HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-23-2014 - 6a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 23, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) 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:
October 8, 2013 BOCC Work Session (7:00pm)
October 15, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting
November 5, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting
November 19, 2013 BOCC Regular meeting
November 25, 2013 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve afl minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET WORK SESSION
6 October 8, 2013
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday,
10 October 8, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Cheryl Young and Clarence Grier and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All
18 other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add a
23 closed session at the end of the meeting for the purpose of:
24
25 Per NCGS § 143-318.11. (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public
26 body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body,
27 which privilege is hereby acknowledged.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 1. Discussion on Potential Establishment of a Women's Commission
32
33 Cheryl Young reviewed the background on this issue. She noted that at the June 18,
34 2013 BOCC Meeting, Commissioner Renee Price petitioned the Board regarding the
35 establishment of a Women's Commission. She noted that the former Commission for Women,
36 established in 1978, was eliminated as an advisory board in 2010.
37 She said Commissioner Price provided a draft resolution (Attachment 1 in their packets),
38 and stated that there is a disparity that persists between women and men in payment rates and
39 salaries. She noted that women historically have received and continue to receive less pay
40 and lower incomes than their male counterparts, while fulfilling the same duties and
41 responsibilities. She said Commissioner Price had suggested that the overarching charge of a
42 Women's Commission should be to examine and expose the inequities experienced by women
43 in the business sector, the workplace, entrepreneurship, education and professional
44 advancement and leadership in Orange County, and to advocate for women.
45 She noted that Commissioner Price suggested this be placed under the Economic
46 Development Department.
47 Commissioner Price said she has spoken with several women who were a part of the
48 original commission, as well as some younger women in the community. She said the feeling is
49 that this more of an economic development issue than a women's rights advocacy group.
2
1 She said it would be good to see where Orange County stands with this issue, as well as
2 the private sector.
3 Chair Jacobs noted the blue sheets provided from a meeting in 2010 when the
4 commission for women was disbanded. He noted that this was done over the objections of
5 members of the Commission for Women, as well as some of the Commissioners. He said it is
6 good that this issue has come back.
7 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to hear from the Economic Development
8 Director to see how this would fit in.
9 Chair Jacobs said this was discussed and the decision was not to put the economic
10 development director on the spot. He said the interim manager would speak to this.
11 Commissioner Rich asked how often this committee would meet and if there would be
12 enough work to facilitate creation of a separate committee.
13 Michael Talbert said he talked to Steve Brantley about this. He said Steve Brantley said
14 economic development's primary goal is the recruitment and retention of industry. He gave the
15 example of Hi-chew. He said this partnership has tremendous potential for this community, and
16 he would not like to take away from that effort.
17 Michael Talbert noted that much of the existing industry in Orange County is government,
18 University and non-profit. He said the County does not yet have the private sector presence
19 that it hopes to have in the future.
20 He said the initial resolution seems more like a policy statement than a work plan. He
21 does not believe that this proposed commission belongs in the Economic Development
22 Department. He feels the best fit at this time is in the housing and human relations area.
23 He said if the board wants to go forward with this and provide funding, it should be
24 considered for next year's budget process. He said the Board would need to determine who will
25 be on the commission and what the charge will be. He said once these things are determined,
26 staff can figure out how to make it work and how to proceed.
27 Commissioner Rich said that she does not know how effective this board will be, but she
28 has not thought it through yet.
29 Michael Talbert said he does not know yet either. He said the Board needs to define the
30 expected outcomes.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks the proposed charge is too narrow. He said a
32 commission on women ought to deal with all critical issues of gender discrimination. He said
33 this seems like a time limited charge, and it needs to be broader.
34 Commissioner Price said she was trying to be more realistic because she realizes the
35 limited time that staff has to give. She said this could go beyond income and could look at what
36 happens in the workplace. She felt that it would be more realistic to start narrower and then get
37 broader.
38 She asked Commissioner Rich for clarification on her concern with the charge.
39 Commissioner Rich said she didn't understand where it goes, as it looks more like a
40 study.
41 Commissioner Price said this would start out more like a study.
42 She noted that when the Board went on a tour of one of the schools, there were no girls
43 in the technology class. She noted the implications of this in the future workplace.
44 Commissioner Gordon said there is a need for a women's commission and one reason to
45 start with the business side is because women are not represented well, and there is not equal
46 pay for equal work.
47 She said other things would be important, but equal pay is the key. She suggested that
48 the Board could endorse this concept, but then she would like to see the concept fleshed out.
49 Commissioner Gordon said that staff needs to work on the charge, the budget, and
50 which department this best fits.
3
1 Commissioner Gordon suggested that this proposed commission could possibly come
2 under the direction of Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young.
3 Chair Jacobs said he is not opposed to a women's commission, but he would like to bring
4 others to the table, such as the Women's center, the Human Rights and Relations Board, and
5 the Health Department. He suggested a possible study to develop a framework.
6 He said there is not enough information available to move forward with this.
7 He noted that the Board took all the volunteers that had worked so hard on all of these
8 issues in the past and then did not listen to them. He said he would argue against making a
9 decision without bringing in the people who have worked on these issues.
10 Commissioner McKee said he is supportive of bringing this back for discussion. He said
11 he is not inclined to put this under the auspices of the Economic Development Department. He
12 noted that this department has limited staff and several large projects in the pipeline.
13 Commissioner McKee supported the suggestion that this be brought back during the
14 budget process. He said he would also be supportive of bringing in other interested parties.
15 Commissioner Pelissier said when the then Board made the decision in 2010 not to have
16 a freestanding women's commission, the intent was to include the Commission for Women as
17 part of the Human Relations Commission. She said this sub-committee did not take off and
18 continue the work.
19 She does not feel that this means that a free standing Commission for Women is
20 needed. She said this is a human rights and human relations issue, and some things do work
21 well under one umbrella.
22 Commissioner Pelissier said the lack of equal pay for equal work is a national problem,
23 and it is a difficult issue. She does not think this is a problem that can be solved by the County.
24 She said that the County does need to encourage women in entrepreneurships, and there are
25 collaborations with existing organizations, like the Chamber of Commerce that could help with
26 this.
27 Commissioner Price said one of the reasons she proposed this commission was because
28 the original commission had been disbanded. She said there seemed to be a lack of focus and
29 interest. She said the plight of women is such that there needs to be a stand-alone advocacy.
30 She said the issues are there, and the issues are broad.
31 She said she chose a narrow focus because she had seen it disbanding when fighting
32 the basic issue of women's rights. She said she has no problem with working with the rest of
33 the Board. She said it just needs to be viable.
34 Commissioner Price said she spoke with many people, including Lucy Lewis, the original
35 staff person. She said the thought is that the focus needs to be on women and the economy.
36 She said this is about higher paying jobs across the board for women, not just higher level jobs.
37 Commissioner Price said she understands that the Economic Development Department
38 is a small department. She was trying to stay away from being just another women's rights
39 committee looking at the same issues.
40 Commissioner Rich said she hears the Board asking for more information. She asked if
41 there is a way that the Board can have a review of why the women's group is no longer in
42 existence. She said she would like to understand the lessons learned from the previous group.
43 She said this is human relations, and it could be re-birthed under the same committee, as
44 a separate subdivision.
45 Chair Jacobs said time is limited tonight. He said the Board is not at a decision point,
46 and there have been several visions expressed. He suggested some groups be identified to
47 give input. He suggested that Staff Attorney Annette Moore and Housing, Human Rights and
48 Community Development Director Tara Fikes might answer the whys of the abolition of the
49 Women's Commission in 2010.
4
1 He said that the conversation could be continued once these questions are answered,
2 and the Board can decide on the direction.
3 Commissioner Gordon clarified that this needs to be resolved before the budget process,
4 as the budget process has to do with funding.
5 She suggested that Cheryl Young be one of the staff members working to put this
6 together. She suggested the retreat in late January as a good time to discuss this.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said that he is one of the three different visions that were
8 mentioned. He said he would defer to the women on the Board regarding this issue.
9
10 2. Review the Process of Creating a Solid Waste Collection and Disposal System
11 Service District
12 Michael Talbert said the Board last held a work session in April, looking at four options
13 for solid waste and recycling in Orange County. He said this evolved to a public hearing on
14 April 23, reviewing the following top three options: 1) Create a solid waste management
15 authority, 2) Create a solid waste service district; or 3) Eliminate curbside recycling.
16 He said, at the direction of the board, staff moved forward with determining willingness to
17 participate, and ascertaining the needs and concerns of the towns with regard to the possible
18 creation of a service district.
19 He said the Chair met with the three mayors, and adopted an interim funding plan for
20 2013-14, as directed. He said staff had also committed further investigation into a service
21 district or authority.
22 He said the creation of an authority is actually creating a separate form of government.
23 He said this would likely take more time than the County has to solve the recycling issues for
24 the coming fiscal year.
25 He said the creation of a service district is similar to the creation of a fire district, and this
26 could be accomplished by the end of the year. He said this is outlined on page 3 of the
27 abstract.
28 He said a public hearing must be held in order to establish a service district. He said if
29 the County is considering partnering with the three towns and the existing service district, this
30 would mean 40-50 thousand property owners would have to be notified of a public hearing. He
31 said this means up to 60 thousand parcels and multiple public hearings.
32 Michael Talbert said John Roberts has outlined a plan to make this work. He said towns
33 can make an authorization. He said Chapel Hill put a section in their budget ordinance stating
34 that the town "authorizes Orange County to provide recycling collection services within those
35 areas of the town situated in Durham County and to impose and administer a fee for such
36 services."
37 He said a similar statement could be used by all of the towns.
38 John Roberts said he has met several times in the past year with the town attorneys on
39 this issue. He suggested that the municipal statutes in chapter 168 give specific authorization
40 that towns can do recycling services within their jurisdictions and charge a fee for this service.
41 John Roberts said the towns initially did not agree with this, but he thinks Chapel Hill has
42 had a change of opinion. He said if each of the towns is willing to do something similar to grant
43 this authority to the County, the size of the solid waste district can be limited to the
44 unincorporated areas. He said the municipal areas can continue under the authority delegated
45 from the town.
46 Michael Talbert said the Town of Chapel Hill has done a comprehensive study of the
47 solid waste and collections disposal options. He said the town has been unwilling to share that
48 information, but it is being discussed at the town meeting in November.
49 He said the Town of Carrboro and the Town of Hillsborough have indicated a willingness
50 to participate and a desire to keep the recycling services going. He said that, with
5
1 encouragement from John Roberts, the attorneys may be willing to amend their budget
2 ordinances.
3 Michael Talbert said that just leaves a taxing district for the unincorporated areas. He
4 asked how the Board would like to proceed. He said this will be a lengthy and complicated
5 process.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the towns set a limit for the fee.
7 John Roberts said the towns would be asked to delegate the fee setting authority to the
8 County.
9 Michael Talbert said this is what was done in the budget ordinance.
10 Commissioner Rich noted that this is an election season, and the recycling program is an
11 issue that comes up. She said she is under the impression that most people currently in office
12 and running for office do like the recycling program.
13 She said the County is between a rock and a hard place, because no one knows where
14 the town is headed.
15 She said the recycling program is the best in the state, and it would be a shame to lose it.
16 Michael Talbert suggested that staff draft a letter to all three towns, letting them know the
17 County would like to proceed with the district and continue recycling services as provided in the
18 past. He suggested the towns be provided with a copy of the ordinance passed by Chapel Hill,
19 as an example of a reasonable way to do this.
20 He said as soon as the County gets a commitment from all three towns, roll carts and
21 trucks can be purchased.
22 He said that this letter will put the intentions of the County out in the open.
23 Commissioner McKee said he is concerned about not knowing what the towns are going
24 to do. He said the thought the study had been released to the public this week.
25 He said he has reservations about moving forward without knowing what the town wants,
26 and he would suggest not doing anything until the proposal comes back from Chapel Hill.
27 He said there are no collection routes in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. He
28 said this means some people will be taxed for a service they cannot attain. He said this is not
29 the same as being taxed for a service that you choose not to use, as there is not equal access.
30 He would like details on how this issue will be addressed.
31 Michael Talbert said the town has made the proposal documents available for viewing at
32 a cost of 10 cents per page, and the proposal is very lengthy.
33 Commissioner Pelissier said she echoes the concerns about the municipalities. In
34 reference to the letter, she said she is not sure the elected officials in the municipalities are
35 aware of the timeline that would be involved. She said the letter would need to be very specific
36 about this timeline.
37 She said she does not know if this program is affordable without the towns' involvement.
38 She clarified that the tax district would only cover the area that currently has recycling.
39 Commissioner Price asked if the program would be financially feasible if it only involved
40 the County and the Town of Hillsborough.
41 Michael Talbert said this is not known yet.
42 Commissioner Gordon said Chapel Hill is looking at both solid waste and recycling. She
43 clarified that the County discussion about a solid waste tax district is only about recycling.
44 Michael Talbert agreed. He said the state law requires that it be called "solid waste."
45 Commissioner Gordon said she shares the concerns about what Chapel Hill may or may
46 not do. She is unsure of what to do about the timeline, as the goal of the town is to decide in
47 January.
48 Commissioner Gordon said if the County does not get a signal by November 21St, this
49 may have to wait until January.
50 Commissioner Dorosin asked if January is too late for a decision.
6
1 Michael Talbert said it is not too late, but it creates a very tight timeline for holding public
2 hearings. He said there would be a 4 week wait and a series of decisions to be made after the
3 decision to do the district; then a mailing of all the information and maps would have to be sent
4 out 4 weeks prior to the public hearing.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this means that a start date in January still makes it
6 feasible to be done by July 1.
7 Michael Talbert said if the County got direction by December, the district could be
8 identified and plans could be made to move forward. He said this information could then be
9 sent out over the break, and a public hearing could be scheduled for late January or early
10 February.
11 John Roberts said if the towns are still on the fence, the County can move forward with
12 Hillsborough and a smaller district.
13 He said the towns can wait until the April budget process, which would eliminate the need
14 for a public hearing.
15 Chair Jacobs said he does not hear a consensus, other than hesitation to move forward
16 without knowing the towns' decisions.
17 He assumes that no one wants to go back to the way things started, with Chapel Hill in
18 charge of all solid waste. He said one alternative is to let Chapel Hill take over all recycling.
19 He is supportive of sending an affirmative letter to the three towns to state the County's
20 willingness to continue the award winning recycling program with adjustments to make it
21 effective for the partnership. He said the timeline needs to be made clear, along with the fact
22 that this is a discussion of recycling only.
23 Commissioner Rich said it should also be stated that the County is willing to purchase the
24 carts.
25 Chair Jacobs said this is a large financial commitment, especially without the partners.
26 Chair Jacobs said there are still issues with rural recycling and whether people are being
27 taxed for a service that cannot be used. He said there may need to be a plan to make sure
28 everyone being taxed can receive the service, at least within a certain period of time.
29 Michael Talbert said the County is also taxing vacant land. He said every property and
30 everyone that owns a vehicle would be taxed, whether or not service is received.
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the alternative of not having a special district tax is still in
32 the mix of consideration. He asked if the County could consider providing rural service out of
33 the general fund if the three towns go their own way.
34 Michael Talbert said this is a legal option, but this funding is not currently provided, so it
35 would be a hit on the general fund.
36 Commissioner McKee said he feels this needs to be done with the partners, rather than
37 moving forward in another direction. He asked what would happen if the July 1 target was not
38 met.
39 Michael Talbert said solid waste reserves have been used to cover the service this past
40 year. He said the 3R fees generated $1.7 million in revenues that would have to come out of
41 the general fund to continue the program as it currently exists.
42 Commissioner McKee said this is not a good option, but it is an option that needs to be
43 on the table if an agreement cannot be made with the towns.
44 Commissioner Gordon said there needs to be an emphasis on a partnership with the
45 towns. She does not want to send a unilateral message. She feels it is important to sit down
46 face to face with the towns at the AOG meeting in November.
47 Chair Jacobs asked if this is the majority opinion.
48 Commissioner Rich said she likes the idea of a letter, as it means the County is reaching
49 out.
7
1 Commissioner Pelissier said she feels the letter should be sent, and then it can be
2 discussed at the AOG meeting.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said other letters have been sent, but he sees no reason not to
4 send another one.
5 Chair Jacobs said issues have been raised that warrant further investigation, including
6 the fiscal ramifications of using the General Fund. He said there are also still equity issues with
7 regard to rural curbside collection.
8
9 3. Affordable Housing Follow-Up Discussion
10
11 Members of the AHAB (Affordable Housing Advisory Board)joined Tara Fikes at the
12 table.
13 Tara Fikes said information was provided in the packet regarding follow up on the March
14 12th joint meeting of the advisory board and the Commissioners. She reviewed some of the
15 background information.
16 She said the board spent a lot of time talking with Community Trust Director Robert
17 Dowling about the organization needs, and specifically the HVAC needs at Greenbridge. She
18 said the request for $75,000 to service these HVAC needs was approved by the Board of
19 Commissioners, but none of this money has been spent yet.
20 She said there were also conversations regarding the Live/Work and First Time
21 Homebuyer programs. She said that this bond money and non-profit funding is provided only
22 for first time home buyers and people who have lived and worked in Orange County for one
23 year. She said the Community Home Trust asked for a waiver of these restrictions after 90
24 days, and the Board approved this.
25 Tara Fikes said that just one house had been sold to a person from outside of Orange
26 County since this waiver was approved.
27 She said the board also brought a proposal for an affordable housing clearing house,
28 which would be a referral porthole for County residents interested in information on housing
29 opportunities. She said work is being done to formalize this proposal, and she asked James
30 Stroud to give an update on this.
31 James Stroud said a lot of individuals are seeking affordable housing, but don't know
32 where to go. He said this clearing house would provide information on available affordable
33 housing. He said the Land Trust and Habitat are often called but these entities do not always
34 know what resources are available.
35 He said this type of clearing house would have served residents well during the flood at
36 Eastgate Shopping Center during the summer. He said the goal is to create a hub for all
37 affordable housing partners to provide management of getting information out to the public.
38 Commissioner Rich asked if this would be under the committee.
39 James Stroud he is the executive director for the Center for Home Ownership in
40 Hillsborough. He said he is HUD approved, and he has been doing housing for 18 years. He
41 is willing to spearhead the project to bring this to Orange County. He said he has realized that
42 no one outside of the industry knows what is offered in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill.
43 Commissioner Rich clarified that this will be on the Orange County website.
44
45 Tara Fikes said there will be personnel to do phone duty, and there will be several
46 different access points. She said there would be partnerships with the towns and non-profits.
47 She said there is a proposal for this in Attachment B.
48 Tara Fikes said the AHAB will focus on furthering the development of this clearing house
49 in the coming months, to prepare for implementation on July 1, 2014.
8
1 She said the board also wants to continue conversations with Community Home Trust
2 regarding marketing and inventory.
3 She said the board continues to monitor the bond program in preparation for a future
4 affordable housing bond referendum. She said all of the 2001 bond money has been
5 committed, and most of it has been spent.
6 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the clearinghouse idea. She asked if there are
7 already volunteers in place to work on this.
8 James Stroud said Vista Corp volunteers are willing to come in and work on this. He said
9 more volunteers will be recruited.
10 Chair Jacobs asked if the work plan includes implementation of a media campaign to
11 stimulate conversation about the need for affordable housing in the community.
12 A Housing Board Member said there were tables at the Hog Day festival, as well as a
13 room at the Senior Center. He said the site has been updated, there is a presence on
14 Facebook.
15 Patsy Barbee said activities and planning are managed on Facebook.
16 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a way to reach people who don't have computers.
17 Chair Jacobs asked if brochures have been placed at social services.
18 Chair Jacobs suggested the board meet with the Public Affairs Officer, Carla Banks,
19 regarding community outreach.
20 Chair Jacobs noted, on the top of page 5 in the minutes, the section on high end condo
21 units and set-asides. He said he toured the units at Greenbridge, and the units do not have
22 universal design. He asked if any of the issues identified on this page have been explored
23 further.
24 Tara Fikes said the board has not talked about that. She said the set-aside is part of
25 Chapel Hill's re-zoning requirement, and the County does not have jurisdiction.
26 Chair Jacobs said there will be an AOG meeting in November, and the County ought to
27 be able to articulate and advocate for standards that should be followed.
28 Tara Fikes said there have been conversations on a staff level with Home Trust,
29 regarding inventory and the desirability of some of the units.
30 Chair Jacobs said he would like to have some information before the Assembly of
31 Governments (AOG) meeting on November 21St, to articulate concerns like universal design.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said maybe the AOG is a good time to discuss this. He said the
33 idea of extracting units from any development doesn't ultimately serve the needs of the
34 community. He said the Home Trust has small one bedroom condos, and there is a small
35 market for these; however there is a wait list for families of 4 or 5. He said there is a disconnect
36 here.
37 He said there have been places in the past where a family unit was the model, and now
38 there is a trend toward luxury condos, and this is creating a growing disconnect. He said there
39 needs to be a discussion about this and the possible solution of giving the Home Trust more
40 discretion in determining where the needs are.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said the other issue to be discussed in the coming year is
42 affordable rental housing. He said doing this through subsidy is not economically feasible. He
43 said Chapel Hill is now debating the idea of a low income housing tax project. He said the only
44 way affordable rental housing is going to work is if it is owned, co-owned or co-developed by
45 one of the local governments.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said manufactured housing has not been considered a
47 reasonable choice in the past. He said there have been a lot of improvements in this, and it
48 remains the most affordable privately owned housing opportunity for most people. He said this
49 should be looked at and possibly incentivized, particularly in the unincorporated areas.
9
1 Commissioner Dorosin said the County has done a good job with affordable housing but
2 there needs to be a broader perspective given the diverse community.
3 Chair Jacobs asked about the Eno Haven Apartments.
4 Tara Fikes said Eno Haven is a tax credit project in Hillsborough with 72 units for the
5 elderly and disabled. She said this project was provided a $1 million loan from the housing
6 program. She said this is the first elderly tax credit project in Hillsborough.
7 Commissioner Pelissier said she comes at the affordable rental housing issue from the
8 perspective of the Partnership to End Homelessness. She said affordable rentals are a much
9 more important need than home ownership for this group.
10 She said all these different groups are looking at this, and it would be a great topic for the
11 AOG meeting. She noted that the Board does not have jurisdiction in all the municipalities, but
12 partnerships can be made to open doors.
13 Tara Fikes said there has been a mayor's committee on rental housing in Chapel Hill.
14 Commissioner Price said it is time for action instead of more talking. She said this topic
15 is old, and it should be recognized that mobile home parks are often considered as prime areas
16 for development. She said these people are often driven out because their homes are not
17 valued. She said people would be better off if home ownership were a focus.
18 Commissioner Gordon said a variety of possibilities are being discussed. She said she
19 does not think manufactured and mobile homes should the first thing pursued. She noted that
20 these structures are not safe in extreme weather and rapid climate change.
21 She said affordable housing is often put in areas where the prior housing was not safe.
22 She said that mobile homes also depreciate in value as compared to stick built homes. She
23 said it would be better to talk about affordable rentals, as this is a bigger need.
24 Commissioner McKee said he would really like to see the AHAB focus on discussions
25 with Chapel Hill regarding adjustments to their unit requirements. He agreed with
26 Commissioner Dorosin regarding the disconnect between needs and available units. He said
27 the AHAB needs to develop strategies with the community to explain the needs.
28 He said he lived in a mobile home for the first 14 years that he lived on his own. He said
29 no home is safe in a tornado or a flood, but a mobile home is more affordable than a stick built
30 home. He said his experience was that cost and maintenance were comparable to his current
31 brick house. He said mobile homes provide options for people just getting started or people
32 limited by income or family size, and this must be considered. He said the stigma needs to be
33 addressed.
34 Chair Jacobs said when Orange County did the bond in 2001, the discussion was about
35 providing housing from single room occupancy to family housing. He said he is opposed to
36 saying no to smaller units; however these should not be located in high end developments. He
37 said the notion of a range of housing options is still important.
38 He said the AHAB once did a study of mobile homes in the County. He said several of
39 the Commissioners have discussed the need for land banking and a strategy for keeping
40 manufactured housing communities.
41 Chair Jacobs said he had asked for a map of the manufactured housing in the county
42 and this still has not been received. He said at least four of the Board members have
43 expressed clear interest in manufactured housing as a key component of affordable housing.
44 He said that this might not be right for joint projects, but it could be a start.
45 Tara Fikes said the AHAB did identify the existing mobile home communities. She said
46 this can be brought back to the Board.
47 Chair Jacobs said the Commissioners appreciate what staff and the AHAB are doing. He
48 said the Board is very interested in this issue.
49
50
10
1 4. Potential Bond Issuance
2 Clarence Grier said there have been recent discussions with the school boards regarding
3 bonds. He said the top two bond issues are the schools and the jail, and the number comes in
4 at around $100 million. He said this includes $30 million for the jail and $43 million for Chapel
5 Hill/Carrboro middle school #5. He said these two projects would take up 73 percent of the
6 bond.
7 He said there have not been any projects received for Orange County Schools that would
8 be included in a bond referendum. He said Orange County Schools has mentioned Elementary
9 School #8 at a cost of$22 million. He said if this was included it would leave about $5 million.
10 Clarence Grier said $100 million could be afforded with the current structure of the bond.
11 He said the maximum amount would be $125 million, and this would put the County right up
12 against the 15 percent debt capacity policy.
13 He said if this was issued at $100 million, it would be $6.7 million dollars over 20 years at
14 current rates. He said this means 4.18 cents on the tax rate increase to fund that debt. He said
15 the bond rating agencies look to see that the County stays with its policies.
16 He said that if the capital plan is moved forward as-is things should be good. He said the
17 budget would have to increase, as stipulated, by 1.5 -2 percent each year to provide cover.
18 Commissioner Gordon asked about the rationale for having a bond referendum. She
19 asked if this is to get permission from the taxpayers to raise the tax rate.
20 Clarence Grier said this could be part of it. He said if there is a project that the public
21 may have issue with, this is put on a bond referendum for approval. He said if there is a project
22 that the Board is going to go ahead with, it would not be put on the bond referendum to risk
23 defeat.
24 He said there has been some flexibility provided over the past fiscal year. He said
25 limited obligation bonds, installment debt, and financing for elementary#11 were all issued.
26 He said the jail is already listed in the Cl P, and that would probably be the only
27 controversial project. He said jails, schools and courthouses are automatically approved for
28 financing, without approval from the general assembly.
29 Commissioner Gordon asked, if the jail and school are already on the Cl P, why this
30 needs to be put on a bond referendum. She said the Orange County schools don't need any
31 new schools, and Elementary School #8 is not scheduled until 2022. She said there are needs
32 in the older Orange County facilities that might be voted on.
33 She said she does not think the jail and the middle school should be put up for a vote.
34 Clarence Grier said the Orange County School Board has mentioned the need for
35 Elementary #8, and this is the only reason it is included. He said there have been recent
36 discussions of the older school facilities and those needs. He said priorities may change as the
37 discussion continues.
38 He said Chapel Hill has said that if some of the older schools' needs are met, it may push
39 back the need for Middle School #5.
40 He said these things can be evaluated and re-prioritized by the capital needs task force
41 in the future.
42 Clarence Grier wants the Board to understand that there is flexibility up to $125 million;
43 however, he would recommend only doing $100 million, as there is no way to know how stable
44 the economy will be.
45 Chair Jacobs said the public voted down the skills development center in 1997. He said
46 the Commissioners did it anyway, and this was very irritating. He said the Chapel Hill School
47 system already assured the Board that improvements would delay Middle School #5 by 2 years.
48 Clarence Grier clarified that there is now a possible increase to 4 years of delay.
11
1 Michael Talbert said, in answer Commissioner Gordon's question, the reason for doing a
2 bond is to get voter buy in on projects that the County wants to finance. He said the County
3 already has legal authority to do these projects.
4 Commissioner Price asked about the average time frame for voting on a bond and then
5 using the funding.
6 Clarence Grier said if the debt isn't issued in seven years, there is an option to apply for
7 a three year extension. He said there is a lot of red tape with this extension.
8 Michael Talbert said projects are typically staggered.
9 Commissioner Price asked if the money can be used early if needed.
10 Clarence Grier said it just has to be issued before it expires.
11 Chair Jacobs suggested the addition of emergency services to the input group this time.
12 He said groups should get together with financial staff to articulate a wish list that can then be
13 worked down to an affordable level.
14 He said there was a past discussion where the school board argued against having big
15 schools. He said the Board decided to have a core that can be expanded. He asked if
16 decisions can be made to add capacity to existing schools to delay the need for building other
17 schools. He said this question has to be answered by the school board.
18 Commissioner McKee said some of the figures he has heard from the wish list greatly
19 surpass $125 million. He feels this could make for a difficult discussion to determine priorities.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said if money is going to be put into the renovation of older
21 schools it should push out the construction on the next school.
22 He said there are two school districts in this County, which means there will always be
23 questions of equity. He said the annual expenditures are easy, but the big ticket items are
24 trickier. He said overly stringent adherence to SAPFO may not serve the interests of equity.
25 He said some things have to be done to keep peace in the district.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if it is necessary to adhere to the proposed time table. She
27 said there are a lot of factors to contend with.
28 Bond Attorney Bob Jessup said the procedure set out by law for a bond referendum
29 backs things up. He said the Board has to start taking formal action for the bond before the
30 summer break, in order to make it on the November ballot. He said the universe has to be set
31 in place by June.
32 Commissioner Price said she agrees that some of the schools should be expanded, but it
33 is not feasible in every case. She said the footprint of some of the schools just won't allow it.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said the schools can build up to a second level.
35 Commissioner Price said elementary schools often prefer one level.
36 Commissioner Pelissier pointed out the Northside has a 2nd level.
37 Commissioner Gordon said the issue of equity is tricky. She said one way to define
38 equity is by meeting needs, and SAPFO was devised as a way to define the needs. She said
39 building a school before it is needed equates to using another method of equity— spending
40 equal amounts of money per pupil independent of need.
41 She said that if a school is built before it is needed, there is empty space being heated
42 and cooled unnecessarily. She said there are so many needs for the older schools. She noted
43 that there were 20 years when there were no schools built in Orange County. She said there
44 are inequities when there are older and newer buildings, and she feels the money needs to be
45 spent to fix up the older schools. She said some of these are health and safety issues that
46 must be addressed.
47 Commissioner Gordon said there needs to be a meeting with the schools to determine
48 the primary needs. She suggested that the amount of money for the two school systems could
49 be balanced out in a bond referendum if the older schools were fixed up. She does not feel that
50 SAPFO should be abandoned.
12
1 Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's comments and said the school
2 systems could be informed of the Board's preference. He suggested that the school board
3 could be made aware that the Board would like to place the highest priority on capacity.
4 He said he did not hear Commissioner Dorosin say SAPFO should be abandoned. He
5 referred to the past decision with Gravelly Hill. He said his experience is that the school
6 systems do a good job of anticipating which facilities are needed next.
7 Commissioner Pelissier said she is interested in equity; however she thinks the most
8 difficult issue is the wish list and the amount of money. She thinks there will already be an
9 inherent motivation in both school systems to renovate older schools to increase capacity.
10 Commissioner McKee said he feels it is more important to get this right than to hit a
11 specific target date. He said there will be interest from many groups, and this decision needs to
12 be well vetted.
13 Chair Jacobs said the Board should find out how the committee was put together in 2001
14 and how long it took them to get a recommendation to the Commissioners.
15 Clarence Grier said this took about 18 months.
16 Chair Jacobs said this makes Commissioner McKee's point.
17 Clarence Grier said there will be a meeting on Thursday with LGC to discuss the future
18 bond referendum and the impact on the LGC buyoff.
19 Chair Jacobs said the October 15 agenda has an item about the preliminary debt
20 issuance of$10 million, which is what Clarence Grier is referring to.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if this committee is starting to meet.
22 Clarence Grier said the Board would have to go first, and then people would be chosen.
23 Chair Jacob said this is why the 18 month timeline is important. He said the schools
24 have finished an analysis of needs, and this just leaves Affordable Housing and Emergency
25 Services. He said the Board could choose to expedite things.
26 He noted the upcoming discussion about changing the Quarterly Public Hearings (QPH)
27 to a non-differentiated meeting date. He said there are QPH's scheduled in February and May.
28 He said these could be used to move the process forward so that a dollar amount is established
29 by June.
30 Commissioner Price asked if the Chair and Vice Chair have locked in a November 14th
31 date.
32 Chair Jacobs said no.
33
34 5. Orange County Strategic Information Technology Plan Update
35
36 IT Director Jim Northrup gave an update on the strategic plan and reviewed the following
37 PowerPoint slides:
38
39 Update — Orange County Strategic Information Technology Plan
40 Abstract
41 Website Redevelopment
42 Central Permitting
43 IT Staffing Levels
44 Mobile Applications
45 Social Media
46 Paperless Records Management
47 IT Project Prioritization and the Information Technologies Governance Council
48
49 Website Improvement and Content Management
50 Requirements document
13
1 Council of Webmasters
2 PAO Inclusion
3 Framework to achieve organizational goals
4 o Survey tools
5 o Social media tools
6
7 Central Permitting
8 Requirements Document
9 o Champion Identification
10 o Agency and departmental buy-in
11 Vendor Identification
12 o Purchasing process
13 Financing
14
15 IT Staffing Levels
16 We are almost at full staff
17 Working with HR on new hires
18 o Key dates
19 January 1
20 April
21 May 1
22
23 Information Technologies (flowchart)
24
25 Mobile Applications Social Media
26 Current Mobile Apps
27 IT developed mobile web page for Animal Services so that the public can search
28 for found/adoptable pets. http://orangecountync.gov/mobile/animalservices.htm March
29 2013.
30 Mobile WebTrac provides the public the ability to register for the Department of
31 Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) and Aging activities from
32 mobile devices. July 2013
33 Address Related Information-Electronic Search (Aries) was developed by GIS for
34 Android and iPhone. March 2013
35 Integrated Library System (ILS) is compatible with mobile devices. April 2013.
36
37 Pending Mobile Apps
38 The website redesign/content management system (CMS) will provide mobile
39 functionality for all county web pages. A public reporting tool will also be provided so
40 that the public can report various issues or problems throughout the county. Planning
41 for May 2014 implementation.
42
43 Potential Mobile Apps
44 Mobile RecTrac will provide DEAPR and Aging staff the ability to use some
45 RecTrac features from mobile devices. Cost is approximately $4300.
46
47
48 Mobile Applications Social Media
49
50 Online Services from July 2012-Sept. 2013
14
1 Chat in Tax
2 Library paver order form (fundraiser for Friends of the Library)
3 Coyote incident reporting form
4 Smoking violation reporting form
5 DEAPR volunteer form (with digital signatures)
6
7 Pending Online Services
8 Tax Relief Program form — October 2013
9 Housing Discrimination Complaint form — October 2013
10 Well permits online inquiry— October 2013
11
12 Potential Online Services
13 Interface restaurant health inspections with Yelp restaurant listing
14 Online permit submission for Planning/Inspections and Env. Health (with digital
15 signatures)
16 IT Project Prioritization and the Information Technologies Governance Council
17
18 T:\ITGC IT Governance Council\Project Ranking Forms April 2013\Project Prioritization
19 Template.xltx
20 T:\ITGC IT Governance Council\2014 Prom ects\!Master Project List Categorized 2013s.xlsx
21 Records Management
22
23 Looking Ahead
24 SOG Involvement
25 o QI versus CQI
26 Quality Improvement
27 Constant Quality Improvement
28 Communications Plan
29
30 Jim Northrup said the requirements document took into account past input given by the
31 Board. He said IT will eventually turn over the website to Public Affairs.
32 He said the budget for the website was $80,000 and it looks like this will only cost
33 $35,000 to $40,000.
34 He said Central Permitting was the second biggest priority of the Board. He said the
35 Requirements Document has been a big effort for several departments. He said this is really
36 an Enterprise project and a health department and planning department project.
37 He said the process of vendor identification has begun and the preferred vendor is the
38 same vendor who provides the permits plus software. He said the purchasing department
39 thought this would be able to be done as an upgrade, rather than an RFP.
40 Jim Northrup said the goal is to put this in the framework of a 5-year project.
41 Jim Northrup said IT is almost up to being at full staff again. He said a new operations
42 manager has been hired. He said he hopes to have full staff by November.
43 He provided a visual example of an online web application.
44 He said the addition of more business analysts will allow IT to provide more help to the
45 departments.
46 Commissioner Gordon suggested the use of"tax assistance" rather than "tax relief."
47 Jim Northrup said work is being done with the CDC to bring environmental health and
48 sanitation reviews into the Yelp restaurant listings.
15
1 He said the Information Technology prioritization and Technologies Governance Council
2 has been a priority. He said a system is being developed that ties into Board goals and the
3 budgeting process. He said this is an organizational prioritization system.
4 He said a records management project is about to begin, and this is mainly for existing
5 records that need to be cleared out and put into electronic format.
6 Jim Northrup said efforts are being made to improve IT communications.
7
8
9 INFORMATION ITEM — Notices for Upcoming Public Hearings
10 Michael Talbert reviewed the following notices of upcoming public hearings:
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING
13 Tuesday, October 15, 2013
14 SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
15 2501 Homestead Road
16 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
17 Notice of Public Hearing Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 158-7.1 (d) on the
18 issuance of economic development incentives to a private company—The Orange County
19 Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on the County's proposed conveyance of a
20 "performance-based" economic development incentive to a private company, as required by the
21 Local Government Act, North Carolina General Statute 158-7.1 (d). The County Board of
22 Commissioners intends, subject to public comment at the public hearing for which notice is
23 hereby given, to approve conveyance of the incentive agreement, with claw back provisions, for
24 the recruitment of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. to Orange County, N.C. The Inducement
25 Grant is for a period of 5 years, and shall not exceed $1,545,000 which is the inducement
26 amount based on a $48,000,000 investment by the Company. Funding for the incentive will
27 come from fund balances on hand, and projected ad valorum taxes paid by the Company. The
28 Company proposes to invest at least $34 million in a new production facility, and create at least
29 90 new jobs. The hearing will begin at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, October 15, 2013, and will be held
30 at Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill. Further information
31 can be obtained by contacting Donna Baker at (919) 245-2130. In compliance with the
32 Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary
33 communicative aids and services) during the hearing should notify Donna Baker at (919) 245-
34 2130 at least three days prior to the hearing that will be attended.
35
36 PUBLIC HEARING
37 Tuesday, October 15, 2013
38 SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
39 2501 Homestead Road,
40 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
41 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Hearing Notice —Orange County will
42 hold a public hearing to consider potential projects for which funding may be applied under the
43 CDBG Housing, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development programs. Suggestions
44 for potential projects will be solicited, both verbally and in writing, from all interested parties.
45 The expected amount of CDBG funds will be discussed along with the range of projects eligible
46 under these programs and a review of previously funded projects. The hearing will begin at 7:00
47 p.m. on October 15, 2013, and will be held at Southern Human Services Center, 2501
48 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. Further information can be obtained by contacting
49 Donna Baker at 919-245-2130. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
50 individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and
16
1 services) during the hearing should notify Donna Baker at 919-245-2130 at least three days
2 prior to the hearing that will be attended.
3
4 Michael Talbert said the Board will need to act to keep this moving forward.
5
6 Closed Session
7 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
8 go into closed session at 9:40pm for the purpose of:
9
10 Per NCGS § 143-318.11. (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public
11 body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body,
12 which privilege is hereby acknowledged.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
17 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
18 reconvene into regular session at 9:58 pm.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 ADJOURNMENT
23 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
24 adjourn the meeting at 9:59.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28
29 Barry Jacobs, Chair
30 David Hunt
31 Deputy Clerk to the Board
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 October 15, 2013
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 October 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
18 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24
25 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places:
26 - Lavender Sheet— Item 5a — Corrections to the Minutes from Chair Jacobs and
27 Commissioner Gordon
28 - Yellow Sheet— Item 51- Revised Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013,
29 to include a closed session
30 - Light Blue Sheet - Item 5j - Resolution Supporting an Application to the Local
31 Government
32 Commission for its Approval of a Financing Agreement for the County
33 - PowerPoint - Item 6a - Economic Development Incentive for Morinaga America Foods,
34 Inc. - White Sheet - Item 7a - Revised contract - Infrastructure Design and
35 Construction Administration Contract for Morinaga Site
36 - PowerPoint and Buff Handouts - Item 7c - information and revised resolution —
37 Resolutions to Endorse Orange County's Priority Transportation Projects for the
38 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Triangle
39 Area
40 Regional Planning Organization
41
42 PUBLIC CHARGE
43 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
44
45 2. Public Comments
46
47 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
48 Don O'Leary asked the Board to disassociate with ICLEI. He said the people behind
49 Agenda 21 have infiltrated the government. He said this is not a government shutdown. He
50 said it is political theater meant to create fear. He has sent the Board an email about the
2
1 banking system. He said the system is getting ready to collapse, and he encouraged the Board
2 to move their money to a safe location.
3
4 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
5 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
6 below.)
7
8 3. Petitions by Board Members
9 Commissioner Pelissier said she had asked earlier this year that the County Manager
10 and Solid Waste Director meet with the Zero Waste folks. She would like a written report to be
11 provided regarding the substance of this meeting.
12 Chair Jacobs noted that there is a report at the end of the agenda regarding the issues
13 at the Solid Waste Convenience Center (SWCC) at Walnut Grove. He said he would also like a
14 report from the meeting between the Solid Waste staff and the small waste haulers.
15 He asked for the addition of an agenda item for a future meeting with both of these
16 reports on it.
17 Chair Jacobs said the County used to put plaques in the lobbies of newly constructed
18 buildings. He said the plaques stated the year the building was built, the names of the seated
19 Board of County Commissioners, Managers, and the architects involved. He said, for the sake
20 of posterity, it would be a nice to re-instate this practice as way to memorialize those who were
21 involved.
22
23 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
24
25 5. Consent Agenda
26 e Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
27
28 e Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
30 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 a. Minutes
35 The Board approved the minutes, with corrections, from June 13, September 5 and September
36 12, 2013, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
37 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
38 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
39 property tax values for thirty-eight (38) taxpayers with a total of forty (40) bills that will result in a
40 reduction of revenue, in accordance with NCGS.
41 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
42 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
43 values for six (6) taxpayers with a total of twenty-one (21) bills that will result in a reduction of
44 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
45 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
46 The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
47 taxation for five (5) bills for the 2013 tax year.
48 e. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#2
49 The Board approved budget amendments for fiscal year 2013-14 for Department on Aging;
50 Department of the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR); Library Services;
3
1 Emergency Services; Sheriff Department; Housing, Human Rights and Community
2 Development.
3 f. Budget Amendment#2-A— Upper Neuse River Basin Association Funding
4 Request - Best Management Practices Credit Determination Project
5 The Board approved Budget Amendment#2-A to provide requested funds to the Upper Neuse
6 River Basin Association to complete a project to increase the number of Best Management
7 Practices available for affected parties to use in meeting nutrient reductions required by the
8 State.
9 g. Eno River Association Conservation Easements — Funding Assistance and
10 Approval of Budget Amendment #2-B
11 The Board approved making a contribution of$45,000 of County funds for the acquisition of
12 permanent conservation easements by the Eno River Association to protect significant natural
13 resource lands at Infinity Farm (Cedar Grove Township) and along Buckquarter Creek (Eno
14 Township); and to approve Budget Amendment#2-B.
15 h. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outlines
16 and Schedules for Two Upcoming Items
17 The Board approved process components and schedule for two upcoming government-initiated
18 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and Zoning
19 Atlas.
20 L Safe Routes to School Action Plan Update and Authorization of Next Steps
21 The Board considered an update on Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan pre-adoption
22 steps, and received authorization of next steps according to the Amendment form for the SRTS
23 Action Plan.
24 j. Preliminary Information and Approval to Finance Various Capital Investment Plan
25 Projects and County Equipment
26 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, moving forward with
27 financing for capital investment projects and equipment for the year.
28 k. Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2014
29 The Board approved the regular meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for
30 calendar year 2014.
31 I. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
32 The Board considered three changes to the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar
33 for 2013 as follows:
34 - Adding a joint meeting between BOCC and the City of Mebane for Thursday,
35 November 14, 2013 at 5:30pm at the West Campus Office building downstairs
36 meeting room, 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC,
37 - Adding a closed session on Monday, October 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm at the Solid Waste
38 Administrative offices, 1207 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC for the purpose of"to
39 consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of
40 appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or
41 employee or prospective public officer or employee," NCGS 143-318.11(a) (6).
42
43 6. Public Hearings
44
45 a. Economic Development Incentive for Morinaga America Foods, Inc.
46 The Board held a public hearing on the issuance of"performance-based" economic
47 development incentives to a private company, and considered approval of the incentive
48 agreement, with claw back provisions, for the recruitment of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. to
49 Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
50
4
1 Steve Brantley said he is proud to be at the next stage of this process. He introduced
2 Masao Hoshino, President of Morinaga America in California.
3 Masao Hoshino gave a brief review of the history of the company. He said the company
4 was established in Tokyo in 1899 and manufactures confectionary items, ice cream, pancake
5 mix and other products. He noted that one of the founders of the company visited the United
6 States in 1898 to sell pottery and was inspired by his taste of western confectionary items. He
7 said this was the starting point for the company. He said the construction of the facility in
8 Orange County is a landmark event in the company's history. He introduced the grandson of
9 the founder.
10 Masao Hoshino said the company decided to locate in Mebane because of the
11 remarkable business environment, access to transportation and raw materials, as well as
12 infrastructure. He noted there are no harmful materials or chemical pollution produced in the
13 process of making candy. He said the company looks forward to working with 90 or more
14 people at their plant in the near future.
15 Masao Hoshina said he sincerely hopes Morinaga will be accepted and recognized as a
16 contributor to the community for many years to come in Orange County.
17
18 Steve Brantley reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
19
20 Recruitment of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. to Orange County
21 October 15, 2013
22 Orange County Economic Development
23
24 Morinaga & Co., Ltd.
25 • Founded in Tokyo, Japan in 1899.
26 • U. S. subsidiary headquarters in Irvine, CA.
27 • World-class confectionary & candy maker;
28 $2 billion in annual global sales.
29 • Over 40 product lines.
30 • Ranks equal to Kellogg Company in worldwide sales.
31 • Asia's equivalent to a Hershey's, Mars or Nestle.
32 • #1 candy company in Japan.
33 • Japan is the world's 2nd largest
34 confectionery market.
35
36 Morinaga & Co., Ltd.
37 • Corporate philanthropy: "to be a company that improves the lives of children
38 worldwide."
39 • Partners with international NGOs in developing nations, places a special emphasis to
40 promote healthy nutrition, and donates funding for school facilities & educational
41 supplies in Africa.
42 • 1 St Japanese corporation to be affiliated with the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF); works
43 to prevent use of child labor in developing nations.
44
45 Main Product Lines
46 • Confectionaries (photos)
47 • Foodstuffs (photos)
48 • Frozen Desserts (photos)
49 • Healthcare (photos)
5
1 Weider Nutritional Supplements & Fitness (photos)
2
3 Hi-Chew (Logo graphic)
4
5 Hi-Chew
6 Morinaga distribution channels are international (graphic/map)
7
8 Hi-Chew
9 Bag & Stick Varieties (photo)
10 Hi-Chew
11 Over 140 Different Flavors (photo)
12
13 Timeline of Project Rainbow
14 • February 2012 - Project began for Orange County.
15 • Competition - Toronto, Portland OR, Philadelphia PA, Richmond VA, Atlanta GA, & 18
16 sites in 12 N.C. counties.
17 • 11 total visits to Orange County (including visits by Chairman Gota Morinaga &
18 President Toru Arai).
19 • Interstate visibility became a key site criterion during 3rd visit.
20 • 3 closed session meetings with the BOCC.
21 • March & July 2013 - Governor McCrory & Secretary Sharon Decker of the N.C.
22 Department of Commerce met Morinaga.
23 • January 2013 - Orange County &Atlanta became finalist sites.
24 • September 3, 2013 — Company announced it will establish Morinaga America Foods,
25 Inc. in Orange County, N.C.
26
27 Key Recruitment Partners
28 Orange County
29 ■ Board of County Commissioners
30 ■ Manager's Office
31 ■ Economic Development, Planning & Inspections
32 ■ Visitors Bureau, Public Affairs
33 City of Mebane
34 N. C. Department of Commerce
35 N. C. Department of Transportation
36 Durham Technical Community College
37 InSpec Group
38
39 Morinaga's Investment Plans
Investment: $34 - $48 million
Employment: 90 — 120 jobs
Avg. Annual Salary: $37,969
Annual Payroll: $3.4 million + Benefits
Facility Size: 98,000 sq. ft.
Type of Operation: Production of"Hi-Chew"
Site Size: 21 Acres (Buckhorn EDD)
40 The Company has not committed to making any additional investment at this time. However,
41 an expansion may eventually occur, since the site acreage is large enough to allow for the
42 facility to double.
6
1
2 Competitive Issues
3 Competitive Differences between the Finalist Sites:
4 The other finalist location near Atlanta offered numerous cost advantages to Morinaga,
5 such as a lower-priced site, reduced state and local taxes, access roads & utilities to the
6 site already in place, existing firms within an established business park, & a major
7 airport with direct flights to Tokyo.
8
9 Utility lines & road access improvements required to make Orange County's site
10 competitive & attract Morinaga will now make adjacent properties more developable,
11 attractive, competitive, and appealing to future business prospects considering Orange
12 County.
13
14 Steve Brantley referring to the timeline slide and noted that NCDOT traffic counts
15 estimate that the Mebane site has 92,000 cars passing by on a daily basis. He said this was a
16 motivating factor in the decision to switch from the original site.
17 He referred to the Investment Plans slide and said the potential $48 million investment
18 number would make Morinaga the third largest corporate tax payer in the County.
19
20 Craig Benedict reviewed the following portion of the PowerPoint presentation:
21
22 Site Location
23 Buckhorn Economic Development District:
24 • 21.0-acre site is under option by Morinaga.
25 • Near Ben Wilson Road & facing interstate 1-40/1-85; close to the Orange/Alamance
26 county line.
27 • Part of a larger tract of land rezoned by the BOCC in 2012 to Office/Institutional (0/1) to
28 promote business recruitment.
29 • Currently undeveloped with no infrastructure.
30 • Private landowner has applied to the City of Mebane to have the site rezoned and
31 annexed.
32
33 Site Photo
34 Planned Infrastructure to Site (photo)
35
36 Infrastructure Funding
37 Community Development Block Grant:
38 N.C. Department of Commerce has ruled the project as eligible to apply for a CDBG, allowing
39 reimbursement of up to 75%, or, $750,000 for the County's total site infrastructure improvement
40 costs. County has a 25% co-pay.
41
42 Grant criteria— at least 60% of total jobs created in the first 3 years must directly relate to
43 Orange County employees who are qualified as coming from low or moderate incomes (earning
44 no more than 80% of the County's median income of$37,950), prior to coming to work for the
45 company.
46
47 Orange County's "Article 46" '/4 Cent Sales Tax Proceeds:
48 Also available, if needed.
49
50 Utility Infrastructure
7
1 Orange County:
2 12" water line to site $375,000+
3 10" sewer line to site $200,000+
4 Service road extension $100,000+
5 (Design, engineering &permitting for Ben Wilson service road)
6 PSNC Energy:
7 4" natural gas line to the site, paid by PSNC Energy.
8 Duke Energy:
9 Deliver electrical power & install transformers at the site, paid by Duke Energy.
10
11 Access Road Extension
12 N. C. Department of Transportation:
13 • 2,500-ft road access construction. $500,000
14 (extension of the existing Ben Wilson service road parallel along the highway to
15 Morinaga's site).
16 • Paid 100% by the N. C. Department of Transportation.
17 • Design & construction time is approximately 12 months.
18 • Road improvement improves the likelihood that nearby Mattress Factory Road may one
19 day be upgraded to become a full interchange.
20
21 Craig Benedict, referring to the Access Road Extension slide, said the Department of
22 Transportation (DOT) will be building the road. He said Orange County staff will provide
23 environmental and design plans, and DOT will take it from there.
24 He said the majority of the infrastructure will be permitted in the spring of 2014 and will
25 be completed by the end of next year to meet the needs of Morinaga's planned opening in July
26 2015.
27
28 Michael Talbert presented the following portion of the PowerPoint presentation:
29
30 Orange County Incentive
31 Performance-Based Incentive is Calculated as Follows:
32 Inducement Grant is calculated at 75% of the estimated county taxable value of the
33 Company's investment, for up to 5 years.
34 $34 million investment = $218,790 annual grant
35 x 5 years = $1,093,950 total grant.
36 $48 million investment = $308,000 annual grant
37 x 5 years = $1,545,000 maximum total grant.
38 "Claw-back" provision is included in the Inducement Grant to require verification that the
39 Company reaches annual investment &jobs creation targets, before the County
40 incentive is paid.
41 Company will be required to provide health insurance for employees.
42
43 City of Mebane Incentive
44 City of Mebane:
45 Mebane City Council approved a "performance-based" local incentive package, calculated as
46 1.5 % of the Company's actual investment, following a public hearing on October 7, 2013.
47
48 $34 million investment @ 1.5 % _ $102,000 annual grant x 5 years = $510,000 total grant.
49
8
1 $48 million investment @ 1.5% _ $144,000 annual grant x 5 years = $720,000 maximum total
2 grant.
3
4 State of North Carolina Incentives
5 • "One North Carolina Fund" program
6 $264,000 performance-based 3-year grant.
7 • N. C. Department of Transportation
8 $500,000 to provide road access to the site.
9 • Durham Technical Community College
10 $150,000 earmarked for technical training of new employees (Hillsborough
11 Campus).
12 • Division of Employment Security
13 Pre-screening of job applicants to help identify Orange County residents who wish
14 to
15 gain employment with Morinaga.
16
17 Conclusion
18 Our Morinaga Success Story:
19 • Highlights Orange County's efforts to diversify our local economy, tax base &
20 employment opportunities.
21 • Creates more & better jobs, with technical training, health & related employment
22 benefits for our residents.
23 • Demonstrates how the BOCC's commitment to prepare the Economic Development
24 Zones with utilities, zoning, incentives & thoughtful use of the '/4 cent sales tax for
25 economic development, has proven to be a winning formula for the long term.
26 • Highlights the public's commitment to economic development through passage of the 1/4
27 cent sales tax for economic development in Nov. 2011.
28
29 Michael Talbert discussed the performance based incentive and said there will be no
30 money distributed upfront. He said this will be a reimbursement based on the investment of the
31 company. He said the commencement date of this agreement is December 2015, and the full
32 term of the agreement is 5 years. He said the minimum taxable value of$34 million must be
33 achieved by January 31 of 2018, and the 90 jobs must be achieved by this same date.
34 He said the County tax office will provide verification for the "clawback" provision.
35 Michael Talbert said the company has an average mean salary of$38,000. He reviewed
36 the successes of this process.
37 He reviewed next steps with the Board, to include a public hearing. He said the
38 Manager's recommendation is that the Board approve the performance based economic
39 development incentive and move forward with this project.
40
41 Chair Jacobs recognized Everette Greene from the Mebane City Council.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT:
44 D.R. Bryan, Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Board, said the board offers
45 their enthusiastic support for this project and asks that the Commissioners support and approve
46 the incentives package.
47 Dr. Bill Ingram, President of Durham Tech, said the school is very supportive of the
48 Board of County Commissioners and the Morinaga Company. He said they have worked with
49 multi-national firms from Durham County. He said Durham Tech's mission is to enrich students'
50 lives and the broader community, through teaching, learning and service.
9
1 He said this initiative has the opportunity to expand and diversify the economic base in
2 Orange County.
3
4 Chair Jacobs said, on behalf of the Board, that they are pleased to be creating this
5 partnership. He said the County has just started to embark on the course of offering incentives
6 to businesses that start or stay in Orange County. He said this has been an amicable
7 collaborative process.
8 He thanked Masao Hoshino and the Morinaga family. He thanked the Orange County
9 staff and said they have done an excellent job of shepherding this project through the state, the
10 County and Mebane. He thanked the voters of Orange County, who approved the '/4 cent sales
11 tax, for making an investment in the community. He said this investment would reap many
12 dividends in the County. He said one of these dividends was the ability to provide infrastructure
13 to the western part of Orange County and to bring in Morinaga.
14 Commissioner Gordon said the Board is pleased to have this partnership with Morinaga,
15 and she welcomed them to Orange County.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said, in the interest of transparency, he would like to be clear
17 about the incentives being considered. He said he is very supportive of this project.
18 He referred to the agreement - 6a1. He asked if the investment part of the commitment
19 is a % cent reduction in property tax for up to 5 years.
20 John Roberts said it is based on the property tax, so it will be approximately 75 percent
21 of whatever the final investment is.
22 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this is done on an annual basis, so the taxes can be
23 accounted for.
24 John Roberts said yes. He said a provision was added to the agreement, stating that it
25 will be examined annually. He said the initial intent was that there would be 5 equal annual
26 payments that were equal in amount; but now it will be based on annual valuation, with a
27 maximum amount of$1.5 million.
28 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this is not actually a payment from the County; but it
29 is a reduction in the amount of property taxes paid.
30 John Roberts said incentives cannot be tax rebates. He said incentive agreements that
31 provide for a payment based on tax valuation are authorized. He said this would be a payment
32 from the County to the company after the tax assessment.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said this means the County collects 100 percent of the taxes and
34 then pays according to the 75 percent formula.
35 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the employment incentive and noted that if the 90
36 position target is not met, there is a $450 penalty for each position not created. He asked how
37 this will be structured.
38 John Roberts said if employment numbers are not met, then the $450 would be
39 removed from the County's payment to the company.
40 Commissioner Price said she is delighted that Morinaga chose Orange County, and she
41 is looking forward to the many ways the company will enrich Orange County.
42 Commissioner Rich thanked Morinaga. She said it is exciting to know that the work put
43 into getting the '/4 cent sales tax passed is now turning into this. She said she is excited about
44 all of the partnerships being formed.
45 Commissioner Pelissier said thank you and echoed what Commissioner Rich said about
46 partnerships. She is glad that Morinaga had the courage to locate here in a place without
47 existing infrastructure. She said this means there will now be infrastructure, which will attract
48 more companies.
49 Commissioner McKee said this project is anchored at two points, in Japan and America.
50 He said this creates an opportunity to increase cooperation between countries and cultures. He
10
1 said his family moved to Orange County in the 1800's, and he knows there was a lot of support
2 needed in this move. He pledged his continued support for this project. He extended a warm
3 welcome to the Morinaga family.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
6 close the public hearing.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
11 1. Receive the proposal to consider the issuance of incentives to a private company for the
12 recruitment of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. to Orange County, and to consider approval of a
13 "performance-based" economic development incentive agreement with claw back provisions.
14 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public and BOCC comments.
15 3. Close the Public Hearing.
16 4. Approve the "Performance-Based" economic development incentive agreement between
17 Orange County and the Company, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and
18 authorize the Chair to sign the agreement on behalf of the County.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22
23 b. Orange County Community Development Block Grants
24 The Board received comments from the public regarding opportunities for Community
25 Development Block Grants (CDBG) Programs in Orange County in 2013.
26 Craig Benedict said, due to some funding at the state level, there is more of a focus on
27 jobs, economic development and infrastructure. He said there are CDBG grants available to
28 Orange County. He said the purpose of tonight is to open this up for the public. He said if
29 there are interested parties and non-profits, the County can look to see what funds may be
30 available.
31
32 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
33
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are already proposals from the Planning
35 Department or Housing, regarding CDBG projects in need of funding.
36 Craig Benedict said this is the generic public hearing to announce that monies are
37 available and to seek input as to where the funding can be used. He said the public hearing
38 can be left open for a couple of weeks.
39 He said the second stage will involve developing the application and then bringing it
40 back to the Board at a second public hearing to lay out the specifics of the projects and how the
41 money will be spent.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked for information on the parameters for these grants.
43 Craig Benedict said the state legislature narrowed the focus this year, so there is not as
44 much funding available for typical housing purposes. He said there are limitations based on the
45 classification of Orange County as a tier three county. He said monies are available for
46 infrastructure and job creation and training. He said he will be able to elaborate more by the
47 second public hearing.
48 Commissioner Rich asked who is able to request monies at the second public hearing.
49 She asked how the Board of County Commissioners can get involved in recommending
50 projects.
11
1 Craig Benedict said the typical cadence would be to identify five different pots of money.
2 He said non-profits would normally request monies at this hearing. He said monies are not
3 available as they have been in the past, but monies are available for infrastructure that will bring
4 jobs to low income residents. He said he would expect to see projects such as extending
5 water and sewer to companies that provide jobs to people who have not been making 80
6 percent of the median income.
7 Craig Benedict said the effects of the state legislature rules are far-reaching, and he will
8 provide the Board of County Commissioners with this information at a later date.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if any non-profits have contacted Craig Benedict's or Tara
10 Fikes' office yet.
11 Tara Fikes said she has received one inquiry from Habitat for Humanity.
12 Chair Jacobs said this is a two-step process. He said people will be encouraged to come
13 to the next hearing.
14 Craig Benedict said people have been notified directly, and there are public hearing ads.
15 He said people are scrambling to see how monies will be distributed.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said, in thinking about issues of poverty, the state has prioritized
17 tier one counties. He noted that the 40 lowest wealth counties are tier one, the second 40
18 counties are tier two, and the 20 wealthiest counties are tier three, which includes Orange
19 County. He said people who live in a low wealth community in a high tier county have a much
20 smaller pool of funds to address needs. He said this clearly places the burden on the Board of
21 County Commissioners to address the low wealth communities in Orange County.
22 Michael Talbert said there are going to be limited funds for Orange County, especially in
23 the housing arena, this year and next year. He said the next public hearing will be very specific
24 regarding the economic development grant. He said this is the first step in making that happen.
25 Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's comment and said this was one of the
26 hurdles in addressing concerns with the Rogers Road Neighborhood. He said the tier three
27 status prevented access to monies. He noted that the Board has now gone in a different, self
28 supported direction.
29
30 The Interim Manager recommends that the Board continue to receive comments from
31 the public as additional information.
32
33 7. Regular Agenda
34
35 a. Infrastructure Design and Construction Administration Contract for Morinaga
36 Site
37 The Board considered approving a contract with McGill & Associates for the design,
38 permitting and bid and construction administration of interstate frontage road, water and sewer
39 infrastructure to serve the proposed Morinaga manufacturing facility site and authorizing the
40 Chair to sign.
41 Craig Benedict noted the revised contract at the Commissioner's places, and he
42 thanked Commissioner Gordon for her helpful comments on this revision.
43 He said this is just for the design work. He said when this is completed next year this
44 will go out to bid. He said staff chose McGill because the firm provided help in the past with the
45 Efland sewer project and the North Buckhorn Sewer project, which were completed on time and
46 within budget.
47 He said the contract would be for the amount of$142,000, to included work outlined in
48 the abstract materials.
49 Commissioner Gordon asked if staff wanted to change the recommendation to include
50 the wording "subject to attorney review."
12
1 John Roberts said this wording should be included.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
4 approve and authorize the chair to sign a contract with McGill & Associates for the design,
5 permitting and bid and construction administration for $142,000 for interstate frontage road,
6 water and sewer infrastructure to serve the proposed Morinaga manufacturing facility site,
7 subject to attorney review.
8
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked Michael Talbert how many proposals were received in
10 response to the Request for Qualifications (RFQs).
11 Michael Talbert said staff interviewed the top six firms.
12 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the previous CDBG discussion. He asked if this
13 means other CDBG requests will be considered in addition to this one, or if the intent is that this
14 will be their CDBG request.
15 Craig Benedict said it is the intent that the money to be expended with this contract will
16 be part of the 25 percent share of the grant proposal. He said another part will be an estimate
17 of the construction cost for the water and sewer work. He said a letter has been signed with the
18 state, authorizing consultants to be hired and counted as a County match when applications are
19 submitted.
20 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the County will request a CDBG grant for $1 million
21 related to this project, and this grant proposal will include all the work in this item, as well as
22 $800,000 for infrastructure.
23 Craig Benedict said that is correct.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 b. SportsPlex Property Purchase and Sale Agreements and Approval of Budget
28 Amendment #2-C
29 The Board considered authorizing the Interim Manager and Chair to execute a Purchase
30 and Sale Agreement between the County and the sellers of property adjacent to the Orange
31 County SportsPlex; execute the necessary paperwork to close the transaction no later than 30
32 days after the agreements are fully executed, subject to final County Attorney approval; and
33 approve Budget Amendment#2-C in the amount of$382,000 to fund the transaction from the
34 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance.
35
36 Jeff Thompson reviewed information on the two properties, and he said this is county
37 property and could be used for parking.
38 The board was briefed on this project in closed session on September 17, 2013.
39 Jeff Thompson said both sites have vertical residential structures that may be of use in
40 the short term. He said the 1.36 acre parcel is priced at $182,000 and the 1.5 acre parcel is
41 priced at $200,000.
42 Commissioner Rich asked if recycling and reuse will be used when the existing buildings
43 on the property are not longer needed.
44 Jeff Thompson said yes. He said these properties could also potentially be moved and
45 re-sited for use as affordable housing.
46 Commissioner Gordon said she has some concerns about using unassigned fund
47 balance for these purchases. She is not in favor of using $382,000 in general fund balance to
48 fund this during this time of fiscal uncertainty.
13
1 Commissioner McKee said he would normally agree with Commissioner Gordon, but
2 with the success of the Sportsplex and the continuing need for expansion, he feels it is critical
3 to go ahead and make this purchase and have it on hand.
4 Commissioner Price echoed what Commissioner McKee said. She said she sees this
5 as an economic development project.
6 Jeff Thompson made the clarification that this is excess fund balance, not unassigned
7 fund balance.
8 Chair Jacobs said the Board wanted to recognize the fine job that John Stock and his
9 staff have done to make this facility such a success. He said the need for more room is a good
10 problem.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
13 • authorize the Interim Manager and Chair to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement
14 between the County and the Sellers of property adjacent to the Orange County
15 SportsPlex;
16 • execute the necessary paperwork to close the transaction no later than 30 days after the
17 agreements are fully executed, subject to final County Attorney approval; and
18 • approve Budget Amendment#2-C in the amount of$382,000 to fund the transaction
19 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance
20
21 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
22
23 c. Resolutions to Endorse Orange County's Priority Transportation Projects for
24 the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the
25 Triangle Area Regional Planning Organization
26
27 The Board considered two (2) resolutions (Attachments 2 and 5) endorsing two (2)
28 priority lists of transportation projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
29 Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and the Triangle Area Regional Planning Organization
30 (TARPO) planning areas for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2022 Statewide
31 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
32 Transportation Planner Bret Martin said this item originally came to the Board as a full
33 list with all modes of transportation. He said information is still being released that affects these
34 projects. He said there was a preliminary list created; however, now that there are hard
35 deadlines in place, the bike, pedestrian and highway projects can be slowed as more
36 information comes out that might affect the ranking and order of the list.
37 He said the transit projects do have a deadline of today with the DCHC MPO, but it can
38 be turned in tomorrow.
39 He said there have been many changes to the state funding structure, and project
40 selection criteria. He will review how this affects Orange County projects and the priority of the
41 items.
42 He noted that the Board already approved the priority projects for the BGMPO, and
43 those projects have been submitted.
44 He reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
45
46 BOCC ITEM 7C
47 Orange County Transportation Project Priorities
48 OCTOBER 15, 2013
49
50 Quick Background
14
1 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) developed every 2 years.
2 MPOs/RPOs currently working with local governments to prioritize projects for 2016-
3 2022 STIP.
4 STIP contains funding/scheduling information for projects conceived from
5 locally/regionally adopted transportation plans.
6 Projects last prioritized and submitted from Orange County in 2011.
7 Local government priority lists serve dual role: official project submission list and guide
8 for assigning local input points.
9 Changes to State funding and project selection policies and criteria affecting Orange
10 County project priorities.
11
12 Identified Issues with State's Previous Funding Structure
13 Fragmentation of funding among regions 4 discontinuity and fragmentation of projects.
14 Difficult to implement projects of statewide significance when money is not required to
15 be spent on those projects.
16 Not a need-based distribution of funding.
17 North Carolina ranks 47/50 among all states for revenue per lane mile of responsibility,
18 requiring more efficient need-based approach.
19
20 How the Strategic Mobility Formula will work (graphic)
21 Regions and divisions (map)
22 Previous Scoring Methodology- Highway Mobility (table)
23 Previous Scoring Methodology- Highway Modernization (table)
24 New Scoring Methodology- Highway (table)
25 Previous/New Scoring Methodology- Bike/Pedestrian (table)
26 However, Regions and Divisions Can Devise Their Own Scoring Criteria (table)
27
28 Highway Project Implications For Orange County
29 Less local input influence.
30 More emphasis on congestion and benefit/cost favors added capacity projects on higher
31 volume thoroughfares.
32 Low-cost highway projects with profound travel time and congestion relief benefits will
33 score well.
34 Highway projects not adding capacity will not score well.
35 Projects of statewide or regional significance (I-40, I-85, NC 86, NC 54) will be eligible
36 for more money than projects of local significance (South Churton Street, Orange Grove
37 Road extension, etc.) and will not have to rely as much on the power of local input points
38 to get them funded.
39
40 Bike/Pedestrian Project Implications for Orange County
41 Require 20% local match and must be locally administered.
42 Right-of-way will not be an included cost to NCDOT.
43 No highway modernization projects means bike projects previously submitted as
44 highway projects (>$1,000,000) will not score well with new formula and will have to be
45 submitted as bike/pedestrian projects to receive funding.
46 More emphasis on safety, utilitarian demand, access and connectivity for
47 bike/pedestrian projects 4 Favors more urban contexts.
48
49 Staff's Approach/Strategy for Ranking/Prioritizing Projects
15
1 • Projects on staff-suggested priority list ranked to optimize scoring output and funding
2 probability, but list was also sensitive to local desires for those projects that are only
3 eligible for the Division funding tier.
4 • Staff carried forward projects submitted in last iteration of project prioritization as
5 starting point for considering projects in this iteration.
6 • Staff used the following strategy to rank suggested projects:
7 ➢ 1 st - Added capacity/mobility projects of local significance;
8 ➢ 2nd- Added capacity/mobility projects of statewide/regional significance;
9 ➢ 3rd - Transit/rail projects;
10 ➢ 4th — Bike/ped projects of local significance that require a 20% local match and
11 for projects to be locally administered.
12
13 Optimize Final Scores to Get Projects Funded While Also Addressing County's Most
14 Profound Transportation Needs
15
16 Recommended Board Approach Moving Forward:
17 Action to take tonight:
18 Consider and endorse transit priority list by approving the resolution for transit-specific projects
19 for both TARPO and DCHS MPO (Refer to handouts).
20 Action for November 19th:
21 Consider and endorse TARPO and DCHC MPO priority lists by approving resolution for all
22 projects (including highway, bike/ped, transit).
23
24 Brett Martin said the local MPO has a set number of input points that can be assigned to
25 projects on their list.
26 Bret Martin referred to the slides on how the Strategic Mobility Formula will work. He
27 said three tiers have now been established, and all of the money for transportation projects in
28 NC is divided into these three tiers over a ten year period (2016-2025).
29 He said the first tier is statewide mobility, which addresses projects of statewide
30 significance; and 40 percent of the money ($6 billion) would go to this tier. He said these
31 projects will not be selected based on any local input. He said these projects will be based 100
32 percent on quantitative data.
33 Bret Martin said the only potential projects in Orange County that fall under this category
34 are 1-85, 1-40, and US 15-501.
35 He said the second tier is the regional tier, which receives 30 percent of the funds ($4.5
36 billion). He noted that the selection of these projects is based 70 percent on quantitative data,
37 using the state's scoring process. The other 30 percent is based on local input. He said
38 everything eligible at the statewide tier is also available at the regional tier, as there is a
39 cascading effect of projects down through the tiers. This means that Interstate 85, Interstate
40 40, and US 15-501 are eligible, along with the other US and NC routes.
41 The last tier is for division needs, and it also receives 30 percent of the funds ($4.5
42 billion). He said this tier is based 50 percent on quantitative data and 50 percent on local input.
43 This tier can include any of the projects from the previous tiers, as well as any other secondary
44 highways or road routes.
45 Brett Martin reviewed the regions and divisions on the map. He said Orange County is
46 matched up with the Triad, and this is who the County is competing with at the regional level.
47 He reviewed the Scoring Methodology charts from the PowerPoint, with a focus on the
48 changes. He noted the increased emphasis on quantitative data. He said there were
49 previously a highway mobility category and a highway modernization category, both with
50 different scoring factors. He said the modernization projects would favor rural areas, and the
16
1 mobility projects favored the urban areas. He said the new scoring method takes away the
2 modernization category, so the projects that favored rural projects no longer exist.
3 He said this is a big deal because Orange County had previously submitted several
4 projects classified as modernization projects. These are no longer lucrative projects for
5 submission.
6 Brett Martin said an opportunity was provided for divisions and regions to get together
7 and come up with their own scoring criteria at the regional/divisional level. He said some
8 divisions were able to do this, and lane and shoulder width were included in their scoring
9 factors; therefore the rural projects in those regions have a better chance to be funded. He
10 said division 7 was not able to mobilize fast enough to make this change, but it is an option two
11 years from now in the next phase of development.
12 Brett Martin said all of the modes of transportation will be competing against one
13 another, as there is no separate pot of money for each mode. However the state has set a
14 minimum amount of 4 percent of funding that must go to non-highway modes, with a maximum
15 allowable amount of 10 percent.
16 He noted the list of projects outlined in the materials at the Commissioner's places, and
17 he invited questions from the Board.
18 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to consider the cascade effect and the fact
19 that this only runs one way. She said the local input only takes effect at the regional and
20 divisional level, and it has a low level of points. She said another important factor is the
21 limitation in monies. She referred to a letter, sent out today from DCHC MPO, that expresses
22 concern about the normalization process. She noted that the 4 -10 percent amount for non-
23 highway means a minimum of 90 percent for highway.
24 She said that for highway project submissions, there is a need to consider the relative
25 importance to Orange County. She did ask transportation planner Andy Henry about this, and it
26 was his opinion that the Board did not need to submit Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 since they
27 are already on the list. She said those projects will be 100 percent data driven at the state
28 level. She said the Board will need to think about whether some of the local projects are more
29 important than the regional projects. She said the Board needs to think about how many points
30 should be put on projects that are extremely data driven.
31 She said the transit projects can have an unlimited number of submissions, so this is
32 where the cascade effect is not as important tonight; however it will be very important on
33 November 19tH
34 She suggested the submission of separate lists for bike/pedestrian and highway on
35 November 19tH
36 Bret Martin said the County can submit different projects in different modes, but the
37 projects will still all be scored as one item. He said the list that will be coming to the Board on
38 November 19th will act as a guide for the TAC members to look at where to assign points.
39 Chair Jacobs asked if the Burlington MPO will be dealt with separately.
40 Brett Martin said this was done last month.
41 Chair Jacobs said staff discussed some adjustments, and somehow the number one
42 priority, which was is the TARPO projects, got lost in the shuffle. He was wondering how to get
43 this back in.
44 Brett Martin asked if this is about the Buckhorn Road widening. He said this is now in
45 the Burlington/Graham MPO planning area and can no longer be submitted. He said the
46 projects that came to the BGMPO TCC were an abbreviated list of projects made by their staff.
47 He said the Board did submit that project, but he is unsure what decision making process
48 occurred at the MPO level to prevent it from being included in the recommendations.
49 Chair Jacobs said there was an exchange of emails regarding substitution of projects.
17
1 Craig Benedict said he believes the email discussion today will put the Buckhorn project
2 in the Burlington/Graham priority list.
3 Chair Jacobs said this is important because it is in the middle of the Economic
4 Development District, and it is a bottleneck, especially as long as the flea market is there. He
5 noted that residents do not like the traffic immobility on weekends, and it would also be a more
6 attractive economic development area if people could drive through easily.
7 Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons the interstate funding has not gone forward is
8 because it has not been a priority in the past. He said the reason Interstate 40 stopped at the
9 Orange County line is because Orange County sued to block that route in the 1980's. He said it
10 has not been funded for the past 25 years, and he does not think this is a coincidence or a
11 function of district lines. He said it is more a function of the way the DOT used to operate, but
12 hopefully this is no longer the case.
13 Chair Jacobs suggested that staff use the front and back of pages to create larger
14 PowerPoint materials that the Board can more easily read the material.
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the substitute handout for 7C. He asked if this is to
16 replace 7C 3 in the original packet.
17 Brett Martin said the handout will supplant what was previously received. He said this
18 list is the only action item for tonight. He said the original list had all modes, but this list is
19 narrowed to the action item. He said a comprehensive list with all modes will come back to the
20 Board on the 19tH
21 Commissioner McKee said he gets a feeling that no matter how the Board prioritizes or
22 ranks items, it will have little impact. He is not opposed to doing it, but he does question the
23 effectiveness.
24 Commissioner Gordon asked if Brett Martin had more to say on the transit projects.
25 Brett Martin said he wanted to make the strong point that a lot of the projects being
26 indicated would require a local match. He said the approval of the list tonight does not commit
27 the County to a local match.
28 Commissioner Gordon said there are two projects on the list for DCHC MPO —the
29 Hillsborough Train Station and the Buckhorn EDD. She noted that those projects were on the
30 original list, and now others have been added for a total of six. She said the Buckhorn EDD
31 was submitted to the Burlington/Graham MPO, and it is in that MPO.
32 Brett Martin said most of it is, but not all of it.
33 Commissioner Gordon said it appears to be on the border.
34 Brett Martin said there is a small area of this EDD in the DCHC planning area. He said
35 the intent of that project is to have it in the Mebane area.
36 Commissioner Gordon noted that there were previously two lists, one for TARPO and
37 one for DCHC, and she thought this was a good idea. She is not sure about the wisdom of
38 submitting one list to both organizations.
39 She believes what is being asked for is a resolution endorsing transit projects for the
40 TARPO regional priority list and the DCHC MPO regional priority list. She said these priority
41 lists will eventually go into the transportation improvement program. She asked if this is correct.
42 Brett Martin asked if this is about the title of the resolution.
43 Commissioner Gordon said this is in the title and the body. She read from the document.
44 Brett Martin said the MPO's regional priority list is the MPO'S TIP.
45 Commissioner Gordon said this is not stated in the materials. She asked if STIP
46 projects can be submitted later.
47 Brett Martin said the naming does not affect the action. He said anything that rolls up to
48 the STIP must first be on the TIP at the MPO level. He said the Board is not approving projects
49 to be included in a regional priority list. He said the goal is to be considered for inclusion in the
50 TIP, in order to roll up to the STIR
18
1 Commissioner Gordon asked if he would double check how this is supposed to be done.
2 She feels this should be submitted in two different lists. She said she has questions about
3 which MPO or RPO it should go to.
4 Brett Martin said the Northern Human Services project would be in the TARPO planning
5 area.
6 Commissioner Gordon suggested the projects be split here. She said it is clear that
7 items 4 and 5 are in DCHC. She noted that Buckhorn falls into both planning areas.
8 Brett Martin clarified that Buckhorn Road is not the border of the planning area. He said
9 the planning area extends to the east of Buckhorn Road.
10 Commissioner Gordon asked if this item was submitted to the Burlington/Graham MPO,
11 and if it will be submitted to DCHC.
12 Brett Martin said yes, but this is only because the EDD crosses a little over the
13 boundary.
14 Commissioner Gordon said her point is that it should be two separate lists - one to
15 TARPO and one to DCHC. She said something should be said about a regional priority list.
16 She asked which format will be submitted.
17 Brett Martin said the list with the finer details will be submitted.
18 Chair Jacobs asked if this information was in the packet before the meeting.
19 Brett Martin said these are the items that were emailed out and placed at the
20 Commissioner's places.
21 Commissioner Gordon noted that the original list received by the Board only had two
22 transit projects; those items are now items 5 and 6 on the new list, and 4 other items have been
23 added.
24 Bret Martin said two lists will be submitted, one to TARPO and one to DCHC MPO. He
25 said the fact that all the projects are on the list does not mean they will be submitted. He said
26 the expansion vehicles make it difficult to know how many need to be submitted to one versus
27 the other. He said these details have not been worked out by Triangle Transit and Orange
28 County staff. He said it is also not known if the Northern Human Services Center will be an
29 implementation objective in that program. He said a lot of these projects are not official
30 submissions, but are Triangle Transit or Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation
31 projects. He said the reason these are added for Board endorsement is so the Board can
32 express support and assign local input points to them.
33 Commissioner Price said it doesn't make any difference what lists you use at this point,
34 due to the state's new prioritization plan.
35 Commissioner Price asked if Hillsborough had seen this proposed listing and resolution.
36 She noted that some of the changes affect Hillsborough.
37 Brett Martin said he did talk with Hillsborough. He said the planning director thought
38 that the Town would not submit any projects, but she expressed support for the Orange County
39 submissions.
40 Commissioner Price asked about Cornelius Street.
41 Brett Martin said this was not mentioned.
42 Commissioner Price said TARPO was meeting this week, so there may be more
43 developments.
44 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the resolutions should read, "A resolution
45 endorsing transit projects for TARPO Regional Priority List, the DCHCO Regional Priority List,
46 and the Transportation Improvement Programs." She said this covers all bases. She said any
47 reference to DCHC should say, "the DCHC MPO Regional Priority list and the 2016-2022
48 STIP."
49 REVISED RESOLUTION
50
19
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2
3 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY TRANSIT PROJECTS FOR
4 THE TRIANGLE AREA RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TARPO) AND DURHAM-
5 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (DCHC MPO)
6 REGIONAL PRIORITY LISTS FOR THE 2016 —2022 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION
7 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
8
9 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), every two years, prepares a
10 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that identifies transportation projects to
11 be implemented over the next seven years with State and Federal funding; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the North Carolina BOT solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local
14 and regional importance to be included in the FY 2016-2022 STIP; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the TARPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) is charged with the
17 development of a regional priority list and the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee
18 is charged with the development of a regional priority list and Metropolitan Transportation
19 Improvement Program (MTIP); and
20
21 WHEREAS, Orange County is a member jurisdiction of the TARPO and the DCHC MPO; and
22
23 WHEREAS, Orange County and other member jurisdictions have been asked by the DCHC
24 MPO to submit a list of priority transit projects by October 15, 2013; and
25
26 WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
27 bridges, to transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects
28 that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those
29 projects that foster economic development in the County's designated Economic Development
30 Districts; and
31
32 WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of
33 Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate
34 bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in
35 reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and
36
37 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges
38 with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian
39 passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; and
40
41 WHEREAS, Orange County has outlined its transit-specific transportation needs within the
42 TARPO and DCHC MPO planning areas in an attachment to this resolution;
43
44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
45 the Board endorses the following prioritized list of transit-specific transportation projects to be
46 considered for the FY 2016-2022 TARPO regional priority list and DCHC MPO regional priority
47 list and MTIP.
48
49 1 Orange Public Transportation Expansion Vehicles: Request/purchase up to six (6), 25-
50 foot, 18-passenger cutaway bus vehicles to accommodate bus service expansion as
20
1 recommended in the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) and the
2 Five-Year Orange County Bus Service Expansion Program currently under
3 development.
4
5 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to both TARPO and DCHC MPO
6 (depending on the proposed location of vehicle use) for consideration of inclusion in the
7 TARPO regional priority list, the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP, and the
8 2016-2022 STIP.
9
10 2 Park-and-Ride Improvements at Orange County Northern Human Services Center
11 (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride improvements at the Orange County Northern
12 Human Services Center for potential fixed-route service to Hillsborough.
13
14 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to TARPO for consideration of
15 inclusion in the TARPO regional priority list and the 2016-2022 STIP.
16
17 3 Park-and-Ride Improvements in Efland (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride
18 improvements in the Efland area for cross-county, fixed-route service between Mebane
19 and Durham.
20
21 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to the DCHC MPO for
22 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP and in the
23 2016-2022 STIP. The project's official submission may be made by Triangle Transit or
24 Orange Public Transportation.
25
26 4 Park-and-Ride Improvements in Hillsborough (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride
27 improvements in Hillsborough for cross-county, fixed-route service between Mebane
28 and Durham.
29
30 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to the DCHC MPO for
31 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP and in the
32 2016-2022 STIP. The project's official submission must be made by Triangle Transit.
33
34 5 Hillsborough Train Station: Construct a train station in Hillsborough and implement
35 AMTRAK
36 service.
37
38 This project will be submitted as a new transit/rail project to the DCHC MPO for
39 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP and in the
40 2016-2022 STIP. The project's official submission must be made by Triangle Transit.
41
42 6 Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD) Park-and-Ride: Make park-and-ride
43 improvements or construct a park-and-ride facility to be located in the I-85/Buckhorn
44 Road Economic Development District (EDD) to collect ridership in eastern Alamance
45 and western Orange Counties.
46
47 This project will be submitted as a new transit project for consideration of inclusion in the
48 DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP and in the 2016-2022 STIP. The project's
49 official submission must be made by either Triangle Transit or the Piedmont Authority
50 for Regional Transportation (PART).
21
1
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
4 approve the above resolution, modified to include "Regional Priority List" before Transportation
5 Improvement Program every place it appears for the DCHC MPO.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 8. Reports NONE
10
11 9. County Manager's Report
12
13 Michael Talbert gave an update of the effects of the government shutdown on the
14 County. He said the issues for the County revolve around social services and the health
15 department. He noted that WIC funds have been reinstated until end of the month. He said the
16 County is starting to hit roadblocks at the Department of Social Services (DSS) due to the
17 shutdown. He said the County has been ordered in some cases not to provide services at DSS.
18 He said there has been immediate action by DSS to reduce services provided to the adolescent
19 parenting program. He said this puts kids at risk, and he thinks the government will come
20 through and fund these programs, so it is important to keep them running.
21 He said there will be no cash payments for Work First after November 1 st. He said no
22 new clients can be signed up for this program at this time.
23 Nancy Coston said the state has ordered a stop work on the Work First employment
24 program. She said the child care program may also be cut soon. She said child care has only
25 been suspended for 42 children of people in the Work Force activities. This has been done
26 with the understanding that child care will be re-instated as soon as the program comes back.
27 She said there was a stop work order for the Adolescent Parenting Program, and this is
28 being examined. She said there are 44 parenting teens in the two school systems, and the goal
29 is to insure that these teens finish school, delay pregnancy and become good parents. She
30 said the purpose of tonight is just to inform the Board of the risks being taken.
31 Chair Jacobs said the Board appropriated monies for the social justice safety net fund.
32 He said the Board has made a commitment to keep programs going for those that most need
33 help.
34 He requested a status report at the next meeting in order to make some priority
35 decisions.
36 Michael Talbert said this budget was $250,000, and those funds are available if needed.
37 Chair Jacobs said there was an item in the budget amendment about maintaining
38 section 8 housing. He recommended a press release about the things that are happening to
39 people in Orange County. He said attention needs to be given to what is going on.
40
41 10. County Attorney's Report NONE
42
43 11. Appointments
44
45 a. Affordable Housing Advisory Board —Appointment
46 The Board considered making an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory
47 Board.
48
22
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
2 appoint Ms. Sally Jaffer to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board in position # 1 with a term
3 ending 9/30/2016.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, second by Commissioner Price to
8 appoint:
9 • Ms. Tammi Jacobs to position #6 with a term ending 6/30/2015
10 • Ms. Britney Walden to position #9 with a term ending 6/30/2015.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 b. Orange Dog Poets Society—Appointment
15 The Board considered making an appointment of a Commissioner as a representative to
16 the Orange Dog Poets Society's Poet Laureate selection committee.
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
19 appoint Commissioner Dorosin as a representative to the Orange Dog Poets Society's Poet
20 Laureate selection committee.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 c. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointments
25 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange Unified Transportation
26 Board.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
29 appoint to the Orange Unified Transportation Board:
30
31 • Mr. Donald Wollum to the Eno Township position with a term ending 9/30/2016.
32 • Mr. Brantley Wells to the Hillsborough Township position with a term ending 9/30/2016.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 12. Board Comments
37
38 Commissioner Rich said Project Connect took place last week, and 300 people
39 attended. She said each of these people got about 10 services.
40 Commissioner Price — no comments
41 Commissioner McKee said if the Board of County Commissioners acted like the federal
42 government the Board would be run out of town. He said if the federal government doesn't get
43 this straightened out, the citizens should replace them all in the next election.
44 Commissioner Gordon said she and many of the Commissioners attended the
45 installation of the Chancellor at UNC.
46 Commissioner Gordon said the DCHC MPO meeting was held on October 9th. She said
47 there was discussion of the Memorandum of Understanding, taking into account the comments
48 received from Orange County and others. She said this has been released for approval and
49 should come back to the Board in the near future. She said time was spent on the prioritization
23
1 of bicycle projects, and a schedule was received. She said this will come back on November
2 19th.
3 She said the DCHC MPO always expresses concern about how this process is moving
4 forward. She referenced a letter being sent to the Board of Transportation to highlight two
5 issues. She said the issues are: 1) How many input points the MPOs and RPOs are given to
6 allocate, and 2) the so called normalization of monies for highway and non-highway.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said today he was representing clients in the latest hearing
8 regarding the future viability of the NC Pre-K program. He said a compelling argument was
9 made in favor of the program, but the state continues to argue their authority to narrow this
10 program. He said the decision will be in a couple of months, and he is cautiously optimistic.
11 He said he has been working with Commissioner Price on the County Fair exploratory
12 committee. He said there will be a meeting on October 30th at 7pm at the Solid Waste
13 Administrative Office to receive public input and gauge interest. This will be presented to the
14 Board at the work session on the 12th of November.
15 Commissioner Pelissier recognized school board members who volunteered at Project
16 Connect. She also said she had talked to an attendee who lived at a mobile home park that is
17 closing. She noted that housing was a major concern. She said there needs to be a discussion
18 about mobile home parks.
19 She said Triangle Transit Authority released their annual performance report, and
20 ridership was up 11 percent overall. She said will be attending a Triangle Transit conference in
21 Seattle this weekend and she hopes to learn a lot of things. She said she is happy to copy the
22 Board on her report.
23 She said TTA had a petition from the Town of Carrboro at Triangle Transit to use the 1/4
24 cent sales tax to build sidewalks, especially for access to the transit stops. She said this will
25 require further discussion.
26 Commissioner Pelissier said she went to her first meeting of the Orange County
27 Juvenile Crime Prevention Council. She said other counties have an annual report about the
28 work of the council. She said there was informal discussion of creating a report in Orange
29 County.
30 Commissioner Price said she attended the NCACC conference today on the Affordable
31 Care Act. She invited the Commissioners to look at the information on the website. She noted
32 the next meeting scheduled for October 28th in Burlington.
33 Chair Jacobs said he and Commissioner Pelissier met with their recently appointed
34 representative to the Chapel Hill Library Board of Trustees, Mr. Stroud. He said efforts were
35 made to get him up to date on the County's areas of concern. He said it reminded him of the
36 need to put together a group to plan the upcoming retreat and to gather reports from
37 representatives of Orange County that serve on other governmental boards.
38 He referred to the discussion of 4 to10 percent funding for non-highway projects. He
39 said this means the number will be 4 percent. He said this fits into the discussion of bus rapid
40 transit in Wake County. He said, without significant state funding in the foreseeable future for
41 light rail, there will be some interesting discussions at Triangle Transit. He said this will likely
42 filter back to the Board regarding the future of public transportation planning.
43
44 13. Information Items
45 e October 1, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
46 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
47 e Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
48 e Walnut Grove Church Road Convenience Center Update
49
50 14. Closed Session -NONE
24
1
2 15. Adjournment
3 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
4 adjourn the meeting at 9:37 pm.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8
9 Barry Jacobs, Chair
10
11 Donna S. Baker, CMC
12 Clerk to the Board
13
1
I Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 5, 2013
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 November 5, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
18 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24
25 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places:
26
27 - Lavender Sheet - Petition from Commissioner Rich
28 - White Sheets - Petitions from the public regarding tenant's rights
29 - Item 4b. —Map for Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designations for
30 Multiple Farms — Dunn, Neville, Compton, Shambley, Durham, Johnson, and
31 Thompson
32 - Yellow Sheet - Revision to 5a - Minutes (September 9th)
33 - Pink Sheet— related to legal notice for item 5-f- Legal Advertisement for Quarterly
34 Public Hearing — November 25, 2013
35
36 PUBLIC CHARGE
37
38 Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
39
40 2. Public Comments
41 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
42
43 Tish Galu and Delores Bailey, co-chairs of Justice United's Affordable Housing Action
44 Team, shared in the reading of the following statement:
45
46 We are here tonight with a petition to have you endorse the Declaration of Tenants' Rights and
47 Responsibilities as a housing guide.
48
49 In developing this document, the Justice United Affordable Housing Team partnered with the
50 UNC Civil Legal Assistance Clinic, whose students assisted our research and provided the state
2
1 statutes behind each section; and representatives from the Orange County Human Relations
2 Commission as well as a number of tenants — some who began this project, some who were
3 part of the bi-lingual fair housing workshops, and some who were tenants directed to us from
4 other tenants and government agencies.
5
6 This work began because of tenants — it was edited because of tenant input and it is before you
7 tonight because tenants all over Orange County need to know that they have the right to safe,
8 decent housing.
9
10 The tenants we met from around the county and at the workshops - they now have a voice in
11 how they will be treated and a document that is a clear and concise explanation of tenants'
12 rights. They have a resource list which directs them to people who can help enforce these
13 rights.
14
15 But it does so much more—this validates the voice of these tenants and has empowered them
16 to protect their right to live in safe, decent housing.
17
18 We are here tonight to ask that you continue to support ALL the tenants in our county by
19 endorsing this Declaration and providing a means to distribute it and determine some measure
20 of accountability for landlords not following the guide and those that are complying with the
21 guide.
22
23 We believe that all tenants should have the same information these tenants now have to protect
24 themselves and their families. We look forward to the opportunity to have you all hear the
25 stories of the tenants. You can help us do that. Thank you.
26
27 Joe Polich, Human Resources Commission (HRC) member, thanked Tish Galu and
28 Delores Bailey on behalf of the HRC. He said HRC agreed at their last meeting to recommend
29 that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this resolution.
30
31 Bob Ireland, HRC member, said he has been on the HRC for two years, and this is the
32 most important piece of work that the group has done. He said if this does nothing else, it
33 clarifies what the law is and where it can be found.
34
35 Marshall Morris said, on behalf of an old navy veteran, thanks for the upcoming
36 proclamation. He also introduced Sharron Hinton from the Department of Social Services
37 (DSS).
38 Sharron Hinton introduced the new Veterans Services Officer, Betsy Corbett.
39 Betsy Corbett said she is happy to be in this position. She noted that she works out of
40 DSS, but she is also working out of both senior centers. She invited the Board to attend a
41 Veteran's breakfast.
42
43 Don O'Leary said he received an email regarding the handling of Obamacare. He
44 volunteered to help out with this. He said he would like to instruct the public on how to tell the
45 federal government what to do with Obamacare. He said there are many issues to nullify in
46 North Carolina, such as ICLEI.
47 He said the 2013 Army manual prohibits donations to evangelist Christian organizations.
48 He said he is a Christian, and as of yesterday he became an ordained minister.
49 He said ICLEI is leading the nation deeper into this hole and it is time to tell them no.
50
3
1 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
2
3 3. Petitions by Board Members
4
5 Commissioner Rich requested two petitions. She said the first is a request in reference
6 to Rogers Road and RENA. She noted that she is co-chair of the Roger's Road Neighborhood
7 Task Force; and a question has come up on the task force, regarding a possible letter from the
8 Board asking RENA to drop the EPA investigation. She said this has not happened. She
9 would like to see a letter from the Board of County Commissioners to RENA, asking them to
10 drop the investigation.
11 John Roberts said he spoke to the attorney representing RENA and asked them
12 to drop or withdraw their petition so the complaint could be dismissed. He said he has
13 not heard back from her yet, but he requested a response by November 19.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if this request was a letter from the Board.
15 John Roberts said this was a phone conversation.
16 Commissioner Rich said her petition was for the Board to specifically write a letter.
17 Chair Jacobs said this will be taken up at agenda review.
18 Commissioner Rich noted that her second petition is on the lavender sheet. She said
19 this is a resolution urging the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor McCrory to
20 reconsider its decision not to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
21 She said she worked with Durham and Mecklenburg counties on this, as well as the
22 health director.
23 Chair Jacobs said he had asked the County attorney to have a closed session about
24 the RENA issue prior to the AOG meeting on November 21St. He said this closed session will
25 likely take place prior to sending a letter.
26 Commissioner Dorosin suggested the Board ask the attorney to look at the original
27 motion he made weeks ago. He said this motion is in the minutes from the Carrboro meeting.
28 He said perhaps there is some language here that the attorney would be comfortable using. He
29 said perhaps language can be created to reasonably express the Board's interests while
30 honoring the attorney's concerns.
31 Chair Jacobs said he has discussed this, and the attorney has some additional advice
32 for the Board related to this.
33
34 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
35
36 a. An Orange County Proclamation Honoring the Military Order of the Purple
37 Heart
38 The Board considered a proclamation honoring the Military Order of the Purple Heart
39 and Purple Heart recipients residing in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
40
41 Jesse Torres read the following proclamation:
42
43 A PROCLAMATION HONORING THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART
44
45 WHEREAS, the Purple Heart is the oldest decoration in present use and was initially created as
46 the Badge of Military merit by George Washington in 1782; and,
47 WHEREAS, the Purple Heart was the first American service award or decoration made
48 available to the common soldier and is specifically awarded to any member of
49 the United States Armed Services wounded or killed in combat while serving the
50 United States against opposing armed forces; and,
4
1 WHEREAS, the mission of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, chartered by an act of
2 Congress, is to foster an environment of goodwill among the combat wounded
3 veteran members and their families, promote patriotism, support legislative
4 initiatives and most importantly-make sure we never forget; and,
5 WHEREAS, there have been many Orange County residents who made the ultimate sacrifice
6 for the cause of freedom and many combat wounded Veterans and Purple
7 Heart recipients who live in the County;
8 NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS do hereby
9 bestow honor and gratitude to all combat-wounded Veterans and those who
10 have received the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and proudly proclaim
11 Orange County as a
12 "PURPLE HEART COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA"
13
14 This, the 5th day of November, 2013.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
17 approve a proclamation honoring the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Purple Heart
18 recipients residing in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 Jesse Torres presented the Chair/Board with a plaque, The Military Order of the Purple
23 Heart Special Recognition Award, for their dedication and support honoring America's combat
24 wounded veterans, and for becoming a Purple Heart county. This was presented by the Patriot
25 Members of Al Meyer Chapter 637, Military Order of the Purple Heart, USA.
26
27 b. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designations for Multiple Farms
28 — Dunn, Neville, Compton, Shambley, Durham, Johnson, and Thompson
29 The Board considered applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying
30 farmland within the Cedar Grove, High Rock/Efland, Schley/Eno, and White Cross Voluntary
31 Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District
32 (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs.
33
34 Gail Hughes made the presentation. She introduced landowners that were in
35 attendance. She noted there were 6 new applications and one revision. She reviewed the
36 following Background information:
37
38 Orange County
39 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
40 Agricultural Program
41 November 5, 2013
42 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program
43 Benefits of Agricultural Districts
44 ➢ Voluntary Agricultural District is typically a 10 year commitment but the landowner can
45 be withdrawn from the VAD at any time, for any reason, with a 30 day notification.
46 ➢ Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District is an irrevocable 10 year commitment, therefore
47 the "enhanced" qualifies farm for 90% cost share rates and a priority for grants funds.
48
49 Benefits include:
5
1 ➢ Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of
2 the county;
3 ➢ Recorded notice of agricultural district is recorded at County Land Records office;
4 ➢ Land search on all properties within a '/2 mile radius is notified of the agricultural status;
5 therefore, the landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits.
6 ➢ Public hearings for proposed condemnation of VAD land and utility assessments may be
7 suspended or waived on EVAD land if not connected to the utility.
8 ➢ Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still
9 maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only)
10
11 Gail Hughes went through the following slides regarding each of the applicants:
12
13 Robert and Rose Walters Dunn
14 High Rock /Efland Agriculture District
15 Farm includes grass/hay crop, livestock and managed woodland/forestry.
16 EVAD = 64.29 acres
17
18 A. Gordon Neville
19 White Cross District
20 Farm includes beef cattle operation, pastures, hay crops, and managed forestry and
21 woodland.
22 VAD =100.31 acres
23
24 Compton Farm
25 Vaughn and Marcia Compton
26 Cedar Grove District
27 Farm includes a poultry operation, tobacco, grain, hay crops, and managed
28 forestry/woodland.
29 VAD = 166.28 acres
30
31 Cedar Grove Farm Inc.
32 Kathy C. Shambley
33 Cedar Grove District
34 Farm includes dairy operation, pasture, corn, grain, hay crops, and managed
35 forestry/woodland
36 VAD =74.34 acres
37
38 Walter and Linda Durham
39 White Cross District
40 Farm includes managed forestry and woodland. Manages woodland for wildlife and
41 forestry. Farm awarded NC Stewardship Forest from NC Wildlife Resources Commission in
42 2013
43 VAD= 298.31 acres
44
45 Mary Sue Johnson
46 Schley District
47 Farm includes goats, hay crops, pasture, and managed forestry/woodland.
48 VAD= 70.83 acres
49
50
6
1 Thompson Prawn Farm
2 Joe and Geraldine Thompson
3 Cedar Grove District
4 Farm includes prawn operation, produce/vegetable crops for sale at local farmer's markets,
5 and grain crops.
6 2010 - NC A&T Small Farmer of the Year Award.
7 Requested revision from
8 VAD to EVAD =57.28 acres
9
10 Orange County
11 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
12 Agricultural Program
13 Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept six (6) farms into the program and
14 a revision for one (1) farm from VAD to EVAD.
15 710.57 acres in the VAD
16 121.39 acres in the EVAD.
17 If approved, total of acres in both programs:
18 VAD = 6058 acres ; EVAD= 612 acres
19 Total Acres= 6670 acres
20
21 Overview Map
22 VAD = 6058 acres
23 EVAD = 612 acres
24 Total Acres = 6670*
25 * = rounded acres
26
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to certify
29 the seven(7) farm properties noted above totaling 710.57 acres (VAD) and 121.39 acres
30 (EVAD) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland, and designate it as a
31 Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farm within the Cedar Grove, High
32 Rock/Efland, Schley/Eno, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands
33 in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary
34 Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. (With approval of these additional acres, the Orange
35 County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 6,058 acres in the VAD and
36 612 acres in the EVAD for a total of 6,670 acres (rounded).
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 Chair Jacobs said the maps of the agricultural districts show the County's commitment
41 to agriculture as a viable part of the community. He thanked the participants.
42
43
44 c. "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest
45 The Board recognized the winners and thanked all participants of"The Nature of
46 Orange" 2013 Photography Contest.
47 Rich Shaw read the following statement:
48
49 The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) completed its
50 annual "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest in June 2013. The goal of the contest was
7
1 to inspire exploration, celebration and appreciation of Orange County's diverse landscapes and
2 outdoor experiences. Photographers help document the beauty and diversity of natural
3 resources, and people connecting to their environment.
4 A total of 74 photographs were submitted in May 2013 —an increase of 15% from the previous
5 year. A panel of judges selected first, second and third place winners from the Youth and Adult
6 divisions. Winners received a congratulatory letter, certificate, and a small monetary award. The
7 photographs will be displayed at the Orange County Historical Museum, Orange County Public
8 Library, Visitors Center, and the John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center. In addition,
9 winning photographs are displayed on the Orange County DEAPR website.
10
11 PowerPoint slides were shown of photographs from the contest winners.
12 The winners were as follows:
13 Youth: 1st Place — Kirby Lau; 2nd Place — Kirby Lau; 3rd Place — Katerina Gilfillen
14 Adult: 1st Place— Darren Strickland; 2nd Place — Pringle Teetor; 3rd Place — Statler Gilfillen
15
16 Chair Jacobs asked that these photographs also be placed on the County website.
17
18 5. Consent Agenda
19 e Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
20 - Item 5-e was removed.
21
22 e Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
23 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
24 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
29 - 5-e
30
31 e. Tax Refund Request— Robert H. Pope
32 The Board considered adoption of a resolution to deny a refund request from Mr. Robert
33 H. Pope covering tax years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, in accordance with North Carolina
34 General Statute 105-381.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said he was in favor of granting a refund, and he removed this to
36 avoid voting against the consent agenda. He said he fundamentally disagrees with the
37 interpretation that taxing someone on something they do not own is not an illegal tax within the
38 statute. He said if a property does not exist then imposing a tax on it is illegal.
39 He said he disagrees with the idea that giving refunds in this circumstance would
40 somehow undermine the revenue process.
41 Dwane Brinson said this situation is similar to situations brought to the Board of County
42 Commissioners in June. He said staff is abiding by the advice of the School of Government
43 and the advisor to the state tax association. He cited a case study, and said this request does
44 not qualify for a valid refund, per state statute.
45 Commissioner Rich asked John Roberts if she needed to recuse herself from voting on
46 this.
47 John Roberts said no.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said he has additional case information that he would like to
49 present for consideration.
8
1 Dwane Brinson requested that this information be sent to him. He said it would be
2 entertained for future cases.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
5 adopt a resolution to deny a refund request from Mr. Robert H. Pope covering tax years 2009,
6 2010, 2011 and 2012, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
7
8 Chair Jacobs said the Board sympathizes with the individuals who are victimized by the
9 way this law is written and interpreted.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said you do what you think is right and let the law catch up.
11
12 VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price)
13
14 CONSENT AGENDA
15 a. Minutes
16 The Board approved the minutes from September 9 and 17, 2013 as submitted by the Clerk to
17 the Board.
18 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
19 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
20 property tax values for eighty-eight (88) taxpayers with a total of ninety-six (96) bills that will
21 result in a reduction of revenue, accordance with the NCGS.
22 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
23 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
24 values for two (2) taxpayers with a total of two (2) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue,
25 in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
26 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
27 The Board approved five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
28 taxation for eight (8) bills for the 2013 tax year.
29 f. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — November 25, 2013
30 The Board approved the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of
31 County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for November 25,
32 2013.
33 g. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System
34 The Board approved a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation
35 (NCDOT), and in turn the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), concerning a petition
36 to add a total of eleven (11) subdivision roads in Churton Grove Phase 4 Subdivision to the
37 State Maintained Secondary Road System.
38 h. Bid Award — McGowan Creek Sewer Interceptor Project and Approve Budget
39 Amendment #2-D
40 The Board:
41 • Awarded the bid and approved a construction contract (pending State approval) to Park
42 Construction of North Carolina, Inc. of Morrisville, NC in the amount of$597,813.13 for
43 the construction of the McGowan Creek Sewer Interceptor;
44 • Approved Budget Amendment#2-D for $107,814 (bids received were in excess of the
45 originally budgeted project construction cost) consisting of:
46 o Authorizing staff to request an additional $50,000 in SRF loan funding from the
47 State;
48 o Approving funding of$57,814 from Article 46 Sales Tax proceeds;
49 Approved and authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution of Tentative Award for this
50 project, as required by the State Revolving Fund Loan;
9
1 • Approved and authorized the Chair to sign the contract on behalf of the Board of County
2 Commissioners, subject to final review by the County Attorney and the State; and
3 • Authorized the Manager to execute individual change orders within the limit of his
4 authority ($250,000) up to the extent of the project budget.
5 L Approval of Contract with Springsted, Incorporated
6 The Board approved a contract for the purpose of conducting an executive search for a County
7 Manager, and authorized the Chair to execute the contract.
8 j. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013
9 The Board considered one change in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for
10 2013, as follows:
11 - Moving the location of the Monday, December 2, 2013 BOCC meeting FROM Central Orange
12 Senior Center TO the DSS Meeting Room, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, due to the
13 availability now of the DSS meeting room (the Toy Chest program is not scheduled to start until
14 a later date).
15
16 6. Public Hearings
17
18 a. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Keizer Rezoning of 2.7 Acre Parcel —3604
19 Southern Drive— Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
20 Accepted)
21 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
22 hearing, and considered a decision on an owner-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone a
23 2.7 acre parcel of property located at 3604 Southern Drive (PIN 9844-86-5155) from Rural
24 Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (1-1) to Light Industrial (1-1) in accordance with the
25 provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
26 Michael Harvey said the purpose is to re-convene a public hearing on the Keizer re-
27 zoning. He said the property is currently split zoned light industrial and residential; Keizer is
28 seeking to have the entire property zoned light industrial.
29 He said the applicants have expressed concern over their continued ability to have
30 septic and parking to support the existing industrial operation on the residentially zoned portion
31 of the property. He said Keizer is seeking to rectify the problem by extending the existing
32 industrial zoning over the entire property to ensure their perpetual ability to maintain existing
33 infrastructure necessary for the business.
34 He said there were no comments during the previous public hearing and only one
35 comment, in favor of the applicant, in the intervening period.
36 He said the Planning Board has reviewed this and voted unanimously to recommend
37 approval.
38 He said the manager and staff recommendation was to approve the re-zoning.
39 Chair Jacobs referred the Board to attachment 3, and attachment 5 of the abstract.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
42 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
43 2. Close the public hearing; and
44 3. Decide to adopt:
45 a. Attachment 3 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas
46 b. Attachment 5 Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency authorizing the zoning atlas
47 amendments as detailed herein.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
10
1 a. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Keizer Rezoning of Two Parcels Totaling 16.1
2 Acres — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
3 Accepted)
4 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
5 hearing, and considered making a decision on an owner-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to
6 rezone 2 parcels, 16.1 acres in area, (PINs 9844-87-7368 and 9844-86-7573) from Rural
7 Residential (R-1) to Light Industrial (1-1) in accordance with the provisions of the Unified
8 Development Ordinance (UDO).
9 Michael Harvey said the Keizers have put an offer to purchase two additional parcels,
10 zoned rural/residential, totaling 16 acres in area, to expand their current industrial site to light
11 industrial.
12 He said this approval is based on consistency with the comprehensive plan, not
13 consistency with the Keizer's proposal. He said if this property is re-zoned light industrial it
14 could be developed for any purpose.
15 He said there were a lot of questions at the quarterly public hearing, concerning the
16 node, as well as general re-zonings in the area. He referred to the abstract pages 2, and 23 for
17 additional information on general use zoning designations.
18 Michael Harvey said staff has also provided an explanation to address Commissioner
19 Dorosin's question of why residential zoning is allowed in this particular node and what the
20 impact would be to those areas if the re-zoning were approved.
21 He said staff does not believe there are any concerns, and the request is consistent with
22 the Comprehensive Plan. He said the planning board recommended unanimously that the
23 Board approve this re-zoning.
24 Chair Jacobs said his understanding is that there is little noise from this operation that
25 goes beyond the actual facility.
26 Michael Harvey agreed. He said it is stipulated that there will be required buffers along
27 the property line.
28 Commissioner Dorosin noted that this decision is being made without knowing what the
29 property may be used for in the future. He asked if it is appropriate to have this information at
30 these hearings. He said it might be better in the future to discuss these proposals with an
31 outline of all the potential uses.
32 Michael Harvey said he would be aware of this for future presentations.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
35
36 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
37 2. Close the public hearing; and
38 3. Adopt:
39 a. Attachment 3 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas
40 b. Attachment 5 Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency authorizing the zoning atlas
41 amendments as detailed herein.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 c. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Holding a
46 Neighborhood Information Meeting for Governmental Uses — Public Hearing
47 Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)
48 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
49 hearing, and considered making a decision on a Planning Director initiated text amendment(s)
50 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requiring a neighborhood information meeting be
11
1 held prior to the development of`governmental uses' as detailed within the UDO, and also the
2 renumbering of existing sections and updating of references throughout the document.
3 Michael Harvey said this is a reconvening of a public hearing. He noted that the
4 development of a fire department sub-station on Neville Road caused concern amongst
5 neighboring property owners who felt they were not involved or informed. It was suggested that
6 the code be amended to require a neighborhood information meeting for these government
7 process.
8 He said that there are provisions to address concerns from departments who go through
9 long public planning processes for development of infrastructure.
10 He said one planning board member voted against this, as he felt it created
11 unnecessary expense for local fire departments.
12 He said there has been no public comment.
13 Commissioner McKee said he would like to clarify that this provides for an information
14 meeting only, and it will not change any UDO regulations or requirements.
15 Michael Harvey said this is correct.
16 Commissioner Rich asked if this information will be on a website for neighbors who
17 might not be able to make a meeting.
18 Michael Harvey said comments are typically posted on the Orange County website. He
19 said the public can be made aware of this in the public notice mailings.
20 Commissioner Price asked if the fire departments be responsible for all costs associated
21 with the meetings.
22 Michael Harvey said yes.
23 Commissioner McKee said there are costs with sending out certified letters to inform the
24 community. He said these projects are permitted rights and the information meetings are only
25 to notify and inform the community. He said the White Cross residents were upset about not
26 having been notified about the siting of this substation, not about the existence of the substation
27 itself. He said most residents he has spoken with were pleased with the actual substation and
28 the benefits it offers.
29 Commissioner Pelissier said this was not a planned cost for this year. She said, going
30 forward, the fire departments can budget for the costs associated with new substations,
31 including information sessions.
32 Chair Jacobs the information session produced good results and most seemed pleased
33 with the outcome. He said these meetings serve a valuable function to provide information and
34 allow for questions. He said there was a meeting with local DOT staff last week, and a question
35 was raised regarding the safety of the bridge on Neville Road. He said this was a concern
36 shared by the people living in that area. He said a response was given, and he asked
37 Commissioner McKee to summarize this.
38 Commissioner McKee said the bridge in question is located south of the substation and
39 there was concern that the fire trucks would overburden and collapse the bridge. He said the
40 DOT is rebuilding that bridge into a concrete structure to address this concern.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
43
44 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
45 2. Close the public hearing; and
46 3. Approve the text amendment package contained in Attachment 2.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 d. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land
12
1 Use Plan
2 The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, considered closing the
3 public hearing, and considered making a decision on a resolution ratifying the draft Town of
4 Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan, and
5 authorized the Chair to sign.
6 Tom Altieri said this is a re-convening of the public hearing from September 9th. He said
7 the Board did request further information on immediate and future steps to make the maps and
8 land use visions of the County and Town coincide. He noted material included on page 3 of the
9 abstract describing these steps.
10 He said the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item.
11 Tom Altieri said the planning director has recommended a minor change that deletes a
12 reference to minimum lot size within the "rural living" future land use category. He said this
13 change is referenced in italics on page 2 of the abstract, and is cited in the resolution for
14 approval tonight. He said this change was discussed with the Town's planning director, and
15 she supported it.
16 Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of this change.
17 Tom Altieri said the rural living land classification references minimum lot size and is the
18 only land use classification with a minimum lot size. He said every other land use category
19 refers to residential density as the controlling factor. He said the primary difference is that the
20 use of a minimum lot size requirement can be overly restrictive and it does not accommodate
21 the clustering of lots.
22 He said that the use of density accommodates open space better and preserves the
23 natural characteristics of a tract during the subdivision process.
24 Commissioner Gordon asked how this applies. She asked for an explanation of the
25 boundaries that would require the listed density. She asked if this means that if some
26 properties have more than the required density per acre that some other part of the property
27 has less density.
28 Craig Benedict gave the example of a ten acre lot—the 2 acre per unit density
29 requirement would allow for a maximum of five 2 acre lots. He said the density provision would
30 allow for five 1 acre lots with 5 acres of open space. He said this still limits the gross amount of
31 land to a number divided by 2 acres to get the maximum amount of lots.
32 Commissioner Gordon said this is a land use classification, not a zoning classification.
33 She asked for the definition of"site."
34 Craig Benedict said this means whatever property one wants to develop. He said the
35 density calculation is used to find the maximum amount of lots that can be built on a site, and it
36 allows clustering.
37 Commissioner Gordon said "rural living" must be a Hillsborough term, because Orange
38 County does not have this term.
39 Tom Altieri said "rural living" is a land use classification of the joint land use plan for the
40 area covered by the Central Orange Coordinated area, which includes both Orange County and
41 Hillsborough.
42 Commissioner Gordon said future land use classifications are developed in concert with
43 Hillsborough, which makes them specific to this plan. She asked if this is then confined to the
44 Central Orange plan.
45 Tom Altieri said this is modeled from the joint plan used with Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
46 He said this plan is the guiding document for future land uses in this Hillsborough and Orange
47 County plan area, and as the process moves forward there will need to be comprehensive plan
48 amendments that add designations to the Orange and Hillsborough urbanizing areas. He said
49 this joint land use plan will be a reference point, along with the unified development ordinance.
13
1 Commissioner Gordon said the similarity with the joint plan used with Carrboro and
2 Chapel Hill is the process; however the land use categories are not the same.
3 Tom Altieri said the categories are not the same but it is a similar construct. He said
4 Chapel Hill and Carrboro have 10 and 20 year transition areas, and that is the broad
5 designation. He said there is a joint land use plan that includes all of the other land use
6 classifications in the plan being presented.
7 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to make sure these uses were confined to this
8 plan only.
9 She noted that the ETJ swap will be done next. She asked which map best explains
10 what the land use categories will be. She referred to several maps and asked which would
11 best explain what will be in Orange County's section.
12 Tom Altieri said these areas can be seen on one of the maps, but the ETJ swap phase
13 has not been reached. He said specific maps identifying those specific parcels will be brought
14 back once the swap phase is reached, including prescribed land uses.
15 He said the ETJ areas that will become part of the town are provided on the joint land
16 use plan; however this does not show the ETJ areas on the west side of town that will be
17 relinquished to the County. He said these are the areas adjacent to the Eno River that would
18 be classified as agricultural/residential, with a series of watershed and resource protection
19 overlays.
20 Commissioner Gordon said she did not understand the significance of ratifying the land
21 use plan before the comprehensive plan amendments are made.
22 Tom Altieri said this becomes the joint land use plan for all of the areas within the urban
23 services boundary for this Hillsborough and Orange County plan. He said the construct will not
24 be fully implemented until the references are made in the 2030 comprehensive plan land use
25 elements section identifying the urban services area, the Orange County urbanizing area and
26 the Hillsborough urbanizing area.
27 He said it has become very clear to staff that it would be too confusing to go through the
28 ETJ adjustment process and also bring the 2030 comprehensive plan amendments at the same
29 time.
30 Commissioner Gordon referred to attachment 5 and asked which map is being
31 approved.
32 Tom Altieri said pages 10-13 are being approved.
33 Commissioner McKee said he is convinced that some soils will support one housing unit
34 per acre. He said it is irrelevant whether a 10 acre development with five houses has houses
35 on 2 acre lots, or one acre lots with 5 acres of open space. He said the land cost component
36 remains the same, and this drives the cost of housing in Orange County. He does not see how
37 striking the 2 acre minimum lot size does anything favorable to the affordability of housing in
38 Orange County. He said the better option is to tie minimum lot size to soil carrying capacity, as
39 it relates to septic. He said this could potentially allow a 10 acre development to carry ten
40 houses, which would reduce the cost of the houses.
41 Chair Jacobs said the point of clustering is that it is cheaper per unit, because there is
42 less infrastructure.
43 He said the idea of using carrying capacity as the standard is one that could be
44 implemented in the future, but it would be a tremendous undertaking.
45 Commissioner Price agreed with Chair Jacobs. She said cluster homes reduce costs
46 and create lower income housing. She cluster homes are also beneficial for "age in place"
47 residents. She said she supports this change.
48 Commissioner Pelissier said water capacity is also a factor in zoning. She said there
49 are rural areas that are zoned according to water recharge rates. She said these rates vary,
50 and there are areas of Orange County that could not support the higher density building.
14
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he thought the urban services boundary on the map meant
2 that anything inside the boundary has access to public water and sewer. He does not
3 understand how this discussion about septic and lot size relates to the map being presented.
4 Tom Altieri said the area will not develop with water and sewer all at one time. He said
5 there would be some development to occur on private well and septic for an interim time period.
6 Commissioner Gordon said it would be a tremendous effort to figure out carrying
7 capacity. She said there were efforts to determine the average capacity when the rural buffer
8 area was created. She supports a plan that maintains a certain density requirement for a
9 certain area.
10 She said she could not find an explanation of the ETJ swap; she asked if this is
11 included.
12 Tom Altieri said this information is not specifically identified; however the information is
13 included on page 14. He pointed out the areas that are hatched, on the western part of town.
14 Commissioner Gordon said this does not specify the land use.
15 Tom Altieri said this is not included. He said the land uses outside of the urban services
16 area are not identified and will be done after the swaps are completed.
17 Commissioner McKee said his earlier point is that this strikethrough does not have a
18 practical effect. He said land cost is a major component of the costs for housing in Orange
19 County. He said until the County can figure a way to reduce the land costs in Orange County, it
20 will be difficult to provide affordable housing.
21 He said he would respectfully disagree that the infrastructure cost is less for cluster
22 development. He said shortened roads can decrease the infrastructure cost a little, but most of
23 the cost per lot remains the same.
24 Chair Jacobs said clustering is the only place in the ordinance where a bonus can be
25 given to a developer for affordable units.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
28
29 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval;
30 2. Close the public hearing;
31 3. Consider approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution (Attachment 5)
32 ratifying the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
33 (COCA) Land Use Plan, Areas Within Urban Services Boundary (detailed in Attachment
34 1, pp. 10-13); and
35 4. Authorize staff to proceed with the development of a schedule and process, including
36 notification and outreach methods, to execute the ETJ swaps identified in the Inter-local
37 Agreement.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41
42 e. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital
43 Grant Applications for FY 2015
44 The Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina Community
45 Transportation Program (CTP) grant application by Orange Public Transportation (OPT) for FY
46 2015 and considered approving the grant application that includes adopting a resolution
47 authorizing the applicant to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of
48 Transportation (NCDOT), and authorizing the County Attorney to review and complete the
49 necessary certifications and assurances, and authorizing the Chair to sign.
15
1 Bret Martin said this item is for an annual grant application for both administrative
2 expenses and capital items needed for 2015. He said the capital needs include: 5 replacement
3 buses, and 2 expansion vehicles. He said the total amount of the administrative expenses is
4 $185,604, and 15 percent must come from the Orange County 2015 budget. He said the total
5 request for capital expenses is $483,292, of which 10 percent must come from Orange County.
6 He said the total amount required from the Orange County general operating fund is $61,638,
7 as well as $14,533 from the capital reserve set-aside managed by Triangle Transit.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
10 open the public hearing to:
11 Conduct a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed grant application
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
16 close the public hearing.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
21 • Approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2015 in the
22 total amount of$668,896 with a local match total of$76,171 to be provided when
23 necessary;
24 • Approve and Authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program
25 Resolution and the Local Share Certification for Funding form; and
26 • Approve and Authorize the Chair and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual
27 certified statements of participation.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 f. Public Hearing on the Financing of Various Capital Investment Plan Projects
32 and County Equipment
33 The Board conducted a public hearing on the issuance of approximately $10,500,000 to
34 finance County and School capital investment projects and County equipment for the year, and
35 considered approving a related resolution supporting the County's application to the Local
36 Government Commission (LGC) for its approval of the financing arrangements.
37
38 Clarence Grier reviewed the following information from the abstract:
39
40 The Board of Commissioners has previously approved the construction and purchase of capital
41 investment projects and equipment for the year. The Board has made a preliminary
42 determination to finance costs for these projects by the use of an installment financing, as
43 authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina General Statutes. County staff
44 estimates that the total amount to be financed for County and School capital projects and
45 County equipment will be approximately $10,500,000. The financing will also include amounts
46 to pay transaction costs. The statutes require that the County conduct a public hearing on the
47 proposed financing contract. A copy of the published notice of this hearing is provided at
48 Attachment 1. After conducting the hearing and receiving public input, the Board will consider
49 the adoption of the resolution at Attachment 2. This resolution formally requests the required
50 approval from the
16
1 North Carolina Local Government Commission for the County's financing arrangements, and
2 makes certain findings of fact as required under the LGC's guidelines. County staff has been in
3 contact with LGC staff, and staff expects no obstacles to receiving LGC approval.
4 If the Board adopts the resolution (indicating its intent to continue with the financing plan), the
5 Board will be asked to consider a resolution giving final approval to the financing plan at its
6 November 19, 2013 meeting. Staff expects the LGC to approve the financing plan at the LGC's
7 meeting on December 1. Under the current schedule, staff expects to set the final interest rates
8 and other terms of the financing around November 15, and to close on the financing by the end
9 of December.
10 There is no financial impact related to this action. However, there will be
11 a financial impact in proceeding with the financing. A preliminary estimate of maximum debt
12 service applicable to the County projects financing would require the highest debt service
13 payment of$1,482,631 falling in fiscal years 2015-2019. The tax rate equivalent for the highest
14 debt service payment is approximately .923 cents. Based on current valuations, no adjustment
15 to the tax rate associated with this financing is contemplated to occur during the period noted.
16
17 Clarence Grier noted the list of projects to be financed, as outlined on page 6 of the
18 abstract. He said the largest project is the Culbreth Middle School Science Wing.
19 He noted the 3 borrowing options outlined on attachment 3: 15 year Public Limited
20 Obligation Bonds (LOB); 20 year Public LOB; and 15 year Placed IPC. He said these options
21 have been researched and the recommended option is the 15 year Placed IPC, as it saves
22 approximately $200,000 in financing costs.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
25 open the public hearing.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close
32 the public hearing.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
37 adopt the resolution supporting the application to the Local Government Commission for
38 approval of the financing arrangements.
39
40 Commissioner Dorosin referred to attachment 3 and asked for clarification on the
41 designation of the $200,000 savings that was mentioned.
42 Clarence Grier said this is found by comparing the costs under the "uses" section, with
43 special note of the Cost of Issuance.
44 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the total cost of issuance should be looked at.
45 Clarence Grier said that the total at the bottom in the far right of each column will reflect
46 this savings.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 7. Regular Agenda
17
1
2 a. Orange County Public Library Strategic Plan (2013-2016)
3 The Board considered approving the Orange County Public Library Strategic Plan
4 (2013-2016).
5 Lucinda Munger said the plan before the Commissioners includes the previous Board
6 Comments. She pointed out the following specific updates from the last work session:
7
8 - Page 13— Focus Area #2, Item 3 - Extension of library services — Planning department is now
9 included as a partner
10 - Page 14 - Focus Area #4, Item 6— BOCC goal of interoperability with the Chapel Hill Public
11 Library and the development of a single library card is listed as a pursuit
12 - Pages 17-19— Expanded sections on the measurement of plan performance
13
14 Lucinda Munger said the staff and interim County manager recommend the adoption of
15 this plan.
16 Chair Jacobs asked for brief summary of the plan for members of the public
17 Lucinda Munger reviewed the following background information from the abstract:
18
19 The Orange County Public Library received a grant on June 8, 2012 from the
20 State Library of North Carolina to develop a Strategic Plan and conduct a Community Needs
21 Assessment (CNA).
22 Library staff, working with the consultant, developed a three-year Strategic Plan (2013-2016) to
23 address the community and leadership needs identified in the CNA. The DRAFT Plan was
24 presented at the Board's May 14, 2013 work session and reviewed and further modified based
25 on feedback from the Board. The amended DRAFT plan was presented to the Board for its
26 review at the September 12, 2013 work session, and comments and input were provided for
27 further refinement. Based on the Board's comments and feedback during the September 12
28 work session, the Library has updated the document with the goal of having the BOCC adopt
29 the document at this meeting. The Plan will serve as a guiding instrument for library investment
30 in the coming years.
31
32 Lucinda Munger said staff looks forward to carrying this plan out over the next three
33 years. She said the goal is for this to be a living document.
34 Chair Jacobs asked about the library outreach goals.
35 Lucinda Munger said this will begin in 2014. She said staff is already involved in school
36 events, such as open houses, and PTA events.
37 Commissioner McKee thanked Lucinda Munger for the efforts given to this plan over the
38 last year and a half. He expressed appreciation for the work done on interoperability with
39 Chapel Hill.
40 Commissioner Rich thanked Lucinda Munger and said she is concerned about moving
41 forward with interoperability.
42 Commissioner Rich expressed her thanks. She asked if there is a way to put library
43 cards on cell phones.
44 Lucinda Munger said work is being done on this as part of the technology
45 improvements.
46 Commissioner Pelissier reminded the Board about the upcoming meeting with a group
47 of Chapel Hill Town Council members. She said the issue of interoperability will be discussed
48 at this meeting.
49
18
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 approve the Orange County Public Library Strategic Plan (2013-2016).
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6
7 b. Southern Branch Library Siting Criteria, Process Update
8 The Board received an update on the Southern Branch Library siting process,
9 discussed/considered Carrboro's response(s) to County staff requests as well as County staff
10 recommendations, and provided direction to staff regarding next steps.
11 Lucinda Munger said Carrboro sent an email response stating that no official position
12 has been taken on 1128 Hillsborough Road, but there is little indication of support without a
13 proper land swap.
14 She said the Carrboro town attorney expressed strong concerns with the liability and
15 increased cost associated with the rock blasting that would be required to prepare the site at
16 401 Fidelity Street
17 Lucinda Munger said Carrboro staff is willing to provide requested permit information for
18 the 120 Brewer Lane site.
19 She said the recommendation, based on the response from Carrboro, is that the Board
20 should eliminate the Hillsborough Road and Fidelity Street sites from consideration and move
21 forward with due diligence on 120 Brewer Lane. She said staff will provide follow up information
22 to the Board by the January 23, 2014 meeting.
23 Michael Talbert said the Town of Carrboro unanimously wants the Brewer Lane site;
24 therefore staff sees no need to continue with the other two sites. He said staff would like to
25 proceed with Brewer Lane.
26 Chair Jacobs noted that, subsequent to the January 23 meeting, staff recommended
27 moving to the public phase of the siting project, which includes a public hearing to gain input.
28 Commissioner Gordon said when the public phase of the project is reached, the public
29 should not be told that this is a take it or leave it approach with only a single site option.
30 She noted that the 1128 Hillsborough Street is still an option. She said the lack of
31 another site gives little negotiation room with a developer.
32 Commissioner Gordon said keeping the Hillsborough Road property on the table gives
33 more choice to the public and allows for a fallback position if Brewer Lane does not work out.
34 She strongly urged the Board to keep two sites moving forward.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said residents still have a choice to simply not vote for the
36 library. He disagreed with the idea of continuing to spend resources and staff time on a site
37 that the Town does not support. He said he feels the Hillsborough Road site is not a viable site
38 anyway, as it does not meet the necessary criteria.
39 He said it would have been good to have the public hearing for this conversation. He
40 said it is unfortunate to have a public hearing with only one site, but that is the reality of where
41 the process stands now.
42 Chair Jacobs asked Michael Talbert if another site could be included in deliberation if it
43 came to the attention of staff between now and February.
44 Michael Talbert said yes, another site could still be included. He said there were still
45 seven other sites that have been suggested over time. He said this list could still be re-visited,
46 or new sites could be considered.
47 Chair Jacobs said the Board can advertise that the process started out with 7 properties,
48 before being narrowed down to 3, and now potentially one; however the Board is still open to
49 other sites that may meet their criteria.
19
1 Michael Talbert said staff is simply choosing not to spend resources on other sites until
2 this preferred site is vetted.
3 Commissioner Gordon clarified that she is not opposed to Carrboro's preference for
4 Brewer Lane. She likes Brewer Lane, but she questions what the fallback position will be if this
5 site does not work out. She said this could cause significant delay if something falls through.
6 Commissioner McKee said the fallback position would be to look for something else if
7 Brewer Lane does not work out. He said something else could surface between now and
8 February. He said a delay is possible if Brewer Lane doesn't work out, but it is better to get it
9 right than to get it fast.
10 Chair Jacobs said there is no schedule for this process, so a delay won't knock anything
11 off schedule. He said the Board can feel comfortable to see where things are once the
12 information comes back at the end of January.
13 Commissioner Price said her understanding is that this siting discussion has been going
14 on for quite some time.
15 Chair Jacobs said no schedule was ever adopted. He said this was in the CIP for a
16 certain time period but no dates or mileposts were ever set for the decision making process.
17 Lucinda Munger said funding is in the CIP for 2016-2017, and there is no specific
18 schedule at this time.
19 Chair Jacobs said sooner would be better.
20 Commissioner Price agreed.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
23
24 1) Receive and discuss the letters from the Town of Carrboro;
25 2) Eliminate 1128 Hillsborough Road and 401 Fidelity Street from further consideration for a
26 Southern Branch Library; and
27 3) Direct staff to conduct further Phase 1 Site Criteria Analysis for 120 Brewer Lane and provide
28 follow-up information to the Board.
29 (If the Board does direct staff to move forward with the analysis of 120 Brewer Lane as noted in
30 #3 above, staff will report back to the Board at its January 23, 2014 regular meeting. Following
31 the completion of due diligence and reporting back to the Board, staff recommends moving to
32 the "Public Phase" of the library siting process, including the Board conducting a public hearing
33 on the library siting efforts.)
34
35 PUBLIC COMMENT:
36 Nerys Levy said she fully endorsed the recommendation from the library staff. She said
37 Friends of the Carrboro Library feel that time is of the essence.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 c. BOCC Rules of Procedure Revision
42 The Board considered approval of a modification to the BOCC Rules of Procedure and
43 updating the Rules of Procedure booklet.
44 Chair Jacobs said this is a reflection the Board's agreement to have more public
45 hearings on more agendas in anticipation of not having quarterly public hearings (QPH). He
46 said the public hearing component would be moved nearer to the front of the agenda to avoid
47 making residents wait. He said some Commissioners have concern about front loading the
48 agendas with public hearings. He said these public hearing meetings could be spread out over
49 the course of a year.
20
1 Commissioner Gordon said it is fine to move the hearings before the consent agenda;
2 however this is the only reason she would vote for this, because the Board has not decided
3 what to do about the public hearing process yet. She said there are still some issues to be
4 resolved.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this discussion is about changing merely the order or
6 about changing the QPH.
7 Chair Jacobs said this is only about the order, but it is preparatory to changing the
8 QPH process.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
11 approve a modification to the BOCC Rules of Procedure and update the Rules of Procedure
12 booklet, to change the order of the agenda to move the public hearings to before the consent
13 agenda.
14
15 Chair Jacobs asked when the larger QPH issue would come before the Board.
16 Michael Talbert said this will come back in February at the QPH.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the planning board would be included in that discussion.
18 Chair Jacobs said yes, the planning board would be involved.
19 Commissioner Gordon said there are many steps to be involved in changing the
20 current QPH procedure. She said the steps are yet to be determined.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 8. Reports NONE
25
26 9. County Manager's Report NONE
27
28 10. County Attorney's Report NONE
29
30 11. Appointments NONE
31
32 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
33
34 Commissioner Gordon — none
35 Commissioner Dorosin said there was a great public information meeting regarding the
36 County fair. He said there were lots of good comments and suggestions, and he looks forward
37 to bringing this to the work session on the 12tH
38 Commissioner McKee— none
39 Commissioner Rich congratulated all the winners in the election today.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said the Environment Steering Committee had a discussion
41 regarding a template being developed for solar energy zoning. She said this would be worth
42 looking at when it comes out early next year.
43 She said the Public Safety and Justice Commission received a presentation about the
44 merger of adult and juvenile justice. She said there were a lot of positive things from the
45 merger. She said the divisions' services are still being done separately.
46 She said the Justice Reinvestment Act was supposed to take money from closing
47 prisons and then reinvest that money in efforts to decrease prison populations. She said much
48 of the money has been invested in adding probation officers, and some has been invested in
49 treatment. She said less than 50 percent of the money saved has been invested, and the
50 community is going to want to ask the General Assembly to invest more.
21
1 She said "ban the box" has been revisited as a possibility.
2 Commissioner Pelissier attended the "Railvolution" conference on transit in Seattle.
3 She said one of the major things she got out of this was the benefit of the public/ private
4 partnership. She said there are a lot of possibilities that can be explored.
5 She said the jail alternatives work group had their first meeting.
6 Commissioner Price said the "ban the box" discussion also came up at the NACo
7 conference.
8 She attended the NCACC Board of Directors meeting. She said a fiscal summary has
9 been compiled and is available, which shows where Orange County stands in relation to other
10 Counties in N.C.
11 Chair Jacobs said he and Commissioner Pelissier are co-chairing the jail alternatives
12 work group. He said there was an enthusiastic turnout, and the schedule has the group come
13 back in March with recommendations.
14 He said there was a lunch meeting with staff, DOT representatives and the mayor and
15 planning director of Hillsborough. He said there was fruitful conversation about transportation
16 projects and local concerns.
17 Chair Jacobs encouraged people to attend the Veteran's Day Breakfast on November
18 11tH
19
20 13. Information Items
21
22 e October 15, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
23 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
24 e 2013 NC Legislation Update and Impact on Planning
25 e BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 15, 2013 Regular Meeting
26
27 14. Closed Session
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
30 adjourn into closed session at 9:27 pm for the purpose of:
31
32 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
33 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
34 143-318.11(a)(5).
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
40 reconvene into regular session at 9:53 pm.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 15. Adjournment
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
46 adjourn the meeting at 9:53pm.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Barry Jacobs, Chair
22
1
2 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC
3 Clerk to the Board
4
1
I Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 19, 2013
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 November 19, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
18 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
20 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places:
25 - PowerPoint - Item 5b - Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan
26 - PowerPoint - Item 5c - Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access
27 Management Plan (No Additional Comments Accepted)
28 - PowerPoint - Item 7a - Resolutions to Endorse Orange County's Priority
29 Transportation Projects for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
30 Organization and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
31 - PowerPoint - Item 7c - Whitted Permanent Meeting Room Review and Approval of
32 Technology Design Elements
33 - Lavender Sheet—Additional Applicant for Item 11-b- Advisory Board on Aging —
34 Appointment (application inadvertently got left off of abstract)
35 - Blue Sheet - Revision for 11-f- Commission for the Environment—Appointments —
36 correct membership roster
37
38 PUBLIC CHARGE
39
40 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge
41
42 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
43
44 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
45
46 Don O'Leary said ICLEI is criminal and should be dissolved. He said he is from New
47 Jersey, where people like this made their money by stealing it and busting out businesses. He
48 said this organization is run by international criminals who are busting out the United States,
49 selling out and moving everything overseas. He said ICLEI busts out local counties and towns.
2
1 He said the Board has let ICLEI into the neighborhood. He said it is time to pause and reflect.
2 He asked the Board to kick ICLEI out.
3
4 Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Pelissier arrived at 7:09 pm.
5
6 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
7 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
8 below.)
9
10 3. Petitions by Board Members
11
12 Commissioner Price had the following three petitions: 1) For the Board to acknowledge
13 the work of the County 4-H, especially Erin Thompson; 2) to compose and send a letter to
14 Senator Hagan, thanking her for supporting the Workforce Investment Act reauthorization; and
15 3) a request for staff to look at the high speed traffic situation on Saint Mary's Road, between
16 70 and Lawrence Road, and to talk to DOT about traffic calming measures.
17 Commissioner Price asked Commissioner McKee to assist in composing the
18 acknowledgement of the County 4-H.
19
20 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
21
22 a. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for Bliss-Dobyns Property
23 The Board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a
24 conservation easement to protect portions of the Bliss-Dobyns property and authorize the Chair
25 and the Clerk to sign, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney.
26
27 Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager for DEAPR (Department of Environment
28 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation), presented the following, brief PowerPoint about this project:
29
30 Bliss-Dobyns Property
31 Conservation Easement:
32 ➢ Perpetual easement
33 ➢ No future subdivision/residences
34 ➢ No forestry activities
35 ➢ Rights of privacy
36 ➢ Hunting/Agricultural uses
37
38 Rich Shaw said the Bliss-Dobyns property is comprised of 35 acres located in Central
39 Orange County, and the owners intend to grant a permanent Conservation Easement to restrict
40 use and protect natural resources.
41 He reviewed maps of the property and said 75 percent of the property is forested. He
42 said there is a stream on the property that flows into the Eno River. He said there are two
43 areas of County owned property adjacent to the land.
44 He said the estimated reduction in land value as a result of the conservation easement
45 is $157,000. He said the County would pay just under 75 percent of this amount ($117,000) to
46 acquire the easement. He said there will be a tax conservation tax credit available until
47 December 31 sc
48 He said the landowners could not be here tonight, but this is a long term project that has
49 come to fruition.
50
3
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
2 approve the acceptance by Orange County of a conservation easement to protect portions of
3 the Bliss-Dobyns property and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign, subject to final review
4 by staff and the County Attorney.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Commissioner Pelissier asked that the Board write a letter of thanks to this family on
9 behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
10
11 b. Resolution Urging the Governor and General Assembly to Expand Medicaid
12 The Board considered adoption of a Resolution urging the North Carolina General
13 Assembly and Governor McCrory to reconsider its decision not to expand Medicaid coverage
14 under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage for poor and low-income adults.
15 Commissioner Rich said several counties have adopted a similar resolution. She
16 worked with Colleen Bridger, Director of Health Department, to create the resolution. She said
17 the numbers do not lie; 13 percent of Orange County residents are uninsured.
18 Colleen Bridger said if the situation stays as is and N.C. does not expand Medicaid there
19 will be 7500 people in Orange County who will not be able to get healthcare through subsidies
20 in the exchange program. She said expansion of Medicaid would provide these 7500 people
21 with access to insurance. She said without this expansion these people are stuck in the
22 Medicaid hole.
23 Chair Jacobs thanked Colleen Bridger and Commissioner Rich for their work on this
24 resolution.
25
26 RES-2013-095
27
28 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
29
30 Resolution Urging the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor McCrory to
31 reconsider their decision not to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care
32 Act to provide coverage for poor and low-income adults
33
34 WHEREAS, an estimated 13 percent of Orange County residents (approximately 18,000
35 people) are uninsured; and
36
37 WHEREAS, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") expands health
38 insurance coverage for poor and low-income adults by raising the threshold for Medicaid
39 eligibility to 138 percent of the poverty line ($26,951 for a family of three); and
40
41 WHEREAS, the federal government would pay almost the entire cost of expansion —93 percent
42 over the first nine years (2014-2022) according to estimates prepared by the bipartisan
43 Congressional Budget Office; and
44
45 WHEREAS, the expansion of Medicaid would provide health insurance coverage to nearly
46 500,000 low-income residents of North Carolina and would save the State of North Carolina and
47 the counties and municipalities therein substantial sums on uncompensated medical care for
48 the uninsured; and
49
50 WHEREAS, the expansion of Medicaid would bring billions in federal funds to the State and
4
1 Orange County over a period of ten years and would create many new jobs in the health care
2 sector in Orange County and elsewhere in the State; and
3
4 WHEREAS, the 2012 Supreme Court Decision upholding the ACA modified the ACA and gave
5 states the choice of whether to expand their Medicaid programs; and
6
7 WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly in February 2013 adopted legislation
8 refusing to expand Medicaid coverage under the ACA; and
9
10 WHEREAS, in Orange County an estimated 7,500 residents (or 42% of the uninsured) who
11 would have qualified for Medicaid under the Federal expansion are now ineligible for Medicaid
12 and Marketplace subsidies, leaving them uninsured; and
13
14 WHEREAS, under the ACA residents of North Carolina who have incomes ranging from the
15 poverty level up to four times that amount are eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize the
16 purchase of private health insurance, but without the expansion of Medicaid those below the
17 poverty level are ineligible to receive the tax credits, Medicaid or any other assistance with
18 health insurance coverage; and
19
20 WHEREAS, health insurance coverage rates for employers and individuals purchasing private
21 health insurance coverage in North Carolina will likely rise as hospitals and health care
22 providers throughout the State absorb the unreimbursed costs of providing health care to the
23 uninsured poor and low-income adults who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid coverage
24 and as those costs are shifted to private pay patients; and
25
26
27 WHEREAS, the Orange Board of County Commissioners believes all residents should have
28 access to quality, affordable health coverage and that expansion of Medicaid coverage under
29 the ACA is a responsible means of achieving that desired goal;
30
31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners of Orange
32 County does hereby urge the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor McCrory to
33 accept federal funds to expand Medicaid in North Carolina.
34
35 This, the 19th day of November 2013.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
38 adopt a Resolution urging the North Carolina General Assembly, Governor McCrory and
39 members of Orange County's legislative delegation to reconsider its decision not to expand
40 Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage for poor and low-income
41 adults.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 5. Public Hearings
46
47 a. Orange County Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
48 The Board received comments from the public regarding a proposed CDBG-Economic
49 Development project including Morinaga America Foods, Inc., considered closing the public
50 hearing and scheduling the application review for December 2, 2013.
5
1 Craig Benedict said this item is Orange County's CDBG grant.
2 Bill Cowan, a partner with Martin-McGill Associates, said his firm has been hired to
3 provide instruction on the CDBG grant process. He highlighted the project, which is to build
4 infrastructure, including roadways, water and sewer lines to the site. He said the County is
5 applying for a $750,000 grant, with a $250,000 county match. Orange County is spending its
6 $250,000 on soft costs, which include the application process and design work.
7 He said Morinaga has committed to creating 90 jobs in the first three years of operation.
8 He said these positions will pay $38,000 per job, which meets the wage test for the program.
9 He said there is also a $264,000 performance grant being given by the state as part of
10 the incentive package. He said the NCDOT will construct the road to the site.
11 He said the plan is to have the completed application at the Board's Dec. 2nd meeting,
12 with the exception of the environmental assessment. He said this application has to be
13 completed prior to drawing down federal funds.
14
15 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close
18 the public hearing.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
23 schedule the CDBG application review for the December 2, 2013 Board of County
24 Commissioners meeting.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 b. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan
29 The Board held a public hearing on the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action
30 Plan required for implementing a Safe Routes to School program in Orange County.
31
32 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
33
34 Purpose of Tonight's Meeting:
35 To hold a public hearing on the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan required
36 for implementing a SRTS program in Orange County.
37
38 Helpful Attachments (in permanent agenda file in Clerk's office)
39 ❑ Attachment 1 —Amendment Outline Form
40 ❑ Attachment 2 —SRTS Strategic Action Plan Overview
41 ❑ Attachment 3 — Draft SRTS Strategic Action Plan
42 ❑ Attachment 4 — Process Flowchart
43
44 Safe Routes to School Program
45 The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program is a federally funded program providing an
46 opportunity for communities to improve conditions for bicycling and walking to school.
47
48 Program Benefits Include:
49 ➢ Improving safety for pedestrians
50 and bicyclists
6
1 ➢ Reducing traffic congestion
2 around schools
3 ➢ Reducing emissions
4 ➢ Improving children's health
5
6 Background Highlights
7 ❑ NCDOT award to prepare SRTS Action Plan — July 2008
8 ❑ Steering Committee and public involvement through 2009
9 ➢ Three schools chosen through this process
10 ❑ NCDOT contracted with consultant for draft Plan —2009
11 ❑ Draft plan completed and delivered to staff— Dec. 2012
12 ❑ Orange County Schools & Town of Hillsborough updates and authorizations from 2011-
13 2013
14 ❑ OUTBoard updated during Steering Committee and public involvement phase, and also
15 earlier this year
16
17 SRTS Projects
18 ❑ Located within 2 miles of a K-8 school.
19 ❑ Projects can be bundled as infrastructure and non-infrastructure.
20 ➢ Training volunteers
21 ➢ Street crossings
22 ➢ Sidewalks
23 ➢ Bicycle/ Pedestrian lanes, trails
24 ❑ Benefits can extend beyond schools, and projects with multiple purposes/greater impact
25 are favored.
26
27 SRTS Projects
28 ❑ There are some projects that are not allowed:
29 ➢ Those with recurring costs, such as school crossing guards
30 ➢ Bus stop improvements
31 ➢ Pick-up and drop-off sites
32 ➢ Educational focus buses
33
34 SRTS Project Funding
35 ❑ Established under previous federal legislation (SAFETEA-LU), now MAP-21
36 ➢ Reimbursement program
37 ➢ No local match required
38 ❑ Remaining SAFETEA-LU funds are available
39 ❑ Orange County can compete for remaining funds with an adopted SRTS Plan (no local
40 match)
41 ❑ Other potential miscellaneous sources of funding
42
43 Implementation - Next Steps
44 ❑ Adoption by Orange County Schools, the Town of Hillsborough, and Orange County.
45 ❑ Orange County to serve as the lead planning agency for implementation of the Plan.
46 ❑ A sub-committee of the OUTBoard proposed to serve as the SRTS Advisory Committee,
47 supplemented by staff.
48
49 Abigaile Pittman said the three schools chosen for inclusion are: Charles W. Stanford
50 Middle School, Cameron Park Elementary School, and Grady A. Brown Elementary.
7
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he had questions about the data regarding transportation
2 modes used by students. He asked if there has been a more detailed analysis of numbers,
3 such as an analysis of how many more students could walk if the improvements were made. He
4 said if this kind of detailed analysis has not been done, he would like to see it done. .
5 Abigaile Pittman said participants were asked, in other parts of study, about distances,
6 travel modes and departure times. She scrolled through appendix A.
7 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this information could be pulled out and put in a
8 summary format for the public hearing in February.
9 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should keep in mind that sidewalk improvements
10 and other improvements will also help the adjacent high school students.
11 Abigaile Pittman said, even though high schools are not in the plan, projects with
12 multiple impacts are ranked higher.
13 Commissioner Price said when she was on the OUTBoard, members did look at the
14 same issues that Commissioner Dorosin mentioned. She said many apartments are within
15 walking distance of Grady Brown Elementary School; however students cannot walk because of
16 the traffic and the lack of sidewalks. She said the same is true of Cameron Park Elementary,
17 and the middle schools.
18 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) are also
19 working on this.
20 Abigaile Pittman said she is not working with CHCCS, but she has asked that question
21 at the state level. She was told that CHCCS was doing its own plan.
22 Commissioner Gordon asked if Abigaile Pittman would be willing to assist CHCCS if
23 needed.
24 Abigaile Pittman said yes.
25 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to see the estimated costs of the proposed
26 improvements for all three projects.
27 Abigaile Pittman said she is currently in conversation with DOT about this.
28
29 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
32
33 1. Receive the Draft Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan (Attachment
34 4);
35 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public and BOCC comments on the proposed
36 Plan;
37 3. Refer the Plan to the Orange County Schools and the Town of Hillsborough for review
38 and adoption consideration, and report the review comments and actions to the
39 BOCC in time for the February 18, 2014 regular Board meeting;
40 4. Refer the matter to the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) with a
41 request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the February 18,
42 2014 BOCC regular meeting; and
43 5. Adjourn the public hearing until the February 18, 2014 regular Board meeting in order
44 to receive and accept the review comments and actions of the Orange County
45 Schools and the Town of Hillsborough, and the OUTBoard's recommendations, and
46 any submitted written comments.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
8
1 c. Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan (No
2 Additional Comments Accepted)
3 The Board received the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations,
4 considered closing the public hearing, and considered making a decision by considering a
5 resolution approving the proposed Eno EDD Access Management Plan.
6 (no additional comments allowed)
7
8 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
9
10 Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan (AMP)
11 Quarterly Public Hearing - September 9th
12 Eno EDD AMP Plan referred to Planning Board and OUTBoard for recommendations.
13 Purpose:
14 To receive the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations, close the public hearing,
15 and make a decision on the proposed Plan.
16
17 What is an Access Management Plan and Why is it Important?
18 Provides for the proactive management of vehicular access through:
19 ❑ Controlled access to roads by spacing potential DOT-approved driveway access points.
20 ❑ Provisions for shared driveways and common access off major roads.
21 ❑ Use of medians to enhance traffic safety.
22 ❑ Use of frontage roads to reduce traffic on major roads like US 70.
23 ❑ Connectivity of roads in new development to approved points of access.
24 ❑ Preliminary ideas on extension of new roads to adjacent areas for future access.
25 ❑ A coordinated review process with NCDOT.
26
27 How will the Access Management Plan Be Implemented?
28 Because the Plan is generalized, and not property-specific:
29 ❑ When specific projects are submitted they will be examined for consistency with overall
30 Plan criteria; and
31 ❑ In some cases traffic studies may be required that may identify the need for
32 transportation improvements.
33
34 Why is a Formally Adopted Access Management Plan Important?
35 ❑ To require developer/property owner compliance in providing transportation
36 infrastructure consistent with the Plan;
37 ❑ Coordination with regional transportation organizations; and
38 ❑ To obtain federal and state funding for projects
39
40 September 9 Public Hearing Comments
41 ❑ Public Comments
42 ➢ Truck traffic
43 ➢ Rural Character of Old NC Hwy 10 area
44 ➢ Safety for bicyclists and joggers
45 ➢ Petition Submitted
46 Concerns about previously approved development plans (i.e. zoning, land
47 use)
48 Attachment 4 provides an excerpt from the draft minutes of the September 9, 2013 joint public
49 hearing on this item.
50 Attachment 3 provides the petition and petition map.
9
1
2 September 9 Public Hearing Comments
3 ❑ BOCC Comments
4 ➢ Speed limits
5 ➢ Rural Character of Old NC Hwy 10 area
6 ❑ Staff review of protection options
7 ➢ Bike lane language
8 ➢ Staff to summarize access management planning "101"
9 Attachment 4 provides an excerpt from the draft minutes of the September 9, 2013 joint public
10 hearing on this item.
11
12 October 2"d Planning Board Recommendation
13 Unanimous recommendation to adopt Plan with:
14 ❑ Staff's recommended Plan revisions; and
15 ❑ Continued staff review of protections that may be put in place to preserve the character
16 of Old NC Hwy 10; and
17 ❑ Report back to the BOCC.
18 Attachment 5 provides an excerpt from the draft minutes of the October 2, 2013 Planning Board
19 meeting.
20
21 October 15th OUTBoard Recommendation
22 Unanimous recommendation to adopt Plan with:
23 ❑ Staff's recommended Plan revisions;
24 ❑ Continued staff review of protections that may be put in place to preserve the character
25 of Old NC Hwy 10;
26 ❑ Keep the OUTBoard informed as to progress; and
27 ❑ Report back to the BOCC.
28 Attachment 6 provides an excerpt from the draft minutes of the October 15, 2013 OUTBoard
29 meeting.
30
31 Review of Protection Options for Old NC Hwy 10:
32 Based on BOCC, public comments and advisory board discussions, Staff recommends that
33 they be authorized to research protection options for Old NC Hwy 10 and report back, as
34 detailed in the Resolution (Attachment 7).
35
36 Staff Recommendations for Plan Revisions
37 Specifics are provided in the Abstract.
38 In general, Staff's revisions address:
39 ❑ Clarification regarding bike lanes on Old NC Hwy 10;
40 ❑ Future cross-sections of road within the area; and
41 ❑ Minor map changes
42 ➢ Remove symbol for possible transit stop
43 ➢ Revise legend for signalized intersections
44
45 Interim Manager's Recommendation
46 1. Receive the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations of approval;
47 2. Close the public hearing; and
48 3. Consider approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution (Attachment 7)
49 adopting the Plan (Attachment 2), which incorporates the revisions recommended by staff and
50 included in the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations of approval.
10
1
2 Eno EDD-Access Management Concept Map
3
4 Commissioner Pelissier said she had not previously heard of the term "scenic
5 conservation easement". She asked for an explanation.
6 Abigaile Pittman said this program was originally designated for Saint Mary's Road. She
7 said the DOT purchased conservation easements, whereby residents gave up development
8 rights in order to preserve scenic components along a road. She said this is done on a case by
9 case basis, and contracts may differ from one property to another.
10 Commissioner McKee asked if funding is still available for these conservation
11 easements.
12 Abigaile Pittman said she does not believe funding is still available from DOT for that
13 program. She said staff will research this.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there has been outreach to residents from the N.C. 10 area
15 who spoke at the QPH.
16
17 Abigaile Pittman said she has fielded some emails. She said the report has not been
18 done yet, and there will be outreach to these residents once the report is complete.
19 Chair Jacobs suggested a presentation be given to the community once preliminary
20 findings are completed. He said there are 66 people on the list, though there are fewer
21 addresses. He suggested a letter be sent to these residents, stating that concerns regarding
22 N.C. 10 were heard and addressed. He said this would encourage residents to plug back in
23 and review this progress.
24 Abigaile Pittman said she has already met with DOT to start a conversation on the
25 planned signage.
26 She noted that Planning Board and OUTBoard member Paul Guthrie was in the
27 audience.
28 Chair Jacobs said he will work with staff to draft a letter to the above mentioned N.C. 10
29 residents.
30 Commissioner Price said the petition did not specifically address access management.
31 She asked if buffer areas and other land uses will be taken into consideration as this moves
32 forward.
33 Chair Jacobs said the answer is yes for the corridor; however the EDD is a different
34 issue. He said there were broader concerns than N.C. 10, and this resolution specifically
35 addresses concerns for N.C. 10.
36 Commissioner Price said she was just wondering if these concerns will be considered.
37 Chair Jacobs said residents can raise their concerns again. He said the goal will not be
38 to solicit concerns about the EDD, but to explore concerns about access management for N.C.
39 10. He noted that the public can petition the Board about additional concerns at any time.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said the recommended language in attachment 7 talks generally
41 about additional review of N.C. 10 and Highway 70.
42 Chair Jacobs pointed out the language in the last part of the resolution on page 64.
43 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map that shows the zonings, and overlay districts
44 in yellow.
45 Abigaile Pittman said this marks the major transportation corridor on the interstate.
46 Commissioner Dorosin asked how the boundaries of this corridor were created. He
47 noted that it does not follow lot lines, and it seems much wider in some areas than others.
48 Abigaile Pittman said this is because this is an intersection of two major corridors-
49 Highway 70 and the interstate. She said the distances are defined by the ordinance.
50 Commissioner Dorosin said this zoning map is on page 19 — 5-c-2.
11
1 Chair Jacobs said he shared Commissioner Price's concerns about the residents.
2
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close
6 the public hearing.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
11 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution (Attachment 7) adopting the Eno
12 Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan (detailed in Attachment 2),
13 which incorporates the Plan revisions recommended by staff and included in the Planning
14 Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations of approval; and authorize Chair Jacobs to send a
15 letter to the residents of N.C. 10.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 6. Consent Agenda
20 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
21 - 6-f
22 - 6-h
23
24 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon 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 6-f - Commemorative Plaques for Recently Commissioned Facilities
34 The Board considered approving the installation of commemorative plaques in recently
35 constructed facilities, with funding of up to $22,500 from currently available funds within the
36 Asset Management Services General Fund FY 2013-14 budget to cover the costs.
37
38 Commissioner McKee said he pulled this because the Board has an item on the regular
39 agenda that relates to this item, and it is out of the order of procedure to approve plaques on a
40 building before approving a policy.
41 Commissioner Price agreed with this.
42 Commissioner McKee suggested this item be tabled until after the policy has been
43 decided.
44 Commissioner Gordon said she would like a timeline of when this would come back.
45 Michael Talbert said this would probably come back in January or February.
46 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
47 table this item until staff comes back with a policy, no later than the meeting scheduled for
48 February 20, 2014.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said the properties listed in the consent agenda are items that
50 are already completed. He said the new policy would be anything done today and forward.
12
1 Commissioner Gordon said she has no objection to approving the plaques, as the
2 buildings are already built. She said if this does not delay the plaques too long, it could be
3 acceptable.
4
5 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner
6 Price); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner Pelissier)
7
8 Commissioner Gordon made a motion to reconsider the motion, and the Commissioners
9 then reconsidered the motion:
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Jacobs to approve
12 the plaques listed in agenda item 6-f, as proposed in the materials and recommendation for this
13 agenda item. They will be similar to the plaque at the Link Center.
14
15 In response to questions from Commissioner Price about what the motion meant, Chair
16 Jacobs clarified that the plaques will be the same as the one at the Link Center, and the names
17 on the plaques will be the commissioners who were serving when the buildings were
18 completed.
19 Commissioner Price clarified that there will not be an official vote on Item 7-d.
20 Chair Jacobs said there will be a vote to give staff direction on this item.
21 Commissioner McKee said Item 7-d seemed out of process if the Board is approving the
22 plaques before adopting the policy. He said the $22,500 is not a large amount of money,
23 considering the budget; however it is a large amount of money when considering the fact that it
24 could be transferred to Department of Social Services, Child Care Services, the Social Justice
25 Fund or some other area of need. He said it is an equity issue for him.
26 Chair Jacobs said there will be a request related to social services' needs at the next
27 meeting, and it will come out of a fund set aside for the purposes Commissioner McKee
28 articulated.
29
30 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
31 Pelissier, Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and Commissioner McKee)
32
33 6-h. Approval of Updated Orange County Volunteer Fire Department Agreements
34 The Board considered approving updated fire protection and emergency services
35 agreements between Orange County and each volunteer fire department (Caldwell, Cedar
36 Grove, Efland, Eno, New Hope, Orange Grove, Orange Rural, and White Cross) and
37 authorizing the Chair to sign.
38 Commissioner Gordon said she understood that staff had accepted several proposed
39 changes to the agreements and would be providing the revised wording at the Board member's
40 places. She referred to the contract and noted the term "manpower" on page 5 - point 11.b.
41 She said this should be changed to "personnel" in order to be gender neutral.
42 She referred to bullet 18 on page 9. She said this needs to say "must be competent",
43 eliminating the "however."
44 She said these two changes are also necessary on page 15 (change "manpower" to
45 "personnel"), and page 18 (remove "however").
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
48 approve the updated fire protection and emergency services agreements between Orange
49 County and each volunteer fire department (Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Efland, Eno, New Hope,
13
1 Orange Grove, Orange Rural, and White Cross) and authorize the Chair to sign, with
2 amendments stated above.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 a. Minutes
7 The Board approved the minutes from September 26 and October 3, 2013 as submitted by the
8 Clerk to the Board.
9 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
10 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
11 property tax values for twenty-three (23) taxpayers with a total of twenty-four (24) bills that will
12 result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
13 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
14 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
15 values for twelve (12) taxpayers with a total of thirty-seven (37) bills that will result in a reduction
16 of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
17 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
18 The Board approved six (6) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
19 taxation for six (6) bills for the 2013 tax year.
20 e. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#3
21 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2013-14
22 for Department on Aging; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
23 (DEAPR); Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; Department of Social
24 Services; Library Services; Health Department; Sheriff's Department, Solid Waste Department;
25 and the Board of County Commissioners.
26 g. Orange County Volunteer Application — Proposed Revisions
27 The Board approved proposed revisions to the Orange County Volunteer Application for
28 boards/commissions.
29 i. Orange Public Transportation Expansion Vehicles for FYs 2016-2020
30 The Board approved a project funding request from Orange Public Transportation (OPT) to the
31 North Carolina Department of Transportation for three (3) expansion vehicles for fiscal years
32 (FYs) 2016-2020 and to authorize the Chair to sign the associated Local Funding Commitment
33 Form.
34 j. Amendment Outline and Schedule for Upcoming Item —Town of
35 Hillsborough/Orange County Interlocal Agreement Implementation —Adjustment of
36 Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and Application of County Future
37 Land Use Map Classifications and Zoning
38 The Board authorized staff to proceed with steps for the adjustment of Hillsborough
39 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and application of County Future Land Use Map Classifications
40 and Zoning to affected areas according to the schedule proposed in the Amendment Outline
41 (Attachment 1).
42
43
44 7. Regular Agenda
45
46 a. Resolutions to Endorse Orange County's Priority Transportation Projects for the
47 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Triangle
48 Area Rural Planning Organization
49 The Board considered approving two (2) resolutions (Attachments 2 and 5) endorsing
50 two (2) priority lists of transportation projects within the Triangle Area Rural Planning
14
1 Organization (TARPO) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
2 Organization (DCHC MPO) planning areas for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2022
3 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
4 Bret Martin said the priority list for the Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning
5 Organization was approved by the Board at the September 17th meeting. He said this included
6 all of the projects across all modes.
7 He noted that the transit specific projects were approved by the Board in October, for
8 submission to TARPO and DCHC MPO. He said that list was not a priority list, but was only a
9 project submission list for transit items.
10 He said the resolutions being discussed tonight are for submission of all priority
11 transportation projects across all modes. He said these lists are intended to serve a dual role:
12 1) These are the County projects being submitted for state scoring and consideration of
13 inclusion in the statewide transportation improvement program; and 2) This list will serve as a
14 guide for the transportation coordinating committee and transportation advisory committee for
15 prioritization of projects.
16 Bret Martin said the starting point was the list submitted in 2011 as part of the statewide
17 transportation improvement projects; however new projects have been added with ranking
18 order. He said this ranking is based on changes in NCDOT funding policies, and is also
19 intended to increase scoring output.
20 Commissioner Pelissier noted the timeline and the possible re-prioritization if project
21 scores come back early enough from DOT. She asked how likely it is that the Board would not
22 have time to see this. She hopes there would be time to review scores and re-prioritize, if
23 needed.
24 Bret Martin said he hoped this information would be available on time. He said the
25 current timeline would allow for this. He said the problem is that information from DOT has
26 been arriving late. He does not want to miss the deadline.
27 Chair Jacobs noted that the resolution related to TARPO starts on page 10 ( Attachment
28 2) and the resolution for DCHC MPO starts on page 18 (Attachment 5).
29 Commissioner Gordon said she would like to consider these resolutions separately.
30 She said she talked with MPO staff today, and the MPO process is different from the
31 TARPO process. She said the MPO requires a submission of projects, but only the
32 bike/pedestrian projects need to be in priority order.
33 Commissioner Gordon said she thinks the resolution should state that there is a
34 possible re-prioritization. She feels it would be a benefit to submit now, but it is important to
35 retain the flexibility to come back with changes if necessary, as more information becomes
36 available.
37 Chair Jacobs asked if Commissioner Gordon was proposing this for each resolution.
38
39 Commissioner Gordon said this would just be for DCHC MPO, as TARPO has a
40 different process.
41 Resolution- TARPO
42 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
43
44
45 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION
46 PROJECTS FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TARPO)
47 REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2016 — 2022 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION
48 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
15
1
2 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), every two years, prepares a
3 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that identifies transportation projects to
4 be implemented over the next seven years with State and Federal funding; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the North Carolina BOT solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local
7 and regional importance to be included in the FY 2016-2022 STIP; and
8
9 WHEREAS, North Carolina has established Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) to coordinate
10 regional transportation planning in rural areas in cooperation with the North Carolina
11 Department of Transportation (NCDOT);
12
13 WHEREAS, Orange County is a member of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
14 (TARPO) charged with developing and prioritizing proposed transportation projects that the
15 RPO believes should be included in the STIP;
16
17 WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
18 bridges, to transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects
19 that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those
20 projects that foster economic development in the County's designated Economic Development
21 Districts; and
22
23 WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the NCDOT to design all highway projects,
24 where appropriate, to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means
25 of transportation that may result in reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts;
26 and
27
28 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges
29 with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian
30 passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; and
31
32 WHEREAS, Orange County has outlined its transportation needs within the TARPO planning
33 area in an attachment to this resolution;
34
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
36 the Board endorses the following prioritized list of transportation projects to be considered for
37 the FY 2016-2022 TARPO regional priority list.
38
39 1 Orange Public Transportation Expansion Vehicles: Request/purchase up to six (6), 25-foot,
40 18-passenger cutaway bus vehicles to accommodate bus service expansion as
41 recommended in the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) and the draft
42 Five-Year Orange County Bus Service Expansion Program currently under development.
43
44 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to be considered for inclusion in
45 the TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP.
46
47 2 NC 54 Widening: Widen NC 54 from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Old Fayetteville
48 Road (SR 1937/1107) from a two (2)-lane undivided thoroughfare to a four (4)-lane
49 divided boulevard type thoroughfare.
50
16
1 This project will be submitted as a new highway project to be considered for inclusion in
2 the TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP.
3
4 3 Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening: Widen Buckhorn Road from U.S. 70 to West Ten
5 Road (SR1144) to multiple lanes with bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
6
7 This project was previously submitted as a highway project and will be reprioritized and
8 submitted as a highway project for consideration of inclusion in both the TARPO
9 regional priority list and the BGMPO Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
10 (MTIP) as well as the 2016-2022 STIP.
11
12 4 Park-and-Ride Improvements at Orange County Northern Human Services Center
13 (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride improvements at the Orange County Northern
14 Human Services Center for potential fixed-route service to Hillsborough.
15
16 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to TARPO for consideration of
17 inclusion in the TARPO regional priority list and the 2016-2022 STIP.
18
19 5 Efland-Cedar Grove Road Improvements: Widen Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
20 from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to the northern property line of the U.S. Post
21 Office north of Carr Store Road (SR 1352) from a two (2)-lane, 20-foot cross section to
22 a 24-foot cross section with straightening of the roadway where needed, improvements
23 to turn lanes, and the incorporation of bicycle facilities.
24
25 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project to be considered for
26 inclusion in the TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP.
27
28 6 Orange Grove Road Paved Shoulders (From NC 54 to Arthur Minnis Road): Widen
29 Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from NC 54 to Arthur Minnis Road to include four (4)-
30 foot paved shoulders.
31
32 This project will be submitted as a new bike project to be considered for inclusion in the
33 TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County commits the
34 required 20% local match.
35
36 7 Dairyland Road Paved Shoulders: Widen Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177) from
37 Union Grove Church Road (SR 1111) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to include four
38 (4)-foot paved shoulders.
39
40 This project will be submitted as a new bike project to be considered for inclusion in the
41 TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County commits the
42 required 20% local match.
43
44 8 Orange Grove Road/Buckhorn Road Paved Shoulders: Widen Orange Grove Road (SR
45 1006) from Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Buckhorn Road
46 (SR 1114) from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to West Ten Road (SR 1144) to include
47 four (4)-foot paved shoulders.
48
17
1 This project will be submitted as a new bike project to be considered for inclusion in the
2 TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County commits the
3 required 20% local match.
4
5
6
7
8 9 Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders: Widen Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) from
9 Carrboro's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the Orange/Alamance County line to
10 include four (4)-foot paved shoulders.
11
12 This project will be submitted as a new bike project to be considered for inclusion in the
13 TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County commits the
14 required 20% local match.
15
16 10 Orange Grove Road/Dodsons Crossroads: Widen Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from
17 I-40 to Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102) and Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102) from
18 Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to include four (4)-foot
19 paved shoulders.
20
21 This project will be submitted as a new bike project to be considered for inclusion in the
22 TARPO regional priority list as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County commits the
23 required 20% local match.
24
25
26 Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner
27 the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 19th day of November, 2013.
28
29 I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina,
30 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
31 Board at a meeting held on November 19, 2013, as relates in any way to the adoption of the
32 foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board.
33 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2013.
34
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
37 approve attachments 2, 3, and 4, related to TARPO.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 REVISED RESOLUTION — DCHC-MPO
42
43 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
44
45
46 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION
47 PROJECTS FOR THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING
48 ORGANIZATION (DCHC MPO) REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2016—2022
49 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
50
18
1 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), every two years, prepares a
2 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that identifies transportation projects to
3 be implemented over the next seven years with State and Federal funding; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the North Carolina BOT solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local
6 and regional importance to be included in the FY 2016-2022 STIP; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee is charged with the
9 development of a regional priority list and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
10 (MTIP); and
11
12 WHEREAS, Orange County is a member jurisdiction of the DCHC MPO; and
13
14 WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
15 bridges, to transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects
16 that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those
17 projects that foster economic development in the County's designated Economic Development
18 Districts; and
19
20 WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of
21 Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate
22 bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in
23 reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges
26 with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian
27 passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; and
28
29 WHEREAS, Orange County has outlined its transportation needs within the DCHC MPO
30 planning area in an attachment to this resolution;
31
32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
33 the Board endorses the following prioritized list of transportation projects to be considered for
34 the FY 2016-2022 DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP;
35
36 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
37 Commissioners may re-prioritize the following list of transportation projects, as more
38 information becomes available in the coming months.
39
40 1 Orange Grove Road/I-40 Pedestrian Bridge: Construct a pedestrian bridge over I-40
41 alongside Orange Grove Road (SR 1006), construct a sidewalk along the north side of
42 Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from the pedestrian bridge to Timbers Drive, construct
43 sidewalks along both sides of New Grady Brown School Road with a midblock crossing,
44 and construct a sidewalk along one side of Oakdale Drive from Cheshire Drive to
45 Orange Grove Road.
46
47 This project will be submitted as a new pedestrian project for consideration of inclusion
48 in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP. The
49 project will be submitted as a Safe Routes to School (SRTS)-eligible project; however, if
19
1 it is not funded as an SRTS project, the County will be required to commit a 20% local
2 match.
3
4
5
6
7 2 Orange Public Transportation Expansion Vehicles: Request/purchase up to six (6), 25-
8 foot, 18-passenger cutaway bus vehicles to accommodate bus service expansion as
9 recommended in the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) and the
10 draft Five-Year Orange County Bus Service Expansion Program currently under
11 development.
12
13 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to be considered for inclusion in
14 the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP. The
15 project will also be submitted for consideration of Surface Transportation Program-
16 Direct Apportionment (STP-DA) funding to be determined internally by the MPO.
17
18 3 Park-and-Ride Improvements in Efland (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride
19 improvements in the Efland area for cross-county, fixed-route service between Mebane
20 and Durham.
21
22 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to the DCHC MPO for
23 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as
24 the 2016-2022 STIP. The project will also be submitted for consideration of STP-DA
25 funding to be determined internally by the MPO.
26
27 4 Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk Improvements: Construct a
28 sidewalk along the west side of Orange High School Road from Harold Latta Road to
29 U.S. 70, construct a sidewalk along the south side of Harold Latta Road from Cloverfield
30 Drive to Orange Grove Road, install high visibility crosswalks and in-road signage at
31 school entrances and exits on Orange Grove Road, and construct a sidewalk along
32 entrance roads to CW Stanford Middle School.
33
34 This project will be submitted as a new pedestrian project for consideration of inclusion
35 in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP. The
36 project will be submitted as a Safe Routes to School (SRTS)-eligible project; however, if
37 it is not funded as an SRTS project, the County will be required to commit a 20% local
38 match.
39
40 5 South Churton Street (Old NC 86) Improvements: Widen South Churton Street (SR
41 1009) from I-40 to U.S. 70 Business to multiple lanes with congestion management,
42 limited access, bicycle and pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements.
43
44 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project to be considered for
45 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
46 STIP.
47
48 6 U.S. 70 East/I-85 Connector: Modify the I-85 Connector (SR 1239) interchange at U.S.
49 70 to provide access from all directions.
50
20
1 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project to be considered for
2 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
3 STIP.
4
5 7 Orange Grove Road Extension: Extend Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from the east
6 side of South Churton Street (SR 1009) to U.S. 70 Business.
7
8 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project to be considered for
9 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
10 STIP.
11
12 8 NC 86 Improvements North of Hillsborough: Widen NC 86 from U.S. 70 Bypass to north
13 of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at U.S. 70 Bypass and NC 57.
14
15 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project to be considered for
16 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
17 STIP.
18
19 9 Park-and-Ride Improvements in Hillsborough (Conceptual): Implement park-and-ride
20 improvements in Hillsborough for cross-county, fixed-route service between Mebane
21 and Durham.
22
23 This project will be submitted as a new transit project to the DCHC MPO for
24 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as
25 the 2016-2022 STIP. The project's official submission must be made by Triangle
26 Transit.
27
28 10 Hillsborough Train Station: Construct a train station in Hillsborough and implement
29 AMTRAK
30 service.
31
32 This project will be submitted as a new transit/rail project by Triangle Transit for
33 consideration of inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as
34 the 2016-2022 STIP.
35
36 11 Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road: Realign the intersection of Eno
37 Mountain Road (SR 1148) and Mayo Street (SR 1192) with Orange Grove Road (SR
38 1006) and make safety improvements.
39
40 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project for consideration of
41 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
42 STIP.
43
44 12 Homestead Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalks: Improve Homestead Road (SR 1777) from
45 Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86 to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks in sections of
46 the corridor where they do not exist.
47
48 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project for consideration of
49 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
50 STIP.
21
1
2 13 Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD) Park-and-Ride: Construct a park-and-
3 ride facility to be located in the 1-85/Buckhorn Road EDD.
4
5 This project will be submitted as a new transit project by Triangle Transit or the
6 Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) for consideration of inclusion in
7 the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP.
8
9 14 1-40 Widening: Widen 1-40 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from the 1-40/1-85
10 interchange to the Durham County line.
11
12 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project for consideration of
13 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
14 STIP.
15
16 15 1-85 Widening: Widen 1-85 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from the 1-40/1-85
17 interchange to the Durham County line.
18
19 This project will be submitted as a reprioritized highway project for consideration of
20 inclusion in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022
21 STIP.
22
23 16 Trail Connection from Patriot's Pointe to Timbers Drive: Construct a multi-use path
24 connecting the southwest corner of Patriots Pointe to Timbers Drive to shorten walking
25 distances for pedestrians.
26
27 This project will be submitted as a new pedestrian project for consideration of inclusion
28 in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP. The
29 project will be
30
31
32 submitted as a Safe Routes to School (SRTS)-eligible project; however, if it is not
33 funded as an SRTS project, the County will be required to commit a 20% local match.
34
35 17 Trail Connection from English Hill Lane to Buttonwood Drive: Construct a multi-use path
36 connecting English Hill Lane to Buttonwood Drive.
37
38 This project will be submitted as a new pedestrian project for consideration of inclusion
39 in the DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP. The
40 project will be submitted as a Safe Routes to School (SRTS)-eligible project; however, if
41 it is not funded as an SRTS project, the County will be required to commit a 20% local
42 match.
43
44 18 Eubanks Road Bike Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes on Eubanks Road (SR 1727) from
45 Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86.
46
47 This project will be submitted as a new bike project for consideration of inclusion in the
48 DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County
49 commits the required 20% local match. The project will be submitted for consideration of
50 STP-DA funding to be determined internally by the MPO.
22
1
2 19 Dairyland Road Paved Shoulders: Widen Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177) from
3 Union Grove Church Road (SR 1111) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to include four
4 (4)-foot paved shoulders.
5
6 This project will be submitted as a new bike project for consideration of inclusion in the
7 DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County
8 commits the required 20% local match. The project will be submitted for consideration of
9 STP-DA funding to be determined internally by the MPO.
10
11 20 Mt. Carmel Church Road Bike/Pedestrian Improvements: Construct bike lanes and
12 sidewalks from US 15/501 to Bennett Road and bike lanes from Bennett Road to the
13 Chatham County line.
14
15 This project will be submitted as a new bike project for consideration of inclusion in the
16 DCHC MPO regional priority list and MTIP as well as the 2016-2022 STIP if the County
17 commits the required 20% local match. The project will be submitted for consideration of
18 STP-DA funding to be determined internally by the MPO.
19
20
21 Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner
22 the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 19th day of November, 2013.
23
24 I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina,
25 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
26 Board at a meeting held on November 19, 2013, as relates in any way to the adoption of the
27 foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board.
28 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2013.
29
30
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
33 approve attachment 5 with the following changes: Insert between the "Now, therefore be it
34 further resolved" paragraph, and Item 1, the following paragraph—"Be it further resolved that
35 the Orange County Board of Commissioners may re-prioritize the following list of transportation
36 projects, as more information becomes available in the coming months."
37
38 Commissioner Dorosin confirmed that the right to reprioritize is retained even without
39 the language. He said he feels the added language is redundant but he said he would vote for
40 it.
41 In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Bret Martin clarified that it was
42 not necessary to approve attachments 6 and 7, since they were just provided for the
43 Commissioners' information. Only the resolutions need approval.
44 Commissioner Rich thanked Commissioner Gordon for the clarifications to the
45 resolution.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49
50 b. Urban Curbside & Multi-family Recycling Discussion
23
1 The Board received an update on progress between the Towns and County regarding
2 urban curbside and multi-family recycling services and considered awarding the bid for roll
3 carts, not to exceed $1,100,000.
4 Michael Talbert said the Towns requested additional information from contractors on
5 having their own solid waste, curbside recycling and transfer station. He noted the attachment
6 outlining the details of the information received by Chapel Hill in their request for proposals
7 (RFP).
8 He said the County and Town managers met on November 1St, with the idea that the
9 County proposal would be very competitive with the RFP and with the intent to move forward.
10 He noted the letter of intent drafted by the County as a premise for moving forward. He
11 said the County is very interested in continuing the long term and successful partnership with
12 the towns regarding recycling and waste reduction.
13 Michael Talbert read the letter as follows:
14
15 "Orange County is very interested in continuing our long and successful partnership with the
16 Town with regard to recycling and waste reduction. Our state-leading programs are the model
17 for success in reducing local government waste disposal and our longstanding local recycling
18 partnership is a model of intergovernmental cooperation and effectiveness.
19
20 The Town wishes to continue participation in the recycling program. The most timely and least
21 complicated manner in which to proceed would be for the Town to authorize the County to
22 charge and collect a fee for urban curbside recycling within their town limits. The County would
23 provide turnkey urban curbside recycling services including new roll carts for all Town residents.
24 The Town Attorney has agreed that municipalities have the authority charge for the urban
25 curbside recycling services and authorize the County to provide the services.
26
27 Orange County Intends to:
28
29 • Immediately proceed with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Collection Services and Roll
30 Cart acquisition (carts may be available by piggybacking)
31 • Immediately assist the Towns with applications for DENR Roll Carts Grants
32 • Draft an interim agreement for the Purchase of Roll Carts using grant funds with each Town
33 whereby:
34 • The County will pay the Town an amount equal to the invoice received by the Town for the
35 roll carts purchased by the County for the Town solely for use in the Urban Curbside Recycling
36 Program, and
37 • Expect to receive the funds resulting from a grant awarded to the Town for the purpose of
38 implementation of curbside recyclable collection to offset the County expenditure on roll carts
39 • Negotiate in good faith with the Towns to finalize a new comprehensive Solid Waste Interlocal
40 Agreement as soon as possible but no later than June 30, 2014
41 • Implement the conversion to roll carts for the urban curbside recycling programs as soon as
42 contracts have been approved or purchase authority provided, but no later than July 1, 2014
43 The Town Intends to:
44
45 • Immediately apply for DENR Roll Carts Grants with the County's assistance as needed
46 • Negotiate in good faith with the County to execute an interim agreement for the purchase of
47 Roll Carts for each Town whereby
48 • The Town will notify the County of its receipt of an invoice for roll carts that were bid and
49 ordered by the County for use in the Town's curbside recycling program
50 • Receive payment from the County for the invoiced amount and then pay the invoice,
24
1 submitting proof of payment to the County
2 • Remit any funds received by the Town as a result of a roll cart grant award to the County
3 within 30 days of receipt of the grant funds.
4 • Negotiate in good faith with the County to finalize a new comprehensive Solid Waste Interlocal
5 Agreement as soon as possible but no later than June 30, 2014
6 • Assist the County with the implementation of a conversion to roll carts for the urban curbside
7 recycling programs as soon as contracts have been approved but no later than July 1, 2014
8 • Include in the Town's 2014/2015 Budget Ordinance a section authorizing the County to charge
9 and collect a fee for urban curbside and multi-family recycling within their town limits and
10 provide urban curbside and multi- family recycling services including new roll carts for all Town
11 residents."
12
13 Michael Talbert said the last point of the letter above is the most important. He said this
14 letter is before the Board tonight because the Town of Chapel Hill will hold their last meeting at
15 the end of November, and there is not adequate time for all boards to act. This letter of intent is
16 proposed as a means to move this forward.
17 He said the recommendation is to execute this letter of intent, and with the approval of
18 the Towns, have the County attorney work on an interim agreement to create the grant funding
19 for the purchase of the carts. He said the County will pick up the balance of this purchase. He
20 said the total purchase of the carts will be just over $1 million, and the anticipated grant
21 proceeds are $214,000.
22 He said, with Board authorization, the manager could award the roll cart bid prior to the
23 Board's return from break in January.
24 Commissioner Dorosin asked if, between now and June 30th, the status quo will
25 continue, regardless of how the Board proceeds. He asked if it was possible that any
26 agreements would go into effect before July 1.
27 Michael Talbert said there is a current arrangement to use reserve funds within solid
28 waste to fund these activities through July 1, 2014. He said that proceeding this way gives the
29 opportunity, on July 1, to do the billing that will replace the 3R fee. He said this will be attached
30 to the property tax.
31 He said the goal is to transition to curbside recycling with roll carts as soon as possible,
32 as it is more effective and efficient.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the program will continue being funded out of reserves
34 through June 30th
35 Michael Talbert said yes.
36 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the out of pocket cost of the carts will be about
37 $785,000.
38 Michael Talbert said this is correct.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Michael Talbert and the attorney have talked with the
40 Towns and if the Towns are on board with signing letters of intent.
41 Michael Talbert said yes. He said staff has gotten informal commitment from
42 Hillsborough. He said Carrboro has considered this in a public meeting and would like to move
43 forward. He said the Town of Chapel Hill has also instructed their manager to move forward.
44 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the section on financing mechanisms on page 6 of
45 the abstract. She thought there would be a district tax, but the draft appears to say there can
46 be different mechanisms for rural and urban areas.
47 Michael Talbert said tonight's item is only for urban curbside and multi-family within the
48 town limits. He said the draft is just a starting point for the potential of a future district. He said
49 this language is just a starting point.
25
1 He said the district tax is what has been discussed to date. He said the urban curbside
2 will be bid out to private contractors, and the County will purchase and maintain the roll carts.
3 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this means that the financing for July 1, 2014 is
4 unknown.
5 Michael Talbert said the urban service will be paid for with fees, as outlined in the
6 abstract. He said the fee is estimated at $60 per year for families and $19 per year for the
7 multi-family. He said this is not official until the RFP is back.
8 He said Chapel Hill also wants to look at bi-weekly collection alternatives.
9 Chair Jacobs said the County is anticipating a specific plan to pay for carts by the time
10 of the July 1St rollout. He said the current priority is to endorse the concept of moving toward
11 this option in the urban recycling program.
12 Michael Talbert said staff does anticipate financing the carts but the carts have a long
13 lead time and need to be ordered. He said financing can be arranged after this.
14 Commissioner Rich said she is excited about this, and she thanked the towns for
15 agreeing to stick with this amazing program.
16 She asked Gayle Wilson how many bins fit into the roll out carts. She questioned the bi-
17 weekly collection.
18 Gayle Wilson said the proposed carts are 95 gallons, versus the current 18 gallon bins.
19 He said the new roll carts will allow room for cardboard.
20 He clarified that bi-weekly collection means collection every other week.
21 Commissioner Rich said she liked the idea of an advisory board or citizen committee to
22 discuss solid waste and recycling.
23 Chair Jacobs suggested using language of"every other week" instead of bi-weekly
24 collection.
25 Commissioner Price thanked staff for moving this project forward. She asked about the
26 timeline for the rural area recycling.
27 Michael Talbert said that would be coming to the Board of County Commissioners on
28 December 10tH
29 Commissioner McKee said there is no doubt that the County and Towns can do this
30 more efficiently as a team.
31 Commissioner Gordon said she is glad there will be one recycling program.
32 She asked for confirmation that the carts will not be ordered until the letters of intent are
33 received.
34 Michael Talbert said this is correct.
35 Commissioner Gordon said this is an achievement worth celebrating.
36 Chair Jacobs said this is a breakthrough, and it will be celebrated at the Assembly of
37 Governments meeting.
38 He said the Solid Waste staff deserves a pat on the back for a great job.
39 He said this agreement could also help reach the goal of recycling more materials.
40 Chair Jacobs said this process might be more complicated in the rural areas.
41 Michael Talbert said the County and Towns are both interested in the possibility of fixing
42 the pricing for the urban services for at least 3-5 years.
43 Commissioner Rich thanked the solid waste staff.
44 Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 24 of the abstract. She asked for clarification
45 on the reference to performance measures.
46 Gayle Wilson said he understood that the town wanted more data on the performance of
47 the programs that were operated in the towns, specifically data on participation rates and
48 quantity of materials.
49 He said this was previously difficult to obtain, but the radio frequency chip (RFID) in the
50 roll carts should be able to provide this data.
26
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
3 Board to authorize:
4
5 1. The Manager to execute the attached Letter of Intent with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
6 Carrboro and Hillsborough when approved by the Towns;
7 2. The County Attorney, working with the Town Attorneys, to prepare an interim
8 agreement that would allow the County to proceed to expedite implementation of the
9 roll carts and new collection service for the Urban Curbside Program with the
10 objective being full implementation by July 1, 2014 and authorize the Manager to
11 execute the agreement; and
12 3. The Manager to award the bid for the roll carts not to exceed $1,100,000.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 c. Whitted Permanent Meeting Room Review and Approval of Technology Design
17 Elements
18 The Board reviewed and considered approving the technology design elements of the
19 Whitted Permanent meeting room; and authorizing the Interim County Manager to award the
20 construction bid for the project up to the capital project budget during the Winter break, subject
21 to final County Attorney approval.
22 Jeff Thompson introduced David Taylor from Corley/ Redfoot Architects and David
23 Evans from Sound Advice, who would assist with the presentation:
24
25 Architect David Taylor gave an overview of the following PowerPoint slides:
26
27 Whitted Building Renovation
28 Board Meeting Room
29 Design Development/Technology Presentation
30
31 Overall Site Plan (map)
32 Renovation Plan (blueprint)
33 Highlighted Areas
34 Replaced Existing Exterior Staircase due to code-required Exterior Area of Assisted
35 Rescue
36 Mirrored the Toilet Room/Coat Closet with the Electrical Room due to Sewer Tie-in
37 requirements
38 Relocated the TV Production Room and associated electrical and storage rooms for
39 better access to Meeting Room by Production/County Staff
40
41 David Evans reviewed the following slides:
42
43 Audio-Visual System Overview
44 Highly Integrated Audio/Visual System
45 Acoustical Treatment/Sound Reinforcement— everyone will be able to hear well.
46 Display— many, large monitors allow everyone to see presentation.
47 Video — high quality output of multiple sources, coordination with existing streaming
48 system
49 Lighting —studio-quality lighting for TV production
50 Control — multiple points of touch panel control
27
1 Support Components — shades, house lighting control, timers and clocks
2 Overflow Capabilities — infrastructure for large crowds
3
4 Sound Reinforcement Plan
5 Speakers mounted in ceilings and bulkheads
6 Sound-absorbing panels will provide good room acoustics for speech
7 Microphones identical to what you are used to
8 Multiple zones for proper mix-minus operation
9
10 Flat Screen Monitor Plan
11 60" Diagonal Monitor built into the presenter's podium for use by the Commission
12 80" Diagonal Monitors located high wall for public and staff use
13 60" Diagonal Monitors located on ceiling bulkheads for public use
14 Infrastructure provided for overflow conditions
15
16 Podium Plan
17 Built-in 60" Diagonal Flat Screen Monitor
18 Complete presentation capabilities
19 HC accessible
20
21 Camera Plan
22 Mounted to walls or pilasters
23 8-9 feet above floor
24 360-degree coverage
25
26 TV Production Lighting Plan
27 2 by 2 Elliptical Lighting Fixtures provide front and back lighting of people
28 1 by 2 Wall Washers provide even lighting of background
29 Similar fixtures seen at former Wake County Commission Chambers
30
31 Window Shading Plan
32 Motorized Shades on all windows in Meeting Room will be 5% open weave which allows
33 some light in but does not affect TV production capabilities
34 Manual Black-out Shades on windows in TV Production Room
35 Motorized Shades will be integrated into Crestron Touch Pad
36
37 Support Components
38 Crestron Touch Panel Control can be installed on any smartphone, Ipad, laptop or flat
39 screen monitor
40 One permanent touch panel located near the main entry
41 A Digital Clock and Timer will be located for convenient use by the Commission
42
43 TV Production Plan
44 Built-in counter and component racks for TV production
45 Coordination with existing streaming system
46 Separate air conditioning unit for this room
47
48 David Taylor reviewed the following slide, as well as a series of images depicting the
49 layout of the room:
50
28
1 Overflow Capabilities Plan
2 Provide junction boxes and conduits for temporary/portable flat screen monitors and
3 speakers to accommodate overflow crowds
4 Provide speakers in the Public Toilet Rooms
5
6 David Evans, reviewing the Camera Plan slide, said the cameras will be high definition
7 and have superior quality compared to the current cameras.
8 Commissioner Rich asked if there would be electric outlets available for audience
9 members.
10 David Taylor said the back wall has been designated as a media location with inputs for
11 audio, video, and power. He said this would give access to the feeds being put out over the air.
12 He said there would also be power on the pilasters, and the seating can be rearranged as
13 needed.
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked how far the podium would be from the dais.
15 David Taylor said it would be a distance of about 15 feet.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said he feels the screen on the podium is too far away to be
17 useful. He suggested the addition of screens to the Commissioner's places. He asked about
18 the size of the screen.
19 David Taylor said it would be a 60 inch screen.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said he would prefer screens built into the dais. He said it is
21 often difficult to see detailed items even on the big screens. He would like to see the
22 comparable costs.
23 Commissioner McKee asked if the project is still within the budget of$1.6 million.
24 David Taylor said it is within range of being on budget.
25 Commissioner Price said she has seen the dais screens work in Chapel Hill. She asked
26 how much the large monitors cost. She said the room looks a little tight.
27 Jeff Thompson said the room has a maximum capacity of 286 seats, and the displays
28 only show the room half full.
29 Commissioner Price asked about the costs of the monitors.
30 David Evans said the 80 inch monitors are $7-8000 and the 60 inch monitors are about
31 $3000. He said these are not consumer grade; they are designed for commercial spaces and
32 carry a three year warranty.
33 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to stay within budget. She asked how the
34 high ceilings are compensated for acoustically.
35 David Taylor said acoustical treatments have been added and an acoustical analysis
36 has been done on the room. He said the treatments keep the acoustics well within the standard
37 speech 1.1 to 1.5 second range of reverberation time.
38 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to make sure all of the Commissioners can
39 see.
40 Jeff Thompson suggested bringing in a duplicate of one of these monitors to a future
41 meeting as an example.
42 David Evans reviewed a blueprint of the bulkhead design that uncovers the window.
43 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there will be non-glare lighting.
44 David Evans said there is a fine line between what looks good and what works good.
45 He said the lights are higher, so they will not be in people's eyes quite as much. He said it
46 should be better, but there will also be more light than in the current meeting room. He said the
47 lights are dimmable and can be lowered.
48 David Taylor said the shape of the lens means the direct light of the bulb will not be in
49 the line of sight.
29
1 Commissioner Pelissier asked how everyone will see the monitor during joint work
2 sessions.
3 David Taylor showed the view from the podium. He said the layout will be oval shaped,
4 and the three monitors will still be visible. He said the people behind the podium will have a
5 separate set of monitors. He said everyone on the south end of the room should have a good
6 view. He said the people at the north end will still have a good view of the lecturn.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if Michael Talbert could duplicate the size of the lecturn at the
8 Chapel Hill Town Hall.
9 Commissioner Gordon asked if the podium is movable.
10 David Taylor said yes.
11 Chair Jacobs asked if it is possible to have some of the monitors on swivels to allow
12 them to be angled for better view.
13 David Taylor said the monitors are planned to be angled at 15 degrees. He said
14 research can be done on this.
15 Chair Jacobs said the monitors are energy hogs. He said there needs to be a built in
16 way to turn off the ones that are not being used.
17 He said it also seems like there are a lot of monitors. He asked if there could be fewer,
18 especially if the project runs up against budget constraints.
19 David Evans said there is flexibility to scale back if desired.
20 Chair Jacobs said he would be interested to see the 60 inch or 80 inch monitor. He said
21 this might address some of the concerns.
22 He said he can also see a point where Commissioners might want to have some touch
23 screen capabilities in front of them. He said an alternative to individual devices would be to
24 have a built in computer monitor in front of all members of the Board.
25 Jeff Thompson asked if Chair Jacobs is asking for a laptop or monitor function.
26 Chair Jacobs suggested both be considered. He suggested it might be good to build in
27 some flexibility.
28 Commissioner Gordon said it is fine to consider different alternatives. She said this
29 room is going to be in use for a long time, and technology will change. She said it may be
30 better to set up wiring up front to prepare for future use and future technology. She suggested
31 using the type of monitors shown tonight in the presentation rather than a device built into the
32 dais.
33 Jeff Thompson said the technology piece is separate from the construction document
34 and the bid process. He said there will be time to move forward before the final component
35 installation has to be done.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
38 the Board to:
39
40 Authorize the Interim County Manager to award the construction bid for the project up
41 to the capital project budget during the Winter break, subject to final County Attorney approval.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 d. Policy for Commemorative Plaques for County Facilities
46 The Board provided guidance to the Interim County Manager on the crafting of a
47 proposed policy for commemorative plaque design and installation for County facilities.
48 Jeff Thompson said the plaque in the hallway is a 24 inch x 24 inch anodized aluminum
49 plaque that is not designed to go outside. He said it is finished to have a brass appearance and
50 it is the standard in the County.
30
1 Commissioner McKee said, considering on how much focus they put on process, he
2 does not understand why process was not put in this item.
3 Chair Jacobs clarified that the plaque described is designed for interior use.
4 Jeff Thompson said the exterior ones are 4 to 5 times more expensive and are more
5 difficult to install.
6 Commissioner Dorosin ran down the list of question and said he thinks any county
7 facility can be considered. He said interior plaques should be used for buildings, and signage
8 should be used for parks.
9 He said any capital project should have a plaque, and all substantive renovations should
10 have a plaque, including the Whitted building.
11 He said the standard text should include the name of the building, the year of
12 construction, and the list of Commissioners and Construction team members. He said the
13 plaques should include the names of those Board of County Commissioners who are serving at
14 the time of opening.
15 Commissioner Gordon said to look back at examples of what was done in the past. She
16 is in favor of putting plaques in all buildings at the time of project completion. She thinks the
17 plaques should be placed on the interior. She said there should probably be a size threshold
18 as well as some consideration of how many plaques are already in the building.
19 She said listing the Board members serving at the time of completion is probably
20 easiest, but this can be discussed later.
21 Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the idea that people who made a
22 project happen might not be on the plaque if it only includes people on the Board when it was
23 completed.
24 Chair Jacobs said Chapel Hill includes the names of both past and present council
25 members who were involved at any point from project approval to completion.
26 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's comments, however she
27 would include Commissioners names from the beginning of the project to the end.
28 Chair Jacobs said he agreed. He said he does feel that the contemporary County logo
29 should be on the plaque.
30 Chair Jacobs said there should be a size or function threshold.
31 Commissioner Gordon said she is convinced that plaques should include the Board of
32 County Commissioners that initiated the project. She said the decision has already been made
33 that the plaques currently being put up will be the old model. She clarified that the new logo
34 discussion is related to going forward.
35 Commissioner Rich said she likes the idea of putting plaques in after renovations, as it
36 shows the history of the building.
37 Commissioner Dorosin suggested a time capsule be built into the cornerstone for any
38 new building.
39 Commissioner Price suggested a limit be placed on the cost for the individual plaques.
40 Jeff Thompson said costs would be part of the CIP.
41 Chair Jacobs said he feels this is a great example of giving the Board options.
42 Jeff Thompson said he felt staff has enough input to proceed.
43
44 Michael Talbert referred back to item 7c for clarification. He noted that the motion did
45 not include approval of the technology design. He asked if this was to be delayed until more
46 information on the monitors and other items could be presented.
47 Chair Jacobs said there were more questions to be answered before the design was
48 approved.
49
50 8. Reports NONE
31
1
2 9. County Manager's Report
3 Michael Talbert said he sent out an email today about McDougle Middle School. He
4 said the parking lot lights are out; therefore the facility will be closing at sunset until the problem
5 is corrected. He said Duke Power said this could take two weeks.
6 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this means any families who use this facility will be
7 affected.
8 Michael Talbert said some people will not be able to use the facility, but the hazard of a
9 dark parking lot is too great of a risk.
10 Commissioner Pelissier asked if these people could be made aware of other space
11 options.
12 Michael Talbert said this could be included in the website.
13
14 10. County Attorney's Report
15 John Roberts said he had a lengthy meeting today with attorneys from Durham County,
16 TTA and DMV. He said the meeting included the commissioner of the DMV. He said the
17 commissioner admits the DMV has not collected the full amount of the $7 vehicle registration
18 tax adopted by the Board last year.
19 John Roberts said he is waiting for additional information on how much has been lost
20 and possible options for collection.
21
22 11. Appointments
23
24 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointments
25 The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
26 Advisory Committee.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
29 appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee, with term ending
30 dates:
31
32 - Mr. Daniel Hatley, to position #2 for a second full term, expiring 10/31/2015.
33 - Dr. Anthony John Vogt, to position #5 for a first full term, expiring 10/31/2015.
34 (Dr. Vogt completed a one year training term expiring 10/18/2013.)
35 - Mr. Richard Gross, to position #6 for a third full term, expiring 10/31/2015.**
36 **Terms for Adult Care Community Advisory Committee are 3 two-year terms.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 b. Advisory Board on Aging —Appointment
41 The Board considered making an appointment to the Advisory Board on Aging.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
44 appoint Dr. Jo Anne Wilson to position #10, with an expiration date of 6/30/2016.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48
49 c. Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) —Appointment
50 The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
32
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner
3 Price to appoint Arthur Sprinczeles to position #5 on the ASAB with a term expiration date of
4 6/30/2015.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Commissioner Dorosin noted that applicant Andrew Wood is listed as an animal welfare
9 advocate. He said he would like to nominate Andrew Wood for position #10.
10 Donna Baker said the ASAB has historically vetted applicants very carefully. She is not
11 sure why this applicant was not recommended. She said she would be happy to check with the
12 ASAB about this.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not so concerned about the recommendation. He said
14 vacancy 10 is listed as special representative, animal advocacy. He questioned the meaning of
15 this description and noted that Andrew Wood's application indicates he is qualified. He said if
16 there is a certification or other requirement that Andrew Wood does not meet then that is
17 understandable, otherwise he would recommend him for this vacancy.
18
19 Commissioner Dorosin made a motion to appoint Zack Ferguson to position # 7, and
20 Andrew Wood to position #10 (Animal Advocate position).
21
22 Commissioner Price asked if the Board can appoint as needed or if there are specific
23 position requirements.
24 Donna Baker said some positions have specific requirements.
25
26 Commissioner Price made a motion to appoint Lori Shapiro to position #12 (Animal
27 Handler position).
28
29 Donna Baker said this position would require the ASAB to check Lori Shapiro's
30 qualifications. She said she would check about this appointment and the appointment of
31 Andrew Wood.
32 Commissioner McKee said he is concerned with the Board filling vacancies without
33 taking time to insure that the applicants are a match. He said some of these boards have too
34 many vacancies, but he is concerned about the idea of picking names while having little
35 background discussion.
36 He suggested the appointment of position #5, with a request for recommendations for
37 the other three vacant positions.
38 Commissioner Gordon has concerns about putting people on the Board without
39 knowledge of qualifications.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said she has sat in on the ASAB meetings and she won't vote
41 for anyone not recommended by the town. She said applicants are invited to attend a meeting
42 to insure commitment and knowledge of the board's workings. She said she would rather ask
43 the ASAB about these positions before voting.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said each of these boards has multiple vacancies, and many
45 have been vacant for a long time. He said there are also interested applicants, but when the
46 process is slowed down people lose interest.
47 He said the Board ultimately makes the recommendations, and unless there is a specific
48 requirement that is not met, the positions should be filled. He said he thinks these applicants
49 should be given a chance. He said the Boards have been set up to have a specific number of
33
1 seats, and these should be filled by the applicants who have filled out the applications and
2 sought out the positions.
3 Commissioner Price said she understands Commissioner Pelissier's point, but she
4 agrees with Commissioner Dorosin that these applicants should be given the opportunity to be
5 involved. She noted that Lori Shapiro is qualified, but applied in 2010 and may not still be
6 interested at this point.
7 She suggested that the Board go forward with the nomination for Hillsborough and notify
8 the ASAB that the Commissioners want to fill these other positions, and recommendations are
9 needed.
10 Chair Jacobs made a request that future applications be put in alphabetical order.
11 He said historically, appointments that require more information were postponed until
12 that information was gathered or the clerk re-advertised the vacancy. He said the ASAB was
13 given the task of reviewing the unified animal control ordinance, and while it would be good to
14 have as many people helping with this as possible, it seems reasonable to first make sure the
15 applicants are a good fit and are still interested in serving.
16 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin's motion regarding the at-large position has
17 no relevance to the recommendation of the advisory board. He suggested the other two
18 questionable vacancies be sent back to the advisory board for more information.
19 Commissioner Rich suggested the creation of a policy to designate information
20 regarding any special requirements.
21 Commissioner Dorosin summarized that positions 5 and 7 should be moved forward,
22 and the questions regarding Andrew Woods applicability for position 10, and Lori Shapiro's
23 continued interest be conveyed to the ASAB.
24
25 Commissioner Dorosin withdrew his motion to appoint Andrew Wood to position #10.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
28 appoint Zack Ferguson to position # 7- At Large, with an expiration date of 6/30/2016.
29
30 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2
31
32 Commissioner McKee said he is concerned with applicants who might bring a position
33 with them that would be a disruption to the board.
34
35 The Board directed the Clerk to discuss with the Animal Services Director whether or not
36 the proposed appointments to the positions of Animal Handler and Animal Advocacy meet the
37 required certifications for these positions; if so, to bring them back for Board consideration at
38 the December 10th meeting.
39
40 d. Affordable Housing Advisory Board —Appointment
41 The Board considered making an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory
42 Board.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
45 appoint Ms. JonZella Bailey- Pridham to position # 7 with an expiration date of 9/30/2016.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49
34
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
2 appoint Vanessa Soleil to position #2 with an expiration date of 9/30/2014.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Chair Jacobs questioned whether County employees can serve on these boards.
7 John Roberts said that County employees can serve on boards that do not directly
8 oversee or work with their department.
9 Donna Baker concurred with John Roberts.
10
11 The Board asked that the clerk's office advertise for the vacancies on this board.
12
13 e. Orange County Arts Commission —Appointments
14 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Arts Commission.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
17 appoint Doris Friend to the Orange County Arts Commissions to position # 7 —At- Large with an
18 expiration date of 9/30/2016.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22
23 f. Commission for the Environment—Appointments
24 The Board considered making appointments to the Commission for the Environment.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
27 appoint the following to the Commission for the Environment:
28
29 - Ms. Lydia Wegman to position #3- Land Resources, for a first partial term, expiring
30 12/31/2014.
31 - Ms. Rebecca Ray to position # 15- At- Large, for a first full term, expiring 12/31/2015.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 q. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
36 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
39 appoint Erin Eckert to a second full term, to position #1. Hillsborough ETJ, with an expiration
40 date of 10/31/2016.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 Chair Jacobs noted that none of the Board members are familiar with this candidate. He
45 said this is another reason to create a mechanism for communicating with representatives of
46 the other advisory boards. He said the applicant cannot be expected to reflect Board policies if
47 the Board does not know them.
48
49 h. Human Relations Commission—Appointments
50 The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations Commission.
35
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
3 appoint Dr. Domika Baran to a first full term in position #6, At-Large, with an expiration date of
4 9/30/2016; and Dr. Preston Scott Phillips to a first full term in position # 9, Town of Chapel Hill,
5 with an expiration date of 9/30/2016.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
10 appoint Doris Brunson to a first full term in position # 15, At-Large, with an expiration date of
11 6/30/2016.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 12. Board Comments
16
17 Commissioner Price none
18 Commissioner Gordon said she had some items from the DCHC MPO Transportation
19 Advisory Committee meeting. She said there was a technical correction being made to the
20 Memorandum of Understanding, and this will delay approval for three months.
21 She said there was a report on the human services transportation plan. She said a draft
22 of this report is being released, and the Board will be asked to comment on it.
23 She said a lot of time was spent on Prioritization 3.0. She said the statewide tier gives
24 no local input points at all, and the regional projects only allow local jurisdictions 30 percent of
25 the input. She said there needs to be thought about how to place those local input points to get
26 those few important projects. She said the local level only gives 50 percent to local input, so
27 that will require careful consideration as well.
28 Commissioner McKee said he and Commissioner Pelissier met and had dinner with the
29 president of Morinaga Incorporated of Japan, as well as the president of Morinaga Incorporated
30 out of California and several other people. He said it was a good chance to make a better
31 connection between the company and the County. He said a letter has been drafted,
32 expressing appreciation for their visit.
33 Commissioner Rich said she attended the UNC Black Alumni Reunion on homecoming
34 weekend. She said this has been held in Chapel Hill for the past seven years, thanks to the
35 Business Bureau. She hopes it will continue to be held here.
36 Commissioner Pelissier said she and Chair Jacobs attended the second meeting of the
37 jail alternatives work group. She said there was productive conversation and she expects a
38 good report from consultant Steve Allen.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said the DSS board will be coming forth with a request for more
40 funding, as a result of sequestration, the government shutdown and the flood. He said there is
41 some concern that the board cannot get input from the Commissioners quickly enough to
42 determine what actions to take in emergency situations. He said the chair of the board had
43 discussed setting up an expedited process for emergency situations. He said this will likely be
44 brought to the Board in the near future. He gave an example of the state cutoffs to Work First.
45 Chair Jacobs said he would hope that the chair would immediately go to the County
46 manager to discuss the concern in a situation like this. Chair Jacobs said this Board has made
47 it clear that residents should not suffer because of what higher levels of government are doing.
48 He thanked Commissioner Pelissier for mentioning the jail alternatives meeting.
49 Chair Jacobs said he, Commissioner Price and Commissioner Dorosin attended the
50 Veteran's Day event on November 11. He said the new veterans' services officer seemed very
36
1 enthusiastic about her job. He said members of the Purple Hearts group were in attendance
2 and expressed appreciation for the Board's recognition.
3
4 13. Information Items
5
6 e November 5, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
7 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
8 0 Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
9 0 Pay-As-You-Throw Follow-up Memorandum
10 0 BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 5, 2013 Regular Board Meeting
11
12 14. Closed Session
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
15 adjourn into closed session at 10:23 pm for the purpose of:
16
17 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
18 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
25 reconvene into regular session at 11:45pm.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 15. Adjournment
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
31 adjourn the meeting at 11:45pm.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 Barry Jacobs, Chair
36
37 Donna S. Baker, CMC
38 Clerk to the Board
39
40
41
42
1
I Attachment 5
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 November 25, 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, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
12 Office, Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
15 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
19 Board 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, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea
22 Rohrbacher, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, James Lea, Stephanie O'Rouke
24
25 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
26
27 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
28
29 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck had no opening remarks
30
31 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
32
33 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
34
35 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
36
371. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government
38 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing
39 standards for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions
40 associated with home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or
41 affiliated with a governmental or non-profit agency. The amendments also seek to find a balance
42 between the trends for small home based businesses and the typical character and enjoyment of
43 residential neighborhoods.
44 Ashley Moncado introduced this item and reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
45
46 Unified Development Ordinance
47 Text Amendment
48 Home Occupation Standards
49 Quarterly Public Hearing
50 November 25, 2013
2
1 Item C1
2
3 Purpose
4 To hold a public hearing on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated Unified
5 Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding existing home occupation standards
6 contained within the UDO. The amendment also involves the renumbering and reformatting of
7 Sections 2.22, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3.
8
9 Background
10 UDO Implementation Bridge report
11 — Prepared in 2011 with the adoption of the UDO
12 Planning Board's Areas of Interest
13 — January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting
14 Board of County Commissioners
15 — February 21, 2013 BOCC Retreat
16 — May 14, 2013 BOCC Work Session
17
18 Existing Home Occupation Standards
19 Identified Concerns and Issues
20 — Standards are too limiting regarding:
21 Permitted number of employees
22 Square footage allowances
23 Permitted daily trip counts
24 — Standards do not address permitting events
25 Orange County Open Studio Tour
26 — Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art
27 studios
28
29 Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses and
30 protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods
31 - Home Occupations/Neighbors
32 *Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a conditional use permit
33 or relocate to a commercial zoning district
34
35 Planning Board
36 July 10 Planning Board Meeting
37 — Presentation of current standards and other local jurisdictions' standards
38 September 4 Planning Board Meeting
39 — Review of draft language and Section 419, Live/Work Units
40 October 2 Ordinance Review Committee
41 — Presentation and review of draft amendments
42 October 16 Staff Meeting with the Planning Board Chair
43 — Review of the Planning Board's recommendations
44 November 2 Ordinance Review Committee
45 — Presentation and review of amendments
46
47 Proposed Amendments
48 Proposed Revisions to:
49 — Section 2.22, Home Occupations
50 — Section 5.4.3, Special Events
3
1 — Section 5.5.3, Home Occupations
2 — Article 10, Definitions
3 Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory
4 footnotes as needed
5 Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
6
7 Proposed Amendments
8 Development of Two Home Occupation Categories
9 — Minor
10 — Major
11 Minor Home Occupations
12 — Staff review and approval
13 — Permitted in all residential zoning districts
14 — Increase in square footage threshold for residential dwelling units
15 — Increase in square footage for accessory structures
16 — Increase in number of onsite employees
17 — Allow for an increase in the daily number of clients, customers, and students
18 — Revised definition
19
20 Proposed Amendments
21 Major Home Occupations
22 — Require a Class B Special Use Permit
23 — Only permitted in the AR (Agricultural Residential) and R-1 (Rural Residential)
24 zoning districts
25 — Must be located on a parcel at least five acres in size
26 — Square footage threshold for residential dwelling units and number of onsite
27 employees determined by the approved Special Use Permit
28 — Size of accessory structures based on acreage
29 — Allow for daily number of clients, customers, and students
30 — Require a private road maintenance agreement or driveway permit
31 — Proposed definition
32 — Proposed Amendments
33 All Home Occupations
34 — Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap
35 — Modification in measuring the weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the
36 home occupation
37 — Address reviewing and permitting of special events
38 Revisions to Section 5.4.3, Special Events
39 — Allow for events planned, conducted, and affiliated with a non
40 profit or government organization to be exempt from the Special
41 Event and Class B SUP review process
42
43 Addressing Concerns and Issues
44 Existing Standards
45 Concern: Current standards are too limiting regarding:
46 - Permitted number of employees
47 - Square footage allowances
48 - Permitted daily trip counts
49
50 Proposed Standards
51 - Allow for increase in number of onsite employees.
4
1 - Allow for increase in square footage allowances for residential dwelling units and
2 accessory structures
3 - Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap
4 - Modification in the permitted weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the home
5 occupation
6
7 Existing Standards
8 Concern: Current standards do not address the permitting of special events including the
9 Orange County Open Studio Tour
10
11 Proposed Standards
12 - Allow for the review and permitting of events through Section 5.4.3, Special Events
13 - Allow for the exemption of nonprofit or government organized events from the special
14 event and Class B Special Use Permit review process
15
16 Existing Standards
17 Concern: Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art studios
18
19 Proposed Standards
20 Provide the capacity to support and accommodate individual art studios
21 - Development of a larger (major) home occupation category
22 - Increase in square footage allowances, number of onsite employees, daily trip counts,
23 visitors, and deliveries,
24 - Address the permitting of special events
25
26 Public Notification
27 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
28 - Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
29
30 Joint Planning Area Partners
31 Proposed amendments provided on November 7, 2013
32 - No comments have been received.
33
34 Recommendation
35 To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
36 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
37 the proposed amendment.
38 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
39 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 23, 2014 BOCC
40 regular meeting.
41 Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
42 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
43
44 Ashley Moncado said the two different categories are defined as follows:
45 Minor- Smaller scale home-based business operations in the residential neighborhood
46 setting on smaller lots
47 Major- Larger home-based business operations in the rural/residential setting on larger tracts
48
49 Ashley Moncado said the minor home occupations will allow a square footage increase
50 from 500 to 750 square feet, and accessory structures will be allowed an increase from 1000
51 square feet to 1500 square feet.
5
1 She said the permitted non-resident employees will increase from 2 to 3, and the
2 permitted visitors will increase to 3 at one time, not to exceed 6 per day.
3 Ashley Moncado said major home occupations will allow for up to 50 percent of the
4 residential dwelling to be used toward the home occupation and will allow up to 6 non-resident
5 employees on site.
6 She said accessory structures will be permitted up to 2500 square feet on tracts 5 to 10
7 acres in size, and up to 3000 square feet on tracts 11 acres or more.
8 She said standards for the major home occupations will allow for 8 visitors at one time,
9 not exceeding 15 per day.
10 Ashley Moncado noted that the load capacity standard for vehicles will be changed to a
11 gross vehicle weight, and the revised standards will accommodate the use of standard and
12 larger sized pickup trucks.
13
14 Andrea Rohrabacher arrived at 7:10 pm.
15
16 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the Board.
17
18 Commissioner Gordon asked where section 419 of the building code is located.
19 Ashley Moncado said the reference to this is located at the end of the amendment form.
20 Commissioner Gordon said she is looking for the actual section.
21 Ashley Moncado said this was not included.
22 (Michael Harvey made copies of the missing document and distributed this to the
23 Commissioners and the Planning Board.)
24 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the standards of evaluation on page 15. She noted
25 the uses not permitted and the wording in section B regarding the standards of evaluation. She
26 asked if it was possible for some of the non-permitted uses to actually meet the standards of
27 evaluation.
28 She cited the example of a plumber who once resided in her neighborhood, but was not
29 disruptive. She asked if standards of evaluation could be used, with no automatic non-permitted
30 uses.
31 Ashley Moncado said this was a topic at the last planning board meeting. She said this
32 language was in the UDO to prevent the possibility of a resident using their property as a main
33 center and having too much storage or warehousing on site, or creating increased traffic count.
34 She said the standards proposed tonight may be able to accommodate those uses and prevent
35 them from being unpermitted. She said this is a topic for further discussion.
36 Commissioner Rich thanked the planning department for the robust conversation. She
37 asked about the statement that prohibits the use of a home base for constructing or building
38 anything. She asked if constructing bookcases for a client in a garage shop would be
39 considered building something in a home based business.
40 Ashley Moncado said she did not believe this was prohibited in the UDO. She said there
41 were concerns for operating a building construction contracting business out of the home. She
42 said if someone came forward wanting to build furniture, this would be allowed if the resident
43 met the regulations and did not exceed outdoor storage space or other standards.
44 Commissioner Price referred to the chart on page 2. She noted that the second blue
45 box, under standards of evaluation says "body shop, hauling, and building."
46 Ashley Moncado said this is just a general comment as part of a summary chart to use in
47 referencing the amendments in attachment 2.
48 Commissioner Price asked if these standards are for the rural buffer or the rural area in
49 general. She said some of the standards are very restrictive and would not matter in a rural
50 area. She questioned whether this might hurt rural people, rather than help them in the effort to
51 open a home business.
6
1 Ashley Moncado said the major home occupations would not be permitted in the rural
2 buffer, only in the AR and R1 zoning districts. She said the major home occupations language
3 was modeled after language currently used for minor home occupation. She said the standards
4 for landscaping are currently in place with all home occupations in the UDO.
5 Ashley Moncado referred back to the slide showing the balancing act of allowing and
6 promoting the home based business while protecting neighbors and the rural residential
7 character.
8 Commissioner Price said the neighbors in a rural area may be 2 miles down the road.
9 She said this language seems to make life more difficult rather than easier.
10 She asked about the farm tour and whether this would be exempt like the arts tour.
11 Ashley Moncado said the farm tour would be considered agri-tourism, which would allow
12 it to be exempt from the special event process.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if plumbing contracting is prohibited, and he asked what
14 this means. He said it seems that the office portion of a home based plumbing business would
15 be within the description of permitted occupations. He asked for clarification on what is
16 prohibited by the contracting language.
17 Michael Harvey said the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent creation of a bone yard
18 in residential districts. He said this happens when you have storage of materials, and
19 employees continually travel back and forth from the home site to pick up materials and vehicles
20 for a job. He said this policy prohibits mass storage of plumbing supplies and equipment. He
21 said he has personally allowed plumbing businesses to have a home office. He said this policy
22 is not being modified with this proposal.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarifications about home daycares. He said there are
24 some people who provide daycare in their home, but it is not a formal business.
25 Michael Harvey said there are several different categories of daycare, and there are
26 different permitting processes associated with those activities depending on the number of
27 children. He said anyone wishing to run a home daycare must fill out a zoning compliance
28 permit with the County planning department. He said a floor plan must be provided to show
29 where the children would be located, and documentation must be provided to show the
30 existence of the necessary outdoor play area of 75 square feet per child.
31 Michael Harvey said planning then coordinates with the health department to insure
32 there is adequate septic to support the activity, and then a permit is issued. He said this is not
33 treated as a home occupation; it is a listed permitted use of property, or a special use.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this would be true for a daycare with three students or
35 less.
36 Michael Harvey said the process would still have to be followed.
37 Chair Jacobs followed up on the question regarding farm tours. He said his
38 interpretation of page 5 is that any non-profit is exempt.
39 Ashley Moncado said this is correct.
40 Chair Jacobs asked about the use of accessory structures and the requirement for these
41 buildings to look like a residential structure. He said that barns do not look like a residential
42 structures and may be located half a mile from the nearest neighbor. He asked if the strict
43 appearance and landscape requirements would apply even to this.
44 Ashley Moncado said, based on this proposal, yes. She said those issues were not
45 previously highlighted as a concern; therefore they were not addressed with the planning board.
46 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 15 - 2A and 2. She asked if a home occupation
47 permit is required for a minor home occupation.
48 Ashley Moncado said yes.
49 Commissioner Gordon noted that some occupations are exempt. She asked if an event
50 can be done without a permit.
7
1 Ashley Moncado said the highlighted item related to a telecommuting business, with no
2 employees or customers coming to the site. She said a resident with an exemption would be
3 able to take part in events through the special events process outlined in section 5.4.3.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked if this means there is no direct tie to having a home
5 occupation permit and having an event.
6 Ashley Moncado said these are two separate things. She said there is currently no
7 language in the UDO that specifies the means for holding an event. She said that language is
8 now being provided, stating the events will be permitted for home occupations through section
9 5.4.3. She said someone with an exemption from the home occupation process, would still be
10 able to go through and get a special event permit through this process.
11 Commissioner Gordon said there would be no knowledge of whether the person had the
12 parking or necessary requirements.
13 Ashley Moncado said there are size, structure and parking requirements that have to be
14 met as part of the special event review process.
15 Commissioner Gordon asked how non-profits are defined.
16 Ashley Moncado said perhaps language needs to be added to reference non-profit
17 status. She said the goal of non-profit exemptions is to allow community events that highlight
18 the community or provide a service to the County.
19 Commissioner Gordon said language needs to be included to capture the required spirit
20 of the non-profit.
21 Commissioner Price referred to page 16 and asked how the number of daily students
22 and clients will be enforced.
23 Michael Harvey said special use permits will be issued and recorded at the register of
24 deeds office. He said this requires the applicants to sign off on the design parameters. He said
25 this will be a mutual agreement, and the permit can be revoked if it is violated.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said this is complaint driven.
27 Michael Harvey said it is complaint driven, but County staff also does periodic
28 inspections.
29 Chair Jacobs asked if it is possible to differentiate between the 501 c3 and other non-
30 profits.
31 Ashley Moncado said this can be looked into.
32 Commissioner Pelissier asked about the buffers and the required screening of accessory
33 structures, as listed on page 17. She said residences that don't have a business do not have to
34 screen accessory structures.
35 Michael Harvey said that a single family residence does not have to establish a buffer to
36 shield or separate an accessory structure. He said the fact that the property will have non-
37 residential use means a buffer is required to insure that the non-residential use of that structure
38 does not have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. He said staff does not feel that
39 there should be an alteration of the current landscaping and screening requirements, as it
40 serves a purpose and is warranted, given the non-residential use of the structure.
41 Commissioner Rich asked for examples of the minor uses that have been discussed with
42 the planning board.
43 Planning Board member Tony Blake said this list included journalists, accountants, real
44 estate agents, and piano teachers.
45 Pete Hallenbeck said this started with what might be called professional services, such
46 as lawyers, architects, or consulting engineers. He said it came down to the traffic coming into
47 the house. He said clients for these businesses may show up and not come back for several
48 days, versus a home business where there may be 8 appointments a day. He said a lot of the
49 discussions were driven by the impact of what you would see and hear, and how much traffic is
50 generated.
8
1 Commissioner Price asked how this will affect farm based businesses, for example
2 someone making jam to sell on the roadside.
3 Perdita Holtz said businesses located on a bonafide farm, making a value added product
4 are exempt from zoning regulations. She said if it is not a bonafide farm, such as a person
5 making jam in their home kitchen, environmental health permits would be required. She said
6 this would be a home based business that requires a permit.
7 Commissioner Price asked if this means the person would still be able to sell in front of their
8 home.
9 Perdita Holtz said a home occupation would not be able to sell in front of their house.
10 Commissioner Price referred to the traffic issue. She said her tax accountant works out
11 of his home and has people drop taxes at his house. She said her neighbor generated more
12 traffic from teenage boys and their friends coming and going than the tax collector generates
13 from the business. She said she does not understand how traffic can differentiate.
14 Ashley Moncado said that can be a hard thing to regulate. She said the original
15 numbers were much greater than those being submitted tonight. She said charts were created
16 to show average trips. She said the original numbers proposed gave a number of upwards of
17 160 trips per day resulting from a major home occupation. She said this is based on a worst
18 case scenario of employees taking lunches, or a parent bringing children back and forth to piano
19 lessons.
20 Ashley Moncado said those traffic counts were why the recommendations were reduced,
21 in order to bring the counts down a little. She said an average single family residential unit will
22 create 4-20 trips per day. She said the recommendations provided tonight go above that range
23 to accommodate for family and business trips. She said the goal is to keep it in the appropriate
24 range for a single family residential home.
25 Commissioner Gordon read the statement about creating a reasonable balance between
26 the home occupations and protecting the character of residential neighborhoods. She referred
27 to page 7 and asked why this says home occupations would be promoted and encouraged.
28 She gave the following alternative wording: "appropriate balance between supporting home
29 based business and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods."
30 Ashley Moncado said the planning board's goal has been to promote home based
31 businesses. She said the one sentence focuses on one side of it; however the goal is to focus
32 on providing opportunities for residents to have a different means to conduct business through
33 their home, but it also important to protect the character of residential neighborhoods.
34 Commissioner Gordon said use of the words promote and encourage, does not sound
35 like a balance.
36 Ashley Moncado said this comes from the original goal. She said that one sentence
37 does not encompass all of this.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said it has been out of balance in the other direction, and now
39 the goal is to balance it by promoting home businesses. He said the pendulum often swings
40 too far the other way when these kinds of corrections are made.
41 Commissioner Rich noted that no one from the public was in attendance. She asked if
42 any input or comment was made at previous meetings or through emails.
43 Tony Blake said staff and board members spoke with neighbors and drew from personal
44 experiences. He feels these businesses are an underappreciated part of the economy.
45 Pete Hallenbeck said there were no comments from the public. He said most of the
46 planning board does some aspect of their work from their home.
47 Tony Blake said he works for a corporation from home office, and he is exempt; however
48 many of his neighbors do work from home businesses.
49 Commissioner Rich said many people today use their home to telecommute.
9
1 Tony Blake said that situation is exempt. He said the new technology makes this
2 possible. He said margins have been cut because of the economy, and there is a lot of need
3 and demand for this.
4 Commissioner Gordon said she has comments.
5 Pete Hallenbeck asked if there were any other questions before moving on to
6 comments.
7 Commissioner Gordon said that much of this discussion is about the difference between
8 major and minor home occupations and the smaller lots and residential areas versus the larger
9 lots and rural areas. She said there is a lot of discussion about what kind of impact there will be.
10 She said maybe the primary focus for ordinance changes should be made in the major home
11 occupations that involve a special use permit, because special conditions can then be
12 accounted for.
13 She said she has been looking at some of the proposed changes for minor home
14 occupations and the large size of the accessory structures. She said these structures are
15 bigger than some houses. She feels there should be some kind of permitting process before
16 getting into these bigger impacts. She feels the 500-700 square feet for the minor category is
17 fine, but she questions going above 1000 square feet or 2 employees for the minor home
18 occupations.
19 Commissioner Gordon said people on small lots are more affected by what neighbors
20 do. She said the difference between neighbors creating a lot of impact is whether they are
21 making any money. She said if money is being made; but your peace and tranquility is being
22 compromised and your property values go down, then the balance has been exceeded.
23 She feels that it would be better to make increases and changes in the major home
24 occupations versus the minor. She said if you are on 25 acres, the business is in the middle of
25 the property, and there is plenty of area for parking, no one is going to be bothered.
26 She feels the minor home occupation category needs to be kept as is, and the changes
27 should be made only to the major.
28 Commissioner Gordon said it is good to help the artists and photographers who are just
29 doing work at their place. She said this is very different from someone having noise, odors,
30 impact or storage issues that interfere with residential character.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said this needs to be thought of as economic development. He
32 said economic development is notjust about luring big businesses to come here. He said it is
33 also about supporting home grown entrepreneurship and individual small business that can
34 grow and become successful.
35 He said the lot size and homeowners association have to allow for the building of a 1500
36 square foot accessory building. He said the purpose here is to control the impacts, such as
37 noise, odor or impact, and it's not about controlling the building. He said he is encouraged by
38 these changes, and this should be characterized as the economic development engine that it
39 could be.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said she echoes what Commissioner Dorosin said. She said
41 this is a great opportunity for economic development. She feels this shows that development is
42 encouraged and does so in a way that is not disruptive to individual residences. She noted that
43 these accessory structures are required to look like a residential structure. She said the issue is
44 the noise and traffic; it is not about the occupation, but it is about the impact on neighbors.
45 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want to make the rules so restrictive and she
46 would like to see some more work done on this. She questioned why a home occupation on a
47 major road would need 40 feet of trees or a fence for something that is not an eyesore. She
48 feels there needs to be some more balancing to make it less difficult for some of the home
49 occupations.
10
1 Chair Jacobs said he agrees more or less with what he has heard so far. He said he
2 has some different feelings about the accessory buildings. He does not care what existing
3 accessory buildings look like, as these are already in place and part of the neighborhood;
4 however he feels that new accessory buildings should be required to meet the proposed
5 standards.
6 He said the screening could be handled with set-backs that are appropriate for
7 residential versus rural areas. He said it is difficult with only AR, but using a setback that would
8 not work well in a smaller residential area would make it easier to avoid screening. He said a
9 setback of 500 feet would obviously not be used on a smaller 1 acre lot, and the noise and light
10 would not really impact neighbors, whereas a setback of 50 feet might allow disturbance. He
11 said this might be a way to address the rural versus suburban areas.
12 Commissioner Price said these she has found some of these proposals to be too
13 restrictive. She said asking a homeowner who is trying to make a living with a home based
14 occupation to put in fences, landscaping and certain trees is a financial challenge. She said this
15 is going overboard.
16 She said small businesses are a big part of the economic development scheme and
17 should be encouraged. She understands the need to save the rural character, but she also
18 wants to be fair to residents in the rural area.
19 Commissioner Price said she also thinks the language could be edited to be a little
20 simpler.
21 Commissioner Rich said she is encouraged by this. She wonders how much of a live
22 document this is. She questioned the steps to modify this if it is put in place and then
23 adjustments need to be made.
24 Ashley Moncado said modifications can be made if neighbors complain, and this would
25 be done using the protocol for proposing a text amendment.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if this would be true in the case of needing to give more
27 leeway.
28 Ashley Moncado said yes, it would be open for examination by staff and the planning
29 board.
30 Commissioner Rich asked if this would come about through public input.
31 Ashley Moncado said yes.
32 Commissioner Gordon said the goal is to create a balance. She said most of the issues
33 could be addressed by making the changes to the major home occupations category and not
34 making changes to the minor occupations. She said this allows things to be tailored through the
35 special use permit process. She said this is not losing too much and it directs the intense
36 development to the larger lots sizes in rural areas.
37 She said this is about putting non-residential uses in residential areas, and the character
38 of the residential areas needs to be considered.
39 Chair Jacobs said he does not disagree with much of what Commissioner Gordon has
40 said; however he questions the existing standards for minor. He said the accessory structure
41 screening is in there now, and he feels this should be more a function of the lot size than a
42 blanket requirement. He is proposing a change to this.
43 Tony Blake said the goal in the original conversation was to align with Chapel Hill.
44 Ashley Moncado said Chapel Hill currently allows 35 percent of the floor area, or 750
45 square feet, which is in line with the increase.
46 Pete Hallenbeck said the concept of character comes back to what you can see, hear,
47 and smell, as well as the traffic involved. He said those are the things being addressed when
48 balance is discussed. He said the example of teenage traffic activity may be more acceptable
49 to residents because is an occurrence for only a finite amount of time.
11
1 He said there are many limits being played with in the effort to preserve character, such
2 as size of structures, number of visits and size of trucks. He said there are many opinions, and
3 there have been many discussions. He said the changes to the minor uses were designed to
4 bring the various municipal and rural rules a little closer to the municipality rules.
5 Pete Hallenbeck said the size limits are interesting because there are two different kinds
6 of rural character; one is where you have a farm with the normal and expected traffic and noise,
7 and the other is a big lot residential community where no one wants that farm experience. He
8 said this makes many of these decisions hard.
9 He referred to the plumbing example and said no one had a problem if a plumber simply
10 owned a truck or two at their house. He said there is a point however, where the business
11 would be big enough that it should be moved to an office park like Millstone Drive.
12 Pete Hallenbeck said he likes the idea of changing the goal of the document from
13 promoting business to promoting a balance between business and residential. He said that
14 wording will help people make better decisions for this living document in the future.
15 He said the other thing that everyone is wrestling with is balancing the impact more than
16 restricting certain occupations. He likes the idea of screening and setbacks, and he said
17 perhaps the planning board can look at this. He said perhaps a building that is 500 feet from
18 the property would not need shrubbery.
19 Pete Hallenbeck said he has 1500 square feet of work space over the garage and 1000
20 square feet in his basement, both used for different types of projects. He shares this as an
21 example of that balancing act of putting a limit on square footage, putting a limit on the activities,
22 or putting a limit on what can be seen, heard, or smelled, as well as the traffic count.
23 Lisa Stuckey thinks it makes more sense to get rid of the language on page 15 regarding
24 the building businesses. She feels the language should focus more on the visual impact of the
25 businesses. She thinks these home businesses should be invisible to neighbors
26 Paul Guthrie said he has had some questions, as reflected in the minutes. He said he
27 has been skeptical, not of the concept, but of the specificity of the language. He said one
28 example is the provision for barriers and buffers, which requires an 80 foot space between
29 activities and neighbors. He said this is over half an acre and, coupled with other issues, puts a
30 real barrier on people who want to operate on their own property.
31 He said ever time he reads this document he sees a new issue, and this tells him this
32 process needs to be carefully considered. He said this can be accommodated with a
33 reasonable degree of judicial flexibility, so as not to impede people's ability to make a living.
34 Paul Guthrie said this is just part of the working life today. He said 50 percent of his
35 neighbors have been involved in a home business of some sort, and he has a daughter who
36 telecommutes from London. He said this is symbolic of the new world we live in, and it must be
37 thought through in coming to a final conclusion on this issue.
38 Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to address Commissioner Rich's question about
39 public input. She said she is an average person, and she may start a home business. She
40 does not want all of these restrictions so that she would potentially have to move out if the
41 business did well. She also does not want to discourage other people from creating a business.
42 Ashley Moncado proposed a revision to the recommendation. She requested this be
43 brought back to the February 18th meeting, in order to allow time to work with the planning board
44 to address the concerns highlighted tonight.
45 Chair Jacobs said this seems more practical.
46
47 A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich:
48 To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
49 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
50 the proposed amendment.
12
1 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
2 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 18, 2014 BOCC
3 regular meeting.
4 Adjourn the public hearing until February 18, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
5 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 Chair Jacobs asked if there is a list of the people who have home occupation permits.
10 He asked if these people can be notified that an ordinance is being considered. He said the
11 public hearing is adjourned, but perhaps these residents could attend the planning board
12 meeting. He said it might be smart to anticipate the comments that could come after changes
13 are made.
14 Michael Harvey said any additional comments would need to be in writing, since the
15 public hearing is closed.
16 Chair Jacobs suggested sending post cards to notify residents of what is happening and
17 directing them to a web address for submission of written comments. He said he recognizes
18 that there may be thousands of these people.
19 Ashley Moncado said staff will have to look at what resources are in place to be able to
20 do this.
21 Commissioner Gordon said she thinks this letter is a good idea.
22
23
2,2. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government-
25 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent
26 changes in State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the
27 development or modification of telecommunication facilities.
28
29 Michael Harvey said this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. He said attachment 1 is
30 the comprehensive plan and UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is the actual copy of Session
31 law 2013-185.
32 He reviewed the following Session law criteria from page 39 of the abstract:
33
34 • Prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a proposed
35 telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional wireless coverage or
36 capacity, as part of the application package.
37 • Local governments cannot require `proprietary, confidential, or other business information'
38 to justify the need for a new telecommunication facility.
39 • Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to review
40 applications for co-locations.
41 • Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-location applications.
42
43 Michael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT&T has
44 been willing to provide data indicating existing telecommunications facilities.
45 He said the co-locations fee is now limited to $1,000, and the previous charge was $2500.
46 He said that change has already been incorporated.
13
1 He said state law also establishes a very specific set of criteria for what constitutes a
2 modification. He said this is important in Orange County, as the County has three tiers of review
3 on telecommunication towers. He said anything over 75 feet is approved by staff in an
4 administrative action; anything over 75 feet and under 199 feet is approved through the class B
5 special use permit process by the board of adjustment; and anything 200 feet or over is reviewed
6 and acted upon by the Board of Commissioners as a class A special use permit.
7 Michael Harvey said this new session law establishes parameters to establish that certain
8 increases in height of an existing telecommunications facility shall not constitute a modification
9 that has to be administratively approved. He called attention to page 58 of the packet, where this
10 language has been incorporated within the provisions of the UDO.
11 He said the County attorney's office has requested the inclusion of additional language in
12 11-a, b, c and d. He said this will be included to flesh out exact parameters of a modification.
13 Michael Harvey said the key is to ensure that sufficient language is provided to focus on
14 the changing nature of the tower. He said this affects testimony and facts considered when a
15 tower is reviewed and acted on by the County.
16 He gave the example of a tower that is 190 feet tall. He said the tower height can be
17 increased by 10 percent, or not more than 20 feet, and it is considered a minor change that does
18 not go before the Board. He said this is an attempt to avoid having a tower that is 199 feet,
19 reviewed as a class b special use permit, wanting to add to 209 feet, requiring additional
20 compliance standards. He said staff would like to require the Board to review and approve this
21 type of action.
22 Michael Harvey said this ordinance amendment does not alter current review and approval
23 procedures. He said there will still be a class A and class B special use permit process, and a
24 consultant review of all co-locations. He said the review timeline is not being changed.
25 He said the consultants are limited in what they can charge to the County. He said meals
26 and travel cannot be charged, but the County contract never allowed this, so no amendment is
27 necessary here.
28 He said there was no public comment, and many changes from the session law have
29 already been incorporated.
30 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there were constraints to how many times a tower can be
31 modified.
32 Michael Harvey said if the modifications exceed existing permitting authority for the tower,
33 the permit must be modified.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the limits.
35 Michael Harvey reviewed these again.
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this means that the tower could be increased in size
37 multiple times.
38 Michael Harvey said this is conceivable, but he noted the other parameters of obtaining
39 approval. He said mandatory setbacks still have to be complied with, and it is unlikely that you
40 can have a consistent increase in tower height while maintaining relevant factors to the permit.
41 He said the other parameter to be incorporated is that the Board of Adjustment or the
42 Board of Commissioner will be basing decisions on the testimony and evidence entered into the
43 record during a hearing. He said any alteration that changes the parameters of that evidence
44 would have to be reviewed and acted upon.
45 He reminded the Board that any tower 200 feet or higher must be illuminated, based on
46 FHA regulations. He said most people don't like to do this, as it is costly and draws attention to
47 the tower.
48 Chair Jacobs noted the motion on page 40.
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
50
51 1. Receive the proposed text amendment(s).
14
1 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the
2 proposed amendment.
3 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
4 to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 23, 2014 BOCC regular
5 meeting.
6 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
7 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11
12
13
148. 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government-
15 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent
16 changes in State law with respect to items reviewed and acted upon by the Orange County
17 Board of Adjustment.
18
19 Michael Harvey referred to page 87 of the packet. He reviewed the attachments and the
20 following session law changes:
21
22 • Changing the votes necessary for the Board to approve a Special Use Permit application from
23 4/5th of members to a simple majority,
24 • Clarifying the procedure(s) for requesting and issuing of subpoenas,
25 • Clarifying the appeals timeframe for Board of Adjustment decisions to be submitted to
26 Superior Court, and
27 • Clarifying notification requirements with respect to who is notified of a Board decision. Voting
28 Procedures changed
29
30 Michael Harvey said the language regarding issuance of subpoenas is now detailed in
31 the code.
32 He said the appeals timeframe allows 30 days from the filing of a decision to the filing of
33 an appeal.
34 He said these changes are intended to create consistency with state law, and there is no
35 modification of the operational characteristics of the Board of Adjustment. He said the voting
36 change for special use permits brings it in line with existing County Commissioner's
37 requirements.
38 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 102, section 10.3 and asked why these are
39 necessary. She read the following section: "It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the
40 absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property."
41 Michael Harvey said the statute no longer permits this. He assumes this is because
42 people found it difficult to prove no reasonable use of the property. He said applicants now
43 simply have to claim that the desired use is being impeded.
44 Commissioner Gordon referred to item 10.3 C.
45 Michael Harvey said this is direct language from the state law.
46 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 10, and conditions of approval. She said the
47 public health safety and general welfare language has been eliminated.
48 Michael Harvey said that language has been removed from the statute.
49 Commissioner Gordon asked if this means the public safety and general welfare could
50 then be not protected.
15
1 Michael Harvey said he would not go that far. He said the rationalization could no longer
2 be used to justify the imposition of the condition.
3 Tony Blake asked if this state law applies to existing matters.
4 Michael Harvey said thankfully there are no cases before the Board that pre-date this.
5 He said if there were, this rule would apply. He said there is no grandfathering with this session
6 law.
7 Commissioner Price asked if a person could reapply if they had been previously been
8 denied a special use permit on a 2-3 vote.
9 Michael Harvey said the person would have to wait one calendar year. He said there
10 have been no denials in the past year.
11 Commissioner Dorosin asked what the anticipated impact of this will be.
12 Michael Harvey said he foresees no major impact; it just changes the nature of the
13 game.
14 John Roberts said it is not going to have a substantial impact on Orange County, though
15 it does substantially change the ordinance and the statute.
16 Tony Blake asked if this is about the Hwy 751 development.
17 Michael Harvey said he will not speculate on this. He thinks the changes with respect to
18 voting were intended to bring this in line with what the County Commissioners are already
19 doing.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
22
23 1. Receive the proposed text amendment(s).
24 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the
25 proposed amendment.
26 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
27 the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 23, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
28 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
29 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 ADJOURNMENT
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, and seconded by Renee Price to adjourn
36 the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
37
38
39 Barry Jacobs, Chair
40
41
42 David Hunt
43 Deputy Clerk to the Board
44