Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-01-2014 APPROVED 5/8/2014 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 1, 2014 6:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 6:07 pm Beverly Hester Stephens read the following written comments: Good evening, Commissioners, and thank you for this opportunity to make a special request on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving of North Carolina, Orange Partnership for Alcohol & Drug Free Youth, parents and community members. We are collaborating with Mothers Against Drunk Driving to increase awareness among parents and caregivers that their voice IS heard by their children. Power Talk 21 is a national day set aside to recognize the important role parents and caregivers have in keeping their children safe, and encourages adults to have open, honest conversations. We will be hosting a town hall and workshop on April 21St, and providing tools to empower parents and caregivers to have conversations throughout the month of April. Understanding that this will be reviewed by the Chair, Vice Chair and County Manager, we humbly request the Board proclaim April 21 St as PowerTalk 21 Day in Orange County, at their tH next County Commissioner meeting on April 15 Gayanne Chambliss said she echoed Beverly Stephens' sentiments. Janet Kagan read the following written comments: I have been an arts patron and arts professional for almost four decades and a resident of Orange County for almost half of that. I am here tonight to ask you to facilitate your commitment to make Orange County as artist-centric as your website promotion claims, which states: Our cultural environment is a big part of why Orange County is special. Our "cultural environment" is not just a recognition of our shared physical, social, and economic history but also the footprint of the future legacy that follows us. In June 2012, Americans for the Arts- a national research, policy, and advocacy organization- issued their report "Arts Impact in Orange County." This is one of the most comprehensive economic impact studies of the arts ever conducted in the US. Their research revealed that the County's nonprofit arts and culture enterprises generate $85.4 million in economic activity, support 3,352 jobs, and return $8 million in revenue to local and state government. Specifically, artists arts organizations, and allied design-production businesses spent $63.9 million in the County during fiscal year 2010, which was enhanced by another $21.5 million in related spending by their patrons. This type of arts spending evokes a significant multiplier effect: organizations pay employees, purchase supplies, contract for services, and acquire assets within their community. Furthermore, cultural residents and visitors do not hesitate to spend money on the arts. All of us benefit from this! Let's not forget that artists are entrepreneurs and business owners. On Monday, the National Endowment for the Arts released new data on Arts Employment. 61 percent of artists are considered "self-employed" compared to 10 percent of all American workers. They note that artists are also better educated than the overall labor force; their research found that 65 percent of professional artists held a bachelors degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of all US workers. These types of consumptions and contributions cannot be sustained or grown by the annual Orange County Open Studio tours, backyard artist workshops, street festivals, and weekend cultural events. And creative entrepreneurs- especially those in their 20's and 30's — have ambition and mobility. They are not satisfied with a garden studio; they seek camaraderie, innovation, and community. Although I am hardly 25 years old (though I often feel like it) I would jump at the opportunity to build an artisan center in rural Orange County. Current zoning prohibits this initiative, so I may need to look elsewhere. The Federal government and private philanthropy are working in sync and poised to invest in these types of projects. But not for long. They follow demographic and when projects such as mine- or others — elect to located in distressed urban areas, Orange County loses these resources. I hope you will instruct your planning staff to explore how creative artist and designers can work in rural Orange County thereby truly making it a culturally vibrant hub. Commissioner McKee arrived at 6:09 PM Chair Jacobs said there have been efforts recently to help artists work together as a home occupation in Orange County or as cooperatives. Judith Ernst said she is a ceramic artist who lives in Chapel Hill. She read the following: The most recent economic development plan for Orange County names the arts as one of the focuses for development in the County. How can Orange County in fact be an arts-friendly community, specifically for the visual arts? An arts-friendly environment has to be an artist- friendly environment. For visual artists to thrive they need two things: places to show and sell their work; and places to make their work, or studio space. This second need is the one less understood and most often overlooked. Right now Orange County is reviewing its zoning laws. Under current rules, artists can realistically only build studios on land where they occupy a primary residence, under the "home business" designation. This assumes that all artists can afford their own homes: and all artists can afford to build a studio for their own exclusive use. If two or more people decide to collaboratively build a studio not at a primary residence, it must be done on land zoned for commercial use. While there are small parcels in the County that were not grand-fathered in as commercially zoned in the early 1990's, most plots designated commercial at that time were the so-called economic development zones that are best for big-box stores and mixed retail/food businesses that thrive in strip malls. These areas are not compatible with art studios, nor are they affordable for artist use. Artists have often favored shared studio space because of its affordability, but currently Orange County makes that almost impossible. I urge you to consider some alternative to these zoning rules, perhaps in rural areas, that would allow for low-impact collective studio use by artists, and perhaps for other creative, non-fine art designers, architects, etc. For example, imagine a group of painters deciding to buy a small piece of rural property with an old barn that can be rehabilitated for shared work space. Or a small group of potters purchasing an older affordable farm house to be used as a studio. Or a group of artists purchasing a plot of land and then constructing a relatively low-cost building suitable for studio space but not for residential use. Could the Commission staff investigate how other counties in North Carolina and throughout the country may help provide affordable work space for artists? Our area already has a strong arts community, but the County is not particularly friendly to younger artists, those who don't have the resources to create a home/studio combination. We will never be a dynamic arts destination unless we can attract young artists as well as nurturing those who are more well-established. With the redevelopment of the large warehouse structures in Durham that now serve as shared studio space, like Golden Belt and Liberty Arts Sculpture Studio, our larger area is starting to attract younger artists. While Orange County doesn't have much of that kind of infrastructure for redevelopment, there are things that a rural county can do to make it more affordable and possible for artists to live and work in the County. Reconsidering these zoning issues that relegate shared space to commercially zoned areas, and making the rules friendlier to shared studio space for artists, is an initiative that could make a huge difference in the economic development of the County. Jackie Stone Huerner said she is a resident of Hillsborough, and she is following up on discussion regarding the proposed bus routes. She said there is concern that one of the proposed bus routes was going to go along Highway 86 North from Hillsborough. She said there is a much more suburban lifestyle in that area, and most of the residents have cars and are unlikely to use the bus. She said there is a great need for bus service in the mobile home parks, rent subsidized apartments, and low income housing areas within Hillsborough. She encouraged the Board use the scarce resources to serve those who really need and will use the bus. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Gordon referred to the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group's resolution that had been circulated to the various governmental entities. She said this resolution describes how the two school systems, the county and the towns will cooperate on the use of school facilities for recreation. She petitioned the Board to add this resolution to one of the regular Board of County Commissioners' agendas in May for discussion and consideration. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Fair Housing Month The Board considered approving a proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign. Human Relations Commission's Chair Rollin Russell read the following proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April 2014 marks the 46th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the 31St anniversary of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap and familial status; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners enacted the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance on June 6, 1994, which affords to the residents of Orange County the protections guaranteed by Title VIII and additionally encompasses the protected classes of veteran status and age; and WHEREAS, Orange County and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as concerned residents and the housing industry are working to make fair housing opportunities possible for everyone by encouraging others to abide by the letter and the spirit of fair housing laws; and WHEREAS, despite the protection afforded by the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance and Title VIII as amended, illegal housing discrimination still occurs in our nation and in our County; and WHEREAS, by supporting and promoting fair housing and equal opportunity, we are contributing to the health of our County, State and Nation; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, do proclaim April 2014 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and commend this observance to all Orange County residents. This, the 1St day of April 2014. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Rollin Russell reminded everyone that there would be a reception on April 10th to present information to realtors and housing providers, and this event is open to the public. He said the commission will also make fair housing presentations throughout the year. Commissioner Dorosin said the Fair Housing Act was one of the most innovative acts of the civil rights movement. He said this act doesn't just prohibit discrimination, but it also states that all of us have the right to live in a racially diverse housing community. He said Orange County has a burden to further fair housing. b. Sexual Assault Awareness Month The Board considered approving a proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Rape Crisis Center Executive Director Bryant Colson said, on behalf of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, he wanted to thank the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that the Center is celebrating its 40th anniversary, and he said this begins a month long event and program to increase awareness with residents. He said this culminates in an event on April 29th from 6-8 p.m. at Extraordinary Ventures in Chapel Hill. Commissioner Rich read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Proclamation "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center assisted over 600 survivors of sexual violence, their loved ones, and community professionals during 2013; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center works with the County's two school systems and other groups to provide students with age-appropriate information about violence prevention, reaching over 12,000 youth and adults each year; and WHEREAS, the coordination of the Orange County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) is bringing together members of law enforcement, the medical community, the legal system, and other community advocates to improve services for survivors of sexual assault who come forward; and WHEREAS, 1 in 5 American women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010); and WHEREAS, in the United States rape is the most costly crime to its survivors, totaling $127 billion a year considering factors such as medical cost, lost earnings, pain, suffering, and lost quality of life (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996); and WHEREAS, in the United States 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of sexual or physical violence committed by an intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010); and WHEREAS, there are more than 15,000 sex offenders registered as living in North Carolina (Department of Justice, 2014); and WHEREAS, victim-blaming continues to be an enormous problem in instances of rape and sexual assault; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, a non-profit agency that has served this community since 1974, is working to stop sexual violence and its impact through support, education, and advocacy; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2014 as "SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH" and encourage all residents to speak out against sexual violence and to support their local community's efforts to prevent and respond to these appalling crimes. This, the 1St day of April 2014. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Solid Waste Service Tax District— Public Hearing The Board conducted the second of two public hearings, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 153A-302, to receive comments with regard to the proposed establishment of a Solid Waste Service Tax District in unincorporated Orange County. Gayle Wilson presented the background information outlined in the abstract. He said in 2004 the Board of Commissioners approved a new method of funding for the every other week curbside/roadside recycling collection program for about 13,000 residences in unincorporated Orange County. At that time the Board adopted a fee to fund the program, called a rural 3-R Fee, that all eligible residences were billed annually on their tax bills. The fee was assessed to all eligible for the service, regardless of whether or how often a resident used the service. In 2012 the County Manager and the County Attorney advised the Board that they had concerns regarding the statutory justification for assessing this fee and recommended that the Board eliminate the fee and consider other ways to fund that program. The 2012 tax bill was the last time the fee was assessed. The fee was $38/year. In 2013 the Board provided an interim funding for the program from landfill reserves. Over the next several months the Board discussed various options on how to address this funding problem. Elimination of the program was even considered, but unanimously abandoned due to measured participation of the rural community of about 57%. Some residents eligible for this service chose not to recycle, others delivered their recycling to convenience centers and a very few employed private haulers. It was also considered that the service was important in order to meet the County's aggressive waste reduction goal of 61%. Gayle Wilson said after considering and rejecting numerous funding alternatives, in December 2013, the Board indicated intent to implement a solid waste service district tax as the means to replace the funding lost when the fee was eliminated. One of the services discussed in March 2013 was a proposal to franchise waste and recyclables collection in unincorporated Orange County. The Board, following vigorous public opposition, eliminated this option from further consideration. He said the Board also recently discussed a subscription service option, whereby those residents who wanted to retain the service could pay, and those who wished not to pay could voluntarily opt-out. He said State statutes require a public hearing to be held prior to a Board adopting a service district, and the property owners of all parcels to be included in the district must be notified by letter of the hearing. He noted that the Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) are paid for by all residents of the County, though many residents do not use them. He said it is likely that any proposal the Board decides on may not necessarily be the long term solution to rural recycling program funding. Gayle Wilson addressed several of the questions from the hand out— Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): ➢ I have been paying the Solid Waste Convenience Center Fee for three years and it has increased to $40/year in that period. Included among the tax bill explanations for this fee is "The cost of expanding the hours of operation for the solid waste convenience centers". Why has there not been any expansion of hours in that three year period? • The hours of operation at the Eubanks Road and Walnut Grove Church Road Centers were increased by opening on Thursdays from 7 am to 6 pm effective September 5, 2013. ➢ How many exempt properties are there in the proposed district? • There are a total of 694 tax exempt properties in the proposed service district. ➢ How many vacant properties (no homes or other structures) are in the proposed district? • The total number of vacant properties within the district is approximately 5,469. ➢ What are the average home value and the average assessment throughout the county? • Average total property value throughout the county is $290,545. ➢ If a homeowner does land/house improvements, will this change the cost of the tax on the property? • Anything that changes the property tax assessment would change their property tax bill. PUBLIC COMMENT: Anne Garabay said she is a lifetime resident of Orange County, and she is an interior designer. She said her work property and her home are in Orange County. She read an email that she had written to Commissioner McKee. She said she feels suffocated with Orange County taxes as it is now. She said she cannot benefit from this new tax at all, as her commercial business requires that she haul her debris and pay to dump it at the landfill, and she also hauls her home recycling materials. She said her company has suffered since 2001, and she has to borrow money to pay taxes now. She loves Hillsborough, but she wants to take her home and work elsewhere, because she is overtaxed, and she reaps no benefits. She said every day is a struggle, and she feels that no one is interested in small businesses. She votes no further taxes on solid waste. Don O'Leary said, with all due respect, government is like a two year old shouting "mine, mine, mine." He said the population is no longer ignorant, and residents are not going to sit by and be taxed. He said he does not need the recycling trucks, as he already has to go to the dump to take his trash. He said right now it is recyclables, and he questioned how the Board of County Commissioners can ask residents to pay for a service they do not want. He said many residents already take their own recyclables to a convenience center, so why would residents want to pay for a service they are already doing. Dr. Jon Arvick questioned whether this tax will be deductible on state or federal returns. He questioned if residents shouldn't be allowed to vote on this if it is a new tax. He asked if people with only a few materials can opt for monthly pick up. He asked if this tax is really necessary or if it is just a way to raise revenues. He questioned whether this will really increase service and whether he will get twice the service for paying twice the price. He asked if the 61 percent goal is the goal for participation or known waste reduction. Terri Buckner said she lives in Chapel Hill, in the ETJ for Carrboro. She said her area of the County does not have access to the Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC). She said hauling to these centers is very inconvenient for her, though she is still paying for it. She said she has been to most of these meetings, and she has heard there is support for recycling, but the controversy is how to pay for it. She said she is in favor of the tax service district since she lives in the unincorporated southern part of Orange County. She said many of her neighbors lack understanding about the County services that they receive. She asked the Board not to commit to any option that will have a negative impact on the recycling rate or allow more waste to leave the County to go to a landfill in a low wealth county. She asked the Board to commit to a final solution that will allow the solid waste staff to maintain or exceed the current recycling rate. Dave Laudicina said he lives in Bingham Township and he would like to discuss three points: 1) Fairness and Equity - He said this proposal has been marketed as a small amount of money equal to the current rate for the average house. He said this is not dealing in averages, and some people will pay much more than average, and some will pay less. He said he has heard about other increases, and the additive effect of all of these increases grows to an astronomical rate. He said he does not understand why the Board is trying to implement a tax scheme with a monopoly that has no constraints on future increases. He said the rates should be all flat or all progressive. 2) Recycling Participation — He said Orange County has been a leader in recycling for many years, before and during recycling pickup; and it will continue to be a leader in the future, no matter what plan is elected. He said the County would not have been able to achieve this without aggressive rural resident participation. 3) No Choice — He said he took his trash and recycling on the same trip and this is the practice most of the time. He said it makes no sense that he would be forced to pay for something he doesn't need. He said the roll cart would not be suitable for him. Mark Marcoplos said he lives in Bingham Township. He said this proposal has been under consideration with the Board of County Commissioners for more than a year now, and it is no closer to a clear resolution. He said the lack of clear information has resulted in testimony and letters being submitted from people who are not even in the proposed district. He said the County has not checked the addresses of citizens who have spoken at their meetings to see if these residents live in the proposed district. He said the end result is that neither the public nor the media really know the extent of support or criticism for this proposal. He said there are people living in dense areas that would like the service and support the modest tax. He said there are also people in the district that live down long driveways and would not use the service. He said these residents generally support recycling and haul it to the centers, along with household trash. He said the state policy has forced the creation of a district that has clusters of density separated by areas of scattered households. He said the connecting zones have a practical reason to not use the service. He said none of this investment of time and money to explore the tax option would have been necessary if the Board of County Commissioners had kept the 3-R fee. He said it is unclear that the attorney's opinion on the possibility of a legal challenge merited the scrapping of the 3-R fee. He would like to re-instate the fee and concentrate efforts on the adoption of a comprehensive plan. He feels it is essential that Orange County have its own transfer and recycling station at the same location. He said this will end the increasing cost of trucking waste to transfer stations; reduce pollution; and allow for future collection of both household waste and recyclables. He said the most cost effective location is near 1-40 and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban zone, which generates most of the solid waste. He referred to available land near the Chapel Hill Town Operations Center. Stan Cheran lives in rural Orange County and said he would like to join with many of his rural neighbors in expressing opposition to a fee for a service that he does not use and will never use. He lives on an unpaved road and hauls his recyclables and trash to the convenience centers. He said if he chose to put out his recyclables he would still have to haul trash. He finds the proposed mandatory fee objectionable and not appropriate for a County as progressive and enlightened as this. He said it is not a matter of cost, but it is a matter of principle. Steve Hopper lives in Efland. He is opposed to the tax, and he has been doing research on the issue. He said most people he has spoken with did not realize that this will be a progressive and variable tax. He said this is a strange way to fund this service. He congratulated the County on doing a good job with recycling so far, but he feels the Board does not see that the rural people get it. He cited a 7 percent difference in the rates of recycling between rural residents with and without the curbside service. He said the economics don't add up. He said the residents of this County are enlightened and are going to continue to recycle. Steve Hopper asked the Board not to do this, and he requested that residents be allowed to vote on the issue. Jerry Snipes said he is a resident of Efland Cheeks Township. He said he has over 500 signatures against this tax, and many people he has talked to do not want this tax. He questioned why the County would want to send their trash to a neighbor's county. Doug Efland said he received 6 notices for the parcels he owns, and all but one of these is farmland. He referred to item #30 on the FAQ sheet. He said he does not understand why landowners that have vacant properties in the district are asked to pay for service and those outside are not asked to pay for it, as neither of these residents receive any benefit from it. He referred to the statement about suspension of fees and said he noticed that his tax bill for 2012 and 2013 showed that, even though the $37 fee was suspended, he was asked to pay a $30 increase in other fees for solid waste. Paul Rockwell said he lives on the east side of Orange Grove Road. He expressed his gratitude to the Board for allowing him to express his opinion. He said he likes the services offered by the County at the convenience centers, and he feels the taxes he pays for this are well invested. He said curbside recycling is not something he would use, and he does not want to pay for a service, he does not need or want. He likes the idea of a subscription service option, as it allows residents to get the level of service they would like. He said incentivizing recycling might also help reach the goal faster than irritating the public with additional taxes. He said incentivizing has been proven effective in other areas. Thomas Linden said he lives in the Stoneridge neighborhood, which contains about 243 houses in unincorporated Orange County. He said his neighborhood and the neighborhood next to his really need recycling. He said about 80 percent or more of the homes in his area have recycling bins in front of them. He said people cannot selectively choose the taxes that benefit them. He said if this was the case, there would be no functioning society. He said Orange County is a recycling leader in the state and there needs to be more recycling, not less. He said he would likely have to double the amount he pays for the service, but he feels it would be well worth it. He thinks it would be useful for the County to pursue a pay-as-you-throw model for private hauling. He said he puts out very little trash, but he pays for a big bin. He is in favor of the tax district. Lynne Jaffe said that many people seem to be against the taxing of this service. She said she has paid for many services that she does not use, including schools and other services; however she does not see the justice in paying taxes for someone else's trash. She does not see how this tax supports recycling. She said this is a rural County and many people have inherited their land and own a lot of land. She said many of these people are on a fixed income and are unable to pay more taxes. She said County residents are increasingly penalized and asked to support so many services that provide them no benefit. Jane Gaede lives in Orange County, in Hillsborough Township. She said she has received 7 first class individual mailings from the solid waste office in reference to this district tax public hearing. She said there is a need to consolidate this. She said there is curbside recycling in her area, and she does not want, or need the service. She does not have trash pick-up, so she takes trash and recyclables to the convenience center at the same time. She said she is perfectly happy to pay a fair share of cost to maintain the convenience centers. She said it makes no sense to have curbside recycling in these rural areas, and it only tears up the roads and generates air pollution. She said she is in favor of recycling, but she does not need it picked up. Norma White said she has four parcels and she is in the tax district; but the people at the end of her road are not in the district and are taxed at a different rate. She thinks that a consensus has been formed around recycling in Orange County. She said the towns, the developments outside towns, and the rural areas all recycle, though they do recycling differently. She said the towns and the County are poised to sign an agreement for curbside recycling, and this is a result of conversations between staff, town managers, councils and officials. She said this is a good fit for the town and the County, and the agreement appears to be made in good faith. She said the public hearings have affirmed the importance of recycling outside of the towns. She said curbside recycling is good for suburban developments that sit just outside of towns. She asked, rather than funding this with a tax district, why the County does not work with haulers already providing service to the towns, to include the suburban communities for a fee. She said this would not require a special district. She said the County has not respected the way rural households address recycling. She said only a third of those in the rural area use curbside service. She said the curbside with a tax district should be rejected. She said the Commissioners are the only voice that the rural residents have, and she asked that the Board reject this district and re-visit the issue with the rural stakeholders. Quentin Phillips said he lives on Orange Grove Road. He asked for clarification on the revenue generated by the sale of recyclables. He asked why that cannot be self supporting. He asked how this tax can be legal if the residents have not voted on it. He said he pays more taxes in Orange County than he does in Alamance County. David Neal is a member of the Commission for the Environment. He said the commission's interest in this issue is environmental. He said there is benefit in the reduced energy use created through recycling. He said, given the two options, the commission identified the service district as the option that is least disruptive to the existing successful program. He said a subscription service would be inefficient, difficult to manage, and expensive. He agrees that in a real world, curbside recycling would be best in denser areas; but because of the constraints requiring a contiguous district, this does not work. Joe Phelps said he is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He said he would also like to see the amount of revenue generated from the sale of recyclables. He said the opt-out service should be an option, and if there is a fee, it should be a flat fee for all participants. He feels the Board is incorrect in thinking that an opt-out program would reduce recycling participation. He questioned why only part of the County was included in the program and why the service was not offered to everyone. He does not believe this should be based upon tax value. Bonnie Hauser said she lives across the street from the proposed district, but she cares about this issue. She said it is apparent that everyone involved cares about waste reduction, but everyone does not do it the same way. She said there are many options that provide choice and good service that have not been explored. She said the service district tax is not a fair or equitable solution for the County. She said she has been supportive of the subscription fee, but it seems there may be an issue of viability with this option. She said there needs to be more time allowed to review the options, and a short term solution needs to be found, while options for a long time solution can be sorted out. She asked the Board to delay all capital expenses, including convenience center upgrades and roll carts until a decision is made on how to handle this service in the long term. Ben Lloyd said he is an Efland resident. He said he understands that this proposed tax would apply to residents and open land, regardless if you create waste or not. He owns several hundred acres of open land that produces no waste, and he feels it is unfair to make him pay a tax for this land. He said the current convenience centers are the best and fairest options. He does not mind paying for his sins and his service, but he resents paying for the sins and services of other people. He said he was taught not to mess with something that is working, and the convenience centers are working. Gene Williams said he lives in White Cross community, and he feels the County is doing a great job with recycling now. He said he and his wife are dedicated to recycling, and he has talked to a lot of people about this issue. He said expecting residents to pay an additional tax for recycling is not right. He said a friend of his said if the County taxes her, she will throw her recycling in with her trash. He said this tax will alienate people who are trying to do a good job. He said residents are paying a high property tax now, as well as a fire district tax. He said adding a district tax will only add more, and this is too many taxes. He said he spends his money in Alamance County because there is no industry or retail in Orange County. He said this lack of industry is why residents have to pay more tax. He said this district tax is just one more tax that residents don't need. Chair Jacobs said the answers to the questions will be posted to the website. Gayle Wilson said this is correct. He also noted that the state legislature requires the County to mail each parcel letter separately. Chair Jacobs said all of the comments will be considered and a decision is scheduled to be made at the April 15th meeting. He suggested a 5 minute break. 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda NONE • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from January 23 and February 4, 2014 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for thirty-four (34) taxpayers with a total of thirty-six (36) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. C. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for seventeen (17) taxpayers with a total of (29) twenty-nine bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Notice of Public Hearing on Orange County's 2014 Legislative Agenda The Board approved a notice of the Board of County Commissioners' plans to hold a public hearing on April 15, 2014 on potential items for inclusion in Orange County's legislative agenda package for the 2014 North Carolina General Assembly Session. e. Approval of Budget Amendment#6-A Reallocating Current Available County Capital Funds to Proposed New County Capital Project The Board approved Budget Amendment#6-A reallocating $55,000 in current available County Capital funds to a newly created County Capital Project to fund repairs and renovations needed for the current fiscal year 2013-14. f. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment# 6- B Related to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) to release funds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2013-14 debt service payments for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools, and to approve Budget Amendment #6-B (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the State's approval of the application and authorize the Chair to sign. g. Delegation of Property Tax Release/Refund Authority Based on North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) NCGS 105-381 The Board considered delegation of authority as authorized under North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-381(b) and approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, thereby allowing the Finance Officer to approve requests for release or refund of property taxes less than one hundred dollars ($100.00). h. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2014 The Board approved one change in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2014, adding a dinner meeting with the Board of Social Services for Tuesday, April 29 2014, starting at 5:30 pm (prior to the 7:00 joint meeting with the school boards) at the Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. 7. Regular Agenda a. Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association Community Center Construction Bid Award The Board considered awarding a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North Carolina in the amount of$552,488 for the construction of the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association Community Center; authorizing the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of the County Attorney; and authorizing the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project budget. Jeff Thompson said this bid reflects a major re-design of the facility, allowing the project to be constructed within the Board approved project budget. Jeff Thompson said Patric Lebeau was present to provide an overview of the design to the Board and answer any questions. Patric Lebeau reviewed several image slides outlining the re-design changes. He said the building footprint has changed very little, and the square footage and interior spaces and functions have been retained. He said the site plan has shrunk and the building has been pulled to the East to avoid some site work. He showed the ADA parking and basketball court, and he reviewed the detailed floor plan slide. He said the height and elevations have changed slightly, and the clear story has been taken out. He said a small portico has been retained on the east side for the main entry. Jeff Thompson said competitive bids from ten (10) firms were opened on March 13, 2014. He said after a period of review of the bid documents by County staff and the project designer, Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, NC was determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for this project. He said should the Board of County Commissioners award the bid, the projected construction period is eight (8) months. He said, depending upon construction progress, management of unforeseen conditions and the facility commissioning process, the center may be available before the end of the 2014 calendar year. Chair Jacobs said the Board was glad to see their friends from the Rogers Road community in attendance. Commissioner Dorosin noted that the bid came in at $550,000, and he thought there might be extra money, since the Board allocated $650,000. He said the financial impact lists $34,000 for owner, furniture, and site costs and $50,000 to OWASA. He asked if the bid had come in at $650,000 where these additional funds would have come from. He asked if these costs are just being included because the bid came in so low. Jeff Thompson said the OWASA costs are fixed, and if the bid had come in higher or lower, those costs would stay the same. He said if the bid had been higher, the Board would have been asked to approve a budget amendment to complete the project. Commissioner Dorosin said he does not feel that the information regarding the $50,000 cost was adequately presented to the Board of County Commissioners during their discussion of this project. He asked if the $34,000 was another fixed cost or if it is being included because the bid is so low. Jeff Thompson said the kitchen equipment had been pulled out, with a plan to put it in separate from the general contract. Commissioner Dorosin questioned whether, if the lowest bid had been $600,000, and the $50,000 was then added for OWASA, this $34,000 would have been added as well. Jeff Thompson said this would have been added above that $650,000. Michael Talbert said staff would have come back to ask for more funding. He said the kitchen equipment was purposely taken out to know exactly what the bid was. He said the OWASA costs are fixed costs for the owner, and these are not part of the bid, as it is not part of what the construction crew has to pay. Commissioner Dorosin said this just was not clear to him. Michael Talbert said the project costs are for the whole project. He said he appreciated the architect's pro bono services, and he feels it ended in a better product. Commissioner Dorosin said this is very exciting, and he would support adding in anything that would commit the Board up to the $650,000 that was committed. Michael Talbert said that is the intent for the remaining $20,000 if it is not needed for any contingencies. Commissioner Gordon asked if staff could please review the figures since they seem to add up to $660,000 instead of$650,000. Jeff Thompson said he will look into this. Commissioner Price asked about the start date. Jeff Thompson said the goal would be to start in early May. Commissioner McKee publicly thanked the architect and his firm for the work that has been done, specifically to go back and do the re-design to make this project work. He said this has been a long time coming. He said he is excited that the dirt is getting ready to be moved. He supported Commissioner Dorosin's proposal that if this project comes in under $650,000 the extra funds should be used to provide furnishings. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to award a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North Carolina in the amount of $552,488 for the construction of the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association Community Center; authorize the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of the County Attorney; and authorize the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project budget of$650,000. Commissioner Rich asked for clarification about the figures for the project budget. Commissioner Gordon said if the math is wrong, the extra $10,000 will come out of the contingency, and the contingency amount would be $10,000 instead of$20,000. She noted that it is okay to go up to the project budget of$650,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts referred to an earlier question about the process if a tax service district was implemented and then needed to be abolished. He said a public hearing would be required, with a notice in the newspaper, and then the Board could decide to pass a resolution to terminate the tax service district. 11. Appointments NONE 12. Board Comments Commissioner Pelissier said she and Chair Jacobs attended a public input meeting for the proposed southwest library. She said the consultants told her that this was the largest turnout ever. She said there was great enthusiasm and positive input regarding the site. Commissioner Pelissier said she visited the 1789 Venture Lab in Chapel Hill last week, and she encouraged her peers to visit. Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Pelissier attended an event to welcome Debbie Shultz to Orange County. Commissioner McKee - none Commissioner Price said she attended the strategic planning course at UNC. She said a lot of the examples presented were located in Orange County. Commissioner Gordon referred to the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group's resolution regarding the Community Use of School Facilities for Recreation. She said the Orange County school system has recently revised their facility use policy. She said that in the IP Work Group, the representatives of the two school boards and the representatives of all of the governing boards for the towns and the county have worked together in a very cooperative way. In a recent IP Work Group meeting, all of the representatives have agreed to this resolution, and now it has to be agreed to by all of the boards. Commissioner Dorosin said he attended the North Carolina hearings of the National Commission on Voting Rights. He said it was a combination of voter rights and voter education panels. He said Ellie Kinnaird was one of the panel members. He said all of the testimony will be transcribed and will go to Washington D.C. to become part of the congressional record for discussion of the new proposed voter rights act. Commissioner Dorosin congratulated James Davis who was appointed as interim director of the Housing Human Rights and Community Development Department. Chair Jacobs said he had an opportunity to make a presentation to the Orange County/Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce regarding economic development in Orange County. He said there are a lot of things that are happening. He said the very next day one of the incubators hosted a tour by the Wallace Center Food Hub. He said there were people from as far away as Texas. He said the center is already making a profit. Chair Jacobs said he attended a meeting of the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership where the director of DSI Comedy was introduced. He said the director talked about how his company does outreach and team building. Chair Jacobs said he received an email with an offer to do an outreach for the Board of County Commissioners. Chair Jacobs asked Jeff Thompson about the status of the Whitted Building, because many arts groups were interested. Jeff Thompson said the project is slightly ahead of schedule by about 2 weeks. He said site work will probably start in about 2 weeks. He said testing and A/V work will be done in May/June, but it probably won't be ready for the Board's last meeting. He said final work will be done over the summer to insure that t it will be ready for the first meeting in the fall. He said a tour is planned in May. Commissioner Price said she has had requests for tours of the facility. Jeff Thompson said these can be set up. 13. Information Items • March 18, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from March 6, 2014 Regular Board Meeting • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from March 18, 2014 Regular Board Meeting 14. Closed Session - NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board