreements and memorandum of understanding before bidding can
43 begin and the money allocated.
44
45 The Task Force reported back to each jurisdiction during the six months to discuss how the
46 costs would be divided by the County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro with agreement that the Green
47 Track payments could continue with the same percentages currently in place to recoup the
48 funds for the community center and the sewer line costs. The sewer lines are the largest
49 expenditure and an agreement with the managers needs to be in place to move forward with
50 funding and to provide direction to OWASA. In addition, the cost of connecting the lines to
19
1 homes in the Rogers Road neighborhood must be determined otherwise we are not fulfilling the
2 purpose of the Mitigation Plan which is to provide water and sewer service to this neighborhood
3 that has lived with our garbage for the past 40 years and will continue for the next 30 years or
4 more.
5
6 The Task Force recommended that they remain in place for six more months to make sure that
7 the projects are moving forward as planned. The Task Force would then report back to each
8 jurisdiction the recommendation of the managers and lawyers once they have met and
9 determined the legal and monetary requirements.
10
11 There is no question that this is a complicated project. The most positive outcome of the
12 meeting on December 6 is that you, the Commissioners, understood the complexity and the
13 urgency of moving forward. We sincerely appreciate the leadership of Pam Hemminger and
14 Valerie Foushee on the Task Force and agree with the recommendation that the Task Force
15 remains in place for the sole purpose of assuring the Community Center and sewer plans are in
16 place. As you heard, Task Force leaders believe that this will take no longer than six months. If
17 possible, former Commissioners Hemminger and Foushee should be invited to act as the
18 County representatives to assure continuity and to maintain the timeline. We look forward to
19 your continued dedication to finally complete the mitigation plan and provide this community the
20 services they deserve.
21
22 On behalf of the Strategy Team of Justice United and Members of the Environmental Team,
23 Tish Galu, Strategy Team Chair
24
25 Margaret Misch read a prepared statement:
26 "I am Margaret Misch, a member of the Community Church of Chapel Hill Unitarian
27 Universalist and Women's International league for Peace and Freedom —Triangle Branch, two
28 groups in Orange County that have support the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association
29 (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER) at least since 2007.
30 I am here representing the Charles M. Jones Committee of the Community Church and
31 WI LPF to say we support the letter submitted by Chapel Hill Council Member Lee Storrow along
32 with Alderman Michelle Johnson to urge the Orange County Board of Commissioners to
33 continue the work of the Historic Rogers Road Task Force so that it can finish the work to
34 provide sewer and a community center to this area in the county that has been impacted by a
35 county landfill for 40 years.
36 I submit signatures on a copy of the Storrow-Johnson letter, signed by 40 members of
37 the Community Church in addition to those introduced by Lee Storrow. I urge the
38 Commissioners not let community center be held hostage while the arrangements for the sewer
39 lines are yet to be determined."
40 Chapel Hill Town Council Member Lee Storrow made reference to the Petition to
41 Maintain the Historic Rogers Road Task Force. He said that the Town Council supports the
42 continuance of the task force. The petition is shown below:
43
44 Dear Chair Jacobs and Orange County Commissioners:
45
46 As you are well aware, there have been many task forces, many elected officials, and
47 many hours spent on how to address the specific concern of water, sewer, and the impact of
48 the landfill on the Rogers Road Community. At the January 26, 2012 Assembly of
49 Governments meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town Boards
50 discussed the extension of sewer service and a community center for the Historic Rogers road
20
1 Neighborhood. There was significant discussion on January 26 regarding the creation of a task
2 force to address these issues. On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of
3 Commissioners authorized the creation of a new Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
4 Force to address sewer service and a community center. The composition of the Task Force
5 was to include two members appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members
6 appointed from the County; and two members appointed from the Rogers Eubanks
7 Neighborhood Association (RENA).
8 The charge of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force was to investigate
9 and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town
10 Council, and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen about how to proceed with neighborhood
11 improvements including funding sources and the financial impact to the County and Towns, for
12 the following:
13 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the
14 previously approved public water connections in the area.
15
16 2. A Neighborhood Community Center.
17
18 After the authorization of the task force, the task force had several meetings to work on
19 its outlined charge. The members of the task force have worked hard to come up with
20 recommendations to move us closer to a plan to provide sewer and a community center for the
21 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. In preparation for the Assembly of governments meeting
22 held on December 6, 2012, the task force compiled a final report and unanimously passed a
23 motion to support the continuation of the task force for an additional six months to give it more
24 time to complete the original charge. During the December 6th meeting, however, there were
25 varied opinions expressed about whether or not to continue the task force.
26 As community members, elected officials, and residents of the Rogers Road
27 Neighborhood we urge the County Commissioners to continue the task force. The task force
28 has not completed its identification of funding sources to provide sewer, which should be the
29 main focus if the task force continues to meet. We don't want to move backwards, and if the
30 task force continues, their charge will need to evolve based on the work done over the last year.
31 Many members in attendance at the Assembly of Governments meeting expressed a desire for
32 the task force to continue. The task force should also continue because it provides a formal
33 mechanism for community members to engage in the process to determine changes in their
34 neighborhood.
35 We are glad you are keeping the conversation about Historic Rogers Road alive. This
36 task force has made more progress than any other configuration of a task force and the task
37 force was effective at getting the Town Managers to meet, the Town Attorneys to meet, and in
38 getting feedback from OWASA and community members about providing sewer and a
39 community center. We urge you to act to continue the task force in your meeting on January
40 24th
41
42 Chair Jacobs said that there is some interpretation of comments and documents about
43 municipalities using monies outside of their jurisdiction in order to address these issues. He
44 asked Lee Storrow if it was a commitment of the board to work this out.
45 Lee Storrow said that he was not a liaison to the task force, but he is committed and
46 willing to spend funds outside of the municipality. The Town Council has not taken a public
47 stance on this issue.
48 Chapel Hill Town Council Member Jim Ward said that he was one of the liaisons to the
49 task force from the Town of Chapel Hill and he found the experience very fruitful and strongly
50 encouraged them to continue to task force in some form. He said that the commitment from
21
1 Orange County has been a driving force and this task force is the best vehicle to continue to
2 have these conversations to address the remaining issues. He encouraged the Board to keep
3 the task force and the community center on their agenda and that the sewer issue is huge and
4 a long way from being resolved. He said that there are other related issues like the Greene
5 Tract and the task force may be able to discuss this issue on the behalf of the municipalities.
6 He said that without the task force, there would be no dialogue between the elected officials.
7 Chair Jacobs asked Jim Ward the same questions of him as of Council Member Lee
8 Starrow and Jim Ward said that he has a personal commitment to see this happen and he
9 hoped the lawyers would keep them out of any illegal areas in which they may roam.
10 Nathan, a Technical Assistant works with RENA. He said that he supports the task
11 force continuing. He made reference to the community center and said that the Rogers Road
12 Community is considered a rural community and they are not given an opportunity to apply for
13 grant funding.
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin
15 to continue the Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and to update the charge once
16 the task force is reconvened.
17 Chair Jacobs asked Commissioner Price if the task force would update the charge and
18 Commissioner Price said that she is open to suggestions.
19 Commissioner Rich said that it is important to talk about the issues first before talking
20 about a task force. She said that they should take each issue— starting with the community
21 center and then going to the sewer— before continuing to decide on the new charge of the task
22 force. She thinks that it is important for everyone to be on the same page.
23 Commissioner Pelissier said that the Board of County Commissioners in October asked
24 the Manager to work on an interlocal agreement with Habitat, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro for the
25 community center. She said that there was a small area plan that was worked on between
26 2006-2007 and she does not see where this action was actually adopted, but it was referred to
27 the Board of County Commissioners. There were a lot of recommendations, but nothing was
28 adopted.
29 Commissioner Dorosin said that the work is not done yet and the task force should not
30 be shut down because it is built around community engagement. Regarding the community
31 center, he does not understand Habitat's role in this. He thinks that the County should pursue
32 owning the land and building the facility. He said that the process needs to be streamlined. He
33 said that there has been a general consensus of providing sewer but no direction on funding.
34 He said the way to do it is to decide to put sewer in the community or not and to pay for it or not
35 and to decide to do this in the next six months. He said that if they do continue the task force
36 he would like to be appointed as a member to the task force. He said that they need staff to be
37 more creative on how to do some of these things.
38
39 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board of County Commissioners is committed to
40 Rogers Road and the discussion should be on the outcomes and then the best method to move
41 these outcomes forward. She suggested looking at the recommendation, start with the
42 community center, and then go to the sewer issue.
43 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Gordon and said that the County
44 Commissioners need to first discuss outcomes. He requested that the motion be withdrawn
45 until after the discussion. The motion is valid, but he thinks that it is out of sync.
46 Commissioner Price said that her motion stands and she still wants the task force to
47 continue.
48 John Roberts said that Habitat was involved because it is what the task force
49 recommended. However, it would be cleaner if the County bought the land and then the towns
50 could help fund the center.
22
1 Michael Talbert said that the Board did approve $500,000 to move forward with a
2 community center in the Rogers Road neighborhood. At the very next meeting, the $500,000
3 grew to $650,000. He said that originally Habitat was going to move the house but it was not
4 feasible, so it evolved from a budget of$650,000 to two lots where Habitat wants to build on.
5 There is temporary approval from the Town of Chapel Hill to move forward with the community
6 center. There are continuing discussions with Habitat on how to make this work. If the two lots
7 were taken out of the subdivision, the process with the Town of Chapel Hill would start over.
8 Habitat wants to maintain control of the lot since it is part of their subdivision. Habitat does not
9 want to be involved in the annual maintenance of the facility. There has been discussion about
10 the towns contributing funds to this facility, but there have been no decisions.
11 Commissioner Rich asked John Roberts to explain his letter and how it differs from what
12 the task force suggested.
13 John Roberts said that what they discussed recently is the streamlined approach and
14 that the County is responsible for construction of the facility and there is no middle man. All of
15 the entities have the same grant opportunities for recreational services and the County could
16 offer this and all of the entities could participate.
17 Commissioner Rich said that if that is the case, the County can move forward with a
18 community center if this interlocal agreement can be created.
19 Commissioner Rich said her goal is that there is action and something in place.
20 Frank Clifton said the difficult issue they face is that when they get to a point, then
21 someone brings up something and they are back at square one. He said if the County
22 Commissioners wants the staff to move forward, then it should direct the staff to move forward
23 with Habitat and an architect, and if the towns want to participate they can. If the County
24 Commissioners want to get all on board before doing this then it will take longer.
25 John Roberts said that this differs from the task force recommendation in that Habitat is
26 not willing to donate the land. To be legally constructed, this cannot be a neighborhood facility
27 only, but a public facility.
28 Commissioner Price asked how much control RENA would have over the facility.
29 John Roberts said that whoever they contract with must accept people from the general
30 public. There must be equal access to the facility.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said that this Board has already committed $650,000 to build the
32 building, whether the towns kick in money or not.
33 Chair Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners said it was committed to having
34 it built even if it costs $650,000, whether anyone else contributed.
35 Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to Commissioner Price's motion
36 to instruct the Manager to make a deal with Habitat and to start with construction of the facility
37 and ask the task force to commit to assisting with the operational expenses.
38 Commissioner McKee said that the critical issue is that there have been multiple task
39 forces and Chapel Hill did a small area plan that was never adopted/implemented. He said that
40 these two issues need to be separated out—the sewer and the community center. He said that
41 the community center is set and ready to go. The community center needs to move forward
42 now. He suggested handing the community center to the staff and attorneys and they can take
43 care of a lot of the technical questions.
44 Commissioner Pelissier concurred with Commissioner McKee. She said the Board
45 originally created the task force to get something done and if the towns are not going to
46 participate on the center then she sees no need for a task force. The task force and Board of
47 County Commissioners want to do the community center now and Orange County budgeted for
48 it, so the towns need to budget something too. She is reluctant to create a new task force until
49 the towns commit.
23
1 Chair Jacobs said the Board wanted to talk about the outcomes and only one of them is
2 the community center. He made reference to page 28, which is the draft recommendation to
3 the Assembly of Governments from the task force, which specifically said that the costs would
4 be shared between the County and the towns to build a community center. He said the County
5 Commissioners can still move forward and make a request to towns to find a way to make the
6 funding happen, but the County can still move forward.
7 Commissioner Price said when she made a motion to move forward with the community
8 center, it was to make sure this got done and not to hold things up.
9 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to defend Chapel Hill Town Council. All Town
10 Council members agreed to do this community center. She said Chapel Hill is not saying that it
11 does not want to fund this. The Managers need to get together and create the interlocal
12 agreement and move forward. She believes that the towns are already committed to this.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said sewer has always been the core issue facing the community
14 along with water and the task force did not start talking about sewer until the end of the last six
15 months. He said the task force has not resolved this issue and there is no funding model in
16 place. He said this conversation needs to continue to happen and this is the critical issue. He
17 thinks the task force needs to continue to resolve this issue of the sewer.
18 Commissioner Gordon said that the community center is ready to go, and the task force
19 may need to stay together for the sewer issue.
20 Commissioner Rich said at all of the task force meetings they did talk about sewer
21 issues and they did go a lot further than has been indicated here tonight. She said many
22 elected officials may not be aware of how far these discussions have gone. She said as
23 Commissioners that they need more information on a sewer authority and they would need to
24 get more information from OWASA.
25 Chair Jacobs said there is a consensus about going forward with the community center
26 and he said they can entertain a motion to go ahead with a community center. The motion is to
27 continue the task force. He suggested talking about the motion, which is to continue the task
28 force, if the community center has been addressed.
29 Commissioner Price said with the task force, at least they are keeping the community in
30 the dialogue.
31 Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the task
32 force with the charge as follows: 1) finalizing the cost and installation of sewer and water
33 utilities in the community; 2) analyzing options to prevent gentrification and consider the Chapel
34 Hill SAP; 3) considering funding options related to Greene tract; and 4) monitoring the progress
35 of construction and development of the community center and agreements related thereto. He
36 would like to add to the sewer charge that the primary goal be to provide the sewer at no cost to
37 the residents of the community.
38 Commissioner Price accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Dorosin
39 seconded.
40 Commissioner McKee said he cannot support this motion because of gentrification. He
41 said that the day the sewer is built, development will happen. To try to prevent the development
42 impinges on the rights of the property owners.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said she has concerns about gentrification and this is a vague
44 term. She said that it would be better to look at the Small Area Plan (SAP).
45 Commissioner Gordon said that the motion is getting more complex, and it would better
46 to vote the motion up or down now.
47 Commissioner McKee said this is getting more convoluted and the focus should be on
48 the community center and then what to do with the task force and the charge.
49
24
1 Commissioner Price asked Commissioner McKee how he sees the task force prohibiting
2 the center from moving forward.
3 Commissioner McKee said he does not think the task force would slow down the center
4 but it does not need to be a part of the task force if the County is going to build it.
5 Commissioner Price said that she and Commissioner Dorosin would like to make sure
6 the center gets built and to monitor that. She asked if Commissioner McKee would object if
7 these two were on the task force, and Commissioner McKee said no.
8 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin's wording could be amended and he read: To
9 continue the task force and update the charge:
10
11 There are 4 parts to the charge:
12
13 1) Task force to look at final costs and provision for sewer and preference for no cost for
14 Historic Rogers Road residents
15 2) Address gentrification
16 3) Consider funding options including the Greene Tract
17 4) Monitor progress on construction and development of the community center and
18 agreements related thereto with the specifications outlined below:
19 • The facility would be no larger than 4000 sq foot and would not exceed $700,000
20 • Long term low cost agreement with Habitat related to disposition and ownership
21 of property
22 • Interlocal agreement with managers that includes funding from the county and
23 towns and the concept that the facility will be open to public
24 • Staff would come back with plan to begin construction
25 • Staff to come back with recommendation on how they would contract with some
26 entity to operate the community center
27
28 Commissioner Dorosin said they could sever the four things about the community center
29 and vote on them separately if that would help everyone to agree.
30 Commissioner McKee asked if this was a substitute motion at this time.
31 John Roberts said that there would have to be an unfriendly amendment first.
32 Frank Clifton said that staff could probably reach an agreement with Habitat fairly
33 quickly, but the towns may take longer.
34 Discussion ensued about the rules of making motions.
35 Commissioner Pelissier said that she had called the question, but Chair Jacobs said that
36 he did not hear.
37 Commissioner McKee called the question on the whole complex motion.
38
39 VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price, and Chair Jacobs);
40 Nays, (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner
41 McKee)
42
43 Motion Defeated
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee:
46
47 • That the County move forward with the construction of the community center
48 • Instruct staff to confer with the managers and attorneys of the county and
49 towns, to come up with legal options to construct the center, including any
50 MOAs needed
25
1 • The budget is to be $650,000, not to exceed $700,000 and 4,000 sq ft.
2 • Confer with the towns about financial participation
3 • Staff will come back with recommendations for the Board to consider on how the
4 center is to be operated
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
9 reconstitute the task force for six months and that the task force be charged with, considering
10 the final cost provision and installation of water and sewer utility extensions, preferably at no
11 cost for members of the Historic Rogers Road Community; consider options to address
12 gentrification and consider Chapel Hill's most recent SAP; consider funding options including
13 the Greene Tract.
14 Commissioner McKee asked if Commissioner Dorosin would consider deleting the part
15 about gentrification and Commissioner Dorosin said no.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said they are only asking the task force to look at gentrification.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the managers continue on their path with conversations
18 with OWASA about utilities.
19 Frank Clifton said they have done a lot of work on technical details of how the utilities
20 will be provided, and the Board of County Commissioners will become the primary Board. He
21 does not think anything will change over the six months, but it is just a matter of working out the
22 details and technical issues.
23 Commissioner Rich asked whether they would start first with the sewer authority and
24 how it works, to see whether it is something we would agree to do.
25 Frank Clifton said that the significant issue with the sewer is the debt. There are two
26 ways of handling this, and the first way is paying for it out of the general fund. The second is
27 creating a utility district and contracting with OWASA to run the sewer district.
28 Commissioner Pelissier said she will vote against this because she wants to make sure
29 they do sewer. She does not want to add new charges when the other ones have not been met
30 yet.
31 Chair Jacobs pointed out that it is 10:30, which is the normal adjournment time and the
32 building has to be vacant by 11:30. Also, the six months would be July 24th and the County
33 Commissioners do not meet until the first week in September.
34 Commissioner McKee said he will vote for this motion despite his reservations. He has
35 concerns with expanding the charge. His primary concern is to move the community center
36 forward. He has concerns about the cost of the sewer. He said that if he had calculated
37 correctly, there were 28 parcels that wanted sewer and the cost was about $6 million. He said
38 those were very expensive hook-ups.
39 Chair Jacobs read the motion for the charge of the task force: (from Commissioner
40 Dorosin
41 • To continue the task force for six months
42 • To have the task force consider the final costs, provision and installation of water and
43 sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the Historic Rogers Road
44 community
45 • Consider options to address gentrification and consider Chapel Hill's most recent Small
46 Area Plan
47 • Consider funding options including the Greene Tract
48
26
1 Chair Jacobs suggested bringing the school system in on the conversation regarding the
2 Greene Tract in case a school is to be considered on this site. This would affect the provision
3 of water and sewer.
4
5 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Rich and Chair Pelissier)
6
7 Chair Jacobs said they will address the membership of this re-constituted task force at
8 the January 29th work session.
9
10 8. Reports
11 NONE
12
13 9. County Manager
14 NONE
15
16 10. County Attorney's Report
17 NONE
18
19 11. Appointments
20
21 a. Advisory Board on Aging —Appointment
22 The Board considered making an appointment to the Advisory Board on Aging.
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
24 appoint Virginia Brown to a term expiring June 30, 2015 to the Advisory Board on Aging.
25 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
26
27 Commissioner Dorosin said that he would like to talk about the process about
28 appointments to the boards and the process at another work session. He said that he
29 encouraged someone to apply and sent his recommendation to the chair of the board, and it
30 was suggested that this was inappropriate and that the board should choose their applicants
31 independently. He is not sure about the best and most respectful way to do this when he
32 knows of someone that would be good for a certain board.
33 Chair Jacobs said that there is some time on January 29th set aside for boards and
34 commissions.
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
36 appoint Lorenzo Mejia to one of the vacant positions.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 b. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment
41 The Board considered making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
43 appoint Ashley Parker to a term expiring June 30, 2015 to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 c. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council
47 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Parks and
48 Recreation Council.
27
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 appoint Erin Dillard to a term expiring March 31, 2013 to the Orange County Parks and
3 Recreation Council.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 12. Board Comments
7 Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner McKee had no
8 comment.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said that on February 2nd there is a forum on student discipline
10 and student success at the Century Center from 1:00-4:00. He is delivering the keynote
11 address.
12 Commissioner Gordon said that the NCDOT staff gave a new schedule that delays the
13 adoption of TIP for one year.
14 Chair Jacobs said that the 15th annual Agricultural Summit is February 11th at the Schley
15 Grange Hall.
16
17 13. Information Items
18
19 • December 11, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
20 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
21 • Tax Collector's Report— Measures of Enforced Collections
22 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding December 11, 2012 Board Member Petitions
23 • Memorandum — Proposed New Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District
24
25 14. Closed Session
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to go
27 into closed session at 10:50 PM for the purposes below:
28 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
29 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
30
31 "To discuss matters related to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the
32 area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic
33 development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations," NCGS § 143-
34 318.11(a)(4).
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
39
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
42 reconvene into regular session at 11:45pm.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46
47 15. Adjournment
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adjourn
50 the meeting at 11:45pm.
28
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4
5 Barry Jacobs, Chair
6
7 Donna S. Baker, CMC
8 Clerk to the Board
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 3
2 MINUTES
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 January 29, 2013
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Tuesday,
9 January 29, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC.
10 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M.
11 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
13 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
14 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
15 Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members
16 will be identified appropriately below)
17 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
18 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
19
20 Blue sheet is a revised attachment b— Item 3 (County Commissioners: Boards and
21 Commissions Assignments)
22
23
24 1. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions —Annual Work Plans/Reports
25 Chair Jacobs stated that five boards would present at this meeting and other boards and
26 commissions will present later in the year. Clarification of time frames was given; five minutes
27 allotted for each speaker and a question and answer session at the end. In response to
28 questions from Commissioner Rich, Chair Jacobs clarified that this format of presentation is
29 new.
30 Commissioner Rich said that as a new member, the information in their agenda packets
31 was very informative, almost a mini-orientation, to read the annual summaries of each advisory
32 board. She encouraged the Board to consider doing this each time new members are seated
33 on the Board of Commissioners.
34
35 Animal Services Advisory Board — Dr. Kristine Bergstrand, DVM
36
37 Dr. Bergstrand said that she is the outgoing chair after a recent transition. The new
38 Chair could not attend. Vice Chair, Michelle Walker was also in attendance, as well as Animal
39 Services Director Bob Marotto.
40 Dr. Bergstrand noted that the Animal Services of Orange County meets the needs of
41 citizens by providing shelter and animal control. It works very closely with the Health
42 Department to protect both animal and human health. It also works to control pet
43 overpopulation. Dr. Bergstrand stated that front and center in their goals is the community spay
44 and neuter program, including outreach through social services regarding the low cost
45 programs for folks that ordinarily would not spay and neuter. Without these procedures, there
46 are high numbers of unwanted pets that end up in the shelter and require tax dollars to care for.
47 Dr. Bergstrand shared several items coming on the Board's radar this year. One is an
48 ordinance concerning recovery of owned pets from the shelter. There will also be an ordinance
49 review of kennel permitting requirements, as well the definition of dangerous dogs in the
50 county. There will be a resolution related to proposed legislation about commercial dog
2
1 breeding and the Animal Services Advisory board is in support of this bill. This has been
2 referred to as "puppy mill" legislation to prevent cruel and inhumane practices.
3 She said that mid-year, the Animal Services Advisory Board will start the discussion
4 regarding free roaming cats in Orange County. This is a public health issue, as well as a cat
5 humane issue.
6
7 Bob Marotto— Director of Orange County Animal Services (ASAB)
8 At the request of Chair Jacobs, Mr. Marotto gave a description of the history and role of
9 Animal Services. He said Animal Services was created by the Board of County Commissioners
10 in 2005. This occurred one year after the county assumed operational responsibility of the old
11 animal shelter on Animal Shelter Drive in Chapel Hill. He said that with the creation of Animal
12 Services, the animal shelter and staff were combined with animal control and their staff, which
13 had previously been a section of environmental health. In 2009, the new Animal Services
14 Center was opened on Eubanks Rd and combined everyone under one roof.
15 Chair Jacobs thanked Dr. Bergstrand for her long service to the ASAB and welcomed
16 Michelle Walker. He then opened the floor for questions.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked how many current vacancies exist in the ASAB.
18 Bob Marotto said they have one current vacancy, defined for the board as an at large
19 non-municipal vacancy. There are currently nine applicants who fit the board criteria. Half of
20 these candidates were invited to the January meeting of the advisory board and the other half
21 will be invited to the February meeting. This is so that the board can converse with the people
22 about what they do and what kind of commitment is required, and also to form a
23 recommendation for the commissioners.
24 Commissioner Price asked if they had enough ability/time to address the dangerous dog
25 issue.
26 Bob Marotto said there are ways in which their tool kit can be improved. Three major
27 gaps include the fact that currently there is no requirement for identification or microchip
28 requirements for animals that are deemed dangerous. There are no specific or suitable
29 confinement requirements in Orange County. The statutory confinement requirements are
30 loose. There is no express authority to seize an animal in violation of the current requirements.
31 In addition, there is the issue of whether the county should have authority, in the event
32 of serious incidents, to destroy an animal subject to due process provisions. This exists in other
33 jurisdictions. These issues will be brought forward to the commissioners in the future.
34 Chair Jacobs said they have a legislative agenda coming forth on February 19th. He
35 noted that this would be the best time to bring forward the puppy mill information. Chair Jacobs
36 said he appreciated that they were working with Triangle Wildlife Rehabilitation. Chair Jacobs
37 asked for an update for the board about the Mobile Emergency Animal Unit for Pet Location.
38 Bob Marotto said that extraordinary progress had been made with Triangle Wildlife
39 Rehabilitation in coming up with a performance agreement and folding money into the Animal
40 Services budget as they fill this gap with wildlife. He noted that Triangle Wildlife is closing and
41 this hole will need to be filled some other way.
42 Mr. Marotto said the Mobile Emergency Animal Unit for pet location emerged post-
43 Katrina. The purpose is to have companion animals sheltered in the same building as their
44 owners after a disaster, not in the same room, but in the same facility. The reasons for this
45 include effective emergency management and response, since many people don't want to leave
46 their animals. He said that North Carolina has been a pioneer in developing companion animal
47 mobile equipment trailers, which serve to carry resources required to outfit a section of a school
48 or other building for pet co-location with their owners. Animal and emergency services have
49 worked closely together, including a large scale co-location exercise at a local school in 2012.
50 This was a successful event.
3
1
2 Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitor's Bureau-Dave Gephart, Chair and Laurie Paolicelli,
3 Executive Director
4
5 Dave Gephart introduced himself. He said that the Bureau has thirteen board members
6 from across the county and is part of the economic development section of Orange County
7 Government. Two years ago the Visitor's Bureau also acquired the Arts Commission.
8 He noted that with the work, advertising and effort of the Visitor's Bureau, there are
9 about 1,700 jobs in Orange County that bring in and generate tax dollars. That is 157 million
10 dollars spent annually in Orange County, 3 million in taxes, half a million dollars in state tax
11 revenue, and over a million in occupancy tax. With that money, the Bureau strives to increase
12 the tourism and travel and generate more dollars for the county. This year there is a change in
13 direction and advertising agencies. There is a focus on small groups, events and mid-week
14 business travelers as well as the local college basketball and football season crowds. Efforts
15 are to increase occupancy and revenue dollars.
16 Laurie Paolicelli, Director of the Visitor's Bureau, said she has been the director for eight
17 years and that the Visitor's Bureau is an added boost to Orange County from a clean
18 infrastructure standpoint. It attracts people who make money elsewhere, come here to visit,
19 and leave their money before going home. She said tourism has grown over the last twenty
20 years and the Bureau has changed its model over the years — some positive some negative.
21 When started, the Visitor's Bureau was for Orange County and the branding was for an Orange
22 County sell. The Bureau was put in Chapel Hill because it is the largest point of entry by
23 tourists. She noted that the early architects and former commissioners of the project realized
24 the name Orange County in tourism was not polling as strongly. There are sixteen Orange
25 Counties across the nation and this caused confusion and wasted time and money. When the
26 occupancy rate increased to 2%, Chapel Hill was added to the name. The name became
27 Chapel Hill Orange County in the late 90's and a walk-in visitor's center was acquired on
28 Franklin Street. She said that the Bureau was then spending two thirds of its time working to
29 bring in visitors and one third servicing visitors here. Several years later, a research study was
30 done to determine travel destination perceptions. This revealed that Chapel Hill, Hillsborough
31 and Carrboro, in that order, were strongly identified as great places to visit. The logo was then
32 changed to Chapel Hill Orange County Visitor's Bureau with Carrboro and Hillsborough. There
33 were some people not happy with the Chapel Hill large print. Leaders have looked at this and
34 handled it strategically. The Chapel Hill name is put out in major publications such as New
35 Yorker, Golf Digest, Wire and others. However, $60,000 is spent to promote events in
36 Hillsborough and Carrboro. This is a balancing act. Last year it was noted that the agricultural
37 community was attracting tourism. This year there will be a grander emphasis on agri-tourism.
38 County Manager Frank Clifton noted, for benefit of the new board members, that Chapel
39 Hill and Orange County have similar ordinances for levying the occupying tax. He said they
40 require a certain amount of money raised be dedicated toward promotion of tourism.
41 He said Chapel Hill has historically has been putting in funding of about 15% and
42 Orange County has dedicated the most part of the funding. The other two communities,
43 Hillsborough, and Carrboro, have recently gotten legislation to authorize them to have
44 occupancy tax. Once the Carrboro Hotel is completed, they will have hotel rooms and start
45 paying the tax. He said that over the next year or so there will be discussion as to what those
46 dollars are used for. The money is not now pledged to tourism efforts but it will be discussed in
47 future. Frank Clifton said the county created this county-wide advisory board and Chapel Hill
48 does not have an advisory board for this part of the general fund and relies on a contract basis
49 with the county operation. Under the new legislation, an independent board must be
4
1 established with specific membership criteria. He said that Hillsborough and Carrboro are
2 currently pursuing those boards.
3 Dave Gephart said Hillsborough PDA has just been appointed. Estimated annual taxes
4 they should receive will be around $55,000.00. Carrboro is in the process of appointing their
5 people and will be in that same ballpark. He said there will be coordination to make sure all of
6 the boards work well together.
7 Commissioner McKee noted that there is a small urban area of the county in Mebane
8 and asked if they are being reached out to.
9 Dave Gephart said a Mebane board member had attended their meetings in the past
10 and reminded them each time that the group was not familiar with Mebane. Dave Gephart said
11 their meetings are at a different location each month, to give their members an opportunity to
12 see the different areas of the county.
13 Laurie Paolicelli said they do not promote Mebane as much as they could. She noted
14 that there are several staff members that live in Mebane and those members make sure the
15 B&B's, restaurants, and parks are listed in maps and materials.
16 Commissioner McKee said he just wanted to make sure they were aware of Mebane is
17 fast growing and is expanding into Orange County, so it will become more of a factor.
18 Commissioner Price said Hillsborough does have a Tourism Board.
19 Dave Gephart said they get funding from the 1% food tax and this board gives grants
20 with 60% of the funding and the other 40% to run the Visitor's Center and Alliance for Historic
21 Hillsborough.
22 Laurie Paolicelli said that Hillsborough has an Alliance for Historic Hillsborough that
23 grants tourism funds, but they now have an occupancy tax that will generate approximately
24 $70,000 annually. She noted that one of the issues the board is struggling with is that as
25 Hillsborough asks the Orange County/Chapel Hill VB for more funding, they are now getting
26 occupancy tax and that could be a dilemma.
27 Commissioner Rich asked, looking toward 2013, a 170 million dollar impact and 1900
28 jobs that may come this way, does that include jobs that people are currently in or is it a whole
29 of 1900 jobs.
30 Laurie Paolicelli said this number is a whole of 1900 and is growing from where we are
31 now. She said they are seeing growth in the right direction and she said there are a lot of
32 development properties that want to include a hotel and they are getting financing. That
33 indicates that banks are seeing a success story in Orange County in tourism. Most tourism jobs
34 cannot be outsourced.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if the findings indicate that the economy is turning around
36 and there is more growth and tourism. Laurie Paolicelli said yes. Dave Gephart mentioned the
37 train station, the need for a hotel there and the new hotel in Carrboro.
38 Chair Jacobs noted that there will be a session on Agri-Tourism presented by Laurie
39 Paolicelli at the Ag Summit. He also mentioned that in his meeting with local Mayors, he
40 brought up the issue and all Mayors were receptive to discussion of sharing the new funding.
41 Frank Clifton praised Ms. Paolicelli and her staff for their accommodation of new
42 economic development clients.
43
44
45 Commission for the Environment— David Neal , Chair—and Dave Stancil, Staff
46
47 David Neal noted that Dave Stancil was handing out a proposal for a renewable energy
48 work group, which was a direct response to a request from the County Commissioners from last
49 summer. David Neal said the commission will continue to perform traditional functions and
50 conservation related environmental work, reviewing proposals to the county as they might affect
5
1 water quality, air quality and biological projects. That work will be ongoing. He said that this
2 memo outlines an opportunity to increase the work around clean and renewable energy and
3 look for ways to build it, in cooperation with various planning departments. The goal is to find
4 ways to promote deployment and use of newer technologies for efficiency and renewable
5 energy. This request came to them last year from NCWarn, through the County
6 Commissioners, for a task force around clean energy. He said this task force is excited to help
7 find different way to change county policy to incorporate this technology and to share best
8 practices.
9 Commissioner Pelissier questioned if this is something that would be a separate group
10 for staff to meet with every month, or if it is a subcommittee of the Commission for the
11 Environment.
12 David Neal said the commission has an energy committee that would serve as host for
13 this task force. Invitations would be sent out for different meetings on different topics. For
14 example a task force meeting might be called on reducing energy in existing buildings or new
15 construction. The purpose of these meetings would be to bring people together to share best
16 practices and new ideas. Any new proposals that came out of this would go to the Commission
17 for the Environment to be vetted before presentation to the County Commissioners.
18 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Greenhouse Gas Emission Studies were on hold.
19 Dave Stancil said they completed, in conjunction with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
20 Hillsborough, a multi-year effort to inventory greenhouse gas emissions and develop a forecast
21 for the future. Shortly after completion of this study, economic downturn occurred and priorities
22 were shifted and there has been little follow up. The next step would be to find measures to
23 begin to develop targets for reduction. The other piece would be community outreach via
24 community meetings to ask the public for input on measures that make sense to address this
25 issue. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have taken some action toward that end.
26 Commissioner Gordon said the Commission for the Environment has committees and
27 usually these committees don't have sub-committees. However at the time of the greenhouse
28 gas studies, there was a committee working with the commissioners and had representatives
29 from each jurisdiction. Commissioner Gordon asked if this current organization is a sub-
30 committee of the Air and Energy Committee.
31 David Neal said it is not going to be a sub-committee. It is being called a work group and
32 would not have constant membership. Depending on topics covered, different people would be
33 brought to the table by applicable expertise and what information needed to be shared. This
34 would all be done publicly. For example, they brought forth two proposals last year, one to
35 create a rebate program for energy efficient construction, and the other was a solar set-aside
36 program for developers to set aside land for future solar development. David Neal said that he
37 and a colleague both met with the planning board regarding these initiatives, but they have
38 been unable to follow up since there are other boards and staff that have to be worked with.
39 The idea of this work group is that it would be a way to bring people together more regularly to
40 craft policies or drafts of policies for consideration by the Commissioners.
41 Commissioner McKee said he did not see in the report any developing strategies to
42 avoid increasing housing cost with its impact on the lower middle income. He noted the mention
43 of setting aside housing developments for solar energy, which would mean overall increase in
44 cost per lot, thus cost for house. He said he is concerned that while these are admirable goals,
45 the unintended consequences of newer technology, is an increased housing cost that some
46 citizens have a very hard time bearing.
47 David Neal said thought has been given to this. He said one issue is how to line it up
48 better. It costs more up front, but it saves money over time on power bills. The builder does not
49 have the incentive that the future occupant of the house does. The rebates mentioned earlier
6
1 were to make it more affordable and find ways to ensure that lower and middle income people
2 could take advantage of those opportunities.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said he was encouraged to see that the Commission for the
4 Environment advocated for the half cent sales tax referendum. He noted the conservation focus
5 and asked if the board talked about environmental justice and the impacts for low wealth and
6 communities of color. He mentioned the issues of solid waste and access to services. He
7 questioned whether this was out of the scope of the Commission for the Environment.
8 David Neal said those issues are not beyond their scope. The Commission for the
9 Environment currently has three vacancies and a priority is to get more diversity and better
10 representation of minorities in Orange County on the board.
11 Chair Jacobs said that, given the ten minute time frame to present the entire work plan
12 for the year, this memo would have been better presented in a different forum.
13 David Neal noted that the topic in the memo is a high priority issue.
14
15 Historic Preservation Commission ( HPC) — Todd Dickinson, Chair, and Peter Sandbeck,
16 Cultural Resources Specialist
17
18 Todd Dickinson introduced himself and Peter Sandbeck. Reference was made to the
19 2013 goals- -Action Agenda 1 page 25
20 - The HPC expects to continue working with the Hillsborough Historic District
21 Commission and the County Attorney on an approach for handling the further protection of
22 historic sites in the Town's extra-territorial jurisdiction
23 - The HPC will remain active in advising the County in the care and repair of its historic
24 buildings and offer suggestion on potential new used for buildings that outlived their original
25 purpose
26 - The HPC will monitor the findings of an archaeological survey (Phase 11) of the
27 County's Hollow Rock/New Hope Creek Preserve property and advise the County on how it
28 might use this information to interpret the history of land use at this location.
29 There is a move to get their files on the web. There is also a concern with helping the
30 historic homes in the areas and specific green historic preservation homes. He noted that there
31 is nothing greener than slightly modifying historic structures to make them more energy
32 efficient. This is much more efficient than tearing them down and starting fresh.
33 Peter Sandbeck said as a certified local government they get to apply for federal grant
34 funds. A $15,000 grant was given to them to do conduct an archaeological study at Hollow
35 Rock. This follows up on a productive study done in 2008 where some important Indian sites
36 were identified on that property, as well as some historic period sites. Since there is a low
37 impact trail and parking area being developed, it is important to make sure they are being good
38 custodians of the property. Excavation and exploration has been done and good evidence of
39 Native American occupation of the site has been found. Mr. Sandbeck said this is an important
40 historic site for the area and for the state and there is a good opportunity for further excavation
41 and education there.
42 Chair Jacobs asked, with regard to green building in relation to existing historic
43 structures, has there been cooperation with Durham Tech. He noted that they have a
44 sustainability program and building classes. They have little connection to the historic
45 preservation community but he believes they are open to it.
46 Chair Jacobs noted they have two or three items in their report that reference
47 Hillsborough and that the Board of County Commissioners is meeting with the Town of
48 Hillsborough in February. He suggested that they bring forward anything about the
49 archeological digs, etc prior to that meeting. He said there is already time on the agenda for
7
1 development of joint policy for dealing with archaeological, cultural and historic sites within the
2 jurisdiction.
3
4 OUTBoard (Orange County Unified Transportation Board) Paul Guthrie, Chair—Jeff
5 Charles, Vice Chair
6 Paul Guthrie thanked the Board of County Commissioners for appointing new members
7 recently. The board is moving ahead getting organized. There are still two vacancies, one
8 relative to Economic Development and one relative to Environment.
9 Paul Guthrie said their report covers the subjects asked for. He pointed out that on the
10 first page of assigned charges is their guiding principle. He noted that this is very vague and
11 broad, therefore what they do or don't do depends on the direction of the Board on a yearly
12 basis. He noted that with the number of new members, on issues of certain topics, it might be
13 wise to have briefings or one on ones. He referenced a recent sensitive and critical topic that
14 came up about the issue of the interaction of the planning and management functions for
15 transportation in the county and among the municipalities in the triangle and triad. This area
16 keeps coming up. How can the most interaction be gained from these multi-jurisdictional
17 transportation boards without overburdening each of the individuals appointed to represent
18 those bodies? He said their board has two central functions —to advise Board of County
19 Commissioners on things going on or that may come before them, but also it owes them
20 foresight on what will be coming on the horizon. He said they just initiated a list of 39
21 organizations that have issues of transportation. Effort will be made to have the members
22 volunteer to be monitors of these entities to give the Board of County Commissioners a more
23 comprehensive view of what is going in transportation. He noted that it is hard to staff this. He
24 said they have a list of activities for the future and at their next meeting they will be reviewing
25 the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. He said that they have been deeply involved in that
26 plan.
27 Craig Benedict said this board is a county wide board that has been around about eight
28 years and looks at all issues related to transportation. The board's role in the coming year
29 would be to focus on part of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan and how to
30 continue to have that representation county wide to facilitate movement of people to jobs and
31 services in the county. He said the board is enjoying the diversification of the new membership.
32 There has been a lot of action around CTP and safe routes to schools. . Mr. Benedict noted the
33 contributions of Tom Altieri and Abigail Pittman.
34 Commissioner Rich asked how many people are on the board. Craig Benedict responded,
35 about 13.
36 Commissioner Rich asked if younger people are being attracted onto the boards and Jeff
37 Walker said that he sees young students getting involved and learning about the existence of
38 the OUTBoard and he believes there will be more young applicants.
39 Commissioner McKee said that he realizes there are many layers involved in
40 transportation and he expressed his appreciation for the OUTBoard and their input. He noted
41 that he had found surrounding rural counties to be very amenable to including the needs of
42 Orange County on equal basis. He attributed this to the active subgroup of people that are
43 involved and giving input. He said that the new construction for Hwy 86 North will be carrying a
44 four foot shoulder, which is a considerable improvement from a safety standpoint.
45 Jeff Charles said Orange County is a bicycling mecca due to its rural roads and attracts
46 this segment of tourism. He noted that Bikefest in Hillsborough in August attracts about 850
47 people, which has an economic impact. He said there is a need to start thinking about
48 connectivity, not only for commuting, but for cyclists, and recreational cycling. He said there
49 are more slow-moving 35 mph top end scooters in Orange County. He noted the benefit of
50 sharing that four foot side shoulder with cyclists, and slow moving individual powered vehicles.
8
1 Commissioner McKee said he had found the surrounding counties to be amenable to
2 accommodating Orange County on an equal basis and several projects were able to be moved
3 forward, particularly in the Chapel Hill area and Orange Grove area for paved shoulders to
4 accommodate safe bike travel.
5 Chair Jacobs said one of the advantages of Orange County staying in a rural entity like
6 TARPO is that we are a big fish in a smaller pond as opposed to being a little fish in a much
7 bigger pond.
8 Paul Guthrie said rural areas of Orange County and other counties are very critical to the
9 long term future of building a satisfactory transportation system. He said that Orange County is
10 just at the cusp of beginning to put together a comprehensive transportation system. He said
11 that we can, in our rural areas, begin to build a base for the more sophisticated systems as
12 population increases. He noted that Chapel Hill is planning to put in bus routes that will build a
13 generation of people using routes that will establish a ready customer base for future higher
14 forms of transportation. Building public awareness of systems is key. This is where TARPO
15 comes in, as well as relationship with metropolitan areas.
16 Chair Jacobs apologized for the lack of time, and asked David Neal to answer
17 Commissioner Gordon's question.
18 Commissioner Gordon asked about the first item on page 19- emerging issues. She
19 wanted to know what they plan to do with the Water Resources Initiative.
20 Dave Stancil said they built a stable base with their ground observation well network, but
21 they have several hydro geologic unit areas that are not covered yet. He said they would like to
22 build a database where all the different underlying geological areas in the county are covered
23 with wells in the network. There is also the idea of creating a water budget, but this is a huge
24 undertaking.
25 Commissioner Gordon asked about their department's resources and Dave Stancil said
26 they may have to re-task and re-prioritize
27 Commissioner Gordon said that this Water Resources Initiative has been around for a
28 long time. She noted that Orange County has a limited quantity of water and that everyone
29 deserves to have clean water.
30
31 Dave Gephart made one final point about the Visitor's Bureau. He said that an upcoming
32 issue they will be looking at is relocating the Visitor's Bureau to an area with more parking.
33
34 2. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
35 Plan — Update and Next Steps
36
37 Craig Benedict introduced himself and said this item is an update. He said some of the
38 history pre-dates the slides. He said that in 2001 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner
39 Halkiotis and the Town of Hillsborough Board members met concerning the Waterstone
40 Development. There was concern that this growth was not in Hillsborough, but in Orange
41 County's economic development zone and how could there be coordination of what occurs in that
42 area. He said that, following two to three years of fighting, the 2005 Hillsborough Urban
43 Transition Task Force was formed. This set constraints on what happens in the Hillsborough
44 area, set size guidelines and was meant to protect both rural and urban areas. He then
45 introduced the Powerpoint slides, included below.
46
47 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
48 Plan — Update and Next Steps (Slide 1)
49 January 29, 2013
50 BOCC Work Session
9
1 • Purpose: To provide a review of joint planning efforts and next steps- Primer for Feb.
2 21st Joint Meeting with Hillsborough
3
4 Hillsborough-Orange Joint Planning Background: (Slide 2)
5 • Hillsborough-Orange Urban Transition Area Task Force (2005)
6 • Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan
7 • Phase I, Report (2006)
8 • Phase II, Agreement (2009)
9
10 Tom Altieri did the section below:
11
12 Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement Central Orange
13 Coordinated Area (COCA) (Slide 3)
14 • Differentiates Urbanizing Areas from rural areas
15 • Designates area for coordination — COCA
16 • Outlines actions to be taken towards adoption of a Joint Land Use Plan
17 • Defines eight (8) key zone categories depicted on Map (Attachment C) and
18 administrative responsibilities
19 • Identifies areas for adjustments to Hillsborough's ETJ
20 •
21 Interlocal Land Management Agreement (Cont. (Slide 4)
22 • Eight (8) key zone categories:
23 • Incorporated Town
24 • Existing ETJ
25 • Proposed ETJ Areas to be Added
26 • Proposed ETJ Areas to be Deleted
27 • Proposed Hillsborough Urbanizing Areas (Not ETJ but under Town Zoning)
28 • Proposed Orange County Urbanizing Areas (Coordinated control but OC Zoning)
29 ➢ With exception of Item 4, all previous categories within primary
30 Urban Services Area (USA)
31 • Existing Water Service Area ("exceptions") Outside USA
32 • COCA Boundary under OC Zoning
33
34 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Phase II
35 Central Orange Coordinated Area (Slide 5-Map)
36
37 Steps Towards Joint COCA Land Use Plan: (Slide 6)
38 1. Draft Future Land Use Plan for entire Urban Services Area (USA) adopted by the Town
39 of Hillsborough (OC providing comments)
40 2. Hillsborough submits ETJ adjustments to Orange County
41 3. BOCC considers endorsement of land use designations adopted by Hillsborough,
42 adding designations for areas outside of USA
10
1 4. Both parties adopt the composite Plan if acceptable OR arrange for negotiation and
2 agreement on changes followed by joint approval
3 5. Hillsborough adopts Zoning and Subdivision regulations for new ETJ areas and provides
4 recommendations to Orange County for Urbanizing Areas
5 6. Orange County adopts Zoning and Subdivision regulations for rescinded ETJ areas,
6 Urbanizing Areas, and balance of the COCA
th
7 Summary of Town of Hillsborough Next Steps Following January 17 Public Hearing:
8 (Slide 7)
9 • Planning Board Recommendation — February 20th
10 • Town Board Consideration — March 11th
11
12 Orange County Comments to Town Board: (Slide 8)
13 • October 2, 2012 BOCC Letter (Attachment A, pp. 3-5)
14 • Town Planning Board response reflected in its recommendations (Attachment B, pp. 6-
15 8)
16 • Specifically, item number 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 pertain to comments provided
17 by Orange County
18 • Handout provided tonight to help summarize County comments and if/how addressed by
19 Town PB Recommendation
20
21 • The Manager Recommends the Board: (Slide 9)
22 1. Receive the update; and
st
23 2. Provide any input the Board may have as staff prepares for the Feb. 21 Joint Meeting
24 with the Town of Hillsborough.
25
26 Craig Benedict began by referring to the map of the Town of Hillsborough Coordinated
27 Planning Area on Slide 5. He said that in the early 2000's this was the area, larger in size than
28 Chapel Hill and Carrboro together, that Hillsborough thought it could grow into. This was a 50
29 year sewer service area. Hillsborough realized that the existing water resources would not
30 service the entire area, so planning began for an urban service line, shown on the map as a
31 magenta line. He noted the color designations: Dark Grey are the incorporated sections of
32 Hillsborough and light grey is Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of Hillsborough. Some ETJs are
33 in the Eno critical watershed area, which could not be developed because of watershed
34 constraints. For this reason, this ETJ will be abandoned and a new ETJ closer to the core of
35 Hillsborough will be drawn. Blue and Orange areas are very similar to the transition areas of
36 Chapel Hill/Carrboro in the joint planning agreement. These areas will have urban style growth
37 and urban services. The last area is the white boundary, which is the coordinated planning
38 area. He said that if Hillsborough plans to be a city of five to seven thousand people one day,
39 the rural area around it must be controlled to avoid a sprawl zone. An urban service ring around
40 Hillsborough is being proposed, similar to Chapel Hill. The perimeter area would be controlled
41 by Orange County Land Usage Zone. He said it is now time to start assigning land use.
11
1 Tom Altieri referred to the Land Management Agreement (slides 3-4) and reviewed the
2 steps necessary to work toward a joint land use plan. He noted there would be ETJ
3 adjustment, re-zonings, subdivision ordinance amendments, as well as the larger Central
4 Orange coordinated area. Moving to slide 5, he noted that the town is at step one of this
5 process. This is to prepare and adopt a future land use plan for the entire urban services area,
6 to include town city limits, ETJ and the orange and blue areas on the map. He said the county
7 has submitted comments to the town on its initial draft, and the town has had two public
8 hearings. The recommendations from that meeting were provided in a packet. Moving to slide
9 7, he noted the Planning Board recommendation date of February 7 and the Town Board
10 consideration of adopting the map on March 11.
11 Tom Altieri referenced the handout for Agenda Item 2: Summary of Comments
12 Provided to Hillsborough and Guide to Remaining Issues
13 He noted that this sheet is a summary of comments submitted last October. Each
14 county comment or concern is followed by a Planning Board recommendation that addresses
15 the issue. He referenced the first example, on the first page. The county has commented on
16 the issue of Urban Service area boundaries with no land use recommendations. County staff
17 worked together to fill it in. However there is a remaining concern that some areas in the urban
18 services boundaries, which are envisioned to have water and sewer someday, have been
19 classified as rural living, or working farm. This leaves the question of whether this is the type of
20 intensity necessary in those areas.
21 Tom Altieri then referenced item number 7 on the handout, which refers to concern
22 about high density residential uses north of town. This concern has not yet been addressed.
23 Craig Benedict said that during their discussion over the years, putting residential north
24 of Hillsborough will cause people to want to drive through Hillsborough to access 85/40. This
25 will exacerbate the problem of limited roadway. He noted that land use categories being put
26 together now are for future land use and may not reflect what is happening currently. The
27 future land use category is for cases where a developer comes forward and is in a designated
28 public water, sewer area. The area being discussed is the southwest quadrant of 1-40 and the
29 South Churton, Old 86 area. He said that developers are very interested in this area around the
30 hospital and Durham Tech and the land use category should be compatible with this.
31 Tom Altieri said there is joint meeting of the Town of Hillsborough and Board of County
32 Commissioners on Feb. 21st and they wanted to bring this forward to the Board tonight, prior to
33 that meeting, to receive questions and get input before the land uses are formally adopted.
34 Chair Jacobs, with reference to the colored map, said that Orange County had a vision
35 to withdraw urban development in the Upper Eno watershed. He pointed out that it is not a
36 coincidence that there is a rural buffer connecting with an existing rural buffer with Chapel
37 Hill/Carrboro. He noted that this creates a separation with Durham to the east and protects Eno
38 River State Park, and then surrounds Hillsborough and goes through the Upper Eno watershed,
39 which is identified as one of the highest level priority protection areas in the Lands Legacy
40 Program. He said that Hillsborough is very amenable to having the same vision for land use,
41 long term, that Chapel Hill and Carrboro embraced 25 years ago.
42
43 Commissioner Rich asked who would have held the public hearing for citizens input.
12
1 Craig Benedict said the Town of Hillsborough would have public hearings for everything
2 in that urban service boundary.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if there has been any push back from citizens regarding the
4 map being presented.
5 Craig Benedict said there has been dialogue and discussion around the need to focus
6 development in the urban areas, yet to maintain the historic charm. He said that it is understood
7 that if medium densities were allowed outside of the urban service area, that could create big
8 populations too.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said, looking at this map, is the idea that eventually everything
10 inside the urban service boundary is going to be annexed and Craig Benedict answered, yes.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said can they clarify the difference for ETJ and blue and orange
12 and why they are treated differently.
13 Craig Benedict said ETJs are identified in courts and state law and can impose zoning
14 and regulations in that area. He said that, instead of turning blue and orange areas into an ETJ,
15 that they can have joint planning ownership in these areas. This is the same thing that has
16 been done with the joint planning area in Chapel Hill, Carrboro. In those areas, they will agree
17 upon the land use and the zoning regulations, that if annexed by Hillsborough, they will be able
18 to use the regulations agreed to, while still remaining Orange County planning jurisdiction while
19 ceding authority to Hillsborough.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked why these areas and why not all areas be subject to
21 agreement and/or ETJ.
22 Commissioner Price said some of the blue and orange areas already have Hillsborough
23 water but no sewer and is developed and ripe for annexation. She said an ETJ has no water
24 infrastructure, it is just land in close proximity to Hillsborough but without that connection.
25 Craig Benedict clarified, if it's an ETJ, there is no divestiture, and with orange and blue
26 areas, there is some joint planning.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked, if that is important in the orange and blue areas, why is it
28 not important in the areas proposed to become ETJ that are not ETJ now.
29 Craig Benedict said that they had actually annexed outside their ETJ in some areas and
30 so there was non-ETJs that was surrounded by corporate limits. In some areas it was very
31 compact and it was decided to trade ETJs and put it into those areas instead of having blue and
32 orange areas.
33 Commissioner Price answered Commissioner Rich's question about pushback and said
34 there is some pushback. She referenced a development pending on 70 where there was
35 opposition because of the possibility of five to six story buildings behind ETJ area. She noted
36 that she happens to live in one of these areas and some of her neighbors are concerned about
37 being annexed by Hillsborough. It is preferable not to be in the city.
38 Frank Clifton said a lot of these processes were in place before the annexation
39 legislation and he said that any decision made on ETJs is fairly significant because annexation
40 is so limited. When you cede ETJ, direct controlling interest is lost, but not the blame is still
41 there. He noted that people in an ETJ don't get to vote, but they are told what their zoning
42 issues and rules are. The second issue relates to the consequences of intensified residential
43 development. He referenced the role of schools and school demands.
44 Craig Benedict said about ten years ago they had the discussion on land-
13
1 banking and both Orange County and Hillsborough have provisions in their zoning code that
2 designate general areas where there is need for a school. However, this was never activated
3 and there is not a map on their land use plan. He expressed his belief that this needs to be
4 addressed in the land use plan, to put some generalized circles to indicate potential areas of
5 need for schools.
6 Commissioner Dorosin noted that there are areas on map that have water but are
7 outside the boundary. He asked why the boundary would not be adjusted based on this.
8 Craig Benedict said they have exception areas that have water, but are too difficult to
9 service with sewer. Chair Jacobs noted that Hillsborough had its own agenda with a bigger area
10 designated for urban growth than Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said that when it became
11 obvious that this was unrealistic, the town came to the table to discuss joint planning. He said
12 that this is a matter of what Hillsborough is willing to and unwilling to give up and what
13 compromises are able to be made. The Board had pushed as far as it could push and that is
14 why things look the way they do.
15 Frank Clifton noted that the county installed sewer lines in the Efland community and
16 that sewer flow comes back to Hillsborough. The county has continued to service this and
17 there have been efforts, over the years, to get Hillsborough to accept those utilities and they
18 declined. This is the reason for the agreement that where the line interconnects with Mebane,
19 they will serve the Efland area and the county will be out of the sewer business.
20
21 3. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions Assignments
22
23 Chair Jacobs reviewed the policy of the selection process as outlined on page 2 of attachment
24 A.
25 There was discussion and clarification of order of choosing. It was stated that Board
26 members serving as officers would retain those positions unless they choose otherwise.
27 There was discussion regarding boards that are currently not meeting.
28
29 The Board chose the boards and commissions on which they wish to serve, as shown
30 below:
31
32
BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER BOCC
SELECTION (1/29)
STATUTORY
ABC Board Monthly, Third Commissioner Not Commissioner
Tues 8:30 AM Required (non-voting McKee
member)
Board of Health Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Wed Required Pelissier - Member
7:00 PM
Board of Social Monthly, Third 2 appointees Commissioner
Services Mon 4:00 PM Commissioner not Dorosin — Member
required but usually a
Commissioner serves Citizen-Already
appointed
14
Orange-Person- 1 Commissioner or Commissioner
Chatham (OPC) designee Dorosin
Community Operations 1 Consumer/Family
Center Advisory Board member
1 Citizen/
Stakeholder
INTERGOVERNMENT
AL and OTHER
GROUPS WITH BOCC
MEMBERS
Burlington/Graham Requires Chair Jacobs-
MPO Transportation 1 Commissioner Member
Advisory Committee member
1 Alternate Commissioner
Commissioner McKee - Alternate
Communities in Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Schools Wed 3:00-5:00 Required Price - Member
PM
Community Home Monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Trust BOD Required Dorosin - Member
Durham-Chapel Hill- Monthly- second Requires Commissioner
Carrboro-Metropolitan Wed. 1 Commissioner Gordon -Member
Planning Organization Member Commissioner
(MPO)- Transportation Pelissier -Alternate
Advisory Committee 1 Alternate
Commissioner
BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY
SERVING
Durham/Chapel Quarterly-rotates 2 Elected Commissioner
Hill/Orange Work between entities- Representatives Gordon-Member
Group noon meeting required (from 4
jurisdictions) Chair Jacobs-
Member
Durham Tech Board of Quarterly 2 Appointees—one Commissioner
Trustees can be a Price— Member
Commissioner but
doesn't have to be Citizen already
appointed
Efland Mebane Small Not meeting at 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Area Plan this time. Has Dorosin
Implementation Focus not been
15
Group disbanded
Emergency Services Meets as 1 Commissioner SUNSETED
Work Group needed Member
1 Alternate
Commissioner
Fire Chief's Association Bi-monthly—first Commissioner not Commissioner
of Orange County Weds.-7pm required as member— McKee
but can attend as
guest(s)
Healthy Carolinians Meets quarterly Commissioner not Commissioner
(3rd Thursdays at required —often same McKee
8:30am) BOCC Member as on
the Board of Health
BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY
SERVING
HOME Program Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Review Committee Required McKee -Member
Housing Bond 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Program-Project Required Pelissier- Member
Review & Selection
Committee
Hollow Rock Park Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Commissioner
Planning Committee this time Gordon and
Chair Jacobs
Intergovernmental Quarterly- meets 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Parks Work Group at 5:30pm Member Gordon —Member
1 Alternate
Commissioner Commissioner Rich
- Alternate
JOCCA Meets Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner
in Pittsboro at Or Citizen Required Dorosin
5:30pm - but not serving at this
time
2 Commissioners Commissioner
Legislative Issues As needed Dorosin and
Work Group Commissioner
McKee
Library Services Task Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs -
Force this time Member
Has not been
disbanded Commissioner
Price - Member_
Orange County Bi-Monthly-last 1 Commissioner - Commissioner
Partnership for Young Wed of month- Board of Directors Dorosin -Member
16
Children at 8:30am
Research Triangle Meets as 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Regional Partnership needed Price -Member
(RTRP)
Solid Waste Meets as 1 Commissioner Suspended Until
Management Plan needed further direction
Work Group
BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY
SERVING
Solid Waste Interlocal To be re-
Agreement— Elected constituted at a
Leaders Work Group later date
Ten Year Plan to End Monthly -1St 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Homelessness Wed. at 5:30pm member Pelissier
Executive Team
Triangle J Council of Monthly—4th 1 Commissioner Chair Jacobs-
Governments Wed — 6:00pm Member Member
1 Alternate Commissioner
Commissioner Rich- Alternate
Triangle Area Rural Bi-monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Planning Organization Member Price—Member
(TARPO) 1 Alternate
Transportation Commissioner Commissioner
Advisory Committee Pelissier -Alternate
Triangle Transit Board Monthly—4th May appoint a Commissioner
of Trustees Wednesday Commissioner or Pelissier -
1:30pm-5:30pm Commissioner- Treasurer
appointed citizen
Upper Neuse River Monthly— By-Laws state that Pam Hemminger—
Basin Association Different "The number of appointed as a
Counties Host Directors constituting citizen in November
the Board of Directors 2012
shall be one (1) per
17
full voting entity, with Alternate- Staff
one (I) alternate per member Tom Davis
full voting entity in
case of the Director's
absence.
Workforce Meets monthly in Does not require a Nancy Coston —
Development Board — Asheboro Commissioner-usually DSS Director
Regional Partnership (staff has been 1 Non-
recommends to Voting
hold due to Liaison
pending
reorganization)
Visitor's Bureau Monthly—Third 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich
Wed Required - Member
8:00 AM
BOARDS TO WHICH
BOCC HAS ALREADY
MADE
APPOINTMENTS
NACo Voting I Commissioner Commissioner
Delegate Required Price
NCACC Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner
Delegate Required Price
Triangle Transit As Needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner
Special Tax Board Required Gordon and
Commissioner
Pelissier
1 SHORT TERM TASK FORCE
2
Historic Rogers Road Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner
Task Force needed Price - Member
Commissioner Rich
- Member
3
EX-OFFICIO
Community Leadership Council (according to Chamber they are Chair Serves
reviewing the status of this group at this)
Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves
require a Commissioner
NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
18
1
OFFICERS
Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Commissioner Pelissier -
Treasurer
2
3
4 Chair Jacobs opened discussion of assignments to the Historic Rogers Road Task Force.
5 Commissioner Price said she is interested because she has been interested in that
6 community for many years and she has attended some of the meetings and knows people in
7 the neighborhood.
8 Commissioner Dorosin said he is interested on the task force and has worked with the
9 Rogers Road community for several years. He said he is knowledgeable about needs and
10 priorities of the community and the issues they are facing. It was the focus of his campaign and
11 he believes it contributed to his election. He said he has good relationships with residents and
12 this would be invaluable to both the Board of County Commissioners and the task force.
13 Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier all said they are
14 not interested in serving on the task force.
15 Commissioner Rich would like to continue on the task force and noted that she has been
16 on it for six months. She said she has been involved since they first started pricing water and
17 sewer out there. She thinks they need continuity and she has read all of the reports since
18 1997. She said that at the end of every meeting, there are no conclusions, just reports. She
19 believes they need to move forward and it is time not to go backwards and to engage the
20 managers to move forward as meetings take place. She said her goal would be to represent
21 Orange County now and not Chapel Hill.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier to nominate past commissioner, Pam
24 Hemminger, to continue on this task force as an Orange County representative. She stated
25 that Mrs. Hemminger kept people on task and had garnished a lot of respect. She knows the
26 Orange County budget process and the county perspective. She noted that the task force
27 makes recommendations only and does not vote as elected officials.
28 Commissioner McKee seconded that motion.
29
30 VOTE: Yeas - 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner McKee)
31 Nays 4- (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner
32 Gordon)
33 MOTION FAILED
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
36 nominate Commissioner Price.
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Jacobs to nominate
40 Commissioner Rich.
41 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price)
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
44 nominate Commissioner Dorosin.
19
1 Discussion ensued as stated below. (No vote was taken because two members —
2 Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price— had already been nominated and approved).
3
4 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Dorosin's opinion regarding his legal
5 representation of RENA and asked if he has any issue with balancing that out.
6 Commissioner Dorosin said he has no problem. He stated that the conflict of interest
7 guidelines clearly relate to financial interests and he has none, as he does not get paid by
8 RENA. He believes that he will act, at all times, in the best interest of the county.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said that he feels he was at a disadvantage by being the last
10 nominee. He said they should have asked people to pick two nominees. He said the process
11 was not clear.
12 Commissioner McKee said they are too far down the road to reverse.
13 Commissioner Jacobs noted that he has asked for approval of the process before
14 beginning. He noted that anyone could have nominated anyone in any order.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said that he still did not feel the process was clear.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the majority of the board was willing to do things otherwise
17 or if they were content. He acknowledged Commissioner Dorosin's point. The majority of the
18 board was content.
19 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich will represent Orange
20 County on the Historic Rogers Road Task Force.
21
22 4. Discussion of Some Board of Commissioners and Advisory Board Protocols
23 Chair Jacobs referenced the yellow sheet (copy of 2008 Advisory Board Chairs Meeting)
24 and the need to orient the advisory board chairs. He said this came up, in part, when
25 Commissioner Dorosin brought up the process of how they appoint to advisory boards. He said
26 some of the advisory boards develop the expectation that if they nominate people, it is a breach
27 of faith if the Board does not accept the nominations. He noted an email conversation clarifying
28 that this is not how it works. The County Commissioners are the only body that can appoint to
29 boards. These things need to be gone over with the advisory boards and he noted the need to
30 provide guidance to these boards on several issues, i.e. closed session meetings, and to give
31 them an opportunity to ask questions. He is talking about meeting with advisory board chairs.
32 Chair Jacobs said work sessions were one issue that needed clarification. He noted
33 that at work sessions, the public cannot speak, and there is no voting, no approvals or rejections.
34 Items may be referred to a regular meeting and that items are not added to the agenda. There is
35 a petitioning of the board at the beginning of Board meetings. In order to put items on the
36 agenda, they must be reviewed at agenda review and will then put on a suitable agenda or clear
37 reason will be given if they are not added. He said that an item not added is not considered
38 "dead" and can be brought back at a later date. This system was developed to give order to the
39 way in which matters are put on the agenda and to prevent items from appearing on the agenda
40 without proper vetting about what is involved. He said this process has been used a little, but not
41 much since the new members were seated. He referenced one petition by Commissioner
42 Pelissier to have the Chair write a letter to all the advisory board members who have finished
43 terms. Chair Jacobs said they currently receive a letter from the clerk and it will now have the
44 Chair's signature on it. That is an example of a petition that will be answered.
45 Commissioner Rich asked about time frames for responding to petitions and Chair
46 Jacobs said there are two answers; one is ASAP and the other is the staff has to respond, which
47 may take awhile for staff to get things together sufficiently to bring it back to the agenda. In
48 either case, an answer will be given promptly. This response will tell you that if it is going to be
49 on an agenda or not, and if not on the agenda at the next meeting, a time frame will be given.
20
1 Frank Clifton said that if a petition requires research or legal research, there will be a
2 listing of what staff members are pursuing it or have been assigned. A sheet will be given that
3 give a status update and where the issue is projected to be on the agenda. This is especially true
4 when several advisory boards are involved. Some type of response about action taken is usually
5 given within a week of the petition.
6 Chair Jacobs addressed the question of, do we care if our advisory boards make
7 presentations to other elected boards and John Roberts asked for a moment to look into this.
8 Chair Jacobs addressed the question of how letters are written. He said, if you use
9 personal stationary, you may do what you want. If county stationary is used, make it clear that it
10 is from you and not the board, unless you are the Chair speaking on behalf of the board.
11 John Roberts, addressing the prior question, said the general advisory board policy
12 section 11, page 14, subsection C3 states:
13 — Advisory Boards and any members thereof shall not (and shall not have the express or
14 implied authority to):
15 1. Take positions, in their capacity as an advisory board member, on any political
16 issue or support or oppose any candidate for public office
17
18 Chair Jacobs noted that this should be part of new member orientation.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said that it should be made clear during orientation that they are
20 not trying to constrain free speech. He said it should be clear that there is an absolute right to
21 speak and identify yourself and your community activities and board memberships, but there
22 should be a disclaimer that you are not speaking on behalf of a particular advisory board.
23 Frank Clifton said for the newer board members that there are a couple of statutory
24 boards that this does not apply to, i.e. Board of Health, Social Services, who have official capacity
25 versus advisory capacity.
26 Commissioner Rich said that often people will tell where they are from but will then
27 designate they are speaking for themselves. She said that it is key that people be allowed to
28 express their opinion as a citizen, not an advisory board member.
29 Commissioner Dorosin specified that the citizen should be allowed to disclose their
30 involvements, as it may reveal why they are knowledgeable about the issue.
31 Commissioner McKee said the issue is not that they don't speak, but that it be specified
32 they speak as an individual. He said he has no problem with anyone saying anything to any
33 advisory board, provided it is not disparaging an individual or board, as long as they are speaking
34 for themselves. He noted that to mention a planning board membership as a background
35 statement is different than claiming to speak as a planning board member.
36 Chair Jacobs noted that the statement on page 14 specifies "take positions within their
37 capacity as an advisory board member." To that point, a speaker should be present not in that
38 official position, but as an American with a right to free speech.
39 Commissioner Price said, with regard to using stationary, members should be careful
40 with using title of Commissioner.
41 Commissioner Rich said that this goes back to Commissioner Dorosin's point of how
42 someone would know about an issue if they weren't at a Commissioners' meeting. There may be
43 an event at a Commissioner's meeting that you would not otherwise know about and the
44 representation of yourself as a Commissioner would be relevant.
45 Commissioner Price said that to say you are a Commissioner is different than to sign as
46 a Commissioner.
47 Commissioner McKee said any elected office is different than serving on an advisory
48 board. He said the Commissioner title was earned because an election was won. The title is
49 attached to a name, thus he is not concerned about simply signing it. He said it only identifies
50 who you are. He said that elected officials have earned the right to use that title.
21
1 Commissioner Price said that in the case of forming an opinion or judgment on an issue,
2 they should remain neutral unless supported by full board.
3 Chair Jacobs acknowledged that there are different views and the issue does not need
4 to be resolved today.
5 Commissioner Dorosin referred back to the topic of the appointment process. He noted
6 that currently boards bring forth recommendations and they as Board of County Commissioners
7 have freedom to accept those or choose differently. He said that his issue is, if there is a
8 recommended candidate, does it make sense to let the board chair know that this is someone
9 they support or have recruited. He said that the negative side of this is the idea that it is exerting
10 undue influence. He said he is not sure this concern is legitimate, because ultimately the choice
11 is up to the Board. He said is a heads up to the advisory boards more fair to them than for them
12 to submit a name and the Board to put its own people on and blindside them. He said from a
13 good government standpoint, there is a triangle of Boards, Advisory Boards, and residents that
14 are being reached out to. He noted the interest in gender, age, race, socio-economic diversity.
15 He said it is easier for the Board of County Commissioners to help reach the diversity goal and
16 he would be in favor of working more closely with the advisory board chairs and having better
17 communication. He said the other issue and concern of his is the high number of vacancies on
18 some of these boards. He noted that there was only one recommendation for boards that had
19 two or more vacancies. He said that he thinks the Advisory Board Chairs should be instructed to
20 fill those vacancies as quickly as possible. He referenced his experience of waiting a year to be
21 placed on the Carrboro Economic Development Commission while knowing there were four
22 vacancies. He said it wasn't a priority for the board and it turns citizens off who are interested.
23 He said that it leads to boards that are more insular and clubby. He said he would like to
24 encourage boards to bring forward as many applicants as possible.
25 Chair Jacobs said he believed that if there are vacancies and there are applicants, they
26 should be filled. He said that the better way to do it is to put boards on notice that if positions are
27 not filled, an explanation should be given and, if needed, the Board of County Commissioners will
28 fill them. He said this also gives the Clerk a chance to make sure applicants still reside in the
29 county.
30 Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker said that many times applicants apply and then
31 some boards take time to go through the due diligence process to make sure the person can
32 attend the meetings and has the necessary availability. She said that many persons apply for a
33 vacancy and then sit out there for a year. Once they are approached, they may not have
34 availability. Often when contacted, people have an obstacle preventing them from filling the
35 position. She said there is an effort to contact applicants on a regular basis to update their status.
36 Chair Jacobs said that it should be communicated to the board chairs, that it is important
37 to move these candidates forward and fill vacancies. If there is a process involved, it should be
38 communicated. If a candidate is not moved forward and a reason can't be given, the Board will
39 step in. He said there should be parameters set, such as operating in a timely manner. He said
40 that he knows there is not time to change policy tonight, but he wanted the issues to be raised,
41 such as how to know candidates better. He referenced his experience in applying to serve with
42 OWASA, when he was interviewed by then Commissioners, Moses Carey and Verla lnsko.
43 Commissioner Gordon said issues that need to be addressed should be flagged. She
44 raised the question about elected officials serving on other boards. She quoted a stipulation from
45 the old policies that stated "Elected officials from other jurisdictions shall not be appointed to
46 county boards and commissions, unless specifically representing their boards in an elected
47 capacity." She said that if it was desired that someone be on a board, a position could be
48 created. She said that there are boards and commissions they don't take recommendations
49 from. She said that historically the reason recommendations are taken from boards and
50 commissions is because there was a problem of not knowing enough about the applicants on the
22
1 long list of boards and commissions. The thought was to have the boards vet and recommend
2 their own people, but those recommendations don't have to be accepted. She said the decision
3 is, do they or do they not want recommendations from advisory boards. Her preference is to take
4 recommendations.
5 Commissioner McKee said that it is important that citizens are engaged and encouraged
6 to apply to boards, even solicited to apply if it is believed that they would be good on a board. He
7 said that what they need to be careful of, individually or collectively, is appointing people to
8 boards to align ideology of a board or a member of a board.
9 Commissioner Pelissier said that she believes advisory boards should be encouraged to
10 vet people, because the Board of County Commissioners does not have the time. She said there
11 are so many boards and that the advisory boards do a good job overall. She does not want to
12 ask boards to say that they do not like applicants, as this will come in a letter and would be public
13 record.
14 Commissioner Rich asked how OWASA members were chosen.
15 Commissioner Pelissier said that some people interview on their own. Bit that nothing
16 stops them from calling applicants on the list. She said that calls have been made to boards,
17 prospective members and people who might know the applicant.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Pelissier had been interviewed and
19 Commissioner Pelissier said no. She said she received a questionnaire.
20 Commissioner Gordon said the decision had been made to go to an extensive
21 questionnaire. She said there was a history to this, but it was too late to go over it at this time.
22
23
24 5. Closed Session
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to go into
27 closed session at 10:06pm for the purpose to discuss:
28
29 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
30 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
31
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner McKee to reconvene
38 into regular session at 11:30pm.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 ADJOURNMENT
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the
45 meeting at 11:30pm.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Barry Jacobs, Chair
50
23
1 Donna S. Baker, CMC
2 Clerk to the Board
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1 DRAFT Attachment 4
2 MINUTES
3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 February 12, 2013
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Tuesday,
9 February 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
10 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
11 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
13 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
14 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
15 Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members
16 will be identified appropriately below)
17
18 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
19 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
20
21 1. Recommendations and Report from Animal Services Advisory Board on Sterilization
22 and Micro-chippinq of Recovered Stray Animals
23
24 Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced himself, Lyn White, Animal Services
25 Advisory Board Vice Chair and Susan Elmore, Animal Services Advisory Board Chair. He said
26 that the work being discussed this evening is an extension of the strategic plan on addressing pet
27 overpopulation that was brought forward to the Board in early 2010.
28 He said the overarching goals of that plan are, through a proactive program of spaying
29 and neutering within the community, to 1) reduce the number of animals that are euthanized due
30 to lack of homes and 2) reduce the number of animals that come to the county in need of shelter
31 and care. This will control the costs of animal care and control services in the long run.
32 He noted that Animal Services will be presenting to the Board on February 19th to
33 present a request for resolution on Spay Day and to discuss a program of sterilization for pets in
34 households dependent on public assistance or households who are economically challenged. He
35 said that there are key components of the recommendations being presented at this meeting that
36 seek to support those people in their efforts to obtain sterilization for their pets.
37 He said the proactive approach in their strategic plan is part of a plan to reduce the
38 number of animals that come into the shelter. He said that in 2000, the number of animals
39 coming into the shelter was more than 6,000 per year, compared to 3,500 last year. The rate of
40 reproduction or intake per capita in the county in 2000 was about 47, compared to 27 per
41 thousand last year. He stressed the need to continue to drive that rate down, given that human
42 population is continuing to grow. The spay and neuter program has been helpful in achieving
43 their goal. .
44 Dr. Lyn White said that the committee was tasked to look at animals that are repeatedly
45 stray and recovered by an owner. She asked if there is a way to strengthen the legislation
46 regarding people who repeatedly recover stray pets. She said a task force convened to ask if
47 there is a way to enhance the recovery process and to limit the number of strays that are
48 reproducing, thus reducing their euthanasia rate. She said the task force looked at literature
49 regarding mandatory spaying/neutering of recovered animals in other areas, veterinary
50 literature, recommendations of animal welfare organizations. After review of this information,
2
1 the task form came up with a strategic plan that was then presented to the Animal Services
2 Advisory Board. The board unanimously adopted it.
3 Dr. White reviewed the executive summary. She said the first part of the plan is a strong
4 recommendation for micro chipping, as micro chipped animals are much more readily returned
5 to their owners. She said micro chipping used to be part of Orange County Animal Services
6 until it was cut from the county budget during a time of fiscal difficulty. She said there is now a
7 charge of$25 to place a micro-chip, and this is voluntary. She said that the new
8 recommendation is, when a stray is brought to the shelter and an owner comes to recover the
9 animal, the owner must pay for micro chipping in order for the animal to be returned.
10 Dr. White said that part two addresses whether animals should be mandatorily spayed
11 and neutered before being returning to their owner. She said that the committee was very
12 interested in moving in that direction at first. However, after reviewing the information, the
13 committee realized that this is not being locally enforced in North Carolina. She said that these
14 mandatory spay and neuter programs are unusual in the US and most national organizations
15 recommend against them. Concerns are that owners will go underground, avoiding vets and
16 licensing, in fear of mandatory spay neuter laws. She said that the shelter cannot spay or
17 neuter animals that don't belong to them. She said that this means if an owner comes to
18 recover a pet, the shelter cannot enforce spaying or neutering in the shelter before returning the
19 animal. Considering the research, it was decided that there were other ways to encourage
20 spaying/neutering animals without legislating. The committee strongly recommended an
21 education process and, as mentioned by Bob Marotto earlier, a very inexpensive or free spay
22 and neuter program.
23 Dr. White said there is need for help from the Board of County Commissioners on
24 deciding whether or not to implement a tiered and differential recovery program. She referred to
25 the tiered pay licensing system, which charges more for reproductive pets than spayed/neutered
26 pets. She said the idea is to take that model and apply it to animals who are recovered. The first
27 time an animal is recovered, it will cost a certain fee to get the animal back and the fee is different
28 depending on whether the animal is spayed/neutered or not. She said that for the second
29 recovery of the same animal, it would cost more for that animal to be recovered and there is again
30 a differential based on the reproductive status. This increase continues with the third recovery,
31 but with an added incentive to spay or neuter. For this third recovery, there will be a $100 deposit
32 that will be returned if the owner returns within 90 days to show proof that the animal has been
33 spayed or neutered. She said that with these fees and a healthy dose of education there is hope
34 that the objective of reducing the number of reproductive animals will be reached.
35 Commissioner Price asked for clarification about the $25 microchip fee and Dr. White
36 said there is an impoundment fee, inoculation fee, possible licensing fee, as well as the micro
37 chipping fee.
38 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the state veterinary rules regarding spaying and
39 neutering an animal that does not belong to the shelter. He asked how long it takes for the
40 animal to become a shelter animal.
41 Bob Marotto said the shelter holds the animal for a minimum of 5 calendar days, 3 of
42 those days the shelter must be open to the public. If it is a legally surrendered animal, the shelter
43 could decide to adopt out the animal immediately.
44 Commissioner Dorosin asked, if five days pass and the dog is reproductive, how quickly
45 would they move forward to spay it.
46 Bob Marotto said that if they think the animal is highly adoptable they may schedule it for
47 sterilization on the 6th day; otherwise, they would have someone to adopt the animal and then
48 schedule the sterilization. This avoids the cost of sterilizing an animal who is then not adopted.
49 Commissioner Dorosin asked, if the animal is not adoptable, then is it not on the
50 spay/neuter list.
51 Bob Marotto said it would not be on a spay and neuter list but on another list.
3
1 Commissioner McKee noted that, in the abstract, very few animals are recovered three
2 or more times. He asked what seems to be the reason given for these repeat recovered animals,
3 and he also noted that the fees seem oppressively high.
4 Bob Marotto said, to his first question, there is a lack of pet ownership responsibility and
5 the animal not being suitably confined.
6 Dr. White said the fee is high so as to affect the owner enough to get the animal spayed
7 or neutered or confined. She said, in some cases, the owner chooses to give up the animal
8 rather than pay the fee and in those cases, it is usually the best for the animal.
9 Bob Marotto said every time a person recovers an animal, a multi-lingual document will
10 be given and a phone call will be made to inform the person about low cost or free spay or neuter
11 services available for qualifying incomes. He said that the education and the incentives should
12 help motivate people.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciated the thoroughness of the research and
14 information. She said that even though they plan to give information on spay/neuter to those who
15 recover pets, she wonders if there is a way to know why people don't spay or neuter.
16 Dr. White said there are so many pros for neutering or spaying an animal. However,
17 many people fear weight gain, personality change, etc. She said that education may change
18 some of these attitudes.
19 Bob Marotto said those who have been involved with spay and neuter over the last 15
20 years will tell you that there has been a shift from education to affordable spay and neuter
21 programs. He said a number of organizations found that advertising was generating interest in
22 sterilization; however the target audience couldn't access it because of limited means. He said
23 this led to the organization of subsidized programs to make it accessible. This is the model that
24 has been followed. He said, in the last 2 years, the shelter has done more than 500 spays and
25 neuters of pets belonging to families receiving public assistance, or with limited house household
26 income. He stressed that the availability is a central issue and should be combined with
27 education and incentives.
28 Commissioner Price asked if they had a goal of a number or percentage of animals to
29 spay and neuter.
30 Bob Marotto said the hope is to get up to 650 targeted sterilizations each year, which is
31 calculated on the basis of experience other communities have had. He said experience has
32 shown that with six or seven targeted spays or neuters per thousand, the reproduction rate and
33 the shelter intake numbers decline. He said that targeted sterilization means reaching out to
34 people who would not otherwise sterilize their pets.
35 Frank Clifton recognized Bob Marotto and the Animal Services Advisory Board for all of
36 their proactive programs for animal welfare in Orange County.
37 Chair Jacobs noted that there was a surgical suite built in the shelter. He said there are
38 also photos on the web for people looking for animals. He asked if a recovered animal can only
39 stay up to 5 days before it is decided it is expendable and if the shelter factors in how well cared
40 for the animals appear to be.
41 Bob Marotto said if they have an animal that has been subject to neglect and is a stray,
42 the animal would be sustained and observed for any physical and temperamental improvements.
43 He said, if they feel that this animal may become adoptable later, attempts would be made to do
44 that at the shelter or to reach out to partnering organizations for fostering opportunities. He gave
45 examples of the ways in which social media and other avenues are used to place the adoptable
46 animals. The only exceptions are cruelty cases and other animals involved in investigations. He
47 said there is a discretionary process used to prevent euthanizing adoptable animals.
48 Commissioner McKee noted that this agency has always tried to work with residents to
49 come to equitable solutions.
50 Commissioner Rich asked how most animals come to the shelter.
4
1 Bob Marotto said that in 2012, 60-70% of the animals were brought to the shelter by a
2 member of the public who found them and the rest are found by their animal control officers.
3 Chair Jacobs asked about the next steps.
4 Bob Marotto said the desired plan is to bring forward amendments to their ordinance
5 during this upcoming budget process.
6
7 2. Conceptual Facilities Use Analysis & Presentation
8
9 Chair Jacobs again referred to information at their places:
10 Pink sheet- Breakdown of Attachments
11 Yellow sheet- Draft Minutes from 11/13 work session
12 Blue sheet—Information from Commissioner Gordon
13
14 Frank Clifton gave some background on this process and he said the county has built
15 new facilities over the past few years, moved different county departments around with
16 consolidation, moved away from facilities with higher operating costs and offset long range
17 costs where they can. He said at one time the county contemplated purchasing the Wal-Mart
18 shopping center for county operations but ended up with just a portion of it for Department of
19 Social Service offices. He noted that the Board of Elections has been moved and he reviewed
20 the departments in the Revere Road facility and noted the significant maintenance needs of this
21 building. He said that the building next door has housed several different departments, but
22 parts of the building are in a flood plain and it has several issues with HVAC and electrical. He
23 noted that the area being used for this meeting was at one time conceived to be a future
24 meeting room for the County Commissioners. He said that financial requirements of adapting
25 the space put this on hold. He reviewed some of the facilities that were toured earlier in the
26 day: Link Government Services Center, Annex, Agricultural Building and the Whitted Building.
27 He said, with Whitted, the Cultural Arts organization approached the county for sharing use of
28 the vacated library space in that building. He said there was question of cost of renovations and
29 the issue of continued operations of other county facilities in the building and the need to be
30 compatible with that.
31 Frank Clifton said currently the Board of County Commissioners move around to various
32 meeting facilities, especially in the northern part of the county. He said that there is a need to
33 have a permanent meeting facility, not for the staff, but for the public and for the sake of
34 technology and presentation issues. He said that even if it's an interim step, there needs to be
35 a permanent place to locate the County Commissioners. He said the goal is not to make a
36 decision tonight but to give a thorough analysis of these buildings and their potential and to
37 gather feedback.
38 Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services director introduced himself and Ken
39 Redfoot, architect.
40 Frank Clifton noted the fact that much of the discussion would reference the maps and
41 drawings included in attachments of Item 2.
42 Jeff Thompson said there are three scenarios with Whitted. He said that the first is the
43 meeting room and he referenced the space study, which resolves several issues, but what
44 remains unsolved is the permanent meeting facility.
45
46 Attachment C:
47 Ken Redfoot noted the current setup of the Whitted Center on the blueprints. He said
48 the ground level is the medical clinic of the Health Dept. The mid/first level is the former library
49 with large open spaces that are very accommodating for meeting room and theater type venues.
50 He said that the site and the parking are adequate for the use. Margaret Hauth, Planning
51 Director from Hillsborough said that depends on the event. Ken Redfoot said that if there is a
5
1 joint space use with the theater, the theater will require more seating than permanent seating
2 arrangement.
3 Ken Redfoot said they can add parking to accommodate.
4 Ken Redfoot said with relatively light modification to the floor plan, it was possible to
5 accommodate a Board of County Commissioners meeting room with a large double volume
6 space. He said there would be additional toilets to accommodate assembly occupancy
7 requirements. He said there would also be a pre-function room and a Board of County
8 Commissioners function room, flanking the overall space. He said there would be a storage
9 room with a freight elevator, another pre-function and office area.
10 He said they would need to add a ramp in the back and support areas. He said that for
11 the theater arrangement plan, there is an expanded seating arrangement, additional portable
12 stage, along with flexible space.
13 Commissioner Gordon referenced her tour of the facility earlier in the day. She said the
14 Board of County Commissioners did walk through it previously and have discussed this
15 previously. She said there are some concerns, one of which is parking and another is the
16 impact on the residential neighborhood by both parking and noise. She said another concern is
17 the portable stage being moved in and out. She said that the arts group needs a permanent
18 stage and space that cultural arts groups have permanent access to. She said it seems that the
19 competing uses would have schedule conflicts.
20 Ken Redfoot said the project was looked at as a large theater that could then serve as a
21 BOCC meeting room; or just make it a permanent meeting space for Board of County
22 Commissioners only and use extra space for administrative offices. He said that the space
23 could provide approximately 20 offices, including a large flexible meeting and closed session
24 room; and there would still be space for enough restrooms to accommodate the number of
25 people using the space. He then reviewed the two options: 1) Large volume theater/BOCC
26 combination; and 2) BOCC Meeting space only with additional office space.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the first option was also a meeting room only.
28 Ken Redford said that the first option would have fewer chairs for BOCC, but would have
29 an additional section for theater seating, making it a much larger space. He said this was to
30 accommodate adding a stage and a 300 seat venue. Commissioner McKee said the third
31 alternative would also be for Board of County Commissioners and for Town of Hillsborough and
32 the school board to use the meeting room, with no theater.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if one and two are the same but with different uses and
34 Ken Redford said yes.
35 Frank Clifton said that the first option provided another use besides just local
36 government, while the third option is strictly for local government use if the decision was not to
37 support the arts group. .
38 Commissioner McKee noted that with the third option the Board of County
39 Commissioners, the town and the school board would all use the space.
40 Jeff Thompson said that the two illustrations are estimated at $1.2-$1.4 million including
41 improvements outside of the facility with additional parking and paving.
42 Frank Clifton said neighborhood feedback was in favor of paving the parking lots and
43 that it makes sense to do landscaping along with paving.
44 Jeff Thompson said this is a sprinkled building and max capacity is 300 with 292 parking
45 spaces, according to the Fire Marshal.
46 Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Hillsborough said they wanted to have their
47 meetings there and Chair Jacobs said he did talk with mayor and they are interested. Chair
48 Jacobs said they are open to the idea of paying a fee for room usage when available, although
49 there is no hard and fast commitment yet.
50 Commissioner Price asked if there was another space for soccer fields if area five
51 playfields are paved.
6
1 Ken Redfoot said they backed off of that parking plan as they learned the parking
2 requirements.
3 Jeff Thompson said the third plan for meeting space with admin space is up to $1.3-1.5
4 million. He said this is because of the upgrade to office use and addition of wall space.
5 Frank Clifton said the upfits that the arts group would require on soundproofing, curtains,
6 additional chairs and stages would be paid for by the arts group with separate funding.
7 Commissioner Gordon said when this was talked about before, she had two thoughts.
8 These were put in writing and they are outlined in the blue attachment sheet quoted here:
9
10 Commissioner Gordon's memo:
11
12 All,
13
14 The purpose of this email is to provide comments concerning item 2 on the February 12 work
15 session agenda, "Conceptual Facilities Use Analysis and Presentation."
16
17 1. REVIEW OF FACILITY NEEDS
18
19 The county has previously done studies concerning the space necessary to address long term
20 county operational needs. The resulting reports included principles to guide the development of
21 county facilities, a description of departmental space requirements, and recommendations
22 concerning the types of facilities needed to address those departmental requirements.
23
24 I believe we should review the county's current overall space needs in that same systematic
25 way before we spend any money to renovate older facilities, construct new facilities, or decide
26 to deconstruct or sell older facilities. This review, whether or not it is a "study," would provide a
27 context for making an informed decision.
28
29 2. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ROOM
30
31 The location for a new meeting room is something the commissioners have discussed
32 previously. It is my opinion that if we add a meeting room in Hillsborough, it should be as close
33 to the center of other county operations in the town as possible. To me, that would mean
34 locating it downtown at or near the east or west county campus. The parking deck is under-
35 utilized, so there should be enough parking available downtown.
36
37 Therefore I have suggested that we should consider an addition to the Link Center, if and when
38 we could afford it. This addition could be a new 5000 square foot meeting room, located where
39 the adjacent parking lot is located now. If the cost was $300 to $400 per square foot (as
40 indicated in the November 13, 2012 work session), then the cost of a new meeting room would
41 be about$1.5 million to $2.0 million.
42
43 The statement attributed to me about requesting an analysis of placing a meeting facility at the
44 Government Services Center Annex (GSA) site must have been a misunderstanding. I did not
45 suggest that we should put a new 9800 square foot meeting facility at the GSA site.
46
47 Instead, my recommendation related to the GSA was made in the context of another suggestion
48 that we should deconstruct the GSA to make room for more parking. I stated that we should not
49 deconstruct the GSA until we had an overall plan for county facilities, and then we could make a
50 decision. I also stated that if we wanted to build a new meeting room at the Link Center, we
51 would need to meet the Town of Hillsborough's zoning and other requirements, including
7
1 parking. My statements about the GSA were made in the context of satisfying Hillsborough's
2 parking requirements for new meeting space constructed as an addition to the Link Center.
3
4 Alice Gordon
5
6 In addition to the other concerns, Commissioner Gordon said that after seeing the
7 proposed joint usage configuration, she was concerned about the impact on the neighborhood
8 and the difficulties with parking. She said that the arts group would need permanent space as
9 would the Board of County Commissioners. She said that external concerns aside, the shared
10 use design doesn't seem to satisfy either need. She said that, with the idea of consolidating
11 several services to one location, the meeting facility should be downtown. She noted that there
12 is an underutilized parking deck, many facilities already downtown and a county campus. She
13 said she feels there should be a meeting room on the campus. She suggested adding to the
14 Link Government Services Center. She acknowledged that there may be planning and HVAC
15 issues, but the concept is that their core facilities are at Link Government Services Center and
16 that is where the meeting room should be. She feels the meeting space should be downtown
17 and that there will be scheduling and other issues with sharing meeting space with performance
18 space. She said there has been excellent analysis done of the facilities, but no analysis of the
19 needs.
20 Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Gordon touched on many of his concerns
21 about space needs and the scheduling of a joint facility or a shared facility with other towns and
22 schools. He said if three entities plus an arts center are using it, he does not know how they
23 could all use it in a logical manner. He said he does not see this as a two purpose facility.
24 Commissioner Rich said,just coming off the Chapel Hill Town Council, she has seen
25 their meeting room used for many purposes, and it was scheduled for every night. She said it
26 would be a good idea to know who meets when. She is not as concerned about the other
27 governmental bodies using it but can see the concern with a performance group. She noted
28 that the Town Council chambers are not used on the weekends, so she thinks that part could
29 work out. She said she would like to hear from Board of County Commissioners about the
30 impact on and the feedback from the neighborhood.
31 Chair Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners has not met with the
32 neighborhood, but he has talked with the Mayor who has met with the neighbors.
33 Frank Clifton said there is a reason things are moving in the order they are. He said
34 Commissioner Gordon is correct in that they do want to know the uses that are going to be in a
35 facility; however they pay for maintenance, heating, lights on Whitted every day and wanted to
36 see what the facility could be used for. The request for joint usage came from the arts group
37 and the town and the arts group would prefer the Board not be in the building at all, but that
38 didn't make sense from a cost standpoint. He said with the Board of County Commissioners'
39 rotating meeting schedule, they would not be using this facility on a daily basis. He said they
40 did tell the arts group that there will be times when events cannot be scheduled; however in the
41 summer time the facility would be available every night.
42 He said talking with the neighborhood was left to the Town of Hillsborough. He was told
43 that the government uses are all appropriate for the area, as the building has always been for
44 government use.
45 Margaret Hauth, Planning Director from the Town of Hillsborough, said money given to
46 the arts center came from their tourism board not the town or the Town's Board of
47 Commissioners. She said that this fact does not lessen the town support of the cultural center.
48 The concept has not come before the town yet for a vote. She said they have advised the
49 cultural center to talk with neighborhood to find out the issues, since they know the intensity of
50 their usage. She noted that comparison will need to be done regarding old use, with new use.
51 The recreation center is a nighttime peak use and a cultural arts event would most likely be a
8
1 nighttime peak use, where normal peak use is during the day. She said she did not attend any
2 of these neighborhood meetings but feedback was concern for noise, traffic, how often would
3 facility be used, etc. She said they all need a joint meeting to discuss this in more detail. She
4 said that the County has a role as building owner; the town has a role as regulator; the cultural
5 center has a role as potential user; and the neighborhood has a role. She said that each
6 government user needs to communicate their usage needs and then the remaining time shown
7 to the arts group to determine if it is enough and how much of it they will use. Once this is
8 established, the usage can be presented to the neighborhood.
9 Chair Jacobs said at some point there will need to be an open house to give all an
10 opportunity to speak on the pros and cons of this proposal. He said Hillsborough's regulations
11 also must be accounted for as well as an awareness of the space that each department needs.
12 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want to close the door to the cultural center or
13 presume what will or won't meet their needs. She said they need to have meeting space there
14 too, and since it is a unique space and it would be a shame to turn it all into office space. She
15 said they do need more information on some of the other buildings, and there is a need for an
16 assessment on the use of the offices.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said it appears there is available space to make use of: Whitted
18 and Link Government Services Center; with the Annex, is there a deadline to get out of it or
19 invest in it.
20 Frank Clifton said there is no deadline but if one of the HVAC systems failed, that would
21 be costly to replace. He said it is a very large building being used by a small group and has an
22 operational cost of$25,000 per year.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the Revere Road facility and its short anticipated life
24 span. Frank Clifton said that building is 60 years old, needs a replacement of roof and it is
25 energy inefficient due to additions made over time.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said whatever happens with a meeting space, the idea is that
27 they will still meet at Southern Human Services Center and northern Orange County. He said
28 initially he liked the idea of co-locating the meeting room with the arts center since governmental
29 buildings are underutilized, especially on weekends. He said the idea of having a viable
30 art/performance space similar to the successful arts space in Carrboro. He said that perhaps
31 the space could serve as an incubator for the arts group, who could find another space
32 elsewhere if their needs increased. He said he feels they can make it work and there is a nitch
33 to be filled. He would like to know the alternative ideas for Link Government Services Center
34 too.
35 Commissioner Price said the cultural community was instrumental in trying to save the
36 Whitted space years ago. She said the arts business plan in their packet is an old plan and they
37 need an updated business plan that accurately portrays how they would use it. She said there
38 has been an investment from the community too.
39 Chair Jacobs said there will be a meeting with the Town of Hillsborough on 2/21 and
40 then a joint meeting with all interested parties could be suggested.
41 He said they are going to have a CIP work session in March and a work session in April,
42 so they need to schedule a meeting with the public soon. He said they need to discuss where
43 this project fits in the que of capital projects with the county.
44 Chair Jacobs said he was part of the last space needs study work group and they
45 decided not to put all of their facilities in one area, because it was too much traffic impact for
46 downtown Hillsborough.
47 Chair Jacobs said the majority of Board of County Commissioners are interested in
48 continuing to look at this as a possibility for joint usage and he said the next step is to see how
49 this fits into the neighborhood and town ordinances.
50 Commissioner Price said they need to get more updated information from the cultural
51 center to make sure they will fit.
9
1 Commissioner Pelissier said one of the uses would be for work sessions, and would they
2 have noise from other events.
3 Frank Clifton said many of these issues would need to be resolved, such as
4 soundproofing, windows, etc.
5 Frank Clifton said the next item is about Link Government Services Center and the
6 Annex.
7 Jeff Thompson said the space study has been updated several times and the last one
8 was in 2009 and the agricultural functions were included in the Revere Road property. He said
9 the study did not take into consideration the aged building and the $1-1.5 million dollar repair
10 costs. He said the building costs about $50,000 a year to operate. He said the people in the
11 building are operating harmoniously and it meets the space study needs.
12 Architect Ken Redfoot referenced the Annex and showed the floor plans. He said the
13 Board of Elections is presently in the lower level. He said a simple study was done regarding
14 how to accommodate as many offices as possible within this foot print. He showed layout of the
15 offices, conference room, shared reception, and possible kitchen space. He said in the attic
16 space, with appropriate updates, there is usable space to accommodate five people. He said
17 that in this plan there are a total of 26 office areas in the lower level as well as the 5 in the upper
18 level.
19 Ken Redfoot said the total square footage on first floor is about 6900 sq. ft.
20 Jeff Thompson said that as comparison, the existing facility, has 10,926 usable square
21 feet within the current EAC facility.
22 Chair Jacobs asked if there would be changes to any of the cinderblock wall
23 configurations.
24 Ken Redfoot said most of the cinder blocks are non-load bearing and could be
25 demolished. He said the building is very well built and structurally sound.
26 Jeff Thompson said there are about$250,000 in HVAC concerns, including equipment
27 that is below water level in the event of a 100 year flood. He said that if the envelope of the
28 building is breached, this will trigger flood regulations and town historic regulations; however if
29 changes are kept within the envelope of the building, it keeps expenses much lower.
30 Chair Jacobs asked how much parking is associated with building. Frank Clifton said it
31 is for the full use of this building. Chair Jacobs asked if there would actually be sufficient
32 parking, even on court days. Frank Clifton said there are crowded times from on Wednesday
33 morning, but more people are using the parking deck now that it is free.
34 Commissioner Price said what is the reason for suggesting 26 office spaces in the
35 annex.
36 Ken Redfoot said this number came from a combination of the way people might move
37 between the facilities being discussed and determine if there was an adequate amount of offices
38 between Whitted, the Annex and the Link building, to accommodate these moves.
39 Commissioner Price asked why specifically 26 offices were needed in this building and if
40 they know what departments would move there.
41 Frank Clifton said they looked at Revere Road and who might move and how
42 consolidation could be done and how many offices could you have. He said they then work
43 backward to see if this accommodates everyone. The number given was just the maximum
44 number of offices.
45 Commissioner Price asked why re-locate the Board of Elections out of the annex since
46 they are using all the space. She noted that there are few employees but high number of
47 volunteers.
48 Frank Clifton said most of the space is used for storage. He said that they are paying
49 utilities in two facilities and under-using both. He said the attempt was made to come up with
50 alternative uses that made sense.
10
1 Chair of Board of Elections Jim White said that most of their board is here and they are
2 enraged that they would consider moving the Board of Elections. He said there may be only
3 four employees but there were 12,000 voters in that building in November. He compared this to
4 the idea that the Commissioners' new meeting room is underutilized because there is no office
5 space in it. He said this is not a storage space but a voting space, and early voting site. He
6 said there are multiple uses for it and setting up cubicles there does not seem like a good use
7 for it. He expressed concern about voter parking and space in the plans and the need for
8 analysis of use studies before moving forward.
9 Chair Jacobs said there will be no decisions tonight and the point has been made that
10 more engagement needs to be made with the constituents, including the Board of Elections and
11 other cooperative extensions.
12 Commissioner Gordon said this underscores her point that unless you do the space
13 need studies she cannot make an informed decision. She said these decisions need to be
14 grounded in more data. She said it is helpful to have an analysis of the buildings; but there is no
15 data on departmental space requirements, usage, co-location, or chance for occupants to make
16 their case and these things are needed.
17 Chair Jacobs asked if it is more feasible to move folks from Revere Road to another
18 space better suited to their needs, rather than continuing to put money into that facility. He said
19 maybe the board should see the master plan for Blackwood Farm at New Hope because that
20 group envisioned an agriculture related park with demonstration plots and programming that
21 cannot be done at Revere Road, either. He said that, to Commissioner Gordon's point about
22 determining space needs and co-location questions, that might go far in determining whether to
23 continue investing in Revere Road; or recognize its limited life expectancy and put money aside
24 for a facility to be brought online at a future date when Revere will be for sale or deconstructed.
25 Frank Clifton said that of all the buildings the county owns, Revere Road is the biggest
26 liability. He said it's a great space for its use today but the roof is going to fail. He recommends
27 spending the barest amount possible on it if it is kept. He said the goal is to upgrade all county
28 facilities to a consistent level. He said the other discussion is to show properties that are,
29 through prior decisions of the board, now available and to determine best potential uses for
30 them. He said with Revere Road, they have simply made use of it. Farm Service Agency pays
31 rent in other counties, but the space here has been given to them in Orange County because it
32 was not being used for anything else. He said both interim and long term steps are being
33 looked at. It is a dilemma to consider spending money to replace air conditioning on a building
34 that's lifespan may only extend 2 more years. He noted that plans were designed for this
35 building two years ago and the decision was made not to move forward.
36 Chair Jacobs clarified that part of that decision was financial rather than design.
37 Commissioner Gordon said she did ask for an addition to the Link Government Services
38 Center and it could be made more high tech with better acoustics. She said does not know
39 what it will cost to add on this building, but she would like to put it on the table.
40 Frank Clifton said they have put geothermal wells, power, and air conditioning at the end
41 of the building and this was seen as a fairly extensive expense that would shut the building
42 down while those things were moved.
43 Commissioner Gordon said there was a lack of long term planning because those wells
44 were just put in and if a plan had been in place regarding a meeting room this wouldn't have
45 been done. She said she is getting more determined that a long term plan needs to be done.
46
47 Commissioner McKee said he does not believe any engagement was made with
48 services in the agri-building and their constituents. He said some of the wording in the abstract
49 regarding the deconstruction bothered him. He said this is a 50 year old building, the same age
50 as Orange High. He said he is aware of problems with the roof leaking in place but he
51 referenced the abstracts statement that the building has poor appearance and condition. He has
11
1 not heard of any of these complaints from the users and he is not sure where the statements in
2 the packet are coming from. He said the building is well kept and maintained. He is concerned
3 about moving the agencies in this facility is because all the extensions in this building use a
4 common federal server and must be in the same facility to use this. He said they also interact
5 on a daily basis with each other and the idea of cramming those agencies, not even including
6 the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). He said he is
7 bothered by the idea of cramming them into cubicles because planning was just moved out of
8 that building to get rid of cubicles. He said there has been talk for 25 years of building an
9 agriculture building and it is no closer to being done. He said the current space is not adequate
10 and now the proposal would put them in an even smaller space. He said that FSA will not allow
11 employees to be in a building in a flood plain, thus a move would break the organizations up
12 that need to stay together. He said that the number of farmers is higher in Orange and he is
13 very concerned about losing this agency. He said that the cost and all of the things he has
14 mentioned are a major concern to the agriculture community. He said he does not feel the
15 building is about to fall down and the agriculture community has been blindsided by this
16 because they were not included in the planning upfront.
17 Commissioner Price said she would support keeping these agencies together.
18
19 Chair Jacobs summarized the following points:
20 - Joint neighborhood meeting with town of Hillsborough regarding Whitted is needed
21 - Need an updated cultural center business plan
22 - Want more formalized conversation with the Board of Elections
23 - Need to engage users of agriculture and environment building
24
25 Chair Jacobs said regarding the last point, looking at the life expectancy of the building,
26 is there a window where another facility could be built to meet the same needs before investing
27 so much money that it is not cost effective to stay there. He questioned whether there is a
28 window to meet these needs of agri building and noted that it would be good to see Adopted
29 plan for Blackwood property which included possible accommodations of the facility.
30 Chair Jacobs said there is a need for analysis of overarching space needs. He noted
31 movements of many departments with varying levels of constituents, and some in buildings that
32 aren't optimal. He said they do need more outreach and conceptualization to address concerns
33 raised. He said that part of the push for new space is to accommodate growth in the different
34 departments. He questioned the feasibility of any decisions being made this fiscal year.
35 Commissioner Gordon said they need a description of departmental space requirements
36 as well as the type of facilities needed to accommodate that. She referenced the 2012 Facilities
37 Inventory and noted the need to add the Solid Waste Administration building.
38 Frank Clifton said that the intention was to wait until the board had given its input before
39 doing the community outreach. He said that, with regard to CI P, at this point it would simply be
40 matter of setting aside money for design work.
41 Commissioner McKee said the main point with his previous comment is that anything
42 done by the board gets out into the public very quickly and rumors start. He said there is a need
43 to involve the affected agencies and noted that there are several of those people in attendance
44 at this meeting.
45 Chair Jacobs said the request was to provide feedback to staff, and this has been done.
46 He said that there was no plan to move forward without input, only to discuss options. He said
47 that there will be plans to engage constituents in the future.
48 Commissioner Gordon asked that her memo be inserted in the minutes
49
50 3. Discussion on Evaluation Process for Three Staff Members Appointed by the
51 Board
12
1
2 Chair Jacobs said this item is related to the Board's business itself. He said they have
3 talked for years about developing a process and an instrument for reviewing the staff they
4 appoint (clerk, attorney and manager). He said in the past an instrument was developed with a
5 former city manager who worked at the School of Government and two Commissioners; but the
6 manager's predecessor did not want to use it and it went by the wayside. He also noted that
7 Commissioner Gordon had developed a process but no instrument. He referred to the draft
8 evaluation process on page 3.
9 Chair Jacobs said the Commissioners discussed at a closed session in 2011 the
10 possibility of clustering the reviews of the three staff members and two ( Clerk and Attorney)
11 were put on the same night in March. He said that the manager would fit in the spring category.
12 He said that if there will be a review of two of the employees on March 26, and a work plan is
13 required for review then the time frame is too short to review of the work plan and for adoption
14 of a review instrument.
15 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3 and said that this outlines a potential process
16 for the Board to evaluate the three positions. She said the Board would need to approve this
17 process and develop an instrument as well as the requirement of a work plan. She said that if
18 they approve of this process, three instruments would need to be developed and a decision
19 made about how to set the process in motion. She said that, even with the short time frame she
20 feels that a work plan could still be requested and some kind of formal evaluation done. She
21 said that this plan could be adopted, instruments developed and the process used.
22 John Roberts said he prepared an evaluation document similar to other local government
23 evaluation documents and he has provided this every year and gotten decent feedback.
24 Donna Baker said that she has used the SOG instrument for many years, and also used
25 one similar to the County Attorney's for the past two years.
26 Commissioner Price asked if each commissioner gets one of these forms individually and
27 sends it back in and Chair Jacobs, said that each one has been different the last couple of
28 years. Commissioner Price asked, for example, in the case of John (Roberts), they would get a
29 form and each do it individually at home and send it in.
30 Donna Baker said that it has not been done this way in the past but that this appears to
31 be the way the proposed process leans toward.
32 Commissioner Gordon said that this process is a process where someone compiles the
33 information, the Clerk in two cases and the Chair in the case of the Clerk. In this way the
34 information is not attributed to any one commissioner and the instruments are under lock and
35 key. She said she is uncomfortable with having each employee developing his or her own
36 instrument and then returning it back to the employee with all the signatures. She feels it is
37 better if someone compiles it then the output is done after the board has discussed it.
38 Commissioner Rich said that while on the Chapel Hill Town Council, their evaluation
39 process for the manager was goal driven, what you have accomplished, what hasn't been
40 accomplished, why and where to go from here. She gave examples of recent reviews of the
41 manager and attorney. In the case of the manager, a meeting was held with the manager, led
42 by an outside person who compiled the information; this was followed by individual meetings
43 and a final group meeting with the manager.
44 Donna Baker asked about the selection of the outside person compiling the information
45 and Commissioner Rich said this person was chosen by the Mayor and was the keeper of the
46 information, which is important since she outside of the situation and is not judging, only
47 gathering.
48 Donna Baker spoke about a course developed by someone from the School of
49 Government that teaches elected officials how to evaluate appointed employees. Donna Baker
50 has spoken to the SOG about presenting to the Board regarding development of an evaluation
51 process but has not been given direction yet by the Board.
13
1 Commissioner Dorosin said, he would like to see, for the manager, some input from the
2 staff, because the Board has a limited view. He agreed with a goal oriented evaluation but
3 disagreed with having an outside person to collect the information. He suggested that a board
4 member or a chair could perform this task and said that he is wary of making this more process
5 heavy. He does think a tool is needed and a sub-committee could be charged with this task.
6 He also questioned what happens to those evaluations.
7 Donna Baker said they are part of a closed session that is in a secure file case unless
8 opened up per the county attorney.
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if they are given to the people.
10 Frank Clifton said that you get a summary and he noted that the laws have changed.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said he believes that every employee should be given a copy of the
12 actual evaluation.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said when there has been an instrument, ratings, summary and
14 the comments have been given to the employee.
15 Commissioner Price asked if Commissioner Gordon had created an instrument.
16 Commissioner Gordon said they presented this process a while ago and had an idea for
17 an instrument but wanted to have this approved before developing an instrument.
18 Commissioner Rich said the reason why the facilitator worked well is that, in Chapel Hill.
19 some council members did not feel comfortable talking among themselves and they talked with
20 the facilitator separately. There was more freedom to speak without reservation.
21 Commissioner McKee said the reason for this discussion is because they don't have a
22 process or an instrument and this needs to be a more structured and uniform process. He
23 expressed his discomfort at the way things have been done and his desire that it be more
24 structured.
25 Frank Clifton said there is a lot that goes into an evaluation process and goals are good
26 but there are other priorities that should be taken into consideration with performance measures
27 outside of goals. He noted that the priorities of the Board constantly shift and change. He said
28 he did find instruments when he first came here but there was no consensus on them. He said
29 that a manager generally gets evaluated, whether right or wrong, on the most recent task or last
30 few months. He does not believe a perfect instrument will be found.
31 He noted that the three years he's been here, there has never been a question of salary
32 and benefits of a comparison of competitive organizations. This does not affect him, but it will
33 be important when a new manager is hired. He noted that with regard to goals, where the
34 money is, is also where the focus and goals are. He said that even with an instrument, fluidity is
35 necessary. He agrees that an outside person is necessary to help with the process.
36 Chair Jacobs said he does not believe people have read page three as though ready to
37 act on it. He said people should read it and then come back to a meeting and adopt it as a
38 consent item or make suggestions for changes before taking the positive step of moving toward
39 a process.
40 Commissioner Gordon recommended that they adopt this.
41 Commissioner Price asked if there was an evaluation instrument and Commissioner
42 Gordon said no, but that a sub-committee or someone else could work on that aspect.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if this plan had worked in governmental situations and
44 Commissioner Gordon said yes, at Triangle Transit.
45
46 Chair Jacobs summarized the following points of consensus:
47 - Agreement on use of an instrument
48 - Give people summaries of their evaluation
49 - Bring in an outside facilitator (Details of how to select this- to be determined)
50
14
1 Chair Jacobs noted that the attorney and clerk evaluations are scheduled for March 26.
2 He suggested a blank instrument be obtained from the attorney and clerk and see if this is
3 satisfactory, move forward with those two evaluations, working toward a different instrument for
4 next year. He said that he feels the manager's evaluation should be done separately at a later
5 time.
6 Chair Jacobs asked if the Board was comfortable bringing page 3 and 4 to a consent
7 agenda. He asked for volunteers to work with the Clerk to look at evaluation instruments.
8 Commissioner Rich said she would work with the Clerk.
9 Donna Baker asked if the desire was to have a sub-committee.
10 Commissioner Price said she would like to see some uniformity and commonality in the
11 forms. She said she doesn't mind working with the Clerk and Commissioner Rich.
12 Commissioner Rich said she feels it is important to understand the competitive salaries in
13 the community. She said that looking forward when there is need to hire a new manager, it will
14 be necessary to be competitive.
15 Chair Jacobs summarized that there are two people on the sub-committee, something to
16 go on the agenda and the attorney will be asked to give a blank copy of the evaluation
17 document. He asked Donna Baker to also provide a blank copy of her evaluation and the sub-
18 committee will evaluate these and present suggestions. This will need to be done very quickly.
19 Commissioner McKee said that if the draft is to be put on a consent agenda, could it be
20 put on the agenda for the meeting on the 19th
21 Commissioner Rich said she has an objection to this when the sub-committee has not
22 yet evaluated the instruments.
23 Chair Jacobs said that another discussion of this topic will have to be scheduled and he
24 deferred to the subcommittee and noted that they will review the blank documents.
25
26 4. Closed Session
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner McKee to go into
28 closed session at 10:11 PM for the purpose of:
29
30 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
31 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner Rich to reconvene
38 into open session at 11:05pm.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 ADJOURNMENT
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the
45 meeting at 11:05pm.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Barry Jacobs, Chair
50
15
Donna S. Baker, CIVIC
Clerk to the Board'n