HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-05-2013 - 5a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
September 9, 2013 BOCC QPH
September 17, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 September 9, 2013
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, September 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
12 Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
15 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board
19 David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board
21 members, Maxecine Mitchell, Johnny Randall, Lisa Stuckey, Stephanie O'Rouke, Paul Guthrie,
22 and Herman Staats
23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher, Rachel Phelps
24 Hawkins, James Lea and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
25
26 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
27 Chair Jacobs and Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck
28
29 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
30 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
31
32 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order.
33 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following handouts at the table:
34 - PowerPoint for item C1 —Zoning Atlas Amendment
35 - White sheet for item C1 —Zoning Atlas Amendment
36 - Map for C1 and C2 - Zoning Atlas Amendment— requested by Commissioner Rich
37 - PowerPoint for item C2—Zoning Atlas Amendment
38 - PowerPoint for item C4 - Eno Economic Development District Access Management
39 Plan
40 - PowerPoint for item C5— Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated
41 Area Land Use Plan
42 - Green PowerPoint for item E1 —Agricultural Support Enterprises
43
44 Chair Jacobs explained that due to the lack of a quorum with the Planning Board the
45 meeting would start with item E1.
46
47 E. BOCC WORK SESSION
48
49 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises —To review materials related to "Agricultural
50 Support Enterprises" and provide direction/input to staff on specific issues.
51
52 Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
53
54 Agricultural Support Enterprises
2
1 Purpose of Work Session
2 BOCC work session on May 14, 2013
3 - Touched on the fact an alternative review process had been proposed in the pre-
4 2010 work
5 Need input/direction on review process for projects that require a BOCC public hearing
6 - Re-zonings and Class A Special Use Permits
7 -
8 Review Process Options
9 Keep the existing quarterly public hearing process for all projects
10 Revise the existing process only for ASE-related projects
11 Revise the existing process for all project
12
13 Slides 4-8-Review Process flowcharts - as seen in pages 5-9 of the abstract
14
15 BOCC Discussion Points
16 Should a change in the existing public hearing process from a quarterly hearing to a
17 more frequent hearing be pursued?
18 - If so, for ASE projects only or for all projects?
19 - Also, how frequently? (2x/month, monthly, every other month)
20 Is there a desire to change the existing policy of the BOCC approving the legal ad?
21 - Would trim -3 weeks from current process.
22 - Amendment Outline Forms now used for County-initiated items.
23
24 Perdita Holtz outlined the current review process and compared the 3 options detailed in
25 the flowcharts on abstract pages 5-9. She said the primary difference between options 1 and 2
26 is the variation in the timing of the Planning Board recommendation.
27 She noted that option 3 has 2 public hearings, but it is not favored by staff due to the
28 potential for a longer time frame and higher cost for publications.
29 She reviewed the discussion points for the Board.
30
31 Chair Jacobs announced that quorum was reached at 7:22. He asked that Perdita Holtz
32 continue this discussion at the end of the meeting, in order to return to the original public
33 hearing agenda.
34
35 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
36
37 Chair Jacobs called the public hearing to order. He noted that Pete Hallenbeck would
38 preside over the meeting.
39 The following Planning Board members were present: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, Maxecine
40 Mitchell, Lisa Stuckey, Stephanie O'Rouke, Paul Guthrie, and Herman Staats.
41
42 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment-To review a property owner-initiated amendment to the
43 Zoning Atlas to rezone a 2.67 acre parcel of property located at 3604 Southern Drive
44 (PIN 9844-86-5155) from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (1-1) to Light
45 Industrial (1-1).
46
47 Michael Harvey reviewed a series of maps pertaining to the requested zoning atlas
48 amendment. He reviewed the following background information:
49
50 BACKGROUND
51 PIN -9844-86-5155.
52 Size of Parcel -2.67 acres.
3
1 Future Land Use Element Map Designation —Commercial Industrial Transition Activity
2 Node
3 Growth Management System Designation -- Urban.
4 Existing Conditions -- The property is developed and utilized to support a metal sheet
5 fabrication operation.
6 Access -- The property has direct access onto Southern Drive.
7 REQUEST:
8 Property is split zoned residential and industrial.
9 Necessary infrastructure (i.e. septic, parking) on residentially zoned portion of property.
10 • Applicant concerned over long-term ability to continue operation with necessary
11 components on `residentially' zoned property.
12 • Applicant requests entire property be zoned 1-1 (Light Industrial) so `use' would be
13 considered conforming.
14 FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
15 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION:
16 Per approved Comprehensive Plan area `appropriate for retail and other commercial
17 uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses'.
18 County did not eliminate all residential zoning in the area when land use category
19 created/adopted so individuals could still make use of property.
20 Area is intended to support non-residential development including industrial (i.e.
21 manufacturing).
22 STAFF ASSESSMENT:
23 The application is complete.
24 The property is of sufficient size.
25 Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth
26 Management System Map, and adopted Efland Mebane Small Area Plan,
27 Represents logical extension of existing 1-1 district.
28 Applicant's issue is not unique.
29 Staff has previously identified similar problems on other properties throughout the
30 County.
31 Staff will be bringing a comprehensive solution for consideration by the BOCC in the fall.
32 Staff did not want applicant to wait for staff's review to be complete and encouraged the
33 submittal of rezoning request.
34 RECOMMENDATION:
35 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
36 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2013
37 BOCC regular meeting.
38 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
39 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
40
41 Michael Harvey said this is not an uncommon issue, and it is due to past zoning
42 practices that restricted commercial zoning to a small square around industrial buildings, while
43 leaving all other areas as residential space. He said staff will be bringing forward more parcels
44 in the future as attempts are made to fix the zoning issues on those lots as well.
45 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the commercial/industrial transition slide
46 and the fact that residential zoning is not eliminated.
47 Michael Harvey said there is residential zoning in the area. He said the purpose of the
48 activity node is to encourage and create more retail and manufacturing opportunities by the
49 extension of the land use category; however residential land use was not eliminated as part of
50 this.
51 He noted that Ronald Keizer and any other non-residential land owner in the area will be
52 held to the existing land use buffer standards, as listed in article 6.
53 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure he understands the map and zoning
54 designations on the future land use map.
4
1 Michael Harvey said the map does not designate zoning; it designates land use
2 category. He said this category is meant to encourage retail and manufacturing, however there
3 is underlying rural residential zoning in the area. He said this rural/residential zoning is not
4 invalidated, and it is still protected in the UDO. He noted that future use and focus for this area
5 will be additional non-residential application of land use.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the zoning of this area. He said the
7 designations and zoning are confusing.
8 Michael Harvey said, as the comprehensive plan points out, certain areas of the County
9 have been identified as targets to encourage specific types of land use.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said a plan has been developed to encourage certain land use,
11 but this did not include zoning changes to encourage that development.
12 Michael Harvey said this is correct; these areas were not pre-zoned.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan is to re-zone these areas, or if this will happen
14 in a piecemeal fashion like the Board is seeing tonight.
15 Michael Harvey said the plan is that this will happen as the market demands it.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said he is just trying to understand the context.
17 Frank Clifton said there is an assumption by some landowners that re-zoning means
18 values and property taxes will go up. He said this is not necessarily true.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said this map is misleading for a person who is not well versed in
20 this issue.
21 Frank Clifton said the map Commissioner Dorosin is referring to is a planning map for
22 future use, versus a zoning map of current designations.
23 Planning Board member Johnny Randall arrived at 7:37.
24 Commissioner Rich asked how the zoning change will affect the protected watershed
25 area.
26 Michael Harvey said the overlay will not be altered. He said Ronald Keizer and his
27 business will be held to the same standards regarding impervious surface limits and stream
28 buffer protections.
29 Commissioner Price said the packet did not seem to indicate any major changes in the
30 business activity on the property.
31 Michael Harvey said there will be no major changes on this request. He noted the
32 second item is a different request for a different issue.
33 Chair Jacobs said he would like to follow up on Commissioner Dorosin's question. He
34 said one difference between this economic development district and the Hillsborough one is that
35 the others have fewer and larger parcels. He noted that this area is full of smaller residential
36 lots. This makes it challenging to do a blanket re-zoning.
37 Pete Hallenbeck asked for any comments from the planning board, and he introduced
38 the applicant, Ronald Keizer.
39
40 PUBLIC COMMENT
41 Ronald Keizer, owner of USA Dutch, said he left some brochures regarding his
42 company. He said he would like to expand his business, and he hopes he will be allowed to do
43 this. He said he will be happy to answer questions
44 Chair Jacobs asked if any member of the Board had comments.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
47 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
48 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2013
49 BOCC regular meeting.
50 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
51 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
52
53 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
54
5
1 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review a property owner-initiated amendment to the
2 Zoning Atlas to rezone 2 parcels of property, totaling approximately 16 acres in land area, from
3 Rural Residential (R-1) to Light Industrial (1-1).
4 The parcels are undeveloped and without an assigned street address but are located east and
5 south of the USA Dutch property at 3604 Southern Drive.
6
7 Planning Board member Lisa Stuckey left at 7:43 pm.
8 Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides:
9
10 ZONING ATLAS (MAP) AMENDMENT
11 BACKGROUND
12 PIN(S) —9844-87-7368 and 9844-86-7573.
13 Size of Parcel(s) —Total is approximately 16 acres.
14 Future Land Use Element Map Designation —Commercial Industrial Transition Activity
15 Node
16 Growth Management System Designation -- Urban.
17 Existing Conditions — Properties are undeveloped with varying topography and
18 vegetation.
19 Access -- The smaller property has direct access onto Southern Drive.
20 REQUEST:
21 • Applicant (Keizer) owns adjacent metal fabrication business at 3604 Southern Drive.
22 • Applicant looking to expand existing operation.
23 Wishes to have both parcels rezoned to allow for expansion.
24 FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
25 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION:
26 Per approved Comprehensive Plan area `appropriate for retail and other commercial
27 uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses'.
28 County did not eliminate all residential zoning in the area when land use category
29 created/adopted so individuals could still make use of property.
30 Area is intended to support non-residential development including industrial (i.e.
31 manufacturing).
32 STAFF ASSESSMENT:
33 The application is complete.
34 The property is of sufficient size.
35 Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth
36 Management System Map, and adopted Efland Mebane Small Area Plan,
37 Represents logical extension of existing 1-1 district.
38 Existing vegetation near interstate and around existing stream will have to be preserved.
39 The applicant will have to plant additional vegetation to satisfy land use buffer
40 requirement of 100 feet per Section 6.8.6 (F) of UDO.
41 Sheet metal fabrication is a permitted use of property in the 1-1 zoning district.
42 Expansion would be reviewed/acted upon by staff with the submission of a site plan per
43 Section 2.5 of the UDO.
44 RECOMMENDATION:
45 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
46 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2013
47 BOCC regular meeting.
6
1 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
2 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
3
4 Michael Harvey noted that the abstract includes a statement from the current property
5 owner, Daniel McDonald, who indicates that Ronald Keizer has an option on purchasing the
6 property. He said this is contingent on the re-zoning approval.
7 Michael Harvey said Ronald Keizer has been made aware of the buffer requirements for
8 this property.
9 Commissioner Price said she is pleased that a local business wants to expand. She
10 asked if the expansion would mean an increased intensity in the use, or if it would remain the
11 same.
12 Michael Harvey said the re-zoning needs to be acted on regardless of whether or not it is
13 consistent with the code. He said he believes there will be an expansion and amplification of
14 the existing use. He also believes the existing land use criteria and standards will mitigate any
15 impacts. He said he has not seen the site plan, so he is hesitant to give a definite answer.
16 Commissioner McKee said the last item simply aligned what was on the ground with
17 what is on paper. He said this item is placing before the Board the very thing that the County
18 has wanted, which is more job and business opportunities in Orange County. He said this
19 request is in an area where the land use has already been designated as appropriate. He said
20 there are still opportunities to ask questions and work out agreements as this moves forward.
21 He said he is in favor of this.
22 Chair Jacobs asked if there is water and sewer available.
23 Craig Benedict said there is no public water and sewer in the area. He said part of the
24 current design to flip the sewer flow will bring gravity sewer past this parcel. He said this would
25 happen in a year and a half to two years
26 Chair Jacobs asked if owners with a sewer line running in front of their property are
27 required to hook in.
28 Craig Benedict said the UDO gives distance requirements that do require owners to
29 connect on.
30 He said that Orange Alamance water systems has some facilities in this area, and work
31 is being done to insure that future development can handle both potable water and fire
32 suppression needs for these new industries.
33 Commissioner Rich asked if residents would be required to hook up to the sewer lines.
34 Craig Benedict said commercial owners, expansions to a business, or a new home built
35 within the designated distance will be required to hook up.
36 Commissioner Rich noted that part of the zoning change request was due to a need to
37 fix the septic system, and then the owner will be required to hook up to sewer in a couple of
38 years.
39 Craig Benedict said that if the owner fixes the septic, he will be allowed to remain with
40 the new or repaired system until it fails.
41 Frank Clifton said this is a project Steve Brantley has worked on with the owner.
42 Pete Hallenbeck asked if there were any comments from the Planning Board.
43 Pete Hallenbeck said he is pleased to hear about the option for a local supplier of
44 chassis. He is also please to hear about the potential water availability for fire suppression.
45 Chair Jacobs asked about the number of current and future employees.
46 Applicant Ronald Kaiser said he currently has 26 employees. He said business is
47 growing. He said there were 18 employees in 2009, and the company did $1.8 million in sales.
48 He said he expects to do $4.2 million in sales this year. He said the company set a goal of
49 being a 5 million dollar company. He said this goal has almost been met, and his desire is to
50 set a new goal that allows the company to keep up with its growing customers.
51 James Bryan, Staff Attorney, said this decision will be based on the reasonableness and
52 consistency with the land plan and the public benefit but not the benefits of this particular
53 business.
7
1 Chair Jacobs said he is excited about the potential for this expansion. He said he is
2 somewhat confused about the answer given about the requirement for sewer hookup. He said
3 he wanted to provide this answer to Ronald Keiser as part of his planning.
4 Craig Benedict said this is a timing issue. He said if the expansion happens at a later
5 date when sewer is available, the owner can hook with the public sewer. He said Ronald Keiser
6 can repair his existing septic.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
9
10 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
11 to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2013 BOCC regular
12 meeting.
13 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
14 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government-
19 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add a new Section 2.24
20 entitled Governmental Uses, renumber existing Section 2.24 and subsequent sections
21 accordingly, and modify the `government' land use category within Section 5.2.2 Table of
22 Permitted Uses— Economic Development District to add the term `uses'. References to
23 renumbered sections occur throughout the UDO and are proposed to be updated.
24
25 Michael Harvey reviewed the attachments to the abstract. He said the potential
26 development of a fire department substation off Neville Road has caused some concern for
27 local residents. He said staff was directed to initiate a text amendment to require a
28 neighborhood information meeting prior to the approval of any site plans proposing the
29 development of government use.
30 He said this requires the applicant to hold this meeting so that property owners within
31 500 feet can attend the meeting to gather information and offer feedback.
32 He said the applicant has to respond to concerns or suggestions offered at the meeting,
33 and the public must be informed by certified mail of the date and time of the meeting.
34 He noted that this amendment does not alter the current review process for government
35 uses. He said this does not require the Board to hold additional public hearings with respect to
36 the decision to purchase or act on the purchase of property. He said this also does not require
37 County agencies that engage in long range planning project planning to duplicate efforts by
38 holding informational meetings about projects that have already been reviewed and discussed
39 at the public level. He gave the example of a recent park planning project.
40 He said if this is adopted any time a government use is defined, the table of permitted
41 uses will be developed, neighborhood meetings will held, and planning staff will encourage the
42 applicant to address as many concerns as he/she sees fit.
43 He noted that the purpose of this is to insure that local residents are aware of what is
44 happening in the vicinity with regard to government facilities.
45 He said Ordinance Review Committee comments were positive with a few noted
46 changes and input from other departments.
47 He reviewed the staff recommendations as outlined in the abstract.
48 Pete Hallenbeck asked for questions
49 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to point out the background on the first page,
50 which outlines the fact that a permitted use only requires staff review and action. She said
51 neither the County nor the applicant is required to notify adjacent property owners. She said
52 this is a fire station, which is for the public good. She said that neighbors still had concerns, and
53 she feels that neighborhood meetings and outreach are a good idea.
8
1 Commissioner Pelissier asked why staff selected that a meeting would not be required
2 unless the expansion was 50% or larger.
3 Michael Harvey said staff tried to use existing standards from the UDO regarding what
4 constitutes expansion. He said staff did not want smaller expansions to have to undergo a
5 formal site plan review process for just a couple of parking spaces. He said that larger re-
6 development of a site changes the nature of the project and demands a planning review. He
7 also wanted to treat the parks the same way.
8 Commissioner Pelissier asked if facilities include parking spaces or just building.
9 Michael Harvey said it includes both.
10 Chair Jacobs said he feels the neighbors in the area of the White Cross substation were
11 taken aback that something had appeared in their neighborhood without any awareness of the
12 process or the impact. He said this is a good way to address that concern. He feels it is
13 important to know and have a say about what is going on in your neighborhood, while balancing
14 the fact that government use has a certain priority. He noted that the White Cross Fire Station
15 is holding a neighborhood information meeting tomorrow night. He said this is a good precedent
16 moving forward.
17 Commissioner McKee said some of the neighbors that he talked to were not upset over
18 the fire station, but were simply upset about the lack of notification.
19 Commissioner Price clarified that if this goes into effect then a volunteer fire department
20 would have to hold an information meeting. She asked if state law supersedes this.
21 Michael Harvey said he is not aware of anything in state law that gives a fire department
22 preferential treatment from compliance with local land use regulations.
23 Commissioner Price said she thought that state law said that the fire stations are
24 permitted by right.
25 Michael Harvey said this does not change the permitted by right status, but it adds a
26 layer of requirement to that status by requiring this hearing is held.
27 Commissioner Price said the Board could have a public meeting and hearing, but plans
28 will still go forward.
29 Michael Harvey said yes; however the hope is that the applicant chooses to address as
30 many of the concerns as possible.
31 Pete Hallenbeck asked if the County attorney could look into this and have that
32 information available at the next Planning Board meeting.
33 Paul Guthrie asked for the definition of governmental usage.
34 Michael Harvey said it is noted in attachment 1 of the abstract that the County
35 recognizes that there are state and federal offices that will be exempt because of the nature of
36 their use.
37 Pete Hallenbeck suggested that the UDO has the definition of government use, and this
38 can be looked at during the next meeting.
39 Michael Harvey said there is not a definition of the land use, but there is a list of
40 permitted uses in the table, and this can be discussed in the Planning Board meeting.
41 Pete Hallenbeck said the fire department was scrambling to put in substations because
42 of the insurance situation, and manners suffered. He said it speaks well that the station is now
43 having a meeting.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
46
47 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
48 the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting.
49 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
50 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
51
52 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
53
9
1 4. Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan - To review a
2 proposed access management plan for the Eno EDD (Economic Development District). The
3 proposed access management plan involves approximately 550 acres of land in the vicinity of
4 US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County).
5
6 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the purpose as follows:
7 To hold a public hearing on the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan for
8 establishing transportation connectivity as the study area develops in the future.
9 She reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides:
10
11 BACKGROUND
12 Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan adopted in 2008, amended in 2009.
13 Plan recommended an access management plan for US 70 and Old Highway 10 to
14 provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the
15 area.
16
17 WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 2009?
18 Land Use Plan Map amendments.
19 Pre-zoning of land.
20 Utility service agreement with Durham.
21 Public water & sewer master plan.
22 Cross-county bus route planning.
23 Striping of 2-ft. bike lanes on Old NC 10.
24 I-85/US 70 interchange concept plan.
25 Project for 1-85 widening and US 70 interchange in State plans.
26
27 Eno EDD-Access Management Plan Study Area (map)
28
29 Importance of a formally adopted access management plan:
30 Enhancing Interconnectivity and access as properties are developed for non-residential
31 land uses;
32 Developer/property owner compliance in providing transportation infrastructure
33 consistent with the Plan;
34 Enhanced collaboration with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
35 Organization; and
36 Procurement of federal and state funding for projects.
37 The Plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access
38 management criteria and a concept map.
39
40 WHAT DOES THE ENO EDD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN DO?
41 The plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access
42 management criteria and a concept map.
43 WHY EXAMINE THESE CORRIDORS?
44 The improvement of the functionality of these corridors to both serve the area's traffic
45 along these routes is of high local and strategic importance as future development
46 proceeds in the Eno EDD.
47
48 THE PLAN EXAMINES
49 EXISTING CONDITIONS:
50 Zoning and land use
51 o EDE-1; EDE-2; R-1; R-2; MTC
52 Environmental Considerations
53 o Topography; Floodplains; Wetlands
54 Future Land Use Plan designations
10
1 o Economic Development Activity Node
2 o 10-Year Transition
3 o Resource Protection Area
4
5 THE PLAN EXAMINES
6 EXISTING CONDITIONS:
7 Existing Transportation Conditions
8 o Functional classification of roads
9 o Medians
10 o Traffic signals
11 o Traffic counts
12 o Traffic level of service (LOS)
13 o High frequency crash locations
14 o I-85/US 70 interchange redesign concept
15 o Rail
16 o Pedestrians and bicycles
17 o Transit (bus, park-and-rides, etc.)
18 THE PLAN REVIEWS ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
19 An Access Management Concept Map was prepared to guide the design of site access
20 and internal circulations routes for properties in the area.
21 Written access management criteria were developed to guide interpretation and
22 implementation of the Map.
23 Public Outreach
24 A Public Informational Meeting/Open House was held on September 4, 2013 from 4:30-6:30
25 p.m. at the Shared Visions Retreat Center (historic Murphey School).
26 Legal ads for this public hearing were published in the Herald Sun on Aug. 28 & Sept. 4, 2013.
27 The Eno EDD AMP was also made available on the Planning Dept.'s website at
28 http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
29
30 Recommendations
31 The Planning Director recommends the Board:
32 1. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a
33 recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting.
34 2. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the
35 OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments.
36
37 Abigaile Pittman said implementation of the plan will require coordination between the
38 NCDOT, the County, the City of Durham, developers and property owners.
39 She said the public outreach meeting had revealed some community concerns regarding
40 truck traffic and speed limits along Highway 10 and the potential impacts to residential
41 neighborhoods.
42 Chair Jacobs said some of the concerns regarding highway 10 relate to rural character.
43 He said there is a plan for Saint Mary's Road, which is a scenic corridor. He suggested a review
44 of those criteria, which address some of the issues that people have raised regarding highway 10.
45 He said this could be used as a blueprint.
46 Commissioner Gordon asked about the functional specifications on pages 19 and 20 of
47 the abstract. She asked for clarification on the road classification system and how it meshes with
48 these two pages.
11
1 Abigaile Pittman said arterial collector and local categories are broad categories, but
2 NCDOT has some subcategories. She said the categories are taken directly from NCDOT's
3 website. She said she is aware that NCDOT is currently undertaking a review of the entire
4 functional classification program. She said this will be well under way by December. She said
5 comments from local jurisdictions regarding classification changes will be welcomed. She
6 suggested that NC 10 and the continuation onto Old Hillsborough are not consistent yet. She said
7 NCDOT should examine this.
8 Commissioner Gordon said that the current classification is being used with subcategories.
9 She clarified that changes will be dealt with as they come. She said the classifications take a long
10 time.
11 Abigaile Pittman said there is an opportunity to participate in the process through
12 comments.
13 Commissioner Price asked about signal lights. She asked what the next phase is for the
14 intersections.
15 Abigaile Pittman said the map identifies existing signal intersections, and she has not
16 indentified any future signal lights. She said this may change as development proceeds.
17 Commissioner Price said she was referring to connectivity. She asked if the road would
18 be widened if it is not made a scenic road.
19 Abigaile Pittman said there is no known proposal to widen Old Highway 10. She said
20 there is a proposal to straighten some of the curves in the future.
21 Commissioner Price said she was just trying to figure out where the circled areas are
22 connected to the plan.
23 Abigaile Pittman said this is just the existing road system.
24 Commissioner McKee said there are two rail crossings that complicate any possible
25 widening.
26 Planning Board Member Johnny Randall asked how much bicycle traffic exists on highway
27 10. He asked if there are bike lanes.
28 Abigaile Pittman said there is a striped lane for bikes but no official bike lanes.
29 Commissioner McKee said a 2 foot addition is simply a paved shoulder and not a bike
30 lane. This adds a little separation. He said the widening of 86 North includes a 4 foot paved
31 shoulder wherever possible. He said a true bike lane is 5 feet wide.
32
33 PUBLIC COMMENT:
34 Gina Andrews lives in the study area. She has spoken to 88 people in the neighboring
35 area, and 85 of those people signed a petition. She said she took the maps provided at the
36 Murphy school. She read the petition, which expressed opposition to the Eno EDD Small Area
37 Plan due to potential destruction of surrounding wooded areas, and degradation of the local
38 environment due to noise and other pollution. She asked for a rejection of this plan. She said that
39 Old NC 10 welcomes people to Orange County and is favored by cyclists due to the beauty and
40 safety of the area. She feels there is another plan that could work for this area.
41 Commissioner Gordon asked if the petition is against the Eno Economic Development
42 Access Management Plan or the small area plan.
43 Gina Andrews said it is against the access management plan.
44
45 Jon Arvik said he came to ask for help. He said Chair Jacobs comment regarding
46 classification of Old NC 10 as a scenic area provided hope for the help.
47 He said he moved here 7 years ago for the rural neighborhood, clean air, quiet, and claims
48 on the County website. He said neighbors are still great, but the difficulty is air contamination and
49 heavy truck traffic with noise. He said his history is in environmental science and airborne
50 particulates and their health effects. He said Weldon Ridge is in close proximity to NC 10 and
51 there is heavy traffic going at high speeds, spewing diesel exhaust, which is a human carcinogen.
52 He said he moved here voluntarily, but he did not want to see these trucks going down
53 these smaller roads. He said his concern is the health of his neighbors.
12
1 Joseph Henderson lives at 5316 Old Hillsborough Road. He said he hopes everyone can
2 come to an agreement to develop and maintain the landscape, while creating jobs and business
3 opportunities. He says there is only one piece of paper, and he said there should be 3 that can be
4 discussed. He said Old NC 10 is a beautiful drive and a wonderful place for bicyclists and
5 joggers. He said commercial traffic should be limited to Highway 70. He said he has seen the
6 new lines for access to 70 and this is a waste of money. He said this eliminates only 2 minutes of
7 driving and is a waste of time and resources.
8 Paul Guthrie said the transportation map includes the location of potential rail stop. He
9 said there needs to be significant discussion on the location of this. He said this decision involves
10 issues outside of the current discussion.
11 Commissioner McKee asked what the speed limit is in this area. He noted that Pleasant
12 Green Road on the north side of Highway 70 has an extended area of 45 miles per hour. He
13 noted that the Board does not have the authority to regulate speed limit or what traffic can use the
14 roads. He said the speed limits need enforcement in this area.
15 Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons he likes going to football games at Duke is because
16 there is not a lot of traffic, and he uses Old 10 as a shortcut. He said he does enjoy this drive and
17 the sense of being in the country. He empathizes with the residents' comments. He said it could
18 be part of the motion that the Planning Staff should share how the Saint Mary's scenic corridor
19 works and how this might be applied to NC 10.
20 He said DOT can be asked to reduce the speed limits, but speed limit is usually only
21 reduced if there are high rates of accidents in the area.
22 Chair Jacobs followed up on Commissioner Gordon's question regarding the petition
23 against the access management plan. He said there was an underlying decision made by a
24 previous Board that changed the land use plan, but that is not what is before the Board at this
25 time. He said that is a topic for a later discussion.
26 Commissioner Price said she travels in that area and she feels that an increase in the use
27 intensity would mean more traffic and higher speeds. She said she has seen so many of the
28 accident shrine markers on that road. She said something does need to be done. She said the
29 same is true of Saint Mary's Road. She said DOT can intervene.
30 Commissioner Rich referred to Chair Jacobs mention that the petition was for the wrong
31 discussion, and she asked if the petitioner was in agreement with this statement.
32 Chair Jacobs said the underlying issue from the petition is that the land use has changed.
33 David Walbert said he signed the petition with full knowledge that it was not about the
34 issue before the Board tonight. He said there was no petition to be signed 5 years ago. He said
35 he found out about the plan in 2008 with only 2 days notice. He spoke at that meeting. He said
36 that Chair Jacobs made the same comment at that meeting regarding a map that was drawn in
37 1980. He said it seems at every point in this process the Board is referring back to something that
38 already happened. He said he would ask that the Planning Board and the Commissioners take
39 into account the concerns expressed in that petition regarding the character and the fact that there
40 is a residential neighborhood involved.
41 Commissioner Price said the petition is about something else, but he management plan
42 does affect the residents' way of life and quality of life.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
45
46 1. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a
47 recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting.
48 2. Direct staff to review the standards applied to the Saint Mary's Road scenic corridor to
49 see if and how these standards may be applied to Old Highway 10.
50 3. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the
51 OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments.
52
53 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on what is supposed to come back to the
54 Board with regard to the Access Management Plan. He said there is not really a plan yet.
13
1 Abigaile Pittman said this is a plan that offers criteria and a map
2 Commissioner Dorosin said the abstract says this says it is a draft plan
3 Abigail Pittman said this draft plan offers criteria and a map on future access and
4 connectivity through the EDD. She said the highlights review existing conditions and how staff
5 arrived here today. She said this is not a plan that examines any one development proposal, but
6 it is a policy guideline with criteria to guide future development actions.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said he feels that he needs a more specific plan of what this
8 means. He said this is only a criticism of his own lack of understanding. He referred to the signal
9 intersections map. He said a plan, to him, states a list of what will be done. He asked what the
10 Board would be approving when this comes back in two months.
11 Tom Altieri said what will be coming back will be the entire plan. He said this is pages 6—
12 38 of the agenda packet. He said the map that Commissioner Dorosin refers to is within that plan.
13 He said this could also be referred to as an access management plan for the area. He said this
14 map is really a conceptual plan that provides the County the opportunity for future development.
15 He said this will give the County future opportunity to get signals added, and to require
16 easements for service roads to maintain the integrity of the existing roadway.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said he is still not satisfied that there are enough details.
18 Commissioner Gordon said she has no objection to getting more information on the Saint
19 Mary's scenic byway. She said scenic byways just prescribe what kind of signs can be put up.
20 She is not sure that a designation of Highway10 as a scenic byway will address the concerns
21 expressed by the public. She said the main concern of residents is keeping commercial traffic off
22 Old 10.
23 Chair Jacobs said Saint Mary's scenic corridor has standards that were developed 15-20
24 years ago. He said these standards encompass much more than just signs, including setbacks
25 and other provisions.
26 Commissioner Gordon said it matters whether the term used is scenic byway or scenic
27 corridor. She was referring to a state scenic byway.
28 Chair Jacob said the term is scenic corridor.
29 Commissioner Pelissier said that this item is confusing to the Board as well as the public,
30 because it is really just a plan for a plan. She said this has to be done in order to develop details
31 later on when there are requests for lights, bike lanes or other items. She said transportation
32 planning is so complicated due to the all the different organizations involved on a federal, state,
33 urban planning and rural level. She clarified that this plan is simply a placeholder to put ideas
34 there for future implementation.
35 Craig Benedict said this type of plan is needed to get funding for projects from DOT. He
36 said it will help make any future development more manageable. He said this is a step in the
37 process to manage growth. He said he understands the Board's comments regarding the
38 comparison to the scenic corridor.
39 Chair Jacobs emphasized that an access management plan also limits access.
40
41 VOTE: 5 ayes, 2 nays (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price)
42
43 Commissioner Dorosin said the idea of a plan that doesn't really have to be followed is not
44 satisfying. He said he appreciates the complexity of transportation planning, but he feels it is
45 more useful to put more time in at the front end.
46 Commissioner Price said more work needs to be done to outline how this transportation
47 plan will fit in with the proposed land use. She said this plan has been sitting on paper for
48 decades, and she feels it should be re-visited before anything is put in stone.
49 Commissioner Rich said her understanding is that this plan is not set in stone but is meant
50 to give direction moving forward toward a solid plan.
51 Commissioner Price said once it is voted it seems to become a reference point.
52 Pete Hallenbeck said it would be helpful to have the Planning Board make a map with the
53 addresses of all of the people who signed the petition. He said this would help everyone see
54 where the affected people are located.
14
1
2 5. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
3 Plan —To review future land uses proposed for areas of County jurisdiction located within the
4 Town's Urban Service Boundary. This is the next step towards completion of a joint Town of
5 Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan.
6
7 Tom Altieri reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
8
9 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
10 Plan
11 Quarterly Public Hearing
12 September 9, 2013
13 Item C.5
14
15 Purpose
16 Hold a public hearing on draft Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange
17 Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan
18
19 History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough
20 Hillsborough/OC Urban Transition Area Task Force (2004):
21 Acknowledgement that the Town's Primary Service Area for public water/sewer, as
22 defined by Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement, was a
23 much larger area than it had the ability to serve.
24 Principles of Agreement and Map, one of which called for a Joint Strategic Growth Plan
25 (SGP).
26 Hillsborough/OC SGP Phase 1(2006):
27 Consultant prepared SGP Report.
28 SGP Report called for preparation of Inter-local Agreement.
29
30 History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough (Cont.)
31 Phase B-Hillsborough-Orange Inter-local Land Management Agreement(2009):
32 Called for adoption of Joint Land Use Plan (JLUP);
33 Established Urban Services Area, Hillsborough Urbanizing Area, and Orange County
34 Urbanizing Area;
35 Identified areas for Town's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) swap;
36 Provides for JLUP adoption, administration, and amendment processes.
37
38 Inter-local Agreement (2009) MAP
39
40 Why Joint Planning?
41 Implement Inter-local Agreement.
42 Clear and consistent guidance for land use/zoning decisions.
43 Achieve coordinated growth patterns.
44 Distinguish between areas to have urban characteristics from rural.
45
46 Adopted by Town March 2013 MAP
47
48 Prior to Town Adoption
49 BOCC letter to Town providing comments (Oct. 2012) — Part of Town's outreach and public
50 hearing process (2012 —early-2013).
51 Town Planning Board (Nov. 2012) —Addresses BOCC comments as part of its
52 recommendations.
53 BOCC Work Session (Jan. 2012L— Review of Town Planning Board recommendations and
54 how they addressed BOCC input.
15
1 BOCC/Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Joint Meeting (Feb. 2013) — Update on Town
2 process and next joint planning steps.
3
4 Following Town Adoption of FLUP
5 Consistent with the Inter-local Agreement (2009), following Town adoption, the BOCC is to
6 consider endorsing the Plan (map and descriptions of classifications, pp. 9-12)
7 Orange County Public Hearing
8 Monday, September 9, 2013
9
10 Town and County Jurisdictions MAP
11 County/Town Open House
12 Held August 27, 2013 at the Town Barn
13 (101 E. Orange Street).
14 Held to help inform public of process and next steps
15 20 people attended
16 1 walk-in at Planning Department
17 Response to Plan has been very positive
18 Request to protect residential properties along fringe of Urban Service Area
19
20 What's Next? Flowchart
21
22 Questions and Public Comment
23
24 Recommendation
25 The Planning Director recommends the Board:
26 1. Refer the Plan to the Planning Board requesting it return its recommendation for the
27 November 5, 2013 BOCC meeting; and
28 2. Adjourn the hearing until November 5, 2013 to receive and accept Planning Board's
29 recommendation.
30
31 Tom Altieri, referring to Slide 8, said comments from the Public Hearing included
32 concerns regarding limitations on high density residential development on the north side of
33 town. There were concerns about additional traffic on Churton Street. He said there were also
34 some issues differentiating colors on the land use plan. He said the County had some specific
35 requests to change the town classification of some properties near Old NC 86 and 1-40. He said
36 these requests were included in the County Planning Board recommendation that was adopted
37 in March.
38 He reviewed the flowchart found on page 15 of the abstract. He said, following
39 endorsement by the Board in November, staff will take the next step to process amendments to
40 the comprehensive plan in order to implement this joint land use plan. He said this step cannot
41 be taken until the County Commissioners and the Town Board are on the same page.
42 Commissioner Gordon referred to the maps on pages 13 and 14. She asked for an
43 explanation of the map on page 14.
44 Tom Altieri said the map on page 14 is the map that the town of Hillsborough adopted in
45 March. He said this make takes the incorporated and ETJ areas and shows them in gray. He
46 said this is identical to the map on page 9, except one shows land uses within the town
47 incorporated areas.
48 Commissioner Gordon asked about the relationship between the maps on pages 13 and
49 14. She referred to proposed ETJ areas to be deleted and said that the map on page 14 has
50 areas labeled as ETJ that she thought were supposed to be County area.
51 Tom Altieri said this ETJ swap part of the process has not been reached yet. He said
52 there must first be a formal request from the town.
53 Commissioner Gordon clarified that all parts of the swap will all be done at once.
54 Tom Altieri said yes.
16
1 Commissioner Gordon asked how that will work in this process.
2 Tom Altieri said the Town's request must be received first, and then staff will come back
3 to the Board with an amendment outline form. He said this form will outline the process for the
4 swap. He said he does not have more details now.
5 Commissioner Gordon asked if page 9 is the future land use plan adopted by the town.
6 Tom Altieri said this is correct.
7 Commissioner Gordon said this does not look the same as the one on page 14.
8 Tom Altieri said the map on page 9 shows the land uses within the town of Hillsborough
9 incorporated area and the present ETJ. He said the map on page 14 shows those areas in
10 gray.
11 Commissioner Gordon said these maps do not look the same. She said there are areas
12 that are different.
13 Tom Altieri said the town of Hillsborough did not adopt future land uses in the area that
14 will be given up to the west.
15 Commissioner Gordon said it looks like the town has adopted future land uses in the
16 area being taken in. She said the map on page 14 still has the ETJ area as part of the
17 municipal area. She asked staff to come up with a timeline to show how these swaps will
18 happen at the same time and what kind of land use will be put in these areas.
19 Tom Altieri said this will be done. He said this is proceeding prior to that because the
20 inter-local agreement was done in 2009, and there is a need to move forward toward
21 implementation.
22 Commissioner Gordon said she hopes these issues will be worked out so that things will
23 mesh. She said there needs to be a plan for the part of the ETJ that is being given up.
24 Tom Altieri said this public hearing is for the County's endorsement of what the Town
25 has already adopted. He said once this is accomplished staff will be able to proceed with
26 bringing forward a process on how swaps will occur and what the land uses will be. He said
27 these areas will most likely be agricultural/residential.
28 Commissioner Price said this is a plan. She said things have changed already and
29 annexation laws have changed. She said there are areas that could or may not be annexed,
30 and these are all future possibilities.
31 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map on page 13 and asked about the urban
32 services boundaries.
33 Tom Altieri said this is the map that is part of the inter-local agreement that has already
34 been adopted, and the magenta line defines the urban service areas of the town.
35 Commissioner Dorosin stated that the map on page 14 is just a snapshot. He clarified
36 that this is not permanent.
37 Tom Altieri agreed and said this map expresses a vision.
38 Chair Jacobs requested a list of both immediate and future steps contemplated to make
39 the maps and land use visions of the town and County coincide. He said this would address
40 Commissioner Gordon's concerns.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
43
44 1. Refer the Plan to the Planning Board requesting it return its recommendation for the
45 November 5, 2013 BOCC meeting; and
46 2. Direct Staff to provide a list of both immediate and future steps contemplated in order to
47 make the maps and land use visions of the town and County coincide.
48 3. Adjourn the hearing until November 5, 2013 to receive and accept Planning Board's
49 recommendation.
50
51 Chair Jacobs said it took a long time to get Hillsborough to the table to talk about joint
52 planning. He said former elected officials had an overblown idea of how Hillsborough was going
53 to grow. He said this was a breakthrough to sit down and discuss a joint plan.
17
1 He said some of the intended but not articulated consequences of the plan are that it
2 recognizes the rural buffer to the south of Hillsborough. It also de-facto creates rural buffers to
3 the west of Hillsborough in the upper Eno and to the east, separating Durham from
4 Hillsborough.
5 He said this includes an Orange Grove access management plan that would have been
6 very informative for people in the Eno River EDD.
7 He said this is the kind of plan that the County eventually needs to have with Mebane.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
14 adjourn the public hearing at 9:44.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 E. BOCC WORK SESSION:
19
20 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises (Continued)
21
22 Perdita Holtz resumed her presentation with discussion points, looking at pages 1-4 of
23 the abstract. She asked for direction on whether changes should be written into the existing
24 public hearing process for Agriculture Support Enterprises.
25 Chair Jacobs asked what the other 80 pages of the abstract contain.
26 Perdita Holtz said these additional pages contain the UDO text amendments that are
27 expected to move forward next month. She said the approval process must happen first.
28 Commissioner Rich said the presentation left off on page 9. She said she agrees with
29 the staff opinion that option 3 is not preferred due to extra time, and cost. She is trying to
30 understand the difference between the other options and what makes the most sense.
31 Perdita Holtz said the difference between options 1 and 2 is the timing of the Planning
32 Board recommendation, and the difference in the number of Public Hearing dates available for
33 development projects throughout the year. She said there is currently a quarterly process for
34 Public Hearings.
35 She said previous agriculture support work advocated that re-zonings and special use
36 permits for Agriculture Support uses should be allowed on any BOCC regular meeting agenda
37 under the public hearings section. She said this is being brought forward to see if the Board is
38 interested in this.
39 She said there is now a UDO, and in order to incorporate all of the previous work into the
40 UDO a decision must be made regarding changes to the development approval process.
41 Commissioner Rich asked if allowing the public hearings at regular meetings would
42 make the process move faster.
43 Perdita Holtz said it would probably not make the process move faster, as it is already a
44 favorable approval time. She said it would make a monthly cycle for applicants to be heard
45 earlier.
46 Commissioner Rich asked what this means for staff time.
47 Perdita Holtz said staff time is expected to remain the same.
48 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the discussion tonight is simply about the Board
49 commenting on the public hearing process and not the substance of Agricultural Enterprises.
50 Perdita Holtz said yes.
51 Commissioner Gordon said there are a lot of reasons why the public hearing process is
52 done the way it is done today. She said there were major land use questions that would come
53 up at these four quarterly public hearings. She said this meant that the public only had to keep
54 track of these four hearings in order to follow an issue being discussed.
18
1 She said the current process also prevented these things from being loaded onto regular
2 Board meeting agendas. She said you could hear an item at a separate hearing from the
3 approval and this was important. It gives the public time to weigh in with the Planning Board
4 and the Commissioners after the public hearing.
5 She said she can see tweaks to the process, but she does not want to see the Planning
6 Board cut out of making recommendations after the public has been heard.
7 She thinks it is also important for the BOCC to approve notices. She said all of this
8 policy is in the interest of transparency, and she supports the current process. She urged the
9 Board not to change this process in any major way.
10 Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees with the need for a transparent process. She
11 also thinks it is time to look at the quarterly public hearings because she is aware that there are
12 things that are not working. She noted that there are often meetings with a delayed start due to
13 lack of quorum. She noted that if the hearings were held at Commissioners' meeting, then
14 Planning Board members would not have to be there, but could come if desired. She said the
15 meetings would be recorded and available for Planning Board members to access.
16 She said if a meeting is held and the Board does not vote on the same night, then that
17 gives transparency. She said the recording process also makes it more transparent.
18 She said she feels that if this change is made, it should not be just for Agriculture
19 Support. She said she would like to have the Planning Board recommendation after the public
20 hearing.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said he likes process 2. He said he does not like the current
22 quarterly public hearing model. He said these items could come up in a meeting. He said
23 anything that expedites the process is advantageous.
24 He favors the Planning Board recommendation in advance of the public hearing. He
25 feels this is a model that works. He said a Planning Board member can present at the public
26 hearing and additional input can be asked for since the voting will not be the same night.
27 He thinks the process can be streamlined and option 2 makes the most sense.
28 Commissioner Price said her issue with number 2 is that the Planning Board does not
29 get comments from the public before making a recommendation.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said he views the Planning Board as the Board's experts and the
31 public comments come to the Commissioners, and these comments don't need to be filtered by
32 the Planning Board.
33 Commissioner Rich noted that the Planning Board meetings are open to the public. She
34 said that if the comments of the public don't mesh with the recommendations of the Planning
35 Board the issue can always be referred back to them.
36 She said she does not like the process of quarterly public hearings, and she does not
37 think that it works. She does not know why these cannot be put into regular meetings. She
38 feels that the process would be quicker.
39 Commissioner Price said during her time on the board, there would be public hearings
40 during Planning Board meetings. She said information went on the record, and then it was
41 passed to the Commissioners. She said this created a back and forth process that prolonged
42 things. She would like to see this fixed.
43 Commissioner McKee said he would not support voting on an issue the same night the
44 public hears about it; however he does agree that the process needs to be changed.
45 He said he does not understand the justification of a legal ad having to come back to the
46 Board for approval. He said the County has a very competent staff that is capable of putting out
47 a legitimate ad without need of Board approval.
48 He said there are some tweaks that can happen to move this process along further. He
49 said there is the perception in the community that this process is used to slow down and
50 obstruct the process.
51 Chair Jacobs said he has heard the majority of the Board say that the process needs to
52 be shortened. He said there are differences of opinion regarding the necessity of the quarterly
53 hearings and whether these still function as designed. He said there is some sentiment is to
19
1 have the planning items at regular board meetings, but there are differing opinions on where the
2 Planning Board fits in.
3 He said the Board has discussed having all meetings on Granicus, so this is an
4 irrelevant point. He said if there will not be quarterly hearings, there should be 4 more regular
5 Commissioner meetings.
6 He said he would never want to cut the Planning Board out of hearing the public prior to
7 making a recommendation. He said decisions on recommendations are often influenced and
8 shaped by public hearing input.
9 He said the Board would have more control over public hearing items if the items came
10 up at regular meetings, because the Chair and Vice-chair would have more time to review them.
11 He said he was blind-sided by this topic, and he does not like that it came up this way.
12 He said a process where Commissioners have more control over what comes before them
13 would be more satisfactory.
14 His suggestion is that staff takes the feedback from the Commissioners and comes back
15 with an amalgam of something similar to one of the current proposals. He said this would need
16 to fit into the calendar and fit with the need to be transparent. He said the Planning Board
17 should be involved.
18 Perdita Holtz said she has heard that the Board does not want a different process for
19 Agriculture Support Enterprises. She said that if this is the case the process amendments will
20 be divorced from Agriculture Support Enterprises, and this will be its own item moving forward.
21 Frank Clifton said there are no other governments in the state of North Carolina that are
22 more transparent than Orange County
23 He said that the current process costs applicants time and money to even be part of the
24 process, regardless of the outcome. He said landowners come forward with a request that is a
25 no brainer but that person still has to wait 3 to 5 months for a decision.
26 He said the other thing to keep in mind is that the development activity has lessened
27 greatly, but the wait time has stayed the same due to the process.
28 Commissioner Price said it is also difficult for people when the public hearings fall near a
29 holiday.
30 Chair Jacob said this is just another argument for more flexibility.
31 Commissioner Gordon said she hopes the pendulum doesn't swing in the direction of
32 having public hearings every meeting. She is glad that the Board would not make decisions on
33 the same night, as this keeps things transparent. She said that this issue should be considered
34 carefully.
35 She said she does feel that the Board should approve the notice, as it tells the Board
36 what is coming up and keeps the notices transparent. She said it is not always evident from the
37 draft public notice what the item means, and the commissioners can correct that when they
38 approve the notice
39 She said that if there is concern about a quorum, the planning board could be at the
40 meeting but without a required quorum, and the recommendation could come afterward.
41 Chair Jacobs suggested a built in schedule where every third meeting or second
42 meeting a public hearing would be scheduled. He suggested that the Board consider whether
43 public hearings should occur earlier in the agenda. He said this would better allow the Planning
44 Board and members of the public to participate.
45 Commissioner Gordon would urge that the Board not always have the public hearing in
46 one part of the County.
47
48 A motion was made Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn
49 the meeting at 10:20.
50
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
52
53 Barry Jacobs, Chair
54
20
1 David Hunt, Deputy Clerk
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 September 17, 2013
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
9 September 17, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
12 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
16 Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
17 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
19 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22
23 Chair Jacobs noted that there was one proposed addition to the agenda. He referenced
24 the aqua sheet labeled "Item 5-n — Employment Agreement for Michael Talbert— Interim
25 Orange County Manager".
26 Chair Jacobs said there was also a suggestion to remove Item 4-d, Review of Proposed
27 Operations Agreement for the Rogers Road Community Center due to a large number of last
28 minute edits to a legal document. He would like to refer this item to the staff attorney for
29 review.
30 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
31 "Item 5-n — Employment Agreement for Michael Talbert— Interim Orange County Manager".
32 to the agenda and Table Item 4-d - Review of Proposed Operations Agreement for the Rogers
33 Road Community Center and refer to the County Attorney.
34
35 Commissioner Dorosin asked what the process would be if item 4-d were
36 removed and if a timetable could be suggested for bringing this item back.
37 Commissioner Pelissier asked for clarification on the last minute changes.
38 Chair Jacobs said the Board received a large number proposed changes to the
39 agreement that morning from attorneys representing RENA. He said it seems inappropriate to
40 go through a legal document without legal analysis. He hopes the Board could have this item
41 on the October 1St meeting agenda. He said the Board also has a sheet for bids on the center,
42 which are grossly out of line with what was anticipated. He said there will need to be discussion
43 on changes moving forward.
44 Commissioner Price asked how and where to submit further questions regarding this
45 item.
46 Chair Jacobs said questions should be submitted to either Michael Talbert or John
47 Roberts.
48 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this means the process will start over with a new
49 operational agreement.
2
1 Chair Jacobs said it is up to RENA to get with their own attorney regarding what is being
2 proposed. He said this may require a meeting of the attorneys.
3 Commissioner Rich said she had questions about this item prior to the edits. She
4 questioned whether she should base her questions on the agenda item in the packet or on a
5 new agenda item later on.
6 John Roberts said he would recommend waiting until there is a new document, as there
7 are a significant number of changes.
8 Commissioner Rich asked how the Board will differentiate what was in the original
9 document and what was not.
10 John Roberts said he would suggest the Board start over fresh since this will virtually be
11 a new document.
12 Commissioner Price asked if this will have any effect on the opening date for the center.
13 Chair Jacobs said it is the goal of the Board of County Commissioners not to delay this,
14 but there are unanticipated issues. He said there may have to be new bidding and design
15 discussions, but the Board will move this forward as quickly as possible. He said the Board has
16 accountability to certain fiduciary responsibilities.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following additional items at the Commissioners' places:
21 - Yellow sheet- Comparison for Item 7-a— "Employee Benefits and Recommendations for
22 Calendar Year 2014"
23 - Blue Sheet for Item 9- County Managers report regarding the Community Center
24 - Pink Sheet- List of recipients for Item 4a- "Orange County Arts Grant Recipients"
25
26 PUBLIC CHARGE
27 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
28
29 2. Public Comments
30
31 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
32
33 Don O'Leary said our founding fathers went out for five weeks of intense prayer before
34 writing the constitution, and our nation was founded on these values. He said ICLEI was
35 assembled by the UN to write Agenda 21 and these folks pray to Lucifer. He said Orange
36 County is involved with these people who want to remove property rights using the environment
37 as a tool. He asked the Board to reconsider their involvement with ICLEI.
38 Terry Rekeweg is a transportation engineer who has been involved in planning for
39 passenger rail service in the Triangle. He has proposed a revision to the Durham/Orange
40 County light rail project. He referred to a map showing the middle portion where changes would
41 be made.
42 He said this change would provide an estimated cost savings of$400 million and would
43 increase safety for vehicles and pedestrians. He said this change would also serve a larger
44 low income area. He said it would have a faster travel time, while eliminating 1 mile of bridges.
45 He said this route would provide a direct route to pedestrian greenways and the American
46 Tobacco Trail, while having less impact on natural areas. He said this route would eliminate the
47 taking of at least 70 private properties by sticking to existing transportation routes. He said he
48 feels this route would result in a gain of 2000 or more daily riders and would provide a direct
49 route from Chapel Hill to RTP.
3
1 He said the Eubanks Road Park and Ride would attract 1-40 travels to get off the
2 interstate and catch bus rapid transit into downtown Chapel Hill to catch the light rail into RTP.
3 He offered copies of this map to the Commissioners.
4
5 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
6 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
7 below.)
8
9 3. Petitions by Board Members
10 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to follow up on his previous question
11 regarding ban the box and the County's hiring process. He said he had suggested that the
12 Board collect data on how effective that change would be. He said it would be useful to know
13 how this change has impacted the hiring process, and he would be happy to work with staff on
14 a model to collect this data.
15 Commissioner Price petitioned for more parking area at Fairview Park. She said she
16 understood there was a plan to provide more development in that area. She asked if it was
17 possible for DEAPR to look at this.
18 Commissioner McKee said he endorsed Commissioner Price's petition. He asked that
19 this be brought back to the Board with an explanation of how it would affect the master plan for
20 that park.
21
22 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
23
24 a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients
25 The Board presented checks to local artists and nonprofit organizations receiving Spring
26 2013 Orange County Arts Grants.
27 Martha Shannon said Orange County received 32 grant requests during the 2013 grant
28 cycle, totaling $51,950. She said the County awarded $30,726 in state grassroots program
29 funds from the NC Arts Council. She said the County also awarded $1,000 in County funds to
30 one individual artist.
31 Deborah Thomas said there were concerns about the drastic cuts in arts funding
32 recommended in the State legislature. She said grassroots efforts across the state resulted in
33 level funding for arts grants at a total of$5.6 million for fiscal year 2014.
34
35 Spring, 2013 Grant Recipients
36
37 Grantees: Attendees:
38
39 ArtsCenter - Tracy Thomas
40 Carrboro Elementary School - Lynn Weller
41 Cedar Ridge High School - Janice Wereszczak
42 Chapel Hill Carrboro Children's Museum NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT
43 (dba Kidzu Children's Museum) -
44 Deep Dish Theater Company - Doris Friend
45 Ephesus Elementary School PTA - Nicole Kushner
46 Estes Hills Elementary School PTA- Meredith Lassiter
47 Franklin Street Arts Collective (dba FRANK Gallery) - Barbara Tyroler
48 Glenwood Elementary School PTA- NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT
49 Hillsborough Arts Council - Philip Cooley
50 McDougle Middle School PTA- Sonia Frischemeier
4
1 North Carolina Symphony - NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT
2 Orange Charter School - Denise Duffy & Keri Frank
3 Orange High School - Janice Wereszezak
4 Sacrificial Poets - Will McInerney
5 A.L. Stanback/C.W. Stanford/Gravelly Hill Middle- Janice Wereszezak
6 Schools Coalition-
7 Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks (Carrboro Film Festival) - Rah Trost
8 Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks (Carrboro Music Festival) - Gerry Williams
9 Barbara Tyroler Barbara Tyroler
10
11 b. Recent Election/Voting Law Changes Update
12 The Board received an update on the ratified Session Law 2013-131 — House Bill 589
13 Election law changes.
14 Tracy Reams introduced members of her Board of Elections.
15 She presented the recent changes on the ratified Session Law 2013-131 — House Bill
16 589. She said she pulled out 25 of the most significant items out of 59 election law changes
17 that were made during this past legislature. She said these have been inserted into the
18 abstract, and she reviewed several of items below:
19
20 BACKGROUND: House Bill 589 was approved on August 12, 2013. Outlined below are
21 various election law changes in House Bill 589 that will likely have the greatest impact on
22 elections held in Orange County.
23 Effective September 1, 2013—
24 • G.S. 163-82.1 (d) is repealed. Preregistration: Prior to September 1, 2013 a person who is at
25 least 16 years of age may preregister to vote and shall be automatically registered upon
26 reaching the age of eligibility. Preregistrations received prior to September 1, 2013 will remain
27 in queue and will be automatically registered upon reaching the age of eligibility. 17 year olds
28 can still register and vote in a Primary Election if they will be 18 years of age by the General
29 Election.
30 Effective October 1, 2013—
31 • G.S. 163-226.4.6(b) Multi-partisan Teams: The county board of elections must recruit
32 and train multi-partisan teams to promptly assist patients and residents of any hospital, clinic,
33 nursing home, or rest home in that county in casting absentee ballots. Elections staff has
34 consulted with the League of Women Voters, and the League has expressed its desire to be a
35 part of the team in addition to the Chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties.
36 • G.S. 163-82.22.5.2 Photo ID public education: The State Board of Elections (SBOE) and
37 county boards shall disseminate information about photo identification requirements for voting,
38 providing information on how to obtain photo identification appropriate for voting, and assist any
39 registered voter without photo identification appropriate for voting with obtaining such photo
40 identification. Information will be distributed through, public service announcements, print, radio,
41 online and social media. Any mailings from the county boards of elections to voters shall
42 include information about the photo identification requirements. Counties shall also post at the
43 polls and at early voting sites beginning with the 2014 Primary Election information about the
44 photo identification requirements.
45 • G.S. 163-82.22.5.5 Use of electronic and digital information: By April 1, 2014, the
46 State Board of Elections shall review and report to the Joint Legislative Elections
47 Oversight Committee the steps recommended to implement using electronic poll books in all
48 polling places to assist in identifying individuals attempting to vote more than once and to assist
49 in obtaining digital photographs of registered voters and verifying the identity of those voters
50 including the taking of digital photographs at the polling place.
5
1 Effective January 1, 2014—
2 • G.S. 163-45 was rewritten. Poll Observers: The Chair of each political party has the right to
3 designate two observers to attend each polling place. This bill also allows them to designate ten
4 additional at-large observers who may attend any voting place. Not more than two observers
5 from the same party shall be permitted in the voting enclosure except that one of the at-large
6 observers from each party may also be in the voting enclosure.
7 • G.S. 163-55(c)5 was rewritten. Voting in incorrect precinct: A provisional ballot shall not be
8 counted if the voter did not vote in the proper precinct. Prior to this bill, all contests were
9 counted on a provisional ballot in which the voter was eligible to vote regardless of the voting
10 location.
11 • G.S. 163-82.6A was rewritten. Same day voter registration: Eliminates registering and
12 voting during the one-stop early voting period for those who miss the 25 day registration
13 deadline.
14 • G.S. 163-82.6(b) was rewritten. "Wet Ink" on voter registration forms: An electronically
15 captured signature shall not be valid on a voter registration form unless it is on an electronic
16 voter registration form offered by a State agency.
17 • G.S. 163-82.25 is repealed. Mandated voter registration drives: Prior to this bill,
18 Boards of Elections were mandated to coordinate and conduct voter registration drives at all
19 public high schools in the county traditionally during the month of September.
20 Elections staff will continue to work with the high schools to assist in registration drives as well
21 as any other interested organization.
22 • G.S. 163-84 was rewritten. Challenges made other than on Election Day: Challenges can
23 be made by any registered voter of the State. Prior to this bill, challenges could only be made
24 by a registered voter in the county.
25 • G.S 163-87 was rewritten. Challenges made on Election Day: Challenges can be made by
26 any registered voter of the county. Prior to this bill, challenges could only be made by a
27 registered voter in the precinct.
28 • G.S. 163-165.6(d) was rewritten. Order of parties on ballot: Candidate nominees of political
29 parties that reflect at least 5% of statewide voter registration in alphabetical order by party
30 beginning with the party whose nominee for Governor received the most votes in the most
31 recent gubernatorial election and in alphabetical order within the party shall be listed first on the
32 ballot. (The underlined part is the noted change.)
33 • G.S.163-165.6(e) was rewritten. Straight Party Voting: Each official ballot shall not contain
34 any place that allows a voter with one mark to vote for the candidates of a party for more than
35 one office.
36 • G.S. 163-213.2 was rewritten. Date of Presidential Primary: Presidential preference primary
37 shall be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in May, except that if South
38 Carolina holds its presidential primary before the 15th day of March, the NC presidential primary
39 shall be held on the Tuesday after the SC presidential preference primary. All other NC
40 primaries will be held in May.
41 • G.S. 163-227.2 was rewritten. Early voting sites within a county: Early voting shall begin no
42 earlier than the second Thursday before an election and shall end no later than
43 1:00 p.m. on the last Saturday before an election. Any plan adopted shall provide for the same
44 days of operation and same number of hours of operation on each day for all sites in the county
45 for that election. Prior to this bill, early voting began on the third Thursday before an election
46 and had the option to extend hours the last Saturday until 5:00 p.m.
47 The local Board had the option of setting different days and hours for the approved sites.
48 • G.S. 163-227.2 is amended by adding a new subsection. Hours for early voting: For any
49 county who provided for one or more sites during 2010 or 2012 elections, they shall calculate
50 the cumulative total number of scheduled voting hours at all sites and ensure that at least the
6
1 same number of hours offered in 2010 Primary and General is offered for the 2014 Primary and
2 General and the same number of hours offered in 2012 Primary and General is offered for the
3 2016 Primary and General Elections respectively. There is also an added amendment whereas
4 a county board by unanimous vote of the board may submit a request to the SBOE to reduce
5 the number of hours. The reduction shall take effect only if approved by unanimous vote of the
6 SBOE with all members present and voting.
7 • G.S. 163-229(b) was rewritten. Absentee voting: Requires two persons to witness the casting
8 of the absentee ballot, those person's names, addresses and signature and also added space
9 for the name and address of any person who assisted the voter. The requirement for two
10 witnesses shall be satisfied if witnessed by one notary public with a valid seal and signature.
11 The law states that a notary may not charge any fee. Prior to this bill, only one witness was
12 required. This law does not apply to military or overseas voters whose requirements are one
13 witness.
14 • G.S. 163-230.1 was rewritten. Method of requesting ballots. An absentee ballot request is
15 valid only if it is on a form created by the State Board of Elections. The voter or near relative
16 must provide either a driver's license/special identification number or the last four digits of the
17 social security number. The form will be available on the SBOE website, Orange County Board
18 of Elections (BOE) website, in the BOE office and will be mailed to voter upon request. Prior to
19 this bill, the request had to be written entirely by the requester personally or on a form
20 generated by the county board of elections that could not be reproduced.
21 • G.S. 163-278.13 was rewritten. Limitation on contributions: No candidate or political
22 committee can accept and/or contribute in excess of$5,000 for an election except for a
23 candidate or a candidate's spouse who can give unlimited amounts. Prior to this bill, the limit
24 was $4,000 and the persons who could give unlimited amounts included the candidate's
25 parents, brothers and sisters. It also provides a means to increase the limitations effective every
26 odd-numbered year by a formula set out in the amendment
27 • G.S. 163-287 was rewritten. Special Election Dates: Special elections may be held only at
28 the time as any other State, county or municipal election. Exceptions are any special election
29 related to public health or safety, including a vacancy in the office of sheriff or a bond
30 referendum for financing of health and sanitation systems. This also does not apply to local
31 acts.
32 • Part 28 —Section 28.1 — Reduce need for second primary: The Joint Legislative
33 Elections Oversight Committee shall study the second primary and recommend to the
34 General Assembly any legislation it deems advisable. Final report shall be made before the
35 convening of the 2015 regular session of the General Assembly.
36 Effective January 1, 2016 —
37 • G.S. 163-166.13 amended by adding new section. Photo identification requirement for
38 voting in person: Every qualified voter shall present photo identification bearing any
39 reasonable resemblance except curbside voters, voters who have religious objection to being
40 photographed and victims of natural disaster occurring within 60 days of the election. Instead of
41 photo identification, curbside voters may present a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or other
42 government documents that shows the name and address.
43 Voters who on account of religious belief or natural disaster victims must sign a declaration to
44 that affect.
45 Effective January 1, 2018 —
46 • Part 30 —Section 30.8— DRE Voting Systems: Any direct record electronic voting systems
47 currently certified by the SBOE which do not use paper ballots shall be decertified and shall not
48 be used in any election held on or after January 1, 2018.
49 Orange County has optical scan M100 voting machines, so this will have no impact.
50 Implementation of Voter Photo Identification:
7
1 • Part 3 of HB 589 states a registered voter may obtain a special identification card without
2 paying a fee if the registered voter signs a declaration stating they do not have other photo
3 identification acceptable. The fee to obtain a special identification card does not apply if the
4 applicant is legally blind, at least 70 years old or is homeless. Voters cannot be charged any
5 fees to obtain a certified copy of birth certificate or marriage license necessary to obtain
6 acceptable photo identification. Registered voters will be provided with this information.
7 • Part 6 of HB 589 states that at any election between May 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016, any
8 registered voter may present photo identification but is not required to do so. Voters shall be
9 notified that photo identification will be needed to vote beginning in 2016 and will be asked if
10 that voter has one of the approved forms of identification. If the voter indicates he or she does
11 not have the appropriate photo identification for voting, that voter will be asked to sign an
12 acknowledgement of the requirement and be given a list of approved forms of identification and
13 information on how to obtain such. The list of names of those voters who signed an
14 acknowledgment will be public record.
15 • Boards of Elections are not responsible for issuing IDs at this time. The Orange County
16 Board of Elections is committed to work diligently to ensure the public is aware of the
17 requirements and will assist voters as much as possible to obtain the necessary identification.
18
19 Commissioner Rich referred to the policy on voting in the wrong precinct. She noted
20 that the vote will be allowed but not counted. She asked why these people should vote.
21 Tracy Reams said the law says voters cannot be turned away, but the vote will not be
22 able to be counted. She said this will be a change from the current law which allowed
23 provisional voting.
24 Commissioner Gordon asked if the voters will be told about this at the polling site.
25 Tracy Reams said the voter would be advised of their correct precinct and encouraged
26 to go to that location to vote.
27 She said the effective date of this change is January 1, 2014.
28 Commissioner Pelissier asked about the changes made to challenges.
29 Tracy Reams said anyone from the state with a legitimate basis can make a challenge.
30 Commissioner Pelissier asked for an explanation of what happens if a challenge is
31 made on Election Day.
32 Tracy Reams said challenges on Election Day will be heard and decided immediately.
33 Chair Jacobs asked how often voters are notified of changes and the correct location of
34 their precinct.
35 Tracy Reams said Public Service Announcements will be made throughout this process,
36 through print, radio and online information. She said any voter that makes a change or has any
37 contact with the voting office will also be sent a card with voting information and location.
38 Chair Jacobs asked if there is tracking of who cast provisional ballots in the wrong
39 precinct.
40 Tracy Reams said yes.
41 Chair Jacob asked if contact is made to notify these voters of the correct voting site.
42 Tracy Reams said there is no extra contact with the voter, as this is beyond her purview.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if any of the voting precincts have closed or changed from
44 the last election.
45 Tracy Reams said Estes Hills and Church of Reconciliation will be changes for this
46 voting period. She said legal notices have been put up in the newspapers and individual cards
47 have also been sent to voters, making them aware of these changes.
48 Chair Jacobs asked if signs will be posted at the old locations.
49 Tracy Reams said yes.
8
1 Tracy Reams said another change is the same day voter registration. She said voters
2 will no longer be able to register and vote during the early voting period. She said that the only
3 option is to vote with a provisional ballot if the deadline is missed, and this vote will not be
4 counted.
5 Commissioner Rich asked why provisional ballots are being provided if they will not be
6 counted.
7 Tracy Reams said this is the law.
8 Commissioner Dorosin said that the provisional ballot provides an opportunity for
9 someone to vote if they feel a mistake has been made. In this case there is time to check on
10 the issue and have the vote counted if the person was actually registered.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board of Elections has more staff in the face of these
12 new Taws.
13 Tracy Reams said no.
14 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the change in the method of requesting ballots. She
15 asked if voters who send handwritten requests will be notified quickly of the need for a form.
16 Tracy Reams said these voters will immediately be sent a request form. She said this
17 form will also be available on the website.
18 Tracy Reams said straight party voting will no longer be an option.
19 She said the Presidential Primary date will now change. She said the North Carolina
20 date will be based on the South Carolina primary date; which means the primary will most likely
21 be in February or March. She said this puts early voting over the Christmas holidays, which
22 impacts staff and creates additional cost by having two different primary voting dates.
23 Commissioner McKee asked how much additional cost will be added with these
24 changes.
25 Tracy Reams said she would gather that information and send it to the Board. She said
26 there would be significant costs.
27 Commissioner Pelissier asked about early voting hours.
28 Tracy Reams said early voting will now begin on the 2nd Thursday before Election Day,
29 which reduces the early voting days. She said this means that the same number of hours will
30 have to be fit into fewer days.
31 She reviewed the new guidelines on voter identification, as outlined above and in the
32 abstract.
33 Commissioner McKee asked about the wording regarding assistance with attaining voter
34 identification.
35 Tracy Reams said staff will be required to assist voters with obtaining the means to get
36 proper voter ID, such as a birth certificate or marriage license.
37 Commissioner Price asked if a voter registration card will be required.
38 Tracy Reams said no.
39 Commissioner Gordon noted the differences in required identification for voting in
40 person versus absentee voting, and she asked for clarification on this.
41 Tracy Reams said voters who vote in person will be required to provide photo
42 identification, but curbside voting will only require documentation such as a bank or utility
43 statement. She said that absentee voting will require a social security number, driver's license,
44 or special identification number.
45 Commissioner Gordon asked if there had to be any special reasons for requesting an
46 absentee ballot.
47 Tracy Reams said this is considered a no excuse absentee ballot and voters do not
48 need a reason.
49 Commissioner Gordon asked about curbside voting.
9
1 She said that curbside voters will need to sign a declaration stating that a physical
2 disability makes it difficult to go inside the complex.
3 Chair Jacobs said the public needs to be made aware of where DMV offices are located.
4 Tracy Reams said these locations will be added to the website.
5 Commissioner Gordon asked if any there will be verification of identification documents
6 provided by absentee voters.
7 Tracy said staff is required to validate driver's license and the last four digits of social
8 security numbers by comparing these to the registration information.
9 Commissioner Gordon asked about the timing of special elections.
10 Tracy Reams said she is unsure of the reasoning for this change.
11 Commissioner Pelissier asked what identification will be required for out of state
12 students who register to vote in Orange County.
13 Tracy said these voters will need a valid, unexpired North Carolina driver's license. She
14 said an out of state license will only be permitted if the resident has registered within 90 days.
15 Commissioner Rich asked if there have been any residents charged with voter fraud in
16 Orange County.
17 Tracy Reams said no.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if there have been cases in North Carolina.
19 Tracy Reams said she has read that there have been cases in the state. She said there
20 have been cases in Orange County where voters have registered and voted in more than
21 one county. She said these cases have been turned over to the state, and there are
22 checks in place to detect this.
23 Commissioner Dorosin thanked Tracy Reams for the summary. He feels that this bill is
24 designed to suppress voters, and the most critical thing is to educate residents. He gave some
25 history on past efforts to put in restrictions such as this. He said that more Republicans vote
26 absentee and more Democrats vote in person. He noted that absentee voting is a good way to
27 work around the photo identification requirements.
28 Chair Jacobs said the Board appreciates what Tracy Reams and the Board of Elections
29 does. He thanked her for the bi-partisan efforts in dealing with these changes.
30 Commissioner Price noted the locations of the two DMV offices in Orange County, and
31 she thanked Tracy Reams for her efforts.
32 Commissioner Rich noted that there are dinners being organized by precinct chairs in
33 Orange County for the purpose of educational forums. She suggested that the Board of
34 Elections contact these chairs to see if any information can be provided.
35 Tracy Reams said the board has reached out to the League of Women Voters, and the
36 Democratic and Republican Party Chairs. She said all of these groups have become regular
37 attendees to the board meetings. She feels confident that the needed education will be
38 provided.
39 Commissioner Gordon thanked Tracy Reams and her staff for their efforts and bi-
40 partisan spirit.
41
42 c. Presentation of Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
43 Force
44 The Board received a presentation, reviewed and discussed the recommendations in a
45 Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force in preparation for the
46 November 21, 2013 Assembly of Governments Meeting.
47 Michael Talbert said this is the presentation of Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
48 Final Report. He said this report begins on page 5 of the abstract. He noted that the abstract
49 numbers are in the upper right hand corner of the page.
50 He reviewed the following information from the abstract:
10
1
2 Background: Beginning in 1972 the landfill was opened by the Town of Chapel Hill and in
3 1999 Orange County assumed ownership and operation of the Eubanks Road Landfill. The
4 Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with the Orange County Landfill for 40 years. The
5 Community is geographically split by the Orange County and Carrboro. Orange County as the
6 current owner/operator of the Landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to
7 the Historic Rogers Road Community.
8
9 Timeline:
10 On May 17, 2011 the Board received a plan from RENA recommending actions to mitigate the
11 long and short term impacts of Orange County's Landfill and Solid Waste operations on the
12 health, safety and welfare of the Historic Rogers Road — Eubanks Road Community.
13 On January 26, 2012 the Board and the Town Boards discussed the extension of sewer
14 service and a community center for the Historic Rogers Road Community. County and Town
15 Attorneys have concluded that, utilization of Solid Waste reserves, to extend sewer service to
16 the Historic Rogers Road Community, is not consistent with North Carolina General Statutes
17 and would subject the local governments to legal challenges. Therefore, funding for either the
18 extension of sewer services and/or a community center will have to come from the County's and
19 Towns other general revenue sources.
20 On February 21, 2012 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the Creation of
21 a new Historic Rogers Road Task Force to address sewer service and a community center and
22 approved the Charge The composition of the Task Force was to include two members
23 appointed by each Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County;
24 and two members appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA).
25
26 Charge of the Original Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
27 The Charge for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force is to investigate and make
28 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the
29 Carrboro Board of Aldermen for neighborhood improvements including funding sources and the
30 financial impact to the County & Towns, for the following:
31 1. Sewer Service to the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as defined by the
32 previously approved public water connections in the area.
33 2. A Neighborhood Community Center.
34
35 The Task force is also directed to:
36 a. Submit an Interim Report back to the County and the Towns by the end of August,
37 2012 and;
38 b. Submit a Final Report to the Assembly of Governments on December 6, 2012.
39
40 On December 6, 2012 the Assembly of Governments received an interim report from the
41 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and held a lengthy discussion of the
42 accomplishments of the Task Force. One of the recommendations from The Task Force was
43 that the Task Force continues to meet for an additional 6 months to address the Charge with
44 the original composition of the Task Force.
45 On February 5, 2013 the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the continuation
46 of a reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and approved the Charge of
47 the Task Force. The composition of the Task Force includes two members appointed by each
48 Town (Chapel Hill and Carrboro); two members appointed from the County; and two members
49 appointed from Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA).
50
11
1 Charge of the Reappointed Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force
2 1. Request that the towns confirm the continuation of the Historic Rogers Road
3 Neighborhood Task Force and appoint members to the Task force;
4 2. Confirm the appointment of Commissioners Rich and Price as the County's members
5 on the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force;
6 3. Request that the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association confirm the continuation
7 of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force and appoint two members to
8 the Task Force;
9 4. Confirm the charge and a timeline for the Task force as specified by the motion
10 approved at the January 24 meeting:
11 ❑To continue the Task Force for six (6) months;
12 ❑To have the Task Force consider the final costs, provision and installation of
13 water and sewer utility extensions preferably at no cost for members of the
14 Historic Rogers Road community;
15 ❑consider options to address gentrification;
16 ❑consider Chapel Hill's most recent Small Area Plan;
17 ❑consider funding options, including the Greene Tract.
18 5. Specify that the Task Force provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners
19 no later than the Board's September 17th meeting.
20
21 Subsequent Local Government Actions:
22 1. On April 9, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners was presented the schematic design
23 of the Rogers Road Community Center and authorized the manager to award the bid for
24 construction in an amount not to exceed$650,000. The project was bid in August, 2013. The
25 Town of Chapel Hill has expedited the site plan review, permitting and other associated
26 processes for the project as well as waived all associated Town fees related to those
27 processes, normally estimated to be $25,000.
28
29 2. On September 18, 2012 the Town of Carrboro approved the Town's intention to contribute
30 not more than $900,000 for the Town's 14% portion of the $650,000 Community
31 Center and estimated$5.8 million cost of the Sewer Project.
32
33 On June 18, 2013 the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a Resolution (Attachment 2) to
34 Provide Comment on Alternatives Discussed by the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
35 Force. The Town has also appropriated$450,000 (112 of the $900,000 the Town has committed
36 to Rogers Road) in the Fiscal 201312014, for both a New Community Center and Sewer
37 Improvements.
38
39 3. The Town of Chapel Hill appropriated$90,549 and the Town of Carrboro appropriated
40 $29,524 in the Fiscal 201312014, for a New Rogers Road Community Center.
41
42 4. On June 24, 2013 the Chapel Hill Town Council voted to initiate a process with the County to
43 extend the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction into the area within a portion of the Historic Rogers
44 Road Neighborhood within Orange County. The Council also asked that the Manager continue
45 discussion of a possible Utility District with local jurisdictions.
46
47 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
48 September 17, 2013
49 1. That that the Cost associated with the Community Center and Sewer Improvements will be
50 shared 14% Carrboro, 43% Chapel Hill and 43% Orange County.
12
1
2 2. That the Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 to serve 86 parcels at an
3 estimated cost of$5.8 million should be funded by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange
4 County in proportion to the recommended cost sharing. The first phase of the construction
5 should include segments 5, 6, and 8 at an estimated cost of$3.7 million, serving 67 parcels.
6 Funding is recommended to be included in the Fiscal 2014/2015 Budgets, with the remaining
7 19 parcels to be constructed in the second phase and included in the Fiscal 2015/2016 Budgets
8
9 3. That the Task Force prefers the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012
10 to serve 86 parcels at an estimated cost of$5.8 million. First this concept will provide sewer
11 improvements to the entire Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood; secondly, this proposal will
12 enable all of the partners, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and The Town of Carrboro,
13 to equally share the costs of the Community Center and Sewer Improvements in proportion to
14 their responsibilities. If either the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Chapel Hill
15 Town Council do not favor the original Sewer Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 or
16 cannot agree on the concept of an ETJ for the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, the Sewer
17 Concept Plan presented by OWASA in 2012 including only segments 5, 6, and 8 to serve 67
18 parcels at an estimated cost of$3.7 million should be funded.
19
20 4. That the County petition the Town of Chapel Hill to annex all County Owned Property in the
21 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood.
22
23 5. That the Task Force requests that the Managers explore the collaborative approach to the
24 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood as outlined in February 25, 2013 memo to Elected
25 Officials and report back to the Task Force on August 21, 2013.
26
27 6. That the Managers meet and talk about the options related to connecting the residents of the
28 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood to sewer.
29
30 7. That funding is identified for the cost of connecting from the OWASA infrastructure to the
31 home in addition to applying for grants for low-to-moderate income persons. It is a priority of the
32 Task Force to identify funding not only for the installation of sewer infrastructure but also cost of
33 connections to homeowners and the Task Force recommends that the County and Towns set
34 up a fund specifically for people in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood and to fund the cost
35 of the connections from the home to the main.
36
37 Michael Talbert said the County received bids today for the center and all three were
38 substantially over budget. He said the lowest bid was $1,375,000 and the highest bid was
39 $1,611,900. Each of these was much higher than the budget of$650,000. He noted that the
40 abstract sheet lists a base bid and nine alternatives. He said that the low base bid with no
41 alternatives still leaves a base budget of$1,143,000.
42 He said the County is committed to this project. Staff will try and move forward after a
43 re-design to re-bid this project
44
45 Commissioner Price had no comment.
46 Commissioner Rich had no comment.
47 Commissioner Gordon asked about the cost share. She asked how far the boundary
48 line extends in map area 6.
49 Michael Talbert referred to the map to show the extension of the line.
50 Commissioner Gordon asked how much if this is in the Town of Carrboro limits.
13
1 Michael Talbert said about 80-90 percent or more will be in the town limits.
2 Commissioner Gordon asked what is counted as part of Carrboro's share of cost.
3 Michael Talbert said proposal is that the entire cost should be shared 14 percent, 43
4 percent, and 43 percent, with Carrboro picking up 14 percent of the entire cost.
5 Michael Talbert said 3.7 includes areas 5, 8, and 6.
6 Commissioner Gordon said the Town of Chapel Hill is thinking of ways to contribute.
7 She asked if the same equation would apply to Chapel Hill if this could be within their ETJ.
8 Michael Talbert said the opinion of the Chapel Hill attorney is that an annexation or ETJ
9 will have to occur before Chapel Hill would have any interest in Rogers Road beyond the jointly
10 owned Greene Tract.
11 Commissioner Gordon asked if staff is asking that County owned lands be annexed.
12 Michael Talbert said if the County lands were to be annexed by Chapel Hill it would be a
13 step in the direction of the town having interest in the Rogers Road area.
14 Commissioner Gordon asked if this would have any effect on the Greene Tract.
15 Michael Talbert said if the Green Track is annexed or placed in the ETJ the town of
16 Chapel Hill would control future development; however it is a jointly owned property with the
17 County. He said this means the County would have to agree to any development.
18 Commissioner Gordon clarified that Chapel Hill would have more control in planning or
19 zoning. She asked about the status on an agreement.
20 Michael Talbert said there is no agreement. He said there was a resolution previously
21 passed regarding what should happen on that track. This was accepted by all of the boards,
22 but there was no further action taken.
23 Commissioner Gordon asked about the 60 acres reserved to the enterprise fund.
24 Michael Talbert said the 60 acres is still owned by solid waste and under the control of
25 Orange County, and that would not change.
26 Commissioner McKee referred to item 7 page 4 regarding funding for cost of
27 connecting. He asked if this funding would be need based or open for all properties served.
28 Michael Talbert said this has not been decided yet. He said the attorneys have told staff
29 that this needs to be based on low to moderate income.
30 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the smaller option ($3.7 million) is based on the
31 scenario that Chapel Hill will not contribute anything.
32 Michael Talbert said this number was based on getting the lines to serve the most
33 people with the least cost, and this had nothing to do with Chapel Hill at that time.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the $3.7 million plan would be the same contribution as
35 the $5.8 million between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the County if Chapel Hill does not extend its
36 ETJ and Orange County wanted to move forward.
37 Michael Talbert said it would be close.
38 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the question regarding funding the connections. He
39 said the task force has come a long way in recognizing that the connections to the people's
40 houses should be part of the reparations. He believes that the statute attached at appendix 1 D
41 would allow the County to provide assistance for the benefit of low to moderate income
42 persons, or for the restoration of neighborhoods and properties. He noted that this second
43 clause does not include an income based restriction. He said that there are residents who
44 have been living in the area for decades, and these people may not meet the narrow guidelines
45 for funding but have been burdened by the impacts of the landfill.
46 Commissioner Price said the task force discussions centered on the idea that the
47 decision regarding which residents get hooked up would depend on the source of the funding.
48 She said this is still open for discussion.
14
1 Commissioner Pelissier said it sounds like there was no discussion on the task force
2 regarding contributions from the town for the funding. She said there should have been a
3 discussion about this, as all of this is contingent on the ETJ in Chapel Hill.
4 Commissioner Pelissier said it sounds as if the task force did not take a position on the
5 utility district, except that it be explored. She asked if this is correct.
6 Commissioner Price said there were discussions regarding the district. She said there
7 were three plans, but the decision came down to the one that is listed. She said the larger
8 districts were very costly, involved another phase of planning, and lessened the focus on
9 Rogers Road.
10 Commissioner Rich said there were two utility districts that were considered. She said
11 the idea was to bring down the per parcel cost with a larger district. She said this larger district
12 was not well received. She said Chapel Hill is still talking about utility districts and looking at
13 what that means.
14 Commissioner McKee noted that he was not voicing opposition to the hook-ups. He
15 was just trying to get clarification on this issue.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said he believes that the advantage of the ETJ is that it will allow
17 Chapel Hill to contribute. He proposed that the County's commitment to providing sewer to this
18 neighborhood should not be contingent on Chapel Hill. He said if Chapel Hill is unable or
19 unwilling to participate, this does not end the County's obligation to this community.
20 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the question of funding. He said the County has
21 already created funds to assist this community. He said there is a fund to pay for the
22 connection from the main to the meter, which has been infrequently utilized. He said Orange
23 County is putting funds out there. He said that the County could take underutilized funding and
24 apply this to the water and sewer connections.
25 Chair Jacobs referred to the top portion of page 7, which lists the actions taken by local
26 government. He noted that the Solid Waste fund was allocated by the Orange County Board of
27 County Commissioners.
28 Chair Jacobs asked about the issue that Commissioner Dorosin referred to as
29 "preservation of neighborhood and gentrification." He asked for clarification on this
30 recommendation.
31 Commissioner Price said this issue had not been fully addressed. She said there was a
32 recommendation for all three boards to continue consideration of this. She said RENA would
33 also be working with the Jackson Center.
34 Michael Talbert said this information can be found on page 24 of the report, under
35 gentrification. He said this was a late addition, but there was consensus to add it.
36 Commissioner Rich said a lot of this was recommended by managers after
37 consideration of similar issues and lessons learned by Chapel Hill with the Northside area.
38 David Caldwell, Project Director for RENA, said RENA is getting together with other
39 community groups in an effort to a have more of a say in the development of the Rogers Road
40 area.
41 Commissioner Rich said she has had this discussion with David Caldwell. She said it is
42 important that the neighbors have input in the development of their own neighborhood.
43 David Caldwell said he is excited to have use of a gymnasium, auditorium and other
44 facilities that the community needs.
45 Commissioner Dorosin thanked Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich, as well as
46 the rest of the task force for the work that has been done.
47 He said there is a perception in the community that the towns are more committed to
48 this project than Orange County. He said it is imperative that Orange County send a clear
49 signal of their commitment to seeing this project through.
50 Commissioner Dorosin made the following motion:
15
1 Whereas the Historic Rogers Road Community has disproportionately borne the burden
2 of solid waste disposal in Orange County for over 40 years; and
3 Whereas the Board of County Commissioners along with the Town of Carrboro and the
4 Town of Chapel Hill recognize the community's collective responsibility to provide remediation
5 and reparations to the Historic Rogers Road Community, including the Community Center and
6 the provision of water and sewer service;
7 Now be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners is committed to, along with
8 the Town of Carrboro, and the Town of Chapel Hill to the extent practicable, providing funding
9 for water and sewer service for 100 percent of the parcels in the Historic Rogers Road
10 Community, including connections from the infrastructure leading to the individual homes, at no
11 cost to the residents.
12
13 No second
14 Motion Fails
15
16 Chair Jacobs said the Board is being asked to review and discuss recommendations in
17 preparation for the Assembly of Government (AOG) meeting. He said it is a testament to the
18 importance of the work placed upon the task force that not only the two Board of County
19 Commissioners, but the RENA representatives and the Chapel Hill representative, Council
20 Member Lee Starrow are all present. He said he hopes that the misconception about Orange
21 County will be rectified in the near future when actions are taken. He recognized Michael
22 Talbert as the support staff to this task force.
23 Michael Talbert asked where things go from this point.
24 Chair Jacobs said the direction was to raise points, make recommendations, and then
25 defer further discussion to AOG.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
28 receive the presentation, discuss the recommendations in the Report from the Historic Rogers
29 Road Neighborhood Task Force in preparation for the November 21, 2013 Assembly of
30 Governments Meeting.
31
32 Commissioner Dorosin said he would appreciate a discussion of why there was no
33 second to his motion. He said this is an illustration of what he fears, and the Board owes the
34 public an explanation.
35 Commissioner Dorosin suggested that, rather than making an amendment, the Board
36 should go through specific issues of the report. He suggested that Board preferences should
37 be expressed.
38 Chair Jacobs asked John Roberts to repeat his statement regarding how much can be
39 said and done, pending a complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
40 John Roberts said his advice was, prior to voting on any substantial expenditure in this
41 area, the Board should wait to see what EPA will do. He said it is legally risky to expend funds
42 in this area without resolution with the EPA.
43 Chair Jacobs said it is not that the Board is any less supportive of the Rogers Road
44 area. He said Orange County represents about 130,000 residents; and the Board must act in
45 the best interest of all, which includes acting prudently based on the best legal advice.
46 Commissioner Gordon asked Chair Jacobs to repeat the motion.
47 Chair Jacobs said repeated manager's recommendation again.
48 Commissioner Gordon stayed with her original motion.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said, with all respect to John Roberts, he does not feel that this
50 is the best legal advice. He said he does not think his motion mentioned specific expenditures.
16
1 Chair Jacobs said the Board is simply saying that there will be no further discussion
2 about the complaint that was made until there is a ruling. He is confident that the Board stands
3 ready to work with the towns to address all of the concerns that have been raised.
4 Commissioner Price said she feels it is a show of the Board's commitment and
5 responsibility that the task force was continued and that the neighborhood has not been
6 neglected.
7
8 VOTE: Ayes, 6— Nay, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
9
10 Chair Jacobs encouraged Commissioner Dorosin save his motion for a later date, at
11 which time the Board would be glad to hear it.
12
13 d. Review of Proposed Operations Agreement for the Rogers Road Community
14 Center
15 The Board was to receive a presentation, review, and provide feedback on the proposed
16 Operations Agreement (Attachment 1) with Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA)
17 for the day to day operations of the Rogers Road Community Center.
18
19 DEFERRED
20
21 5. Consent Agenda
22• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
23 - Item 5a was removed from the consent agenda.
24
25• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
27 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
32
33 a. Minutes
34 The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from May 14, 30 and June
35 6, and June 11, 2013 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin mentioned that he was in attendance at the May 14th meeting;
38 however the minutes indicate he was absent. He also mentioned that his name appeared a
39 couple of times in the present section in lower case.
40 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said she would fix both issues.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
43 approve the minutes from May 14, 30 and June 6, 11, 2013 as submitted by the Clerk to the
44 Board.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
17
1 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
2 property tax values for twenty (20) taxpayers with a total of twenty (20) bills that will result in a
3 reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
4 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
5 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
6 values for fourteen (14) taxpayers with a total of fourteen (14) bills that will result in a reduction
7 of revenue, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
8 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
9 The Board approved three (3) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
10 taxation for three (3) bills for the 2013 tax year.
11 e. Emergency Debris Removal and Processing Services Agreement
12 The Board approved an agreement between Orange County and Ceres Environmental
13 Services, Inc. for the purpose of providing a secondary resource for Emergency Debris
14 Removal and Processing Services and authorized the Chair to sign.
15 f. Renewal Agreements Between Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, Orange County
16 Schools, and Health Department for School Nurses
17 The Board approved the renewal agreements between Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
18 (CHCCS), Orange County Schools (OCS) and the Health Department for nine (9) school nurses
19 and authorized the Manager to sign.
20 g. FY 2013-14 Budget Amendment#1-F— Public Safety 9-1-1 Grant Acceptance
21 The Board approved Budget Amendment#1-F accepting a grant from the NC 9-1-1 Board in
22 the amount of$625,828 to improve the 9-1-1 Communications Center by upgrading the current
23 9-1-1 telephone system to handle newer forms of communication; upgraded the current
24 Emergency Medical Dispatch program to the newest version and added Emergency Police
25 Dispatch and Emergency Fire Dispatch; and added two new furniture positions in order to
26 expand the number of dispatch furniture positions to eleven and authorized the Manager to
27 execute the work.
28 h. Supplemental Agreement with NCDOT to Extend an Existing Congestion
29 Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant
30 The Board approved a Supplemental Agreement with the North Carolina Department of
31 Transportation (NCDOT) amending Orange County's existing Locally Administered Project
32 Agreement for Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project C-4932B to extend the use
33 of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding for the existing Hillsborough
34 Circulator transit service through November 2015 and authorized the Manager to sign.
35 L Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization Memorandum of
36 Understanding Adding Orange County as a Voting Member
37 The Board approved a resolution adding Orange County as a voting member of the Burlington-
38 Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) to the Memorandum of Understanding
39 (MOU) and authorized the Chair and the Clerk to the Board to execute the MOU.
40 j. Resolution to Endorse Orange County's Priority Transportation Projects within
41 the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) Planning Area
42 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, endorsing a priority list of
43 new transportation projects within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
44 (BGMPO) planning area for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2022 Transportation
45 Improvement Program (TIP) and submitted the resolution to the BGMPO.
46 k. Use Agreement Between Orange County and the Orange Grove Fire Company
47 The Board approved the recommendation from the Emergency Services Director to enter into
48 an agreement with the Orange Grove Fire Company in order to place one (1) EMS ambulance
49 at Station #1 located at 6800 Orange Grove Road, and authorized the Manager to sign the Use
50 Agreement.
18
1 I. FY 2013-2014 Purchase of Vehicles through Vehicle Replacement Internal Service
2 Fund
3 The Board approved the final list of County vehicles to be purchased through the Internal
4 Services Fund established within the FY2013-2014 budget.
5 m. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
6 The Board approved one change in the Board of County Commissioners' regular meeting
7 calendar for 2013, adding a closed session meeting for Monday, October 7, 2013 at 4:00 pm at
8 the Solid Waste Administrative Offices, 1207 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC.
9 n. Employment Agreement for Michael Talbert— Interim Orange County Manager.
10 The Board approved the appointment of and terms of an employment agreement with Michael
11 Talbert as Interim Orange County Manager.
12
13 Michael Talbert thanked the Board for the opportunity and said he hopes to help the
14 Board achieve its goals.
15
16 6. Public Hearings - NONE
17
18 7. Regular Agenda
19
20 a. Employee Benefits and Recommendations for Calendar Year 2014
21 The Board considered the County Manager's recommendations for employee health
22 insurance and other benefits for the 2014 calendar year.
23 Nicole Clark reviewed the following information:
24
25 Staff provided information regarding FY2013-14 employee benefits at the April 11, 2013 work
26 session, during the FY 2013-14 budget process, and at the September 5, 2013 regular Board
27 meeting. The County conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for health insurance
28 administration and requested responses for both a fully insured and self-funded plan. Retiree
29 health insurance was discussed at the June 19, 2013 regular meeting. The FY 2013-14
30 Approved Budget includes funds for up to an 8.0% ($226,444) health insurance premium
31 increase effective with the January 1, 2014 renewal. The sole complete response from the RFP
32 was from the County's current health insurance provider, United Healthcare (UHC). UHC
33 provided proposals for both a fully insured renewal which is approximately a 6.35% increase
34 and self-funded option which results in no increase.
35 Nicole Clark said the recommendation is to approve option 2, which is the self funded
36 option with an increase of$118 per month to the health savings account.
37 Commissioner Gordon said she appreciated the opportunity to discuss this prior to this
38 meeting. She asked if employees have made any recent comments or statements regarding
39 the plans.
40 Frank Clifton said that this issue has been reviewed with employee relations for the past
41 three years as the County has struggled with increasing costs. He said that most of the
42 employees understand that this is the way to stabilize rates.
43 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to know if any comments have been made
44 between September 5th and now.
45 Nicole Clark said no.
46 Frank Clifton said this was presented to employees before the last Board of County
47 Commissioners meeting.
48 Commissioner Rich said she is not in favor of the self insured plan. She said she has
49 done some reading about this, and there are a number of issues and concerns. She asked
19
1 about the plans for hiring administrators for the claims and whether this would be an on-staff
2 person.
3 Tracy McCarty said the insurance company will remain the same. She said that as a
4 self-funded administrator, employees will have the same network with an external party being
5 paid an administrative fee to protect the County against large losses. She said this is not
6 anyone internal. She said this is really only a change in the funding mechanism. She said, as
7 claims come through on a weekly basis, that administrator will request those funds from the
8 County, and the County will fund that. She said anything above the premiums will be retained.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if anyone other than United Healthcare (UHC) had been
10 considered.
11 Tracy McCarty said yes. She said UHC was the lowest and firmest quote.
12 Commissioner Rich said she has concerns with UHC, and she is not supportive of them.
13 Commissioner Price asked if Commissioner Rich's research had suggested any other
14 insurance possibilities.
15 Commissioner Rich said she had looked at Blue Cross Blue Shield, and she was against
16 UHC because the company did not sign on to the Affordable Care Act.
17 Chair Jacobs said the County is operating under a deadline this year, and this
18 discussion can be had next year to change the criteria. He said he voted against UHC in the
19 past, but he realizes that it is late in the game. He said UHC did have a town hall meeting and
20 many concerns were addressed. He said he would like to suggest these town hall meetings be
21 held annually with staff to discuss concerns.
22 Commissioner McKee said he is generally supportive of this; however he questioned the
23 fact that he knows of several counties that go back to the private sector after being self funded.
24 Tracy McCarty said about 90% of the companies her company represents are self
25 funded, and most of the folks who have done this are very positive about it.
26 Commissioner McKee said he attended an ABC board meeting this morning (since the
27 ABC employees are insured with Orange County.) He said the general feeling at that board is
28 that they will be unable to go self funded. He said there were concerns about the County's
29 reasoning.
30 Frank Clifton said you can change the administrator of your policy at anytime. He said
31 that the numbers say that the County and the employees will save roughly $1 million in health
32 insurance costs. He said this can be re-evaluated each year.
33 He noted the disproportionately high number of female employees and said this adds to
34 the risk factor with the health insurance industry.
35 Commissioner Rich referred to the section on pricing premiums on page 353 of the
36 electronic version of the agenda. She asked for the identity of the organization mentioned.
37 Tracy McCarty said these pricing premium recommendations will be made by finance
38 and management.
39 Commissioner Rich referred to page 356 on the electronic version and asked for an
40 explanation of the reference to costs of the contract getting higher over time
41 Tracy McCarty said their self-funded clients have more control over their trend, and
42 client data can be shared. She said there are things built into a fully-insured contract, such as
43 state and federal tax. She said there are charges and profit margins that may not be included
44 in a self funded arrangement.
45 Nicole Clark noted that the dental plan is currently self-funded.
46 Commissioner Gordon said she feels this dental plan is not well compensated, and she
47 questioned if this will be the case with the insurance plan.
48 Nicole Clark said there is no relationship between medical and dental plans. She said
49 this is just the nature of the dental plan, and there is work being done on this issue. She said
20
1 there are more providers being added. She said the claims in dental are typical for the
2 business and this is completely different than health insurance.
3 Chair Jacobs said it would be helpful to identify information from other entities about the
4 pros and cons of the self-funding. He noted that the Community Land Trust is also on the
5 County policy. He said this group, as well as the ABC Board may need guidance as to where to
6 go.
7 Tracy McCarty said she is happy to help with this, and she has dealt with similar
8 situations in the past.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
10 approve Option 2, the self-insured health insurance option with an increase in the Health
11 Savings Account contribution for employees to $118 per month effective January 1, 2014, and
12 direct the Manager to sign the necessary documents to execute the contract.
13
14 VOTE: Ayes, 6 — Nay, 1 (Commissioner Rich)
15
16 b. Whitted Meeting Room Schematic Design Review
17 The Board reviewed and commented on the schematic design of the Whitted
18 Permanent meeting room initially presented during the September 12, 2013 work session; and
19 authorized staff and the consultant to move forward with construction document preparation.
20 Jeff Thompson reviewed the schedule (below) included on page 2 of the abstract:
21
22 BACKGROUND: On April 4, 2013, the BOCC authorized Orange County to move forward with
23 the design of permanent Board meeting facilities within the Whitted 2nd Floor "A" building in
24 Hillsborough, and included this capital project within the adopted Capital Investment Plan in FY
25 2013-14. On June 18, 2013, the BOCC authorized the Manager to move forward with the
26 design, award a bid, and complete the necessary site work for this project as "Phase 1" in order
27 that the work be completed this fall during optimal outdoor weather. This site work, which will
28 include significant paving, stormwater management, lighting, pedestrian access, handicapped
29 access, and landscaping improvements, is currently out to bid and should be complete no later
30 than the end of November 2013. The County has engaged Corley, Redfoot Architects as the
31 designer for the project. Ken Redfoot and David Taylor with Corley, Redfoot Architects will
32 continue presenting the schematic designs as well as corresponding three dimensional space
33 modeling for additional BOCC review and comment introduced during the September 12, 2013
34 work session. Should the BOCC approve the schematic design renderings and principles, the
35 following timeline represents the delivery of the overall project:
36
37
TASK PROPOSED END BY
BEGINNING DATE
DATE
BOCC Action: Approval of 9/17/13 9/17/13
Schematic Design;
authorization
to prepare bid documents
Construction document prep, 9/18/13 11/5/13
bid advertisement prep (2
month
duration
BOCC Action: Approval of 11/5/13 11/5/13
Final Design; authorization to
21
advertise for bid
BOCC Action: Bid Award 12/17/13 12/17/13
Construction (est. 4 month 1/6/14 5/6/14
duration)
Grand Opening —first BOCC 6/3/14 6/3/14
meeting (estimated date)
1
2
3 Ken Redfoot said the purpose of tonight's discussion is to get approval for the
4 schematic design. He reviewed the map of the overall site plan. He said the improvement of
5 three parking lots is already out for bid.
6 Ken Redfoot said the next three plans show the main meeting room with different
7 furniture layouts. He gave a visual overview of these plans.
8 He said his staff is looking at alternatives for the television production room to better
9 accommodate necessary production.
10 Ken Redfoot said two flat screen monitors are being considered for placement on either
11 side of the dais for better video presentation.
12 He noted that work will be done to insure there are no acoustic issues in the room.
13 He gave a detailed description of the dais, which would accommodate all of the
14 members of the Board. He said it is also large enough to accommodate up to 11 people in the
15 event of joint meetings. He noted that it has a seven inch rise from the floor elevation, and a
16 bullet proof panel across the front. He said there is a countertop with area to accommodate
17 electrical and data hookups hidden behind a cap piece.
18 Chair Jacobs asked for more explanation regarding the proposed schedule of the
19 project.
20 Jeff Thompson said if the schematic design is approved the team would prepare final
21 design documents over the next two months, before bringing them back for a final look. He
22 said after this is approved the plan will be put out to market to receive bids before Christmas,
23 and construction will begin in the winter. The estimated completion date is June of 2014.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said it is not clear to her where participants for joint meetings
25 will have a view of a screen. She noted that those elected officials, as well as other participants
26 will need to have a view of the presentations that are made.
27 Ken Redfoot said this would need to be examined. He did not realize the importance of
28 that angle, but this will be considered in the next level of design.
29 Commissioner Gordon reinforced what Commissioner Pelissier said about the audience
30 and Board of County Commissioners with regard to the screens and acoustical information.
31 Commissioner Gordon said she did send out questions via email to staff and the Board.
32 She requested that these be included as part of the minutes , with staff responses shown
33 below:
34
35 From: Alice Gordon rmailto:gordon.alicep_gmail.com]
36 Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:06 AM
37 To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; Earl McKee; gordon.alicep_gmail.com; Alice Gordon;
38 Mark Dorosin; Penny Rich; Donna Baker; Frank Clifton; Greg Wilder; Michael Talbert
39 Subject: Questions/ comments on Item 7-b
40 Questions/ comments on item 7-b - Sept. 17, 2013 - Whitted Building
41
42 1. Has the Sheriff reviewed the design from a security point of view?
22
1 If yes, did he have suggestions? If no, please request that he review it, and provide comments.
2 The Sheriff and his staff involved in -the Threat Assessment work group have provided
3 general input with regard -to -the need -for a safe area and con-trolled access near-the
4 dais.. This input was shared with -the BOCC in work session on April '16, 20,11 Staff
5 will receive specific -feedback -from -the Sheriff and his staff with regard -to -the design and
6 will bring -this -feedback -to -the Board on September 17 1h
7
8 2. It is my understanding that the dais at the Southern Human Services Center is designed to
9 be bullet-proof. Is that true of the proposed dais at the Whitted Building? If it is not, what would
10 it take to make it that way?
11 The dais design at -the proposed meeting room at -the Whitted Building will include a 3/8"
12 bullet-re sistaint painel -from -the -floor-to -the -top of-the dais wall (approximately 42" high).
13 This is -the same material used in -the millwork -for-the judges, clerks and witiness stainds
14 in -the Orainge County Justice Expansion project..
15
16 3. The designs show a dais for 7 people, but I believe we were told that there would be more
17 than that. How many people will be seated at the dais and why (especially if it is more than 9)?
18 The dais design is -flexible -to accommodate -the current seven County Commissioners
19 with approximately 46" of counter width and -the potential use of other Boards.. The
20 "'maximum" recommended Board usage would be the '12-person County Planning Board,
21 which would provide each person approximately 28" of counter width..
22
23 4. The packet shows three designs, but we were shown four designs at the work session.
24 Please send that fourth design to us.
25 Also, please send us the previous design that showed the offices.
26 See attached - 7-b - Question 4 A - Commissioner Gordon - Alternate Whitted BoCC
27 Layout
28 See attached - 7-b - Question 4 B - Commissioner Gordon .-Whitted Office Layout
29
30
31 5. For the three designs in the agenda packet, is there any difference in what would actually be
32 constructed? If so, what is the cost of constructing each of the three designs?
33 No, -the -three plains show -the same space being used -for-three different -types of
34 meetings..
35
36 Thank you.
37
38 Alice Gordon
39
40 Commissioner Gordon asked about Sheriff input in the threat assessment work.
41 Jeff Thompson said he met with sheriffs staff this morning, and staff favored the green
42 room for threat assessment. He said the Sheriff recommended the Commissioners enter
43 through the rear of the building, and he recommended three entrances to the meeting room.
44 He said the sheriff was satisfied with the ballistics protection of the dais and the room.
45 Commissioner Gordon referred to the fourth plan. There is the alternate Board of
46 County Commissioners lay out which shows less space for the meeting room and more rooms
47 for offices and other uses. She noted that the space study will be coming back later, and she
48 noted that there is still flexibility to add another conference room and to further divide the flex
49 space.
23
1 Commissioner Gordon said another department may want to use some space here for
2 recreation space or office space. She said she wants to underscore the need for flexibility, and
3 the ability to have this flexibility makes her more comfortable with the plan.
4 Commissioner Rich asked about the timing of the technology discussion.
5 Ken Redfoot said this will be done over the next two months. He said there is a
6 consultant already on board and details will be nailed down.
7 Commissioner Rich said her concern is mostly that there be availability and capability for
8 web streaming and television viewing to provide access and transparency for the public.
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the maximum capacity for seating.
10 Ken Redfoot said the Fire Marshall has set this number at 294 people.
11 Commissioner Dorosin suggested the use of mobile screens to address the issues with
12 presentation visibility for the audience and guests.
13 Commissioner McKee said he appreciates what has been brought forward and he feels
14 other boards will be attracted to use the space once it is completed. He asked if staff is still
15 confident on staying within the approved budget.
16 Ken Redfoot said yes. He said there will be another cost estimate of work done soon,
17 but right now his staff is working within the Board's budget.
18 Commissioner Price referred to the plan for a smaller space. She feels this limits how
19 the space can be used. She said at this point she is leaning against the use of flex space for
20 conference rooms.
21 Chair Jacobs said there are very few large meeting rooms for the public, and the
22 opportunity to have one here at Whitted is a rare opportunity. He said he would like to start with
23 the premise that the bigger the space, the more it will be used.
24 Commissioner Gordon asked when the technology plan will come back, and if it is
25 possible to have it sooner than November 5th
26 Ken Redfoot said this can be provided sooner
27 Commissioner Gordon said she feels this should be requested sooner than November
28 5th. She asked why this 4th plan was not included in the packet. She also noted that the space
29 study is still to be completed. She said conference rooms could be added later, and the flex
30 space could be made into offices. She likes long term strategic plans and she wants to
31 underscore that this approval does not preclude reacting to the space study, and making
32 changes to the Whitted space later.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
35 continue to review and comment on the schematic design of the Whitted Permanent meeting
36 room initially presented during the September 12, 2013 work session; to receive and review a
37 requested report of technology alternatives prior to the November 5th meeting; and to authorize
38 staff to move forward with construction document preparation subject to a review and
39 discussion of the technology alternatives report.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 8. Reports - NONE
44
45 9. County Manager's Report - NONE
46
47 10. County Attorney's Report - NONE
48
49 11. Appointments
50
24
1 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
2 The Board made appointments to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory
3 Committee.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
5 appoint to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
6 • Ms. Deborah Rider to an At-Large position (#3), with an expiration date of
7 6/30/2016
8 • Ms. Rosie Benzonelli to an At-Large position (#7) for a one year training term, with
9 an expiration date of 10/30/2014.
10 • Ms. Joyce Teston to an At-Large position (#8) for a one year training term, with an
11 expiration date of 6/30/2014
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
16 appoint to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
17 Ms. Karen Schnell to an At-Large position (#12) for a one year training term with an
18 expiration date of 3/31/2014
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 The Clerk to the Board, Donna Baker will check with support staff for this board, since
23 applications are vetted, to make sure Ms. Schnell is available to serve.
24
25 b. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment—Appointment
26
27 The Board made an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment.
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
29 appoint to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment:
30 Carl Eddie Sain for an extended term (no other eligible candidates) expiring 06/20/2014.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 c. Historic Preservation Commission-Appointment
35 The Board made an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
37 appoint to the Historic Preservation Commission:
38 Jaime Grant to an At-Large position (#1), with an expiration date of 3/31/2015
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 d. Human Relations Commission-Appointment
43 The Board made an appointment to the Human Relations Commission.
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
45 request a reduction in the size of this board, and to appoint to the Human Relations
46 Commission:
47 Monica Richards as Town of Carrboro Special Representative position (#10), with
48 an expiration date of 6/30/2016
49
25
1 Commissioner Price noted there are several openings on this Board. She asked if there
2 has been consideration of decreasing the size of this Board.
3 Donna Baker said this has been discussed and is being considered.
4 Chair Jacobs suggested this decrease be requested again to gain a response.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 e. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee-Appointment
9 The Board made an appointment to the Nursing Home Advisory Committee.
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
11 gain more information regarding flexibility in appointing the open positions and to appoint to the
12 Historic Preservation Commission:
13 • Teri Driscoll to an At-Large position with an expiration date of 9/30/2014
14 Commissioner Price noted the additional vacancies on the board and she began making
15 appointments to these positions.
16
17 Donna Baker noted that this board requires due diligence for appointments.
18 Commissioner Dorosin noted the special conditions for each of these openings. He
19 wanted clarification on whether people can be nominated who do not have the listed
20 qualifications. He noted that several of these spots have been open for several years and he
21 questioned if these qualifications should be lifted.
22 John Roberts noted that these requirements may be governed by state statutes and not
23 the advisory board policy.
24 Donna Baker said that she would contact the support staff for this board to indicate what
25 the BOCC wanted to do and to ask for direction.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 f. Orange County Planning Board —Appointment
30 The Board was to make an appointment to the Orange County Planning Board.
31 DEFFERED
32
33 Commissioner Gordon asked that this item be deferred since the sub-committee of
34 Commissioner Pelissier, Clerk to the Board Donna Baker and herself were revising the
35 volunteer application, per the Board of Commissioners, to add additional questions for 5
36 boards/commissions, including the Planning Board. She said this revised application will come
37 before the BOCC sometime in the next month, and then she would like for applicants for this
38 position to re-apply using the revised application, if possible.
39 The Board agreed and Chair Jacobs said it was important to make sure the review of
40 the revised application is not on the same night as the appointments are to be made. He also
41 asked that township applications be organized so that the applicants living in the township are
42 seen first.
43
44 g_ Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointment
45 The Board made an appointment to the Orange Unified Transportation Board.
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
47 appoint:
48 Amy Cole to the Orange Unified Transportation Board in the Public Transit
49 Advocate position (#13) with an expiration date of 9/30/2016.
50
26
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3
4 12. Board Comments
5
6 Commissioner Dorosin — none
7 Commissioner Gordon referred to a hand out regarding a recent meeting of the
8 Transportation Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. She said there
9 was a good amount of discussion regarding the strategic transportation investment legislation.
10 She noted the section at the bottom of the page regarding the strategic transportation
11 investment and its effect on the TIP planning and approval process. She said $6 billion for
12 fiscal years 2016-2025 is allocated to state mobility projects. She said there is a new way to
13 score potential projects and these projects are programmed prior to any local input.
14 She noted that $4.5 billion goes to regional projects. She said that projects not selected
15 in the state projects can then be selected in the regional category. She said this creates a
16 cascade effect that puts more potentially eligible projects in the regional tier. She said the new
17 selection criteria are based on 70 percent data and 30 percent local input.
18 She said that the Transportation Advisory Committee will be sending a letter articulating
19 the concerns regarding a need for more local input and the implications of the cascade effect.
20 Commissioner Price — none
21 Commissioner McKee— none
22 Commissioner Pelissier— none
23 Commissioner Price — none
24 Chair Jacobs said he would like a report from staff on how the use of the Southern
25 Human Services Center meeting room by Chapel Hill is going.
26 He said three of Commissioners were at the official opening of the Hampton Inn in
27 Carrboro this evening and he was impressed with the facility and encouraged by the creation of
28 50 jobs.
29 He congratulated Commissioner Foushee on being chosen to fill Senator Kinnaird's
30 Senate seat.
31 Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Gordon's discussion about local input and said
32 that there is some debate regarding what this even means. He said the Board had received an
33 email asking for their input on what this term means, and how the Board should be involved.
34 He said is important for the Board to have clear input here.
35
36 13. Information Items
37
38 e September 5, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
39 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
40 e Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
41 e BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 5, 2013 Board Meeting
42
43 14. Closed Session
44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go
45 into closed session at 10:27 pm for the purpose of:
46
47 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
48 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
49 143-318.11(a)(5).
50
27
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go
5 into open session at 11:10 pm
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 15. Adjournment
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
12 adjourn the meeting at 11:10pm.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Barry Jacobs, Chair
17
18 Donna S. Baker, CMC
19 Clerk to the Board
20