Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-23-2013 APPROVED 6/18/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 23, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs reviewed the items at the Commissioners Places: - Pink— Item 6a - Public Hearing to Consider Operational and Funding Options for Orange County's Solid Waste and Recycling Programs - - White — Item 7a -Establishment of Three (3) New Fire Service Districts - and Approve New Boundaries for Three (3) Existing Fire Insurance Districts — South - Orange Fire Service District, Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District and Southern - Triangle Fire Service District - Proposed motion from Commissioner Gordon - White — Item 7-b- PowerPoint/Map for Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application -Annandale at Creek Wood PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Don O'Leary apologized for past accusations he had made toward the Board. He said he assumed through the pattern of events that the Board was intelligently involved with the UN's curriculum and was in partnership with selling out the County. He said that he now believes that the Board was led into ICLEI through lobbying efforts. He said he assumes that a spark of enlightenment is kindled now. He reviewed his own history of belief and said that he now knows that the current and past world leaders and ruling families were and are Luciferians. He said that these families fund many foundations to demoralize the United States. He said these same powers founded the UN and are demoralizing and bankrupting our nation in order to establish a new world order. He referenced many historical events he believes were staged in order to scare the nation into giving up its weapons. He said ICLEI and agenda 21 are from the same masterminds and are intended to destroy the nation from a local level. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Price petitioned the board regarding the logo and public relations efforts and requested a more comprehensive dialogue on this before it goes to print. Chair Jacobs ask for a re-institution of the practice of getting monthly planning reports to advise the board about applications, special use permits, etc. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. a. Resolution To Repeal the Death Penalty and Use the Savings To Assist Murder Victims' Families and Help Prevent Violent Crime The Board will consider a resolution to call upon the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government to repeal the death penalty and to use the savings to assist murder victims' families and help prevent violent crime and authorize the Chair to sign. Chair Jacobs said this resolution was in reference to a citizen's petition. PUBLIC COMMENT: Alan Archibald said he lives in Hillsborough and he is here to ask for support for this resolution. He said his family has worked for three generations for the repeal of the death penalty. He said that, ten years ago, his 8 year old daughter wrote a letter in support of a death row inmate, who was later pardoned. He said there has been racial bias in sentencing. He said equal treatment before the law is a sacred part of the legal system, but with the death penalty, there is very unequal treatment before the law. He said many death row inmates have been convicted by inaccurate eyewitness testimony; however, there is often enough physical evidence for exoneration. He said the potential for miscarriage of justice should give pause on this issue. He referred to an NPR broadcast on the subject. Quinten Harper said he is a resident of Carrboro and he would strongly encourage the Board to support this resolution. He said today marked his consciousness in drawing the line in the sand, and he asked the Board members to also draw a line in supporting the repeal of the death penalty. He shared some facts, stating that in N.C., the death penalty has led to the deaths of 7 innocent people. He said the hope is that the justice system is fair and everyone is entitled to due process of the law. He said there are those that would like to repeal the social justice act and he feels this would be a step backwards. He said he is a person of faith, whose Bible says "thou shall not kill." He said that no one is given the power to take life. He asked the Board members to be the conscience of the state and he noted that Carrboro and Chapel Hill support this. Stephen Dear brought forth this petition for consideration of this resolution and he said Orange County would be the first county in the state to pass this resolution, which would strongly reflect the wishes of most of those in the county. He read the resolution as follows: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION TO REPEAL THE DEATH PENALTY AND USE THE SAVINGS TO ASSIST MURDER VICTIMS' FAMILIES AND HELP PREVENT VIOLENT CRIME WHEREAS, our community upholds the values of fairness and due process for all people; and WHEREAS, the criminal justice system, including the death penalty, starts at the local level, with local tax dollars and local employees used to enforce the law; and WHEREAS, the administration of the death penalty affects all of our community's residents as victims and victims' family members, as offenders and offenders' family members, and the community at large; and WHEREAS, a fair criminal justice system benefits the entire community; and WHEREAS, more than 140 innocent people in the United States since 1973 have been exonerated and released from death row after having been wrongfully convicted and spending a combined more than four centuries on death row (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list- those-freed-death-row); and WHEREAS, North Carolina's death penalty has led to seven innocent people being condemned to die in the modern era before they were exonerated (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty#inn-st); and WHEREAS, intentional and systematic racial bias has been shown to have a "persistent, persuasive and distorting role" in North Carolina's death penalty (North Carolina v. Robinson, 2012; Michigan State University, 2010; UNC, 2000); and WHEREAS, less than one percent of murders lead to death sentences and rarely involve "the worst of the worst" defendants (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness); and WHEREAS, states without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty); and WHEREAS, North Carolina statutes already involve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty; and WHEREAS, the death penalty in North Carolina annually costs more than 10 million taxpayer dollars per year more than life imprisonment without parole (Duke University, 2009); and WHEREAS, millions of North Carolina taxpayers' dollars spent on the death penalty every decade could be used for crime prevention and programs to offer assistance to murder victims' families; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners calls on the Governor of North Carolina and our Legislators in the N.C. General Assembly, the President of the United States, and our Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress to adopt policies and executive orders and to enact legislation repealing the death penalty in North Carolina and in the federal and military jurisdictions, and to use funds saved to assist murder victims' families and for crime prevention programs, and to ratify a suspension of all executions until such legislation is enacted into law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution shall be forwarded by Clerk to the Board of Commissioners to the Governor of the State of North Carolina; the state Senator and the State Representatives in the N.C. General Assembly who represent our community; the President of the United States; the two U.S. Senators from North Carolina; and the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives representing our community. This the 23 d day of April 2013. Commissioner Dorosin thanked all that brought this petition forward. He said that this resolution comes to the board just a day after April 22nd, the 26th anniversary of McClesky versus Kent. He said this Supreme Court ruling held that a defendant could not rely on statistical evidence of racial bias, no matter how persuasive, in challenging the constitutionality of the death sentence. He said the Supreme Court majority said that to accept the argument that capital punishment was infected by racism would call into question the underlying principles of the entire criminal justice system. He said Justice William Brennen, in dissent, said that the majority's opinion was grounded in a fear of too much justice. He said he believes the death penalty is immoral, unconstitutional and racist and he desperately feels that we need "too much justice." A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the resolution to repeal the death penalty and to use the savings to assist murder victims' families and help prevent violent crime and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner McKee said there is no question that bias in the system has been proven, nor does he doubt that there have been rogue prosecutors, and that mistakes have been made that send people to death row. He said this is regrettable and these are egregious mistakes. He said his personal view is that some acts are so morally wrong and egregious, such as the bombing in Boston and the incident at Newtown; that the only solution is that the perpetrator should forfeit their life. He said he is going to vote against this because he is becoming uncomfortable with so many unanimous votes on this board on social justice issues. He said there are very different views on this death penalty issues and many variant viewpoints on both extremes. He said he would like to give a voice to those other views. Commissioner Pelissier said she recognized that some people do support the death penalty, but polls show that the majority of people realize it is unjust. She said she feels the Board owes it to the citizens to represent a majority viewpoint and show that there is a desire for justice to be done correctly in this state. Commissioner Price thanked all that have been behind repealing the death penalty and she said she has supported it all the way. She said that she has heard stories over the years, of victim's families who find reconciliation with the perpetrators. She feels there is a move in the direction of humanity and justice. Commissioner Rich said she supported this resolution and thanked all that brought this forth. She spent many hours in a car this weekend with a group of teenagers and there was discussion of the death penalty. She said that this next generation does not understand why the death penalty exists. She said this resolution is for this generation and the next generation. She believes that the majority of Orange County residents believe in this resolution and she is happy to support it. Chair Jacobs said ever since he was on the debate team in high school and had the opportunity to choose a side in the death penalty discussion; he has always seen both sides of the argument. He said that in situations like Adolph Hitler, he is supportive of the death penalty. However, in the world we live in today, with an unjust criminal justice system, he supports this resolution. He said he supports the notion that Orange County stands for a just system. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee) b. Regional Partnership Workforce Development Board 2011-2012 Annual Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Report The Board received a presentation on the Regional Partnership Workforce Development Board (WDB) 2011-2012 Annual Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Report. Anne Lenhardt serves on the WDB, and spoke regarding the annual report being presented to the Board. She highlighted the accomplishments of the WDB for Orange County. She said people in Orange County working with the unemployed to help find jobs have met some successes, specifically through JOCCA. She said 38 participants successfully completed the workforce investment program and 73 participants were enrolled in the dislocated adult worker program. She said 2 individuals completed the on the job training program and were hired by the employers providing the training. She noted that the unemployment rate in N.C. is still high, at 9.2%, and the WDB thanked the Board for their support. 5. Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from February 19, March 7, 12 and 19, 2013 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for twenty-five (25) taxpayers with a total of seventy-one (71) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for three (3) taxpayers with a total of (3) three bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Amendment# 9 The Board approved budget and capital project amendments for fiscal year 2012-13 for; Visitors Bureau; Department on the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR); Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Animal Services; Health Department; and the School Capital Project Ordinance. e. Bid Award — One (1) Commercial Recycling Truck for Recycling Operations The Board awarded a bid for the purchase of a new Side Loading Recycling truck from G-S Products for a total cost of$208,025.92 and authorized the Finance and Administrative Services Director to execute the paperwork. f. Resolution in Support of the Proposed Old Well to Jordan Lake Scenic Byway The Board approved a resolution of support, which is incorporated by reference, for a joint application to the North Carolina Department of Transportation to designate a new scenic byway from Chapel Hill to Jordan Lake and authorize the Chair to sign. 6. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing to Consider Operational and Funding Options for Orange County's Solid Waste and Recycling Programs The Board held a public hearing to consider operational and funding options for Orange County's Solid Waste and Recycling Programs. Michael Talbert said eight possible options had been looked at and several of them, including the franchise option, had been eliminated at the April 9th meeting. This changed the purpose of tonight's meeting to a discussion of the three remaining options. He referred to the attachment that outlines these three options, which are: 1. A Countywide Solid Waste Management Authority - This would eliminate all 3R fees and would create a countywide authority under general statute 153A and would take two or more units to create such an authority. This could be put in place over the next 12 to 14 months. 2. A Solid Waste Tax Service District - This would act much like a fire district. The intent would be to keep the existing 3R fee and create a single solid waste tax service district. This district would include the towns and would keep in place the rural curbside service. Much of this could be serviced by county staff and the contracting out of urban curbside could continue. 3. Eliminate Rural Curbside Recycling —This would keep the basic 3R fee and would move forward with a system of convenience centers and drop-off sites. This is a significant departure from the current system. Michael Talbert said the recommendation is that the Board receive the Public comment on these three options and then advise the staff. He said there is anticipation of short term solutions between now and 2014. He hopes there will be a long term solution in place for fiscal year 2014-15. Frank Clifton said this issue has been considered very comprehensively and the best option for the county and the towns would be to move toward a Solid Waste Management Authority. He said there are interim steps that could be taken and the most appropriate would be a countywide solid waste tax service district. He said this allows the simplest implementation and allows the most flexibility. He said this could be a combination of a tax and/or continuing the 3R fee. He said there has been discussion of using reserves within the solid waste fund to secure a process for 2013-14. He said this is based on an estimated cost of$1.7 million to continue existing services in the County and the town. He noted that there is no authority to operate in Durham County. He said that the deliberation time for each of the three options makes it important to move forward with the establishment of the tax district in the next several months. He noted that the tax would not need to be levied until the next fiscal year. He said there are many decisions to be made and he feels that the current services can be delivered more efficiently, but this comes at a cost. He said there is also still the issue of the towns and having everyone on the same page. Michael Talbert said the pink sheet is an example of how to fund this program for the next 14 months. He noted that the back of this sheet contains a snapshot of current long term liabilities. Frank Clifton said there has been discussion about the general fund and property tax to support recycling. He said that property taxes do support solid waste, but convenience center fees do not cover the total cost of operations. Michael Talbert said the county contributes about $1.6 million from the general fund toward the convenience centers, plus the household convenience center fee. Frank Clifton said that it is obviously important that the towns be involved in the solution that is chosen, but this decision is not in the county's hands. Chair Jacobs noted that there was no mention of the option of just having Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC). Frank Clifton said this was not an oversight, but he does not see that happening in Orange County. He said he does not know what the capital costs would be to increase the number of convenience centers. He said this is the least expensive option, but he does not see that as a long term option of preference for Orange County. Commissioner Dorosin asked Frank Clifton to clarify the basis for thinking the Solid Waste Convenience Centers option is not the option of preference. He asked if this statement is because the option would not produce the amount of recycling or if it is politically infeasible to site these convenient centers. Frank Clifton said there is a combination of all those elements and more. He said the SWCCs operate with 2-3 employees per shift and most of the current sites were not designed very efficiently. He said it would cost about $1.5 million to build and upgrade sites. He said, considering the base of recycling, which is the urban area, there is only one center. He said there would probably need to be another site and he does not see this politically happening anytime soon. He said that there are also air quality concerns due to the amount of driving that would be required with all of the trips to the convenience center. He said that the addition of some recycling centers in the rural areas of the county may make sense as part of the Solid Waste Authority Plan. Commissioner Price said, as part of siting a solid waste authority, there would need to be some siting of ancillary centers. She asked if the authority would be able to locate a convenience center anywhere, as well as a waste transfer station. Frank Clifton said that is theoretically possible, but realistically, the towns and the county control the zoning in all of these areas. He said the reason for an authority is the greater latitude in how it pays for services. He said there are many latitudes given for authorities to act. Commissioner McKee said he had heard Gayle Wilson say that he was unaware of any other authority that did not have a transfer station or landfill to generate funds. Frank Clifton concurred with this. PUBLIC COMMENT: Alex Castro is a resident of Bingham Township and he refuted some comments by the county manager. He noted that residents don't make a trip to recycling center solely for the purpose of recycling. He said that rural residents go to the convenience center while doing many errands, since these residents live in the unincorporated areas of the county. He said those that are aging may need some help, since many live a far distance from the curb. He said the better solution is to pay an intermediary to take the recyclables to the center. He suggested a work group to study a private/public partnership. He said the County has sites where trash can be collected, and some of the rural residents just need help getting recyclables to the center. He said there are already several locally owned private haulers that can accommodate these needs. He said this could be a pioneer program and partnership. Amy Brooks works for Brooks Contractor and she is contracted with the county for food waste. She said she does not want the board to forget about composting. She said the foundation for the modern local economy is the soil and she does not feel that the focus should be on energy beneath our feet. She said the focus should be on what seeds can be planted to benefit the system as a whole. She said food is important in this system. She said that there is a need for large purchasers of food to source locally. She said the county needs to support sustainable farmers. She said the county has everything needed to create a strong healthy local food economy. She said that food can be grown easily, and promotion of this can be done quickly and efficiently by amending the local soil with compost. She noted that, for every one percent of organic matter, the soil can hold nearly 17,000 gallons of plant available water. She said there needs to be discussion of how to benefit from the resources already in place. She said that Orange County has an excellent start on recycling and composting and proper use of resources is essential in moving forward. She said that a good step forward would be to include waste generators into the conversation, and to educate these generators on how to reduce waste and increase landfill diversion success. Loren Hintz urged commissioners to support current recycling programs. He said the county needs to continue to recycle and he believed the best way to do this is to implement the tax service district. Margaret Cannell is a rural curbside recycler and the Director of the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, and she commended the Board of County Commissioners for their recycling program. She encouraged the Board to provide curbside recycling. She said the pending closure of the landfill makes it important not to produce more trash. She said that the Chamber of Commerce has put on Hog Day for the past 10 years and was able to divert 80% of the waste from this event last year. She said this is because of the stellar work of the solid waste staff. She said hoped the Board will work toward an option that includes the county and the towns and she offered the support of her chamber. Tom Linden lives in unincorporated Orange County. He noted that the current system is award winning, and the issue is how to continue that. He feels the best way is to create a solid waste tax service district that could be expanded as unincorporated areas become more populated and require services. He said they have a system they clearly works and he is pleased that the discussion is around funding the continuation of this. He feels that the solution should include the towns. David Laudicina lives in a rural curbside recycling area. He said he hopes that the Board's decision will make fairness and equity a top priority. He said that everyone receives the same services and he questioned why some should have to pay more than others for this. He said he takes his trash to center every 7-9 days and he takes his recycling with him even though he has curbside service. He feels that people should have the option to "opt out" of the curbside recycling. Diana Thom is a parent of a student at Phillips Middle School and the school is working on a project to make 19 schools in CHCCS zero waste facilities. She said this is possible if the county can continue to have the same education programs in solid waste and can continue its recycling programs. She recognized Muriel Williman's contribution to these efforts. She feels there should be a public compost site in the county. She feels that any recycling fees should be flat, so as not to be an additional burden on the school district. Wendy Smith lives in unincorporated Orange County and she does not have curbside recycling. She said she supports the recycling program and the idea of keeping the 3-r fee intact to keep current services and education intact. She said this county is the envy of the other counties in the state and it would be a shame to lose any of the cohesive services offered. She said the most important part is the community education and involvement around reduction, reuse and recycling. She feels that having mom and pop collectors for recycling, but she noted that this has been tried in the past and there was not good ethical oversight. She said this resulted in recycling going into the trash. She said that transition will admittedly cause confusion and she agrees that solid waste tax districts should be considered as the county works toward a solid waste authority. Jessica Bollinger is the owner of the Efland Trash Service. She said that, with the landfill closing, small businesses like hers are facing difficult challenges. She noted that the only area to dump is in Durham and this option comes with high costs that could put small operations out of business. She said that there is currently a per-load dumping fee in Orange County, but this is not offered in Durham County, which doubles the fees and adds the cost of additional fuels. She proposed a solution of allowing small, hand-unload, companies to dump at the convenience centers with a special permit issued by the county. She noted that this has caused concern over convenience centers being classed as transfer stations but said the trash being dumped would only come from local residents who would have used the convenience centers anyway. She said this would also reduce the traffic to the centers. She expressed interest in a public/private partnership. Paul Rockwell lives in unincorporated Orange County and he agreed with what has been said so far. He lives on a limited income and would not want another tax imposed for recycling. He said he would not want to be forced to pay a fee for door to door pick up since he is handling his own recycling now. Cody Marshall is a Chapel Hill and Orange County resident, and said until last Friday he managed all of the recycling programs for Orange County. He said this program is a government function and should be managed by the public sector and paid for through public mandatory fees and/or taxes. He feels that a voluntary system is a bad idea as it hinders participation and increases fees for those who do participate. He said the authority is a great idea; however it does not fix the problem and does not address the financing. He feels that any decisions should involve the towns. He said he continues to hear that the tax is not the answer and he clarified that the rural, urban and multi-family fees would go away and be replaced by the tax, which would save money for many residents. He said that, despite reports of lower numbers, about 65% of eligible rural residents use the curbside recycling service, and this number is higher in some areas. He said that he also hears the statement that recycling in the town is already collected by private companies. He said that the county owns the material and the private companies offload the material at the Eubanks Road facility where it is processed, loaded and hauled by Orange County staff to the local market. He said this material is mixed with all other programs materials and this allows the county to realize top dollar to offset costs. He feels the county and towns should work together to provide as many options as possible, including convenience centers and curbside recycling to make recycling as easy as possible. Marilee McTigue lives in Bingham Township. She said that her home is one of 10 homes in a neighborhood that is on the County's recycling route. She said all ten homes pay for recycling but only 4 homes use it. This is due to the nature of the roads and driveways that make it impossible to get the recycling to the collection point. She said that the residents that use it live on the first part of the road. She wishes that the costs for these services were more transparent and she feels it is very confusing. She would like to opt out of curbside recycling and she said she is not in favor of a district tax. She said any decisions on new taxes or fees should be deferred until there is a more complete picture of the needed services, costs and benefits. She said she does not understand why the consent agenda lists the approval of a new $200,000 recycling truck when the decision about the recycling program has not been made yet. Bonnie Hauser read the following prepared statement on behalf of the Orange County Voice: First on behalf of Orange County Voice, we support the idea of a pilot task force to demonstrate that small haulers can safely use the county convenience centers. Thank you for hearing residents tonight. We realize that you have many service and fiscal challenges facing the county's solid waste operation. Funding for curbside recycling is one. The landfill closing, convenience center upgrades and the very real prospect that Chapel Hill may take over the urban curbside program are others. This has been especially challenging for rural residents who do not rely on curbside services. For years, we have been advocating for convenience centers, and to keep the county from expanding curbside services and fees throughout the county. We are committed to recycling, composting and waste reduction; we just don't all do it the same way. Curbside services work well in the towns and suburban areas but don't fit rural lifestyles. There is growing concern about the costs of service to rural residents. Convenience center fees and taxes are increasing and we still don't know how the landfill closing will impact the costs of service. Towns are advocating for their own citizens, and if the towns go their own way, rural residents could be burdened with the bulk of the county's solid waste costs. There has been no transparency about what citizens — rural or otherwise- can expect with respect to future services, fees or taxes. Looking at a new tax in a vacuum only confuses the subject. Tonight, we respectfully request that you delay any decisions on new solid waste taxes or services, until you have a full understanding of the going forward services, taxes and fees. To us, that includes knowing what the towns plan to do, and how much all solid waste and recycling services will cost moving forward. That context is essential for you to properly examine alternatives and assure us that fees and taxes will be fair and equitable — not just this year -but for the next 3-5 years. Please don't add any new taxes without transparency on services, costs and fees and costs for the foreseeable future. Thank you. Tom Strukmeyer said this issue impacts him on two levels, since he is a resident of Chapel Hill city, but lives in Durham County. He asked for clarification that residents in this position, regardless of what happens, will have to fend for themselves. He said he gets all services, except recycling, from Chapel Hill. He said he does not mind paying this fee and he would discourage any changes to this program. He said he is proud of his community and he hopes this won't be used as an opportunity to maintain the status quo. He feels that 100% recycling can be obtained. He said in his prior life he was a mariner and spent a lot of time at sea. He said that this gave him an idea of the global scale of the recycling issue. He would like to see Orange County become a national leader in reducing the waste that goes into the environment. Rob Taylor is a resident of Bingham Township and served as recycling manager for Orange County from 2005-10. He asked the Board to reject any option that eliminates curbside recycling in unincorporated areas. He said moving to carts would reduce collection costs. He noted that all neighboring municipalities have made this change and he asked the Board to consider this option as soon as possible. He said municipal leaders support recycling efforts and joint planning has gotten these programs to their current high level, and he asked for reconstitution of the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB). He said the recommendation to use reserves would undermine the recycling efforts and will make future recycling more expensive. He urged the board to implement a funding mechanism to cover next fiscal year. He said recycling costs money but as the County begins to ship waste to another community, recycling becomes an investment that pays dividends by reducing disposal. Richard Palmer lives in Hillsborough and has curbside recycling. He asked what the shortcomings of current systems may be and how can the system be improved. He said this issue has been brought forward because of the State Supreme Court decision about a fee in another county that was not authorized. He recommended that the County approach the legislature for retroactive authority. He said there could then be a process to tweak and improve the system without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Tom O'Dwyer said he would like to thank Frank Clifton for the narrowing of the options to the current three. He said he understands that the taxes currently used would simply be transferred into the tax district, so there is no additional expense. He said he is only concerned about the partnership between Orange County and the municipalities. He encouraged Frank Clifton to reach out to these municipalities to work out a system of scale economy for the recycling program. B.J. Tipton is a resident of Bingham Township and said she would like to echo the previous comments of her neighbors. She said she had the opportunity to live in a different state and part of the reason she and her husband decided to stay here, was this recycling program. She feels very strongly about anything that undermines that and she feels the tax district is the way to go. Terri Buckner lives in a rural curbside collection area. She said that for every pound of recycling collected contributes to a more socially just environment. This waste is not being taken to a transfer station in another town to be delivered to a landfill in another state, which means less fossil fuel being used and less imposition on others. She feels that only the district tax and the authority should be considered as options. Marty Mandell is a Carrboro resident and she is pleased with her curbside recycling. She said she heard the comment regarding the sale of compost to a company in Chatham, and she heard that Orange County is able to sell recycling materials to others. She said she also knows of many communities who use recycled materials to make all sorts of goods. She asked if these ideas shouldn't be developed more. Bill Black lives in rural Orange County and he is new to the area and thinks this recycling program is amazing. He came from an area that does not have curbside recycling and he asked the County to preserve this service, even if it's on a pay per use basis. He said that it is hard to estimate the cost of all of the residents driving to the convenience centers. Jan Sassaman said he agreed with a lot of the comments made, especially with respect to tax districts and working together with the towns. He said in order to expedite this process, he sent the Board a draft resolution to help in forming their own resolution. Susan Walser lives in Bingham Township and she has followed the solid waste issues for years. She feels that residents of Orange County support recycling and she hears that residents want flexibility. She does not see any discussion of this flexibility for residents going on in the Board meetings. She referenced a survey that was given to SWAB several years ago and she requested that the Board go back to the residents to determine their wants. Norma White agreed with Susan Walser and she also referenced the survey done five years ago for rural residents. In her case, this survey was for residents using the Walnut Grove Convenience Center. She said that, in that survey, curbside recycling was not an option, because it could not be used. She said she hopes the Board will consider this in its decision. She said that curbside works well in some areas, but it does not work in others. She said that any authority should not have the authority to put landfills wherever they desire. She also said that any tax district should be created to be fair to rural people. Don O'Leary lives in rural Orange County, Bingham Township. He has to make trips to the dump and he brings his recycling when he goes. He said he would like to see options with regard to curbside service. . Gerald Turner said every time the county recycles, it means less being hauled to Durham County. Resident of Durham, (name not audible- not signed up to speak) who grew up in Orange County and was spoiled by the recycling program. She said she would like to reiterate the rejection of any option to eliminate curbside recycling and she feels this is an option to improve the program. Emily Burrough lives in Hillsborough and is concerned that if curbside becomes optional many will opt out of recycling. She suggested, if the Board does make curbside recycling optional, then recyclable items could be banned from the waste stream. She said this could just be an extension of the corrugated cardboard ban. End of Public Comment Chair Jacobs noted that several questions were raised during the public comment. He said the county legislative delegation did try to get authority but it died in committee. John Roberts, referring to a question regarding Chapel Hill residents in Durham County, said, without an inter-local agreement with Chapel Hill, Orange County has no legal authority to provide a service and charge a fee outside of its jurisdiction. He said it would be up to the town of Chapel Hill to ask Orange County to serve this area and to authorize the county to do so. Frank Clifton said the county would not have the authority to levy a fee, so the agreement with Chapel Hill would have to include a methodology of the town applying a tax and paying the County. Chair Jacobs said two people asked about getting with staff to talk about small haulers using the convenience centers as an alternative to disposing in Durham. He asked the manager and Gayle Wilson to meet with small haulers and report back to Board of County Commissioners on pros and cons of this arrangement. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification as to what happens to everything except the $37 base fee from this point moving forward. He said his understanding that these fees will go away and the tax will replace them. Frank Clifton said fees for facilities and county wide services are appropriate; fees for services at curbside and multi-family locations are not within the county jurisdiction. He said the County could create a system of opting in or out for some services, but this would require creation of a billing system. He said there is an issue with the fact that if there is a neighborhood of 15 houses and only 4 opt in, the cost of the service will remain the same. He said that in rural neighborhoods, often one neighbor will pay the cost and everyone shares cost and shares the cans. He said these are examples of a number of issues that exist. John Roberts said the Supreme Court decision suggested that Orange County does not have the authority and he read it as a need for the county to look at other options. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the County currently collects multi-family and government facility waste inside the towns. He asked if whatever option is chosen, going forward, would require those facilities to be part of this. Frank Clifton said Orange County has contracts with schools and their own facilities but multi-family units would require the town to take action. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that a tax district would be funded with a tax, but the authority would be funded by fees. Frank Clifton said this would be one methodology, but there are several options. Commissioner Dorosin asked if those fees would be levied on everyone who is subject to that authority. Frank Clifton said the authority can provide services and charge fees accordingly. He said, if the service is not provided, the fee won't be levied. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the fee is based on the service being available or based on the service being used. Frank Clifton said it will be the first choice. John Roberts said he spoke to one of the attorneys at a solid waste authority in the eastern part of the state and he said the fee structure there includes a base fee similar to the county and there are collection fees for collection areas. He said that district does not have a mandatory curbside collection fee for rural areas. Commissioner Dorosin said one of the elements of the criteria is equity. He said if the goal is to not to impose this on anyone, he wonders if the authority is the way to go. Frank Clifton said it will take a period of time to establish an authority and therefore the thought is to do the tax district in the interim. He feels the tax district is the best immediate option with the authority being phased in. Commissioner Dorosin said legally the authority would have the authority to say this would be a fee based system within its established jurisdiction. John Roberts said he feels the authority is the way to go. He said this only requires the creation of a resolution and submission to partner entities. He said reality may prove different than this. Commissioner Price said she has concerns about authority and the amount of control the county and towns would have. She questioned how much control over fees Orange County would have and she brought up the issue of equity and fairness. John Roberts said the county would have limited control because it is an independent local authority. He said the County would establish the authority and appoint members, but it would be an independent local government. Commissioner Price referred to the small haulers getting with the staff, and said she thought the small haulers wanted a working group. Chair Jacobs said the legal and technical feasibility of the proposals would need to be considered before creating expectations of working it out. Commissioner Rich asked if a tax district option would mean the district remains the same as the current curbside pick-up. Frank Clifton said this is an option. He said that a public hearing can be held to create a single countywide tax district for the unincorporated areas of Orange County. He said that if a district were created only for the people involved in the limited service area that exists now, that requires a different notification process. He said there is a way to amend the district boundaries at a later point. John Roberts said he has looked at the process again since his previous discussion with the manager, and he has changed his mind. He does not think there is a difference in the process for creating a countywide district versus a smaller district. He said in either case, each person in the district must be notified. He said if the towns want to be involved, it will have to be done by resolution. Commissioner Rich asked if the towns could be included at the onset of the district creation. John Roberts said it can happen in whatever way the county wants to proceed. Commissioner Rich said she would recommend, with option 2, that the county talks with the towns and asks them to be included from the onset. Commissioner McKee said he agrees with Commissioner Rich regarding bringing in the towns sooner, rather than later. He said that he has no problem with reducing the options again, and he feels that option 3 is not palatable to many of the citizens and he suggested eliminating it. He suggested that if a tax service district is chosen and the desire is to make it equitable, it should not be a countywide district, because curbside is not available countywide now. He said there are also issues in the rural parts of the county with long driveways and many residents are very content with use of the convenience centers. He asked if the tax district would be expanded to encompass an expansion of the rural curbside service. John Roberts answered yes. Commissioner Rich said she would like to explore the carts more. She said these were a driving force with the towns and she would like to see what the options are, and how this would work with the tax district. Commissioner Price referred to the idea of a work group and suggested that there be representatives from both county and town, as well as staff, residents and haulers. She said this would include all stake holders and would prevent decisions being made in isolation. Commissioner Pelissier suggested that the process start by finding out if the towns are really interested in participating, and in what capacity. She agreed with Commissioner McKee about eliminating option 3, since it is evident that the citizens want to keep a recycling program. She said what bothers her about the opt-out option is the fact that the county already provides services that not everyone participates in but we want and pay for. She gave examples of schools, parks, etc. She said that the one service that everyone has to use is waste disposal and recycling. She said this needs to be looked at as a big picture of the overall service to the county. She said there are people who don't use the convenience centers but pay for them through taxes. She said that the fees are not that much more than those already being paid. Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated what Commissioner Pelissier said. He feels there are pros and cons for both the authority and the tax. He personally does not want to create a quasi-judicial authority. He feels the government should be responsible for this. He feels the fees are regressive and fall harder on those less able to pay. He said that the pro side would be if only users have to pay the fee. He said that the pros of the District tax side are that it is controlled by county, and it has a progressive tax. The con is that this tax would be on all properties, regardless of use. He feels that reaching out to other partners is critical with regard to broad based participation. He said the county should go back to towns for feedback, as well as doing more research on how an authority would work and what the costs would be. He questioned, for a countywide tax district, what the tax would be in order to cover the fee that is being lost, and he would like to see a comparative analysis. Commissioner Gordon said the Board needs to reach out to the government partners. She also feels that it is time to eliminate option 3 and do further research on the authority and tax district, especially with regard to costs. She said she is leaning toward the tax district. Chair Jacobs said letters have already been received from 2 of the 3 mayors and they support the current recycling system. He said the Board has been told that Chapel Hill is supportive. He noted that when the County met with the town council, it was requested that, the town communicate with the County before making any decisions on solid waste. He said it is time for the county to do the same. He said he cannibalized Mr. Sassaman's draft resolution and he read the following proposed resolution: RESOLUTION ADVANCING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SOLID WASTE TAX SERVICE DISTRICT IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, THE Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that it is no longer appropriate to collect certain fees to fund urban, multifamily, and rural recycling services; and WHEREAS, a continued strong, integrated, and collaborative recycling program is in the best interest of Orange County, it's resident, and its environment; and WHEREAS, it is vital that a recycling collection program be inclusive of all residents of Orange County as soon as practicable; and WHEREAS, the Board of Orange County Commissioners has consistently reaffirmed the long-established goal of 61 percent waste reduction; and WHEREAS, an integrated system necessitates that all county jurisdictions have a voice in decision-making with respect to solid waste issues in the county. Now, therefore be it RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners directs its staff to immediately begin a process to analyze and develop a Solid Waste Tax Service District in accord with appropriate North Carolina statutes, said tax district to potentially include all those portions of Orange County that currently receive curbside recycling. Be it further RESOLVED that, before enabling such a Solid Waste Tax Service District, the Board of Commissioners invites the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough to join this tax district and directs the county manager to meet with the managers of those towns to determine their willingness to participate, to ascertain their needs and concerns, and report back to the Board of Commissioners so they may proceed with implementation by the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year. Be it further RESOLVED that the Board of Orange County Commissioners requests the towns participate in establishing a working group, including elected officials, staff, residents and others to identify the steps required to create an inclusive Solid Waste Tax Service District and to assess details of its operation and appropriate rates, adopting a schedule of reports, recommendations, and ultimate agreement that would enable the Solid Waste Tax Service District to be in place and operational no later than June 30, 2014. Be it further RESOLVED that the County will collect only the basic 3-R fee for the 2013- 14 fiscal year, financing all fiscal 2013-14 recycling collection with enterprise fund reserves and other monies as the commissioners may direct, with funding in subsequent years to come from those serviced within the tax district. Commissioner McKee suggested that, because option one and two are still on the table, each declaration should include "or solid waste authority" in order to keep both options on the table. Commissioner Gordon referred to the first "Be it further resolved" paragraph and asked for clarification on the ending sentence regarding the meaning of"they" and she proposed that this should read: "...so that the Board my proceed with implementation." Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification of those parties involved in the working group. She asked if the intent of motion was to choose the tax district tonight. Chair Jacobs said he has heard that the majority of the board was leaning toward tax district. Commissioner Dorosin said, as he understands, the current consensus of the Board is that 2013-14 will have the current level of service remain in place; and all fees but the basic 3- R fee will go away. Chair Jacobs said it will be the same level of service only if the towns participate. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that any option chosen will go into effect July 1, 2014, allowing a year and a few months to work out details. Chair Jacob said yes, including discussion of the authority. John Roberts pointed out that the idea that a county wide service district does not require notice is wrong. He said that, in addition to a resolution, the towns would have to notify their residents of any change. He said their attorneys may disagree on the notice and say it is the County's responsibility. Commissioner Dorosin said this resolution, as worded, would not support the authority. He recommended that wording on the authority be added. He said that without it the towns are not being given a chance for input, as the decision has been made. He feels the Board should get the towns' feedback on both. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. She said it should be designated that the tax district needs to be enacted as a temporary measure. She said time may be needed to determine if people want a Solid Waste Authority. She feels the wording really needs to be fleshed out. She said she is not sure what role residents would play if a tax district is implemented. She said that it is really up to elected officials to determine tax rates, and involving anyone other than staff and elected officials to the work group may slow this option down. Chair Jacobs said he was thinking that the tax rate would be determined in 2013-14. Commissioner Rich said she likes the idea of including the authority, but that idea needs to be fleshed out. She feels the tax district should be put in place first with an option of an authority down the road. Chair Jacobs said he was trying to structure this resolution to focus on the tax district for this coming year and then a longer term resolution and a working group for coming back with a recommendation for the next year. He is not in favor of an authority because he feels that more bureaucracy and distance from elected officials is a bad idea. Commissioner Dorosin asked about the idea of a short term and long term solution. He said he thought there was already a short term solution through funding through fiscal year 2013. He asked for clarification on whether the goal is to get this tax district in place through July 1 of this year. Chair Jacobs said the goal would be to at least have a frame work in which to proceed. He said he has heard the point that this may preclude having a similar discussion about an authority. He said it could be either/or since there is a band aid solution for the next year. Frank Clifton said there are some parameters and impacts of these decisions. He reviewed franchise options and the proposal to use reserve funds to cover short term costs. He said that the County, in the end, is responsible through general funds to fill gaps in revenues for all of its operations. He said the convenience centers are already subsidized by general funds. He said the most difficult aspect is to assess the estimated tax rate for the district to operate as it does now. He reviewed some of the cost analysis that will be involved. He said that in narrowing down the area being served, there will be a higher impact on the tax rate for those individuals. He said these numbers will be worked on. He feels Chair Jacobs motion is adequate in addressing general parameters and gives a basis to move forward. He said that if reserves are used, those funds must be replaced at some point. Commissioner Gordon said that in trying to figure out how to add the appropriate language, she recommends that, in addition to her earlier suggestion, something be added to the resolution paragraphs regarding cost estimates. She noted that this resolution is being discussed right after a public hearing and that anything passed tonight should state that it is the Board's "intent" to pass this resolution. This can be followed by input from the towns and others before coming back to pass it. Commissioner Price said that it looks as if the resolution is trying to incorporate two steps. She said that in one of these, a decision must be made in the next couple of weeks. She said that the language about working with the towns, residents and business owners regarding a solid waste authority, needs to be in step two of the resolution. Chair Jacobs suggested that the motion be simplified to include the 5 point bare bones actions to authorize and direct for future actions. Commissioner McKee said this is no problem and asked Commissioner Gordon if this re-wording and abbreviated motion would be agreeable to her. He agreed with her point about crafting this on the fly. Commissioner Dorosin said he would make the motion. He feels this is a political issue and the chair and vice chair need to talk with elected officials instead of the managers. He suggested this as a friendly amendment. Chair Jacobs said he is fine with this and he has a breakfast meeting with the mayors next week to discuss this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee as follows: • Board of County Commissioners wishes to maintain the current recycling program. • Direct Manager to meet with the Managers of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough to determine their willingness to participate, to ascertain their needs and concerns, and report back to the Board of Commissioners by the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year so the county may proceed with implementation; • Direct Chair to meet with the three Mayors for a similar, parallel conversation. • Adopt an interim funding plan for 2013-14, at end of this fiscal year. • Commit to further investigate both a solid waste tax service district and a solid waste authority. Commissioner Gordon asked about estimated costs and said this moves the Board forward tonight but doesn't make a definitive statement. Chair Jacobs said the first step will be to get reports back and then flesh out costs. Commissioner Gordon asked if the next comprehensive motion would come at end of June. Chair Jacobs said there can be a more thorough motion to direct the managers' work and articulate goals without all the specifics. Commissioner Rich called the question. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Regular Agenda a. a. Establishment of Three (3) New Fire Service Districts and Approve New Boundaries for Three (3) Existing Fire Insurance Districts — South Orange Fire Service District, Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District and Southern Triangle Fire Service District The Board will approved the establishment of the three new Fire Service Districts —the South Orange Fire Service District, the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District and the Southern Triangle Fire Service District; and approve new boundaries for three existing fire insurance districts — South Orange Fire Insurance District, Greater Chapel Hill Fire Insurance District and North Chatham Fire Insurance District. Michael Talbert noted two corrections to abstract: 1. Page two — map is no longer attached; 2. Page 3- should read that greater Chapel Hill service district will get a revenue increase. He said the action tonight is to establish three new fire service districts and re-do the boundaries for three existing fire insurance districts. He said that when this item was first brought to the work group, the purpose in mind was to have the insurance and fire service districts be one and the same. He said that further investigation showed that this was not possible with the North Chatham fire service district because it spanned two different fire protection districts. He said the board held a public hearing on April 17 with 45 people in the audience and comments were generally in favor of moving forward with the fire service districts as outlined. He reviewed actions taken and said the town of Carrboro has agreed to provide service in the South Orange Fire Insurance District, and Chapel Hill has agreed to provide service in the greater Chapel Hill Service District. He said the approval by the North Chatham Fire Department will likely come in the first ten days of May and the maps for the insurance districts have been approved by the State Fire Marshall's office, but it will take four to six months to gain approval for the change in the ISO ratings to become effective. He said the recommendation from the manager is to approve the three resolutions establishing the three new fire service districts. He said Commissioner Gordon handed out a revised recommendation and the county attorney said that it is acceptable and achieves same purpose as the original. Commissioner Gordon requested that her email questions and comments regarding this item be entered into the record as follows: Questions and Comments from Commissioner Gordon -Agenda Item 7a -April 23, 2013 This item deals with the establishment of three new fire service districts and approval of new boundaries for three existing fire insurance districts. My questions and comments are given below. I. MAPS The actions proposed would be clearer if each action in the agenda packet had a matching map. Right now there are six actions but only four maps, and sometimes it appears that the maps listed in the agenda materials are not the same as the maps actually included in the agenda packet. Given below is the listing of the Attachments, followed by a description of the maps and resolutions. If you compare the descriptions of the four attachments with the descriptions of the maps and resolutions, it appears that the South Orange and Greater Chapel Hill fire districts need clarification. (A) Attachments - Page 1 The four attachments on page 1 reference the fire districts as follows: Attachment 1 - Resolution to Establish the South Orange Fire Service District and Map Attachment 2 - Resolution to Establish the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District and Map Attachment 3 - Resolution to Establish the Southern Triangle Fire Service District and Map Attachment 4 - New North Chatham Fire Insurance District After reading this, one would expect to see three fire service district maps, followed by one fire insurance district map. However, that does not appear to be the case for Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, when one reads the information from the agenda materials, summarized below. (B) Maps and Resolutions - Pages 6 -12 Pages 6 and 7 - Resolution Establishing the South Orange Fire Service District (page 6) and the map of the New South Orange Fire Insurance District (page 7). Page 8 and 9 - Resolution Establishing the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District (page 8) and the map of the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Insurance District (page 9). Page 10 and 11 - Resolution Establishing the Southern Triangle Fire Service District and the map of the New Southern Triangle Fire Service District Page 12 - Map of the New North Chatham Fire Insurance District (II) BACKGROUND - Pages 2 - 4 of the agenda abstract Page 2 - South Orange Fire Service District First paragraph - It is not clear why Attachment 2 (Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District) is referenced. Also, the text says that Attachment 1 is a map of the proposed new South Orange Fire Service District, but actually it is a map of the New South Orange Fire Insurance District. Pages 2 and 3 - Southern Triangle Fire Service District Last paragraph on page 2 (which continues to the top of page 3) - The text refers to "the area in yellow" but it is not clear where that area might be on the maps included in the agenda materials. It is also not clear why Attachment 2 is referenced at the top of page 3. Second full paragraph on page 3 (which is also the last paragraph for this fire district) - The New Southern Triangle Fire Service is not the same as the New North Chatham Fire Insurance District because the latter includes the Damascus fire district. My question here is what is the status of the Damascus fire district? Is it still a fire protection district? Pages 3 and 4 - Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District First paragraph - It is not clear why the following statement is made: "...the net impact for the new North Chatham Fire Insurance District is a revenue increase of $276,025 from $1,706 to $277,731." Page 4 - "Listed below are actions that need to be taken before three (3) new Fire Service Districts can be created and included in the County's Fiscal Year 2013/2014 annual budget." Third bullet in the paragraph that begins with the sentence given above - This bullet is "Approval by the State Fire Marshal's Office." It was my understanding that this approval would not come until sometime in the fall, and yet the Commissioners are scheduled to approve the 2013/2014 budget in June. My understanding was that the bullet should say "Submission for approval by the State Fire Marshal's Office." Please clarify what this bullet means. General Comment If I understand correctly the intent what is being proposed, the boundaries for the new South Orange fire service district and fire insurance district are the same, and the boundaries for the new Greater Chapel Hill fire service district and fire insurance district are also the same. However, it appears that the text of the agenda abstract does not always make that clear, and that therefore the text should be revised in the interest of greater clarity. (III) RECOMMENDATIONS - Pages 4 and 5 of the agenda abstract Recommendation 1 - The suggestion would be to make sure that the three maps are all the appropriate fire service district maps. Recommendation 2 - The suggestion would be to provide the statement of a formal motion to approve the new fire insurance district boundaries for the three districts, as shown in the three appropriate fire insurance district maps. Also included would be a statement that the maps would be submitted for approval to the State Fire Marshal's Office. Michael Talbert's Response to Commissioner Gordon's Questions and Comments: Commissioner Gordon, When the issue of establishing three new fire service districts was discussed at a BOCC work session on November 13, 2012 we anticipated that each new fire service district would be the same as the underlying fire insurance district. This is true for both the South Orange District and Greater Chapel Hill District. The North Chatham Fire Insurance District includes both the Damascus and Southern Triangle Fire Districts. To try and make this issue as simple as possible, Southern Triangle Fire Service District is proposed to be a separate Fire Service District , but included in North Chatham Fire Insurance District. This means there is no change for the existing Damascus Fire District. Therefore there are 2 maps, one for the Southern Triangle Fire Service District and one for the North Chatham Fire Insurance District. The only alternative solution that I could think of was to add 2 maps to the abstract, one to show the South Orange Fire Service District and one for the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District. The 2 new maps would be the same as the Fire Insurance Maps and could be confusing to have 2 maps exactly the same with different titles on the map. This is a difficult concept to understand and this issue has discussed by the BOCC 4 times since the work session on November 13, 2013. At this point I don't know how to explain it differently. Pages 2 and 3 - Southern Triangle Fire Service District Last paragraph on page 2 (which continues to the top of page 3) - The text refers to "the area in yellow" but it is not clear where that area might be on the maps included in the agenda materials. It is also not clear why Attachment 2 is referenced at the top of page 3. The "the area in yellow" is from a previous abstract and should have been deleted. Sentence should read "The Town of Chapel Hill is better positioned and has agreed to serve the 112 homeowners located more than six (6) road miles from the nearest North Chatham Station. Second full paragraph on page 3 (which is also the last paragraph for this fire district) - The New Southern Triangle Fire Service is not the same as the New North Chatham Fire Insurance District because the latter includes the Damascus fire district. My question here is what is the status of the Damascus fire district. Is it still a fire protection district? Damascus is still a Fire Protection District Pages 3 and 4 - Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District First paragraph - It is not clear why the following statement is made: "...the net impact for the new North Chatham Fire Insurance District is a revenue increase of $276,025 from $1,706 to $277,731." The wording should be " the net impact for the new Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District is a revenue increase of$276,025 from $$1,706 to $277,731." Page 4 - "Listed below are actions that need to be taken before three (3) new Fire Service Districts can be created and included in the County's Fiscal Year 2013/2014 annual budget." Third bullet in the paragraph that begins with the sentence given above - This bullet is "Approval by the State Fire Marshal's Office." It was my understanding that this approval would not come until sometime in the fall, and yet the Commissioners are scheduled to approve the 2013/2014 budget in June. My understanding was that the bullet should say "Submission for approval by the State Fire Marshal's Office." Please clarify what this bullet means. The revised fire insurance district maps will be submitted to the State Fire Marshal's Office after the Board's approval on April 23, 2013. The State Fire Marshal has told staff that it will take 4 to 6 months for their office to review and approve the new maps. General Comment If I understand correctly the intent what is being proposed, the boundaries for the new South Orange fire service district and fire insurance district are the same, and the boundaries for the new Greater Chapel Hill fire service district and fire insurance district are also the same. However, it appears that the text of the agenda abstract does not always make that clear, and that therefore the text should be revised in the interest of greater clarity. (III) RECOMMENDATIONS - Pages 4 and 5 of the agenda abstract Recommendation 1 - The suggestion would be to make sure that the three maps are all the appropriate fire service district maps. Recommendation 2 - The suggestion would be to provide the statement of a formal motion to approve the new fire insurance district boundaries for the three districts, as shown in the three appropriate fire insurance district maps. Also included would be a statement that the maps would be submitted for approval to the State Fire Marshal's Office. You are correct, the boundaries for the new South Orange fire service district and fire insurance district are the same, and the boundaries for the new Greater Chapel Hill fire service district and fire insurance district are also the same. The Abstract is a public document and I don't think it is proper to change the recommendations. I would encourage you to make any changes to the motions to approve that you think are appropriate. Let me know if you have any other questions. Michael S. Talbert Assistant County Manager Orange County, North Carolina A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to take the following actions: 1. Change the title of the two maps as follows: a) Change the title of the map referenced as Attachment A in the Resolution Establishing the South Orange Fire Service District to "South Orange Fire Service District/New South Orange Fire Insurance District" b) Change the title of the map referenced as Attachment A in the Resolution Establishing the Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District to "Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District/Greater Chapel Hill Fire Insurance District" 2. Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the necessary three resolutions, with maps amended above, establishing the three new Fire Service Districts: - South Orange Fire Service District and Map - Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District and Map - Southern Triangle Fire Service District and Map 3. Approve and authorize the Chair to sign as necessary new boundaries for three (3) existing fire insurance districts: • - South Orange Fire Insurance District • - Greater Chapel Hill Fire Insurance District • - North Chatham Fire Insurance District 1. 4. Authorize staff to submit these new fire insurance districts to the State Fire Marshal's Office. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs thanked Commissioner McKee and Michael Talbert for their leadership during this process. a. b. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application —Annandale at Creek Wood The Board received the recommendation of the Planning Board and considered action on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides: AGENDA ITEM:7-113 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ANNANDALE AT CREEK WOOD PROJECT INFORMATION: (Map) PIN: 9880-28-1953 Size: 36.46 acres Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB) Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District (MTC) Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer Growth Management System Designation: Rural PROPOSAL: • Flexible Development single-family residential, • 11 lots each at least two acres in area, • Overall proposed density - one dwelling unit per every 3.31 acres of land area, • 12.16 acres of open space (33.31% of the subject parcel) — Primary open space = 6.76 acres ; Secondary = 5.4 acres • Two roads built to NC DOT standards — end in cul-de sacs, • Voluntary impervious surface limits for lots per storm water permit process, • Pedestrian Open Space Access (POSA) to east of project near Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) property. • LAYOUT: (Map) COLOR LAYOUT: (Map) REVIEW PROCESS: FIRST ACTION — Concept plan application containing `conventional' and `flexible' development option layouts SECOND ACTION — Neighborhood Information Meeting - owners within 500 feet of the subject property invited to view/comment on the proposal. THIRD ACTION —Planning Board review and make a recommendation on the Concept Plan Application - should project proceed as a `conventional' or `flexible' development. REVIEW PROCESS: FOURTH ACTION — Planning Board reviews and makes a recommendation on Preliminary Plat application. FIFTH ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and takes action on the Preliminary Plat application. SIXTH ACTION — If approved, and once all construction activities have been completed or appropriate financial assurances have been approved, staff will sign off on a Final Plat, which will be recorded in the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office. RECOMMENDATIONS: • At its March 6, 2013 regular meeting the Board voted 9 to 1 to recommend approval of the Annandale at Creek Wood Preliminary Plat application package. • Staff also recommends approval of the application. • MANAGER RECOMMENDS BOCC: 1. Receive the Planning Board and Planning Director's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat application for the Annandale at Creek Wood Subdivision, 1. 2. Discuss the proposal, and 2. 3. Approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted and the Resolution of Approval contained in Attachment 8. Referring to the subdivision layout Michael Harvey pointed out that the septic locations are approximate and these can vary. He noted the stream buffer and said a footbridge has been proposed for access to an easement and open space access. He reviewed buffers and preservation of hardwoods through a voluntary tree buffer. He said Duke Forest reps and others were invited to the neighborhood meeting and expressed no concerns about this project. He said the applicants have decided to keep the open space as maintained by the local homeowners association. He noted that Triangle Land Conservancy is interested in the pedestrian open space access which could eventually tie into trails. He reminded board of process and actions as outlined on page one of the abstract. Chair Jacobs referred to page 123 and the prohibiting of tree cutting in the land use buffer. He asked if there is a similar prohibition for the northwestern portion of the property. Michael Harvey said this area was designed to be left in an undisturbed state. He said that an allowance can certainly be added. Chair Jacobs said this addition would clarify the conditions, and Michael Harvey said this can be put in. Chair Jacobs asked about discussion on having buffers on the north and east instead of the south and west. Tom Heffner, developer from Heffner Properties, said they wanted to have the buffer along 86 to maintain a rural treed look. He said that New Forest and the people at Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) wanted an undisturbed buffer. Because of this, the buffer was used to maintain a 2 acre lot size. Chair Jacobs asked if there discussion at the planning board about curb and gutter. Tom Heffner said he likes the curb and gutter as it reduces the tree cutting and grading needed. He said this also allows grass shoulders to be established more quickly. He said the concerns expressed were related to wildlife crossing. Michael Harvey said the position of the developer is that the curb and gutter system would accomplish a greater degree of protection for the surrounding environment as a point source of transferring storm water. He said that the rationale of the plan is that it avoids clear cutting and protects the viability of the creek. Chair Jacobs said the DOT has a one size fits all for the roads and he feels the developers have done the best job possible with this. Commissioner Dorosin asked how much discretion the Board has in approving something like this. Michael Harvey asked what the concerns Commissioner Dorosin had and said the process indicates that the planning board said this meets the code and staff said it meets the code. He said the commissioner has the opportunity to express dislike for the project or the code. Commissioner Dorosin said he is just curious. He referenced the restrictive covenants and asked if this is something the developers are required to do. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this is to ensure preservation of the open space. Michael Harvey said the restrictive covenants are what the local residents will have to live with. He said the County staff establishes the planning guidelines. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board of County Commissioners have input into what an HOA does with their covenants. He referenced the covenant prohibiting signs and said this violates first amendment rights. John Roberts said the Board has input only on restrictions that have to do with UDO and Comprehensive planning. He does not believe the Board has authority over Homeowners Association restrictive covenants. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there can be later discussion of putting something in the UDO regarding this issue, specifically first amendment violations in covenants. Chair Jacobs said there have been instances where developers refused to show the covenants. He said there have been requests in the past to change covenants to allow clotheslines, and developers have made changes. Tom Heffner said the no sign issue was to address business types of signs and this will be reviewed and appropriately changed. He said he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about covenants but the reality is that people like the assurance given by restrictive covenants, especially in the case of more expensive lots. He invited the Commissioners to email him with any other concerns. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee, including a modification on tree cutting to: Approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted and the Resolution of Approval contained in Attachment 8. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. c. Preliminary Information and Approval to Finance Various Capital Investment Plan Projects and County Equipment The Board received preliminary information and considered approving a resolution authorizing the scheduling of a public hearing for the installment financing for capital investment projects and equipment previously authorized by the Board. Clarence Grier reviewed the financial information from the abstract. He said bids will be received from 3-4 financial institutions. He said the loan closing is expected by June 4th of this year. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Price to approve a resolution authorizing the scheduling of a public hearing for the installment financing for capital investment projects and equipment previously authorized by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. d. Sales Tax Distribution Method for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Frank Clifton said a decision needs to be made each year by the end of April. He reviewed the following two options and information, from the abstract: The first option is to distribute the sales tax collected based on population. The formula takes the County's population and adds all individual municipal populations. The percent of each individual municipalities population divided by that grand total is used to allocate the sales tax revenue. This method has been used by Orange County for at least the last 21 years. The second option is to distribute the sales tax collected based on the Ad Valorem Property Tax Levied by each taxing unit of local government. Attachment 1 lists the 2012-2013 Property Tax Levies by taxing unit of local government furnished by the North Carolina Department of Revenue. Orange County is the taxing unit of local government for not only Orange County, but for all special tax districts located in Orange County. The NC General Statutes give the Board of County Commissioners the option of changing distribution methods each year as outlined in General Statutes 105-472.b. below: "The board of county commissioners in each taxing county shall, by resolution adopted during the month of April of each year, determine which of the two foregoing methods of distribution shall be in effect in the county during the next succeeding fiscal year. In order for the resolution to be effective, a certified copy of it must be delivered to the Secretary in Raleigh within 15 calendar days after its adoption. If the board fails to adopt a resolution choosing a method of distribution not then in effect in the county, or if a certified copy of the resolution is not timely delivered to the Secretary, the method of distribution then in effect in the county shall continue in effect for the following fiscal year. The method of distribution in effect on the first of July of each fiscal year shall apply to every distribution made during that fiscal year." Frank Clifton said the current process has not been changed in years by the county. He noted that Orange County is unique in that it has a school district with taxing authority. This means that a switch to assessment base, then the Chapel Hill Carrboro City School district and the fire districts would receive an appropriation. He said this is brought to the board each year at this time and it is the Board's discretion to change it or leave it as is. Clarence Grier said if the process is changed to the ad valorem, $1,053,217 in sales tax credit would be gained. He said that Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools would gain about $2.5 million; and Chapel Hill downtown service district and Durham would receive $500,000 in increases. He noted that the individual towns would lose about $4m in sales tax revenue based on the ad valorem property tax values. He said a cost sharing arrangement is possible and this would be based on the population and the distribution of this is outlined on page 3 of the abstract. He said that the manager recommends that the Board consider both options of the distribution and provide directions to the staff for distribution options for 2013-14. Commissioner Rich said this is nerve wracking for Chapel Hill Town Council, not knowing what Orange County will do until April. She has requested that this discussion be done earlier. She said this would be difficult for a town which is in the midst of budget and she recommended no change for this year. She asked if the Board can consider these options every other year instead of every year. She said this would give the towns a heads up instead of changing it in April and leaving the towns to scramble in finding money for budgets. Frank Clifton said the option is available for consideration every year, but the Board does not have to consider it or change it. He said the only complication is the state giving the final breakdown and not releasing it until April. He said the decision could be made using the breakdown from the prior year if desired and those numbers don't change a tremendous amount. Clarence Grier said the certified numbers were just received from the state last week. Commissioner Rich said this process is still very uncomfortable for the towns and she suggested that a more user friendly conversation be set up with the towns prior to consideration of this item by the County. Chair Jacobs said the flip side is that the Board could make the decision earlier in the year about changing the process and address the angst and the equity issues. He said that there is no need to wait for the official numbers. Frank Clifton said entities with an agreement have an assimilation of the two options. He said that, you cannot take away the authority of future elected boards. Commissioner McKee said his concern with an action of long term agreement for no change would take away the power of future boards. He said that, considering the political realities in Orange County, he understands the anxiety, but he feels it is misplaced. He does not feel that this ratio will be changed. Commissioner Rich said she has sat in a meeting with a former Commissioner who threatened to make this change because of a discussion that was going on. She said that the perception is there of this being a threat. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the abstract on page three, regarding cost sharing agreements, and said there are negotiated agreements between towns and County to find some middle ground between the two options. He said he would not support any long term agreement and he would not support any ad valorem option that gives money to the Chapel Hill School District and not to the Orange County School District. This would mean that people outside of the Chapel Hill School District would be subsidizing that district. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to keep the Sales Tax Distribution Method for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 the same as it has been, according to population. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. a. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint Warren Porter to a first full term on the Animal Services Advisory Board, in the position of a Non- Municipality, with a term ending on June 30, 2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. b. Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitor's Bureau. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint • Appointment to a first term for Mr. Gene Pease. If appointed, Mr. Pease will be serving a first term ending 12/31/2015 representing the Town of Chapel Hill. • Appointment to a second term for Ms. Laura Hayes Morgan. If appointed, Ms. Morgan will be serving a second full term ending 12/31/2015 representing UNC. • Appointment to a second term for Mr. Anthony Carey. If appointed, Mr. Carey will be serving a second full term ending 12/31/2015 representing the Orange County Lodging Association. • Appointment to a first term for Mr. Jack Schmidt. If appointed, Mr. Schmidt will be serving a first full term ending 12/31/2015 representing the Orange County Lodging Association. • Appointment to a first term for Mr. Gordon Jameson. If appointed, Mr. Jameson will be serving a partial first term ending 12/31/2014 as liaison of the Orange County Arts Commission. • Appointment to a first term for Ms. Annette Stone. If appointed, Ms. Stone will be serving a first full term ending 06/30/2014 representing Town of Carrboro Economic Development Staff. (Ex-officio) • Appointment to a first term for Ms. Meg McGurk. If appointed, Ms. McGurk will be serving a first full term ending 06/30/2014 representing the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership. (Ex-officio) • Appointment to a first term for Mr. Lee Pavao. If appointed, Mr. Pavao will be serving a first partial term ending 12/31/2015 as an at-large representative. Commissioner Dorosin said there are no persons of color on this board and that the Commissioners needed to ask Laurie Paolicelli to commit to reaching out to increase racial and ethnic diversity on the Visitor's Bureau board. Chair Jacobs agreed and said this request should be made to the Visitor's Bureau and its partner entities. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. c. Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Lisa Stuckey to the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, for a second term ending June 30, 2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. d. Orange County Arts Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Ashley Nisster to a partial term to an At-large position on the Orange County Arts Commission, with a term ending, March 31, 2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Dorosin - none Commissioner Rich said there had been a Rogers Road meeting and the meeting was a little testy at the end but things are starting to move forward. She said that the water and sewer district establishment is under consideration. She encouraged the Board to review the agenda packet from the meeting to become familiar with this before it comes up. She said that Commissioner Pelissier, Chair Jacobs and she attended Chamber's meeting and tried to set people's mind at ease on perceived issues. Commissioner Pelissier said her experience at the Chamber was different. She said the major themes she heard discussed were economic development, the role of incentives, and how to address the urban/rural divide. She mentioned an editorial in the Chapel Hill News on county policy and reviewed its background as a student project. She said she had attended a presentation on this and she would like to follow up on this to see what might be learned. Commissioner McKee said he also feels this article deserves some future discussion. Commissioner Price said her take on the Rogers Road Task force meeting was that people are feeling confident about change coming to that area. Commissioner Gordon represented Board of County Commissioners at the dedication of the new Chapel Hill public library and she said it is a beautiful facility. She encouraged the Board to take a look at it. Chair Jacobs referred to a press release on Earth Evening, scheduled for April 26th at the farmers market in Hillsborough. He said he also read the editorial and he wrote a rebuttal. He feels that statistics were manipulated to create a false impression of Orange County. Chair Jacobs said that an expedited process had been developed to address issues in the legislature. He said that there had been a meeting with the Social Services board regarding drug testing. He said that Commissioner McKee raised an objection and there was no clear way to proceed. He said that an email had been received asking for the Board's input on this issue. He said there is a problem with the system and this will need to be addressed. 13. Information Items • April 9, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections 14. Closed Session None 15. Adjournment Commissioner McKee said he wanted to add an additional comment. He invited the Board and citizens in District 2 to join him and Commissioner Price for a listening session on Sunday, April 28th at the Exchange Club in Hillsborough. Other attendees will be Representative Foushee, Representative Insko and Senator Ellie Kinnaird. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting at 10:49 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board