HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-17-2014 - 6aSUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 17, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -a
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245 -2130
I
PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
May 8, 2014
BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
I DRAFT MINUTES
2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 REGULAR MEETING
4 May 8, 2014
5 7:00 p.m.
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, May
8 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C.
9
10 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
11 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, Penny Rich
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
13 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
14 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
15 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other
16 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
17 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
18 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
19
20 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 Addition of a closed session: "To consider the qualifications, competence,
25 performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial
26 employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or
27 employee" NCGS § 143- 318.11(a) (6).
28
29 Chair Jacobs noted that the network system was down, and there would be no live
30 internet access or web streaming of this meeting.
31 Chair Jacobs reviewed the information at their places:
32
33 - White Sheet — Letter from Friends of the Senior Center — Item 2 -a — Public Comments
34 - White Sheet — Letter requesting support for the Fairview Senior Center — Item 2 -a —
35 Public Comments
36 - White Sheet — PowerPoint for Item 5 -a - Class A Special Use Permit — Solar Array Off
37 Redman Road in Cheeks Township - Public Hearing Closure and Action
38 - White Sheet — Questions and Comments from Commissioner Gordon for Item 6g —
39 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance — Approval and Certification of 2104
40 Report
41 - White Sheet — PowerPoint for Item 7 -a - Cedar Grove Community Center Project
42 Update
43 - White Sheet — Questions and Answers for Item 7 -a - Cedar Grove Community Center
44 Project Update
45 - White Sheet — Questions and Answers for Item 7 -b - Central and Rural Orange County
46 Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts — Orange Public Transportation and
47 Triangle Transit
48 - Beige Sheet — Update to Attachment #1 for Item 7 -b - Central and Rural Orange
49 County Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts — Orange Public Transportation
50 and Triangle Transit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
White Sheets — PowerPoint printout for item 7 -b - Central and Rural Orange County
Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts — Orange Public Transportation and
Triangle Transit PowerPoint
- White Sheets — Update to Chair Jacob's letter regarding Commissioner and Public
Petitions
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
2.
Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda (
Beverly Blythe noted that the Commissioners have a letter before them regarding a
request to rename the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry Passmore Center. She said
she understands that there is a policy regarding the renaming of buildings, and she is asking for
a waiver of this policy to allow this change. She said this is important to the board and the
community. She asked for a show of support from the audience, and she asked the Board for
their help in this matter. She noted the past and present contributions of Jerry Passmore.
Dorothy Johnson reviewed a handout regarding the Fairview Community Watch. She
said she is requesting a matching grant for the summer monitoring program at Fairview Park.
She said the cost of the program is $4,000, and this pays for an adult monitor and a youth
assistant for 18 hours per week from June to August. She said these workers oversee activities
and monitor for unwanted behavior. She said this program has been in operation for the past
two years, and the employees have been well liked and respected Fairview residents.
She said there is an urgency to this request, as the goal would be to hire staff to begin
in mid -June. She asked for a matching funds grant of $2000.
Commissioner Dorosin arrived 7.10 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
a closed session to the end of the meeting for the purpose of:
"To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of
appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143- 318.11(a) (6).
below.)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
43 3. Petitions by Board Members
44 Commissioner Dorosin said he was recently in a meeting with some housing advocates.
45 He said there was a decision by certain private landlords of apartment complexes in Orange
46 County to no longer accept section 8 housing vouchers; and as a result, approximately 90
47 voucher holders are facing the possible loss of their housing. He said 43 of those voucher
48 holders are still looking for housing alternatives, and 47 have either found housing or turned in
49 vouchers and moved out of the County. He requested a report from the Housing and Human
50 Relations Commission with a breakdown of how many have surrendered vouchers, as well as
I the prospects for the residents still looking for housing. He would like to know if support or
2 advice is being offered to these people.
3 Commissioner Price said she has been getting emails from the Human Relations
4 Commission and department staff about moving forward with Women and Equity. She
5 petitioned the Board to allow this to happen.
6 Chair Jacobs said he would like to petition the Board to honor Judson Edeburn, who has
7 served for 35 years as the manager of Duke Forest. He said, thanks to Judson Edeburn's
8 efforts, the Board was able to form a partnership with Duke and purchase property from Duke.
9 Chair Jacobs said he wanted to make sure that the Board is comfortable with the
10 proposed dais and screen for the new Whitted Building meeting room. He said the mock -up
11 indicated that it would be very large, and it would be an impediment to the public's ability to see.
12 He suggested the possibility of moving this to the side. He would like for all Board members
13 who have not toured the facility to take a look at it before the technology equipment is ordered.
14
15 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
16
17 a. Recognition of Project EngAGE Graduates
18 The Board recognized the inaugural class of Project EngAGE, a senior leadership
19 program sponsored by the Department on Aging.
20 Department on Aging Direction Janice Tyler said the graduates have completed a 12
21 week training and have been organized into community resource teams. She outlined some of
22 the projects, such as working with 4 -H groups to develop service projects that serve older
23 adults. She said the purpose of tonight is to recognize the 15 graduates for their achievement
24 and the impact of their future service in the community.
25 Chair Jacobs said several Board members had the opportunity to attend some of the
26 group functions over the past 4 months. He said this is a dedicated group of people who want
27 to do good for the community.
28 Chair Jacobs recognized the following graduates, who received their graduation
29 plaques:
30
31
Gail Alberti
32
Bill Barrows,
33
Jaki Shelton Green
34
Sue Heckman
35
Cliff Leath
36
Dee Lowdermilk
37
Rod Magson
38
Lenore Martin
39
Betty Melanson
40
Yvonne Mandenhall
41
Delores Ramsey
42
Donna Scandlin
43
Tana Hartman
44
Norma White
45
46 b. Older Americans Month Proclamation
47 The Board considered approving a proclamation joining Federal and State governments
48 in designating the month of May as Older Americans Month and a time to honor older adults for
49 their contributions to society and to Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
il
1 Janice Tyler said the purpose of this is to proclaim May as Older Americans Month. She
2 said the national theme is "Safe Today, Healthy Tomorrow." She said there are over 22,000
3 older adults ages 60 and better in this community, and 1,600 of these residents are over age
4 85. She said the goal is to promote a healthy active lifestyle. She encouraged the community
5 to get to know their local senior center and participate in an exercise program. She outlined
6 several upcoming programs. She said she is proud of the department, and she thanked the
7 Commissioners for their support.
8 She read the following proclamation:
9
10 Orange County Board of Commissioners
11 Proclamation
12 Older Americans Month — May 2014
13 Theme - "Safe Today, Healthy Tomorrow"
14
15 Whereas, Orange County includes over 22,000 persons aged 60 and older; and
16
17 Whereas, Orange County is committed to helping all individuals live longer, healthier lives; and
18
19 Whereas, the older adults in Orange County have made countless contributions and sacrifices
20 to ensure a better life for future generations; and
21
22 Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes the value of injury
23 prevention and safety awareness in helping older adults remain healthy and active; and
24
25 Whereas, our community can provide opportunities to enrich the lives of individuals young and
26 old by:
27
28 ■ Supporting their ability to stay healthy and physically active
29 ■ Emphasizing the need to take action to safeguard themselves from unintentional injuries
30 where they live, work and socialize
31 ■ Providing information on avoiding leading causes of injury for older adults, particularly
32 falls and offering opportunities to participate in falls prevention fitness programs.
33 ■ Creating opportunities to stay engaged and active in their communities.
34
35 Now therefore, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim May
36 2014 as Older Americans Month and urge every resident to take time this month to recognize
37 older adults and the people who serve and support them as powerful and vital individuals who
38 greatly contribute to the community.
39
40 This, the 8th day of May, 2014.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon for the
43 Board to approve the proclamation designating May as Older Americans Month and authorize
44 the Chair to sign the proclamation.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 5. Public Hearings
49
50 a. Class A Special Use Permit —Solar Array Off Redman Road in Cheeks
I Township - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from
2 the Public or Applicant Accepted)
3 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and
4 considered a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted
5 by Strata Solar and Stout Farms LLC proposing the development of a solar array in accordance
6 with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array- Public Utility of the
7 Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
8 Chair Jacobs noted that this is a public hearing that does not include public comment.
9 Michael Harvey presented the abstract and included attachments and public hearing
10 excerpts, to enter as part of the record.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich, to
13 accept the submitted materials.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Michael Harvey reviewed the PowerPoint slide and the manager's recommendations as
18 follows:
19
20 - Erect individual solar array panels on both properties (52 acres).
21 - Typical array is between 7 and 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground
22 clearance and approximately 63 feet in length.
23 - Arrays will be screened by combination of existing and new vegetation.
24 - An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall enclose the perimeter of the array to
25 prevent access,
26 - Gravel paths shall be installed to afford access to technicians.
27
28 Commissioner Price asked if the chain link fence will be visible to the residents next
29 door.
30 Michael Harvey said no, and he showed the location of the fence on the map. He said
31 staff has also met with the owner of the neighboring property to make sure all of her concerns
32 regarding the buffer are addressed.
33 Chair Jacobs said the recommendations note that the applicant will submit a formal
34 landscaping and tree preservation plan. He asked if this has been submitted.
35 Michael Harvey said this has already been submitted. He said there must be a storm
36 water and erosion control plan in place before clearing.
37 Chair Jacobs said the Strata Solar site near White Cross did not look buffered, and he
38 can see the entire property from the road without impediment. He encouraged staff to make
39 sure that regulations are followed with this project.
40 John Roberts said the Board is limited to consideration of the project at hand in this
41 decision making process.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Chair Jacobs has information that the property is
43 already being cleared in advance of the special use permit.
44 Commissioner Price said the neighbors say clearing has occurred or there is activity at
45 the site.
46 Michael Harvey said, according to the applicant, only soil testing has been done.
47 John Roberts said any information received outside of the fact finding process should
48 not be considered in the determination of this matter.
49 Michael Harvey said the applicant has removed some trees for soil testing, but there is
50 no mass clearing of trees. He said this has been done within the allowed perimeters.
I Commissioner Price asked for details on the buffer.
2 Michael Harvey said it is a 50 foot buffer.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
5 close the public hearing.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
10 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
11 the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development
12 Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
17 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
18 the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as
19 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 A motion was made Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm
24 the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the
25 provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as
26 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
31 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
32 the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed
33 within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
38 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with
39 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as
40 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
45 regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows there is sufficient
46 evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the
47 use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where
48 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
49
7
1 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of
2 these proceedings, including:
3 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan.
4 • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the
5 March /April Planning Board meetings.
6 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr.
7 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into
8 the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April
9 Planning Board meetings.
10 • Adjacent property owner a -mails and applicant responses. Comments from the BOCC,
11 Planning Board, and the general public; and
12 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
13 the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee
18 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
19 (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property.
20 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these
21 proceedings, including:
22 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan.
23 • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the
24 March /April Planning Board meetings.
25 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr.
26 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into
27 the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April
28 Planning Board meetings. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project would not
29 have an impact on adjacent property value, and:
30 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
31 the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
36 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
37 (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the
38 use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in
39 these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
40 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these
41 proceedings, including:
42 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan.
43 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr.
44 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO and
45 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating
46 the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
approve the Special Use Permit. The BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed
within Attachment 7 of the abstract package.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
Items f and g were pulled by Commissioner Gordon, and item h was pulled by
Commissioner Price from the consent agenda for discussion.
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, and seconded by Commissioner Rich to
approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from February 27, March 18 and April 1, 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 thirteen (13) taxpayers with a total of fifteen (15) 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 four (4) taxpayers with a total of eight (8) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue
in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105 -381.
d. Consolidated Housing Plan Annual Action Plan /HOME Program
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, approving the FY 2014-
2015 Consolidated Housing Plan Annual Action Plan; adopting and authorizing the Chair to sign
a Resolution approving the proposed HOME Program Activities for 2014 -2015; and authorizing
the Manager to implement the HOME Program as approved by the BOCC including the ability
to execute agreements with partnering non - profit organizations after consultation with the
County Attorney.
e. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Orange County
Schools (OCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment # 7 -A Related to OCS
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 Orange County Schools, and to approve Budget Amendment #7 -A
(amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the State's approval of the
application.
i. Joint Resolution Amending the Hillsborough- Orange Interlocal Land Management
Agreement for the Central Orange Coordinated Area
The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, amending the
Hillsborough- Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement to reflect the intent to continue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
I
coordination with Hillsborough to relinquish some areas of its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ),
as defined in the Agreement, back to the County and end the ETJ expansion process; and
authorized the Chair to sign.
L Approval of Emergency Services Strategic Plan
The Board received and approved the final version of the Emergency Services Strategic Plan.
k. Approval of Purchase of Fourteen (14) LIFEPAK Cardiac Monitors /Defibrillators
and Budget Amendment #7 -113
The Board approved the purchase of fourteen (14) LIFEPAK cardiac monitors /defibrillators and
Budget Amendment #7 -B.
I. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement for Little River Park (Durham County)
The Board approved renewal the interlocal agreement governing the operation, management
and budgeting /financing for Little River Regional Park and Natural Area, a joint park with
Durham County and authorized the Manager to sign.
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
f. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing — May 27, 2014
The Board considered approval of the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint
Board of County Commissioners /Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for May
27, 2014.
Commissioner Gordon referred to page 2 of the abstract. She said this listed a
minimum of 8 BOCC -only public hearing dates a year. She suggested that a minimum of 7
public hearings would be more appropriate, due to staff advisement that there were just seven
months during the year when they would recommend that hearings be held.. She said more
could always be added if needed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to approve the notices of joint public
hearing as stated, with replacement of "minimum of 8 meetings" to read "minimum of 7
meetings."
Commissioner Dorosin suggested that it read "a maximum of 8." He said this would
avoid boxing the Board in to a minimum number.
Chair Jacobs suggested the use of the word "approximately ". He said this would
recognize that this is not a number that is set in stone, and it would not bind the Board to any
specific number.
Perdita Holtz pointed out that the Commissioners are arguing the text amendment
instead of the content of the legal advertisement. She would argue for the use of the word
"approximately" so that a discussion can be had regarding the pros and cons of a minimum or
maximum. She said the Board will have to specify a number of public hearings each year when
the calendar is done, so that deadline dates can be established for applications.
Commissioner Rich questioned why a number has to be attached at all.
Perdita Holtz said the UDO currently states that there will be 4 quarterly public hearings.
She said the text of the UDO amendment does say a minimum of 8, but this can be changed
after discussion at the quarterly public hearing, if this is what the Board wants.
Commissioner Pelissier said the point is to have a public hearing to see what the public
says about the number before making a decision.
Commissioner Gordon said these quarterly public hearings were primarily for land use,
zoning, and text amendments. She said these weren't the only public hearings that were held
and this designation was just to give a specific time, but there were other public hearings for
other topics.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10
Perdita Holtz said it might be helpful to designate public hearing dates for planning
related issues. She said this does not limit public hearings for other issues.
Commissioner Gordon said this is not clear, and there is nothing that states that the
schedule would be proposed as part of the calendar.
Perdita Holtz said this is not in the legal advertisement, but it is in the proposed
amendment.
Commissioner Gordon asked where the designation of meeting "for planning related
issues" should be placed.
Perdita Holtz said this could go at the end of the first sentence. She read the text.
John Roberts said the Board may want to discuss revamping the entire public hearing
process, including how the public hearings are conducted. He suggested using as broad a
language as possible. He suggested some specific wording for this.
Commissioner Gordon said the point was to limit it to a certain topic so the people would
know. She suggested altering the language as Perdita Holtz suggested, to say "the proposed
amendments would replace the existing joint Board of County Commissioners /Planning Board
public hearings with a minimum of 8 BOCC only public hearing dates for planning related
issues."
Chair Jacobs said this is different than the attorney's suggestion. He asked if there was
a second.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Dorosin said he does not agree with the narrower scope being described.
He said this is not just about changing the quarterly hearing to an alternative schedule or
changing the meetings to Commissioner's only. He said there is more to it that just that. He
said he agreed with the attorney's description of looking at the whole process. He said this is
just an announcement of the public hearing about public hearings, and it should be as broad as
possible.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price that
the proposed amendment would replace the existing joint Board of County Commissioners
/Planning Board quarterly public hearings regarding land use and planning, as well as the
scope, conduct and organization and administration of public hearings generally.
Chair Jacobs said there was some discussion of this at agenda review. He said there
was discussion of having nomenclature to suggest the nature of the public hearing in order to
avoid misleading the public.
Commissioner Gordon said she still thinks it should be designated that the planning
board would make its recommendations for land use and planning issues to the Board of
County Commissioners after the quarterly public hearing, but a quorum would no longer be
necessary to hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Dorosin said the whole structure is on the table, so this is to be decided.
He said he has questioned where the appropriate time is in the process for the planning board
to give input. He thinks his broader motion will encompass those questions.
VOTE: Ayes, 6 — Nays, 1(Commissioner Gordon)
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich, to
approve the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of County
Commissioners /Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for May 27, 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
1
2
3 g_ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance —Approval and Certification of
4 2014 Report
5 The Board considered approving the 2014 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
6 Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certifying portions of the Report.
7 Commissioner Gordon referred to the top of page 11, which pertains to an analysis of
8 the 5 years of projections. She said it is important to know whether these projections are
9 accurate or not. She said the chart is unclear about what is included, and she outlined some of
10 this information, while referring to the columns in the report. She said the first column for each
11 year includes the actual number of students instead of the projections, and she suggested an
12 insertion to explain this. She said past projections are not as important, and the important thing
13 is the actual numbers. She would like to change these two charts on pages 11 and 12 by
14 adding a simple statement to note that the first column is the actual number of students.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said the number at the bottom of page 11 is a projection, and he
16 asked if Commissioner Gordon is saying this should be listed as actual.
17 Commissioner Gordon said the report leads people to believe it is actual, and there
18 should be an explanation to say what it is.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said the whole chart is to show whether the predictions were off.
20 He reviewed these numbers. He said this seems pretty clear to him.
21 Commissioner Gordon said all she is asking for this year is that the column be labeled
22 within the text.
23 Craig Benedict said this sentence can be added. He said the purpose is to show how
24 well the County did with the projections.
25 Commissioner McKee said he is okay with adding the clarification, but he feels that the
26 other columns make the numbers clear.
27 Chair Jacobs noted that when the projection is high, the County funds for the higher
28 number, and there is no refund for this.
29 Craig Benedict said staff uses the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections.
30
31 Commissioner Gordon reviewed the following sheet and asked that this be entered into
32 the record:
33
34 Questions /Comments for May 8, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting Agenda from
35 Commissioner Gordon:
36
37 (2) pp. 65 and 66 - Attachment 5 - Student Projections
38 On page 65, CHCCS student projections, there is a note showing that high school #3 was
39 completed in Fall 2007. The previous year, high school capacity was at 116 %, which exceeds
40 the 110% level of service that should have triggered the construction of an additional CHCCS
41 high school.
42
43 On page 66, OCS student projections, there is a note showing that middle school #3 was
44 completed in Fall 2006. The previous year middle school capacity was at 108.5 %, which
45 exceeded the 107% level of service that should have triggered the construction of an additional
46 OCS middle school.
47
48 Please confirm the reason that these levels of service were exceeded. My understanding is
49 that, in the MOU for SAPFO, the SAPFO adequacy test was suspended for these two levels of
50 service ( CHCCS high school level and OCS middle school level) until the proposed capacity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
12
could be added for that school system. When OCS middle school #3 (Gravelly Hill Middle
School) was built, the middle school level was included for OCS and when CHCCS high school
#3 (Carrboro High School) was built, then the high school level was included for CHCCS.
From Perdita Holtz - Commissioner Gordon is correct that the SAPFO adequacy test was
suspended for these two school levels in the MOUs (and subsequent development
regulation amendments) during the time period mentioned. The purpose of suspending
the adequacy test was that these two levels were already above, or very close to
exceeding, the agreed -upon maximum capacity levels when the SAPFO was adopted in
July 2003. If the adequacy test had not been suspended, the effect of SAPFO adoption
would have been to curtail residential development in both school districts immediately
upon adoption of SAPFO.
Commissioner Gordon would like this information noted as a historical reminder and so
that there is no misunderstanding regarding the effectiveness of SAPFO.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
move the manager's recommendation approving the 2014 Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the
Report, with the addition of one sentence on page 11 and one sentence on page 12 to indicate
what is meant in the charts, and with the inclusion of the submitted questions and comments
into the record.
Commissioner McKee said he would like to note that SAPFO is only a planning tool and
should be used as such.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Buckhorn- Mebane EDD Phase 2 Sewer Extension — Amendment of Design Contract
and Approval of Budget Amendment #7 -C
The Board considered authorizing the Chair to sign an amendment to the design
contract for the Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD) Phase 2 Sewer Extension
Project and approval of Budget Amendment #7 -C.
Commissioner Price said she needs clarification on some differences in the numbers.
Craig Benedict said this amendment is just to add an additional $120,000; however if
you look back over the past several years, there has been a change of $1 million, from $3.8
million to $4.8 million. He said this includes an increased scope to the project and an increase
to protect capital costs. He said tonight's item would only involve the additional funds of
$120,000.
Commissioner Gordon said she asked about this budget amendment, and the finance
director said this will be documented in the future as a separate statement.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
authorize the Chair to sign an amendment to the design contract for the Buckhorn Economic
Development District (EDD) Phase 2 Sewer Extension Project and approval of Budget
Amendment #7 -C.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Regular Agenda
13
2 a. Cedar Grove Community Center Project Update
3 The Board considered confirming the project plan as approved in the FY2013 -14 Capital
4 Investment Plan and presented to the Board of County Commissioners during the November
5 12, 2013 and March 11, 2014 work sessions (Attachment 1, "Base Plan "); or amending the
6 project plan by directing staff to maintain the classroom wings for future occupancy and /or
7 minimally conditioned storage available for both County department and County tenant use
8 (Attachment 2, "Alternate Plan "); or providing new direction to staff.
9
10 Jeff Thompson recognized the resident advisory work group, and he reviewed the
11 following PowerPoint slides:
12
13 Intended Outcome
14 — Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County
15 Commissioners during its March 11, 2014 work session;
16 — Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013 -14 Capital Investment Plan
17 ( "Base Plan "); or
18 — Amend the project plan for "mothballing" and improving the classroom wings for
19 future occupancy and current storage use ( "Alternate Plan "); or
20 — Provide new direction to staff.
21
22 Methodology
23 — Informal Resident Advisory Work Group
24 — 7 Meetings over 3 Months
25 Perceptions and Dreams
26 Programming
27 Concept Development
28 — 8 Concepts Explored
29 —
30 Existing Conditions (4 map /photo slides)
31 — Through inventory of existing conditions
32 — Code compliance review
33 —
34 Challenges
35 - Septic capacity
36 - 2,400 gals /day — allowed to combine community center and parks uses
37 - Limited Occupancy
38 - No Commercial Kitchen
39 - Lot Coverage
40 - 12% Impervious Surface
41 - Memorializing Community Significance
42 - Historic Aesthetic
43
44 Base Plan (2 blueprints)
45
46 Proposed Solution (5 renderings of interior space)
47 Base Plan (table chart)
48
49
50 "Mothballing ", Dry Storage in Classroom Wings
14
1 Mothballing
2 Dry Storage
3 Proposed Solution
4 Mothballing /Dry Storage
5 • Alternate Plan
6 • Alternate Plan
7
8 Intended Outcome
9 — Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County
10 Commissioners during its March 11, 2014 work session;
11 — Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013 -14 Capital Investment Plan
12 ( "Base Plan "); or
13 — Amend the project plan for "mothballing" and improving the classroom wings for
14 future occupancy and current storage use ( "Alternate Plan "); or
15 — Provide new direction to staff.
16
17 Jeff Thompson said Rick Hines was here tonight.
18 Jeff Thompson reviewed the maps, blueprints and renderings of the facility.
19 Jeff Thompson said environmental health has now allowed staff to combine the building
20 capacity with the park capacity, which gives a total of 2,400 gallons per day to be shared. He
21 said this allows the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation ( DEAPR) to
22 program heavy uses for either space to maximize capacity. He said this change will allow a 220
23 person capacity at one time for 8 hours and a 350 person capacity at one time for 4 hours. He
24 said this is assuming a 2,200 gallon capacity with minimal use for the park. He said this can be
25 modified for special events or tournaments in the park.
26 He reviewed the base and alternate plans and renderings. He said the base plan cost is
27 approximately $2.36 million, and the contingency has been increased from 8 percent to 15
28 percent due to higher demand in the market. He said moving forward this evening would place
29 this project in the construction market in the spring and summer of 2015. He noted the addition
30 of the classroom and the park and ride shelter.
31 Jeff Thompson said the Board has appropriated $2.5 million for this project, and the
32 difference between this amount and the base plan is $113,526. He said this is what is being
33 requested in additional appropriations for the base plan.
34 He said the alternate plan is two phase, and includes the mothball and dry storage
35 components. He said the mothballing objective is to protect the space for future use. He said
36 the dry storage involves using this existing space, and it would require fire protection increases
37 and access modification.
38 Jeff Thompson said the mothball cost will be $579,000 plus the design fees, and the
39 storage costs will be $85,000. He said the mothball subtotal is $608,700, and the Storage
40 subtotal is $100,000. He said these are not connected. He said this brings the alternate plan
41 subtotal to $708,700.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the storage option for $100,000 could be done without
43 doing the mothballing.
44 Jeff Thompson said the facility could be used for storage today, with minor modifications
45 to the fire alarm system and access doors. He said DEAPR is currently using some of these
46 classrooms for storage.
47 He said the difference between the current appropriation and the alternate plan amount
48 is approximately $822,000, as compared to the difference of $113,000 with the base plan.
15
1 Jeff Thompson referred to attachment 4 in the packet, which highlights the potential
2 storage configuration. He said this includes record storage, solid waste roll cart storage, and
3 working storage for the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the color chart.
5 Jeff Thompson explained the chart as provided.
6 Commissioner Gordon clarified that there is no difference in the footprint between the
7 mothball and storage options.
8 Jeff Thompson said yes.
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the loading dock would be at the south end in the blue
10 area of this slide.
11 Jeff Thompson said yes.
12
13 Steve Brantley discussed the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center
14 (PFAP). He said PFAP has achieved several milestones in the past several years, including
15 being incorporated as a nonprofit, and forming a board of directors representing the four inter -
16 local member counties. He said PFAP has added clients and used up all available storage and
17 freezer space. He said PFAP has established a cash flow and is able to operate independently.
18 Steve Brantley said the organization has seen success with clients such as Vintage Bees and
19 others who are exporting to other countries, and Luna Pops who is now selling through Harris
20 Teeter. He said PFAP is gaining a statewide reputation as a model for food and agricultural
21 processing, and this is resulting in various tour groups and media coverage.
22 Steve Brantley said PFAP presently has 43 total clients, and 35 are active. He said
23 there are 23 additional clients in various stages of the application process. He said 12 of these
24 are expected to go all the way through the process.
25 He said there is an immediate need for additional storage, including 21 pallet spaces
26 and four storage cages. He said PFAP also needs an additional 14 by 18 foot general storage
27 area. He said these storage needs are expected to increase significantly by the fall, to include
28 a total additional storage space of between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet. He said four of the
29 top six clients may move out of the County if affordable manufacturing space, operational
30 capital, and competitively priced food storage locations are not available.
31 Steve Brantley said PFAP has looked at several potential storage locations in Orange
32 County, but no suitable space has been found. He said there is also a need for short term
33 storage, which is difficult in the commercial market. He said several clients have already struck
34 out, and one of them relocated to Alamance County. He noted that the clients are constrained
35 by transportation costs. He said the Cedar Grove is not exactly ideal, but it is a currently viable
36 option.
37 Steve Brantley said there are 3 facilities that could be considered, but all of them have
38 their problems. He said one of these options is the old ABC store, which is priced at $5 per
39 square foot. He said PFAP has considered all of these options and feels that there are
40 constraints with all of them. He said Orange County has few options, and the Cedar Grove
41 facility does offer the possibility for PFAP to play a role and generate a lease payment.
42 Commissioner Gordon asked if PFAP is going to pay rent.
43 Steve Brantley said he is not sure that the discussion has matured to that point, and this
44 would be the Board's decision.
45 Jeff Thompson said the process would be to work out a series of rate options for
46 discussion. He said the market rate is around $8 per square foot, including insurance, taxes,
47 and utilities. He said this would be brought to the Board in the form of options.
48 Commissioner Gordon said the Board would be offering flexibility and a fair price, but
49 she would assume there would be some payment. She asked if Orange County would get
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
16
credit if it made a contribution in the way of free or reduced rent. She said this is just something
to keep in mind.
Jeff Thompson said it is also reasonable to try and recover the cost of the necessary
storage modifications.
Chair Jacobs noted that the clients are already paying storage fees. He also said the
counties are not giving any money to PFAP as a subsidy, and PFAP is paying Orange County
rent. He said there is no money coming from the four counties.
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a way to make up the $708,000 that is being spent
on this.
Jeff Thompson said, outside of the rental situation, no. He said this rental space could
be advertised for outside use.
Commissioner Rich said it is hard for her to get over the hump of this big number.
Commissioner Pelissier asked when the roof and HVAC would need to be replaced if
the space were used for storage.
Jeff Thompson said it would be needed within 2 to 5 years.
Commissioner Pelissier said the Board has been told that the roof is in bad condition, so
it sounds like a decision to use the space for storage is also a decision to spend the money on
the roof and HVAC.
Jeff Thompson said his point is that the storage is available now.
Commissioner Pelissier said there is a storage study underway, and she understands
that there is likely to be new storage space freed up. She asked why this storage space would
be needed if that is the case.
Jeff Thompson said the Solid Waste storage need is recent, as it is tied to the roll carts.
He said the record storage contemplates the issues at the agricultural center on Revere Road,
but it may not be necessary.
Commissioner Pelissier said she is concerned about spending a lot of money for
storage when the County already owns space that could be used. She asked if some of this
existing space might be used for PFAP.
Jeff Thompson said this is tricky, because PFAP storage is a dirtier, warehouse style
storage.
Commissioner McKee said he was initially not supportive of mothballing the wings
without a specified use. He said this storage space is needed, and this is an opportunity to
incentivize small companies to come to Orange County.
He said the building will need a roof, and it would be good to go ahead and use the
facility for storage now, and get the roof improvement in the CIP to spread out expenses. He
said this is a solid building, and it is adequate for the proposed uses. He said it will prevent the
future need to buy or build another facility. He feels that with its expansion, PFAP will need at
least one wing if not both. He said the lower rate will incentive the companies, and will at least
cover the County's expenses.
Commissioner Price thanked staff for doing the research. She said this is an
opportunity to help grow businesses and keep them in Orange County. She said this facility is
still in the agricultural area, and it is a good fit.
Commissioner Dorosin asked about the property across the highway.
Jeff Thompson said this property was acquired for a future increase in septic capacity.
Commissioner Dorosin said none of the alternatives being discussed will involve this
septic increase, so this is just a potential for future.
Jeff Thompson said that is correct.
Commissioner Dorosin said one of the plans mentioned a park and ride and a shelter.
He asked if this is located in the new paved parking area.
17
1 Jeff Thompson said there is no shelter designated, but planning staff are talking about
2 placing it near the south side door. He said there is adequate room for a park and ride at this
3 site.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if that is still true even if the loading dock is added.
5 Jeff Thompson said the loading dock would project at the edge and would be on the
6 western side.
7 Chair Jacobs addressed some of the funding concerns. He said the roof could be done
8 as part of the CIP and could be spread out over the next 2 to 5 years. He said one wing could
9 also be done in the short term and the other in the longer term. He said mothballing seems
10 counterintuitive at this point, and the cost of upgrading could be spread out.
11 Jeff Thompson said there are some components, like the abatement of the window
12 glazing, which would need to be taken out at one time. He said the face would also need to be
13 cleaned up so that the exterior would match. He said other parts, like the roof, could be done in
14 phases.
15 Chair Jacobs said perhaps the number could be broken down into separate components
16 to make it easier to swallow.
17 He said, with PFAP, part of the goal was to promote startups to stay in Orange County.
18 He said most of the startups from UNC have left over time, and some have grown into
19 companies like Quintiles. He said the idea was to grow companies until they built facilities in
20 Orange County. He said it would be good to create loyalty by accommodating the companies
21 with the start up storage space. He said the charge does not have to be market rate, but
22 should be enough to recover the costs of the investment. He suggested the creation of a
23 structured fee to accomplish this over a relatively short period of time.
24
25 A Brief power outage occurred at 8:59:23 PM.
26
27 Chair Jacobs said this is consistent with the County's economic development policy. He
28 is encouraged that this is feasible at a relatively low cost.
29 Commissioner Pelissier said she hears the argument about incentivizing, however she
30 has also heard that there is an issue with a lack of production facilities, so this is only a half way
31 step. She does not feel that the provision of storage will be enough, unless there is a way to
32 find the larger facilities that are also needed to keep the businesses from leaving. She feels
33 more needs to be done. She suggested the possibility of only doing one wing and not the
34 other.
35 Commissioner Gordon said she also has some concerns regarding the fact that there is
36 no long term comprehensive facilities plan. She feels that things are proceeding in an ad hoc
37 fashion. She said that there is no comprehensive revenue stream. She said the higher budget
38 number concerns her, and she knows there will be other increases in the county budget, such
39 as those related to school needs. She said there are a lot of demands on the county budget,
40 and this new request has a very high price tag.
41 Commissioner McKee said he understands the concerns about the cost and the
42 concerns about the lack of fully developed incentives. He said incentives in Orange County are
43 still a work in process. He said this is a way to use this facility and prevent tearing it down.
44 Commissioner Rich asked what the roof would cost.
45 Jeff Thompson said it would be $200,000 to $275,000, and this would be part of the
46 $600,000, along with HVAC, window deglazing, brick cleaning and landscaping.
47 Commissioner Rich asked what it would cost to just use one wing for storage.
48 Jeff Thompson said if it was just used for storage today, the entrances would have to be
49 modified, and the truck dock would be most of the $100,000.
50 He said if one wing were done with the mothballing concept, it would only cost half.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
IN
Chair Jacobs said this is what could be staggered in the CIP. He said necessary
improvements could be paid for later, as needed.
Michael Talbert said it seems that the Board would like to do part or all of the
renovations to save the wings. He said he would encourage them to do all of the work now
while borrowing costs and construction costs are low. He said these costs are only going to
increase. He said this would also only disrupt the site once.
Commissioner Dorosin said every issue and project can be reduced to the cost. He said
the pie is the pie, and the debate is about how to cut it. He said this is a little more expensive
than expected, but there are also other competing considerations. He said there are not a lot of
resources in this part of the County, and this has the potential to be an invaluable asset to this
area. He said the County is continuing to grow, and there is always the potential to use the
land across the street if the Community Center is successful. He said it is shortsighted to
discuss knocking down or not using these wings. He said the costs are more than offset by the
advantages to the community.
Commissioner Price said this project encompasses so much, including historical
preservation, sustainability, community, education and economic development.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
amend the project plan by directing staff to maintain the classroom wings for future occupancy
and /or minimally conditioned storage available for both County department and County tenant
use ( "Alternate Plan ").
Commissioner Rich said she is in favor of the community center, but she struggles with
the money, and it does not sound like there is a solid plan for the use of the wings.
Commissioner Pelissier said there is no question that she supports the community
center, but she does not see the need for this amount of additional storage space. She will
vote against it, but she is not against the community center.
Jeff Thompson said the timeline for the storage plan will be brought back in the fall. He
said there will be no decision on moving forward with construction dollars until this final plan is
brought back.
Commissioner Gordon echoed what Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Rich
have said. She said she is in favor of the community center. She does have some concerns
about this alternate plan in the absence of a comprehensive facilities and revenue plan. She
noted that the County has already committed to building this community center in the CIP.
She wants it to be clear that if she votes against this, it is only because she is against the
addition of the alternate plan and not the community center.
Commissioner McKee said he would like to thank Commissioner Dorosin for his
comments regarding the needs in the northern end of the County. He said he is strongly
identified as a District 2 Commissioner, so he did not want to say this. He said he hopes the
Board can also eventually reinstate some services in that part of the County.
Chair Jacobs said he represents everyone in Orange County, and he is proud to
represent the Cedar Grove Community. He has learned that government does not work in neat
little segments, and sometimes you have to take a leap of faith that things will work out. He
said you can set yourself on a course and adjust as you move forward. He said there are some
good ideas, and there is a pretty good fix on this project. He also has some concern about the
additional costs, and he is not opposed to phasing it. However, he feels the manager made
some good points regarding the potential inflation.
VOTE: 4 -3
19
1 Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Price, Chair Jacobs, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner
2 Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Gordon)
3
4
5 b. Central and Rural Orange County Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts —
6 Orange Public Transportation and Triangle Transit (8:15 -9:05)
7 The Board received a presentation on concepts for expanding Orange Public Transit
8 (OPT) and Triangle Transit (TTA) bus operations in central and rural Orange County over the
9 next five years.
10 Craig Benedict introduced Peter Murphy, the new Orange Public Transportation (OPT)
11 Director.
12 Craig Benedict thanked everyone for the work that has gone into this proposal. He
13 turned the presentation over to Erik Landfried with Triangle Transit.
14 Erik Landfried reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
15
16 Central and Rural Orange County Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts
17 May 8, 2014
18
19 Started with Public Involvement To Derive Service Concepts
20 • Four Joint County /TTA public outreach meetings in Hillsborough, Cedar Grove, Efland,
21 and Mebane
22 - 83 total attendees
23 • 230 surveys completed at public meetings, on board buses and online
24 • Survey of Duke employees living in Orange and Alamance Counties
25 -647 Responses
26 • Meetings with Stakeholders
27 - OUTBoard
28 - Department on Aging
29 - Department of Social Services
30 - Health Department
31 - Libraries
32
33 Structure of Presentation
34 Triangle Transit — Erik Landfried, Service Planning Supervisor
35 Service Expansion in Central and Northern Orange County provided by Triangle Transit
36 Funded from 24% share of Orange County transit sales tax /vehicle registration fee
37 revenue apportioned to Triangle Transit
38
39 Orange County — Bret Martin, Transportation Planner
40 • Service Expansion in Central and Northern Orange County provided by Orange Public
41 Transportation
42 • Funded from 12% share of Orange County transit sales tax/vehicle registration fee
43 revenue apportioned to Orange Public Transportation
44
45 Oranae- Durham Exoress (Route ODX
46 Goal is to provide peak -hour, commuter service between central Orange County,
47 Duke /VA Hospitals, and downtown Durham
48 Would provide connection to Route 420 (Hillsborough - Chapel Hill), DATA routes, and a
49 potential future connection with PART
50 Seeking endorsement of Orange County Board of Commissioners
20
1 Final approval of the route will be made by the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees
2
3 Implementation Timeline
4 • Phase 1 (Hillsborough- Durham): August 2014, pending agreements with property
5 owners at the North Hills (former Maxway) shopping center and ABC Board
6 • Phase 2 (extension to Mebane and Efland): 2015, pending agreement with property
7 owner in Mebane for Park - and -Ride lot
8 Phase 3 (new Park - and -Ride lots in Hillsborough and Mebane): 2016, pending
9 construction of new Park - and -Ride lots
10
11 Service Characteristics
12 • Service span: Monday- Friday, 6 -9am and 4 -7pm
13 • Service frequency: Once every 60 minutes
14 Stops served:
15 Phase 1: North Hills (former Maxway) shopping center Park - and -Ride in Hillsborough,
16 Duke /VA Hospital, Durham Station.
17 Phase 2: Add Mebane Park - and -Ride at an existing lot (location TBD), Efland- Cheeks
18 Community Center (secondary direction only) and downtown Mebane bus stop.
19 Phase 3: Replace short -term Park - and -Ride lots in Mebane and Hillsborough with new lots
20 on currently unimproved property.
21
22 Route ODX map
23 General Survey Responses (pie chart)
24 General Survey Responses (bar graph)
25 Duke Survey Responses (bar graph)
26 Hillsborough P &R preferences (map)
27 Mebane P &R preferences (map)
28 Serving Efland in Secondary Direction (bar graph)
29
30 Orange- Durham Express Decision making Timeline
31 • Public outreach period: May 8 -30
32 • Triangle Transit Operations & Finance Committee: June 3
33 • Approval by Triangle Transit Board of Trustees: June 25
34 • Implement Phase 1 (Hillsborough- Durham), pending agreements with property owners:
35 August 18
36
37 Erik Landfried said this specific route is part of a larger program, and it would be
38 complemented by the OPT services and vice versa.
39 He said the Orange Durham Express Route would have split funding, with half coming
40 from Orange County revenues and half coming from Durham County revenues.
41 Erik Landfried referred to the implementation timeline and said the goal in phase 3
42 would be to create a transit hub in Hillsborough to be a connection point for many of the
43 services to be discussed tonight.
44 He said Piedmont Area Regional Transit (PART) is the partner to the west, and they
45 have a grant to build a park and ride lot in Mebane. He said PART is working with town staff in
46 Mebane to identify potential locations for that lot.
47 Commissioner Rich asked if Triangle Transit would negotiate to buy the lots.
48 Erik Landfried said yes, for the one in Hillsborough; but the Mebane lot will be done by
49 PART through their federal grant.
50 Erik Landfried reviewed the Route ODX map visual.
21
1 He discussed the survey results and said there was good interest in cross - County
2 routes, with 42 percent of respondents saying they would use the route and 18 percent
3 responding maybe. He said another question was regarding the preferred times for the route,
4 and there was a spike in preferences for mid -day, evening, and Saturday. He said many of the
5 respondents were already riding on mid -day OPT routes, so this is a market that needs to be
6 served. He said the other market is the commuter market into Duke University and downtown
7 Durham. He said the majority of respondents start work between 7 and 9 in the morning and
8 end between 4 and 6 p.m.
9 Erik Landfried said the survey also asked for preferences for the location of a
10 Hillsborough park and ride lot, and responses were pretty scattered. He reviewed the maps of
11 these locations. He said the Board and town responses have made it clear that there is a
12 strong desire to have the main stop located close to Highway 70. He said the idea of creating a
13 transit hub around Highway 70 and NC 86 is very attractive.
14 He said the survey regarding the Mebane park and ride lot showed a strong preference
15 for a location toward Interstate 85 and Mebane Oaks Road.
16 Erik Landfried said the Duke survey asked for preferences on a town location for a park
17 and ride lot. He said the response showed that there is not a strong market from Efland to
18 Duke at those peak times. He said this is the reason for service in one direction here and not
19 the other. He said there are lots of other services being proposed for this area. He said the
20 morning the route will head further west to connect people to the Greensboro area. He said
21 OPT is proposing to provide a more direct connection for Efland to Hillsborough.
22 He reviewed the slide on the decision making timeline and turned the remainder of the
23 presentation over to Bret Martin.
24
25 Bret Martin presented the following PowerPoint slides:
26
27 Orange Public Transportation Five -Year Bus Service Expansion
28
29 Concepts developed from:
30 • OCBRIP goals;
31 • OUTBoard- adopted service expansion goals;
32 • Public input from outreach meetings and on -board surveys;
33 • Inter - departmental input (Social Services, Aging, Health, Libraries);
34 • Demographic analysis; and
35 • Survey data
36
37 Program Constraints and Resource Limitations
38 • Fiscal Constraint
39 • Staffing
40 • Bus capital cost, availability, suitability and eligibility
41
42 OPT Program Goals
43 Adopted by OUTBoard February 19, 2014
44
45 Goals in Priority Order:
46 1) Improve Access to Important Destinations
47 • Work /School
48 • Senior Centers
49 • Social Services and Medical
50 • Shopping /Social /Personal Business
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
22
• Tie Into Larger Transit Network
2) Provide Equitable Service
• Focus on those underserved by transit geographically (geographic equity)
• Focus on transit - dependent populations (no- vehicle households, elderly, youth, persons
with disabilities, below - poverty population)
3) Provide Cost - Effective Service
• Match Service Improvements /Expansion to Expected Demand
• Match Demand to Appropriate Service Type (Demand Response
4) Maintain the Flexibility to Meet Economic Development Priorities
• As future economic development nodes develop, add transit service as appropriate
Connecting Transit - Dependent Populations to Important Destinations (map)
Survey Data (pie chart)
Survey Data (pie chart)
Survey Data (bar graph)
Fiscal Constraint (bar graph)
Other Financial Notes and Assumptions for Program
• Very Conservative
— Cost per service hour assumed higher than actuals
— Assumes no leveraging of State or federal grants for operating assistance
• Funded vs. Unfunded Priorities
— Program Concepts Presented are Funded Priorities
— Unfunded Priorities Listed in Priority Order Can be Funded with Additional Revenues
• All Services Proposed to Be Fare -Free
— Current Route 420 fare collection only up to approx. $4,000 /year
— Intent is to serve populations with the least ability to pay a fare
• Revenues Only Available for Admin and Operating Cost of Expanded Service
Capital expenses (buses and associated amenities) covered by separate but limited funding
source
Concepts — Unfunded
Next Steps — Public Outreach Meetings
• May 19
— Northern Human Services Center — 5:30- 7:OOpm
• May 21
— Mebane City Council Chambers — 5:30- 7:OOpm
• May 22
— Town of Hillsborough, Town Barn — 5:00- 6:30pm
• May 28
— Efland- Cheeks Community Center — 5:30- 7:OOpm
• June 3 —
OPT Expansion Program to Return to BOCC for Approval
Bret Martin said there is a fiscal constraint to this program, and the money being made
available is only for the operating and administration expenses associated with the service
concept. He said there are other things that have to be in place to make this happen, including
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
23
staffing. He said this is reflected in the budget for OPT for this fiscal year. He said there also
has to be appropriate capital in order to implement the services.
Bret Martin reviewed the demographics map slide and said the transit dependent
populations are highly concentrated in the central part of the County between Efland, Mebane
and Hillsborough, as well as in the far northern parts of the County. He said these are outside
of the Chapel Hill transit service area.
Bret Martin said the other consideration is the location of the County's major trip
generators. He said the concentration, outside of the Chapel Hill Transit service area, is a in
the central part of the County and in the corridor between Mebane and Hillsborough, as well as
some up 86, north of Hillsborough.
He said the survey data revealed that more frequent service and weekend service were
the most important improvements requested, followed closely by more evening service. He
said respondents requested more mid -day off peak service, and more Saturday service. He
said the top picks for desired trip types that are not currently available were errands, personal
business and shopping.
Bret Martin referred to the fiscal constraint slide. He said the first allocation made
available to OPT for the services was $88,350, and this money has been banked until the
services start in 2015. He said the allocations increase significantly for the first 4 years before
leveling off.
He reviewed the financial notes and assumptions. He said that there is no assumption
of state or federal grants; but that is something that Orange County is working on, so it is
possible. He noted that there are funded and unfunded priorities, and he will spend the
majority of his time focusing on the funded programs. He said that if grants are secured or if
the money exceeds forecasts, then the unfunded services would be implemented in priority
order.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the actual versus the assumed cost per service
hour.
Bret Martin said the assumption is $44 per service hour, and the actual has been $35
per service hour. He said this does not take into account the administrative cost or overhead.
He reviewed the map of the service expansion recommendations. He said Routes 1 B
and 1A command response routes are scheduled to start on July 1St of this year. He said this is
designed for serving those errand trips for the residents in the northern parts of the County and
those who are transit dependent.
Bret Martin said starting in August, there will be 3 hours of additional service time for
transporting seniors from the senior centers to their homes. He said this is to accommodate the
program offerings at these centers.
He said during phase 1, when Triangle Transit is just starting to run between
Hillsborough and Durham, the US 70 mid -day route will be starting peak service from Mebane
to Efland to Hillsborough to feed into this. He said, when phase 2 of Triangle Transit's service
comes online, OPT will go to the mid -day and run the route from Mebane to Efland to
Hillsborough to Duke. He pointed out other routes shown on the map.
Bret Martin said the unfunded concepts listed in red on the slide are the ones that have
been added since the agenda packets were mailed out.
He reviewed the next steps for the public outreach meetings, as listed on the slide, and
said this will come back to the Board on June 3 for approval.
Chair Jacobs suggested to the manager that something be added to the agenda to
change the name of the Northern Human Services Center to the Cedar Grove Community
Center, for continuity's sake. He said this is coming back in June, at which point there will be
more community response to consider in deciding how to regard the plan.
24
1 Commissioner Gordon referred to the fiscal constraints and asked if the annual revenue
2 made available was for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan or something else.
3 Bret Martin said this is just from the half cent sales tax and the vehicle registration fees.
4 Commissioner Gordon said she wants clarification on what Triangle Transit Authority
5 (TTA) is proposing, and what Orange Public Transit (OPT) is proposing. She suggested a
6 matrix to make it clear. She said her understanding is that TTA is proposing the ODX, and
7 Orange Public Transit is proposing the other ones. She said her question is how many bus
8 service hours are being offered in each case, and how differential costs between the two
9 entities are accounted for. The operating costs for the bus service hours are so different, and
10 she wonders how this works.
11 Bret Martin said the full implementation for OPT's program would give a total of 7,520
12 hours.
13 Erik Landfried said phase 1 will give 1,500 hours per year, and when it expands out to
14 Mebane, it will be about 3,000 hours per year.
15 Commissioner Gordon said she is trying to figure out the time period for this full
16 implementation.
17 Bret Martin said full implementation for OPT will happen by fiscal year 2016.
18 Commissioner Gordon referenced a report that listed a number of 34,000 hours in the
19 first 4 years. She said these numbers don't match.
20 Erik Landfried said that figure includes all Triangle Transit, and Chapel Hill Transit.
21 Bret Martin said OPT is getting more hours than its share. He said the pie chart shows
22 less than the 7,520, because it was assumed at the same operating cost as the other providers.
23 He said OPT's operating cost is so much lower that it can squeeze out more hours.
24 Commissioner Gordon said this is a little hard to follow, and that is something to
25 consider before it goes to the public.
26 Commissioner Rich referred to slide 22. She asked why it is not worth it to collect the
27 $4,000 on the current 420 route. She asked if this is because there is not enough ridership and
28 she asked if the fare correlates with how many people are riding the bus.
29 Erik Landfried said part of the problem is that riders have to pay a fare on the 420, but
30 not on the circulator; so riders transfer to the 420 and then have to pay a fare. He said this is
31 not a user friendly service, and the 420 is the only service that charges a fare. He said the
32 $4,000 was the maximum amount ever brought in. He said this service just does not bring in a
33 lot of revenue.
34 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the assumption is that the ridership will increase if it is a
35 fare free bus service.
36 Commissioner Pelissier asked how much money the park grant has for the park and ride
37 lot and what percentage of the cost will be covered.
38 Erik Landfried said he does not have the amount in front of him, but the federal grant will
39 cover 80 percent of the cost of the park and ride lot. He said the assumption is that local
40 revenues in Orange County to pay the local share. He said this has not been formalized yet.
41 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is money in the plan for capital costs, including
42 park and ride lots. She knows the rules have changed regarding how much the federal
43 government will share in the purchase of buses. She asked how this will work in the plan.
44 Bret Martin said TTA is still paying for capital through the revenue that is coming in. He
45 said there is an expectation that 30 percent of the cost of your capital should come from the
46 federal share and 5 percent from the state. He said there is still work to be done on the federal
47 and state shares for the buses. He said this will come before the Board.
48 Erik Landfried said these questions about the full plan, revenues and capital cost will be
49 brought back to the Board on June 3. He said tonight's focus is on the services the public
50 would like to see and the projects that should be implemented. He said the questions about the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
25
larger plan will make sense when this comes back in June. He said the approval of the
services is necessary in order to implement anything this fall.
Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciates the work that has been done to integrate
the regional and local routes. She asked if the Board is going to be asked to approve 5 -year
bus plans. She noted that the plan says performance standards have to be reviewed, and
some routes may not work out well.
Erik Landfried said this discussion is just about the types of services that will be
implemented at the local level. He said this is just putting some meat on the bones. He said
this is the approval that these are the services that need to be pushed forward for
implementation. He said adjustments can be made along the way, and approval of the program
does not lock them into running these services for 5 years
Commissioner Price asked if routes 4 or 6 are going just to Durham Tech.
Bret Martin said both of these will.
Commissioner Price asked if there will be a stop at the hospital and medical center as
well.
Bret Martin answered yes.
Commissioner Price said she is having trouble seeing this as a plan that really works for
the people of Orange County. She said everything seems focused on going to Durham, and
she would like to see more focus on getting people from Efland to Hillsborough, and from
Hillsborough to other parts of the County. She said this is not servicing people that need to get
to the services that are here in the County seat.
She said she is glad to see that the 420 will be a no fare route, but she is concerned
about all the different routes and the lack of stops along the way. She said if it is not frequent
enough, people will not use it. She asked if this was intended to go more toward Durham.
Bret Martin said OPT services are concentrated on getting people from the northern part
of the County and the area between Mebane and Hillsborough to Hillsborough and back, as
well as making connections to Chapel Hill and Durham. He said the circulator route is still there
and will be funded, and OPT is providing the opportunity for people to commute from Efland to
Hillsborough during the peak period to catch the express route or the 420 or the circulator
around Hillsborough.
Commissioner Price asked if there will be a bus to go from the Orange County Durham
Tech Campus to the Durham Campus.
Erik Landfried said there are a couple of different ways this can be done. He said the
new route or the circulator will take riders to the stop at the Maxway area to get on the route to
Durham. He said most of the service is not going to Durham, and he is happy to discuss this
offline.
Bret Martin said there are a whole lot of other things that staff would like to see happen,
as shown in the unfunded list, but there are fiscal constraints.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hank Maiden said he lives in Carrboro, and he takes the 420 to get to Hillsborough. He
said he takes CTX from the 54 bypass. He said he gets on the 420 without paying a dime,
because he is 65 plus and that is his free pass. He had to go through the regional transit
program to make this happen. He said the people he rides with on the 420 are predominantly
UNC employees or graduate students. He rides the mid -day service to go to the Sportsplex
and he sees the riders that use it. He has walked the routes on these maps, and he knows how
narrow and deadly those roads can be. He hopes that there will be some concern about
enabling people to use bicycles and carry them onto the buses. He said OPT enables people
to carry bicycles.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
26
Chair Jacobs said that Item 7c: Consideration of a Unified Development Ordinance Text
Amendment Related to Home Occupations would be deferred due to time constraints.
Commissioner McKee asked if he understood that the surveys were taken primarily with
riders going to work at Duke.
Erik Landfried said one survey was a general survey held at the public meetings and
online. He said there was also a separate study conducted with Duke Employees.
Commissioner McKee asked if there were surveys in the Efland Cheeks community
Erik Landfried said yes, one of the public meetings was held in Efland Cheeks, and
there was a lot of feedback collected there.
Commissioner McKee referred to one of the maps and asked about the Efland to
Hillsborough route and whether riders would have to ride to Mebane and then back down to
Hillsborough.
Erik Landfried said the number 4 route will take someone directly from Efland to
Hillsborough.
Commissioner McKee said he likes the idea of the Efland to Hillsborough circulator, but
he questioned who is paying for it.
Erik Landfried said it is considered an OPT service, and the County will pay for it as part
of its 12 percent of the revenues dedicated to OPT service.
Commissioner McKee noted that there are extra revenues being received due to
increased sales tax revenues being generated.
Erik Landfried said he will defer that conversation to June 3.
Commissioner McKee said it makes better sense from the community standpoint to
keep Triangle Transit on Highway 70 instead of 1 -85. He said this would serve Efland Cheeks
in both directions.
Erik Landfried said the survey showed that Mebane residents wanted the park and ride
stop off of 1 -85 and not off of Highway 70. He said this seems to be a better location to start the
route. He said there were not many survey responses to keep service from Efland to Duke and
downtown Durham.
Commissioner Price said there are three numbers regarding the surveys. She said the
Duke survey has 647; and the community meetings have 83. She asked where the 230
surveys came from.
Erik Landfried said the 230 was the number of general survey responses. He said these
people rode routes and then responded online and other ways.
Commissioner Gordon said there is a small pool of Efland and non -Duke respondents.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the $123 cost per service hour for Triangle Transit
Services includes overhead and administration. She said $44 for OPT is the high estimate for
just running the service. She asked if this should include the administrative and overhead cost.
Bret Martin said OPT has to do an operations statistics report, and in 2013 the total
service cost per service hour, including administrative overhead, was $43. He said the actual
operating costs without the administrative overhead was more like $35.
Commissioner Gordon said she remembered that number being at approximately $56,
and she does not understand this change.
Bret Martin said there is also an indirect cost allocation that takes into account the
salaries of the planning director and other managers. He said this might bring the number to
that $56 level. He said these marginal costs do not include this when new services are being
rolled out.
Commissioner Gordon asked if TTA's $123 includes the administration and overhead.
Erik Landfried said most of this is included.
27
1 Commissioner Gordon said she is just trying to understand how the revenue is
2 allocated. She said it seems that the numbers should be comparable, and it should be an
3 apples to apples comparison.
4 Bret Martin said that $44 figure is operating an administrator per hour, but the marginal
5 cost of rolling out additional services does not necessarily include that administrative cost. He
6 said the marginal cost of new services is, for a period of time, all operating.
7 Commissioner Gordon suggested this just be taken under advisement and possibly the
8 two entities could figure out something to better explain the cost per hour. She also asked for
9 an explanation in June of how this proposal matches up with the actual Orange County Bus and
10 Rail Investment Plan. She asked for an explanation of the overall Bus and Rail investment Plan
11 and how the assumptions changed.
12 Commissioner Rich thanked staff for answering these questions. She said she is
13 hoping that some of the points made tonight would be available in case the questions come up
14 again.
15 Chair Jacobs said the Board has now provided feedback and staff has additional
16 direction. He thanked staff.
17
18 c. Consideration of a Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related
19 to Home Occupations
20 The Board was to receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider a decision
21 on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified
22 Development Ordinance (UDO).
23
24 DEFERRED
25 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to defer
26 the item to the May 20, 2014 BOCC Regular meeting.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30
31 d. Future of Employees in Contract for Family Specialists with Orange County
32 Schools
33 The Board received an update on the anticipated loss of a contract with Orange County
34 Schools, to discuss options for staff currently employed in Family Specialists Positions and to
35 consider the option of extending employment for current social workers.
36
37 Nancy Coston said staff has known for several years that funding used for the contract
38 to provide social workers to the Orange County Schools (OCS) might be at risk due to federal
39 interpretation of how the moneys can be used. She said the problem has been dodged a
40 couple of times, but it could not be dodged this year. She said there are 8 positions with the
41 County that are funded through June 30. She said there is a new program coming in to replace
42 the program that was there, but it will not be advantageous to the Orange County Schools to
43 have this contract. She said the schools have decided to move on and fund whatever they can
44 afford to do within their own budget.
45 She said this has left 7 employees (there is one vacancy) who have to be given notices
46 unless there is a plan for them. She said this could not wait for the budget process because of
47 the required timeframe for notices. She said staff came up with a plan to allowing these people
48 to stay on as employees. She said there are two social services positions that have been
49 frozen while this decision is made, and there is a proposal for two social workers in next year's
50 budget. She said this would still leave 3 people with problems as of July 1. She suggested
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
leaving these employees on while next steps are taken. She said some of them may be
selected for jobs in the schools.
Commissioner Gordon said she does not understand what these people are supposed
to do.
Nancy Coston said there are homeless grant funds that staff is not managing, so more
time could be spent on this area and one person could help here. She said the two proposed
social services positions were very concrete and would be helping out with child welfare and
protective services. She said the three extra employees would generally be able to help staff
catch up on areas that are currently running behind. She said social workers have been used
to handle a lot of the emergency assistance and crisis and this was an area where these people
could be used. She said this is certainly a temporary situation.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the budget will be revised to not include the two
positions.
Nancy Coston said yes.
Commissioner Dorosin proposed that staff reach out to the school system and
encourage them to look at these individuals for any social worker positions that are needed.
Nancy Coston said staff has been having these conversations with the schools. She
said the schools cannot specify if they have these positions. She said there are also some
limitations on the hiring, such as the requirement of a Masters Degree.
Chair Jacobs said there is a school collaboration meeting next week, and this issue can
be raised directly.
Nancy Coston said one of the problems is timing, as the schools would hire 10 month
employees, instead of 12 month. She said this also means these people would not be hired
until the fall.
Chair Jacobs said there is also the issue of the state cutting funding for the schools, so
if the County does not fully fund the requests then there will be choices to make.
Michael Talbert said that is part of the school's request this year, and the shortfall in
these positions is about $300,000. He said if funding is not received, there will be hard
decisions to make. He said the Board of education also has to follow their hiring practices and
procedures.
Commissioner Gordon said layoffs have been avoided in the past by switching
employees to other departments. She asked why this wasn't done here.
Michael Talbert said there is a lot of uncertainty about how many of these social workers
will be hired by the school system, and these jobs are also very specialized. He did not feel
there was a good fit open in County government. He said the two vacancies in social services
will be taken advantage of. He does not want to go into a situation of having to do a reduction
in force, and if this does not move forward in May, that reduction in force will have to be issued
by the end of May for all of these positions. He said staff thinks the situation will work itself out.
Chair Jacobs said this is about trying to help these workers remain employed and help
the schools bridge the differences in hiring practices and time frames. He said this is about
keeping people working without making a long term commitment to maintaining these positions.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve funding the current seven Social Worker II positions at DSS in Fiscal Year 2014 -2015
and eliminate two vacant positions at DSS effective July 1, 2014.
VOTE: 6 -1 (Commissioner Gordon)
e. Child Care Subsidy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
29
The Board considered allocating funds from the Social Justice Fund to be used to
support child care for low- income families in June 2014.
Nancy Coston said staff talked previously about the critical need for child care and then
diligently cleared the waiting list, which caused high spending. She is asking for consideration
of allocating funds from the Social Justice Fund to be used to support child care for low- income
families in June 2014, to avoid starting off with state allocations behind the curve next year.
She said she is trying to maintain the people being served. She said this won't keep
them from ever having a waitlist, but there are currently no working families on the waitlist. She
said having the social justice money for the rest of this year will be helpful.
Commissioner Gordon said she feels this is a good use of the fund, and the Board
should do it
Commissioner Pelissier said she supports this, but she questioned whether there will be
any money left in the social justice fund as allocated.
Nancy Coston said this would be it.
Commissioner McKee said he feels the funding should be used.
Commissioner Rich questioned whether there would be any need for money that falls
under the social justice fund.
Nancy Coston said she has talked to the health director and there should be no more
need.
Chair Jacobs asked the manager for the proposed funding for next year.
Michael Talbert said the social justice fund will be a little less, but there will be increased
funding to social services to help offset that.
Chair Jacobs said he is also supportive, but he would like to see some creative flexibility
in addressing affordable housing issues. He said if this requires some of the social justice fund
to encourage people to provide more housing, he would hope there is sufficient flexibility next
year to do that.
Commissioner Dorosin said the elimination of the waiting list was laudable. He said this
is an important step forward in addressing issues of poverty and child poverty. He is
encouraged that this will help that continue. He asked how many of the original people on the
waitlist were helped.
Nancy Coston said it ended up being about 400 people, and about a third of the children
were served.
Commissioner Dorosin said there was some back and forth with funding because of the
government shutdown, and he does not want to see this happen again. He wants staff to
communicate in advance of this happening, so that the Board can help.
Nancy Coston said that was a learning experience
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
authorize the DSS Director to utilize existing budgeted funds and $150,000 from the Social
Justice Fund for childcare expenses in June 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Issues and Funding Options for Orange County's Recycling Programs (9:50 -
The Board discussed issues and funding options for Orange County Recycling
Programs.
Chair Jacobs this item was preparatory to a work session to make sure the items were
listed successfully from previous discussions.
gut
I Michael Talbert said this issue has been looked at for a little over a year, and there are
2 60 pages of history on where this has been. He said this is not about going over that again, but
3 this is about looking at what the County could do and what the legal options are for the future.
4 He referred to page 4 of the abstract and reviewed the following issues and decisions to
5 be discussed:
6
7 Issues to be discussed at May 13, 2014 Work Session
8 • Discussion of Frequently Asked Questions from the Public Hearings (see
9 Attachment 9)
10 • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so,
11 what is the customer base - the existing rural district (13,700 customers)
12 and /or additional customers
13 • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015
14 • Recycling and Solid Waste issues with the County's partners
15 • Other ways to provide recycling services and look at options
16 • New Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
17 • A stable funding source for recycling that is fair and equitable
18 • Discuss different options for servicing high density rural residential clusters,
19 including costs /benefit analysis
20
21 Decisions by July 1, 2014:
22 • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so,
23 what is the customer base, the existing rural district (13,700 customers)
24 and /or additional customers
25 • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015
26
27 Michael Talbert said the above decisions are in the budget, and staff is recommending
28 continuation of services to the existing customers and moving forward with the roll carts. He
29 said the proposal for funding at this point is to use the reserves for the upcoming fiscal year.
30 He said a work group, task force, and /or a solid waste advisory board could examine this issue
31 for moving forward.
32 Chair Jacobs said he would be meeting with the Mayors again soon, and this will be a
33 major topic of conversation as they try to find a common approach to this issue.
34
35 PUBLIC COMMENT
36 Jan Sassaman said he understood that no decisions will be made tonight. He said he
37 has some expertise with Orange County's solid waste management systems. He said the
38 Board of County Commissioners needs to decide on funding for rural curbside recycling now.
39 He said the Board has kicked the can so far down the road that it is running out of road. He
40 said whatever decision is made should be: 1) consistent with what is expected from the
41 municipal partners; 2) designed to maximize citizen participation in recycling; and 3) should
42 equitably allocate costs among eligible citizens.
43 He said combining rural, municipal and family curbside collection, paid for by the general
44 fund, may be the most cost effective and equitable approach. He said it would also provide a
45 political incentive to extend curbside recycling throughout the County. He said this would cost
46 about 1.4 cents on the tax rate. He said this solution is not currently before them, so the tax
47 district is still the best interim solution. He said a voluntary subscription service will not likely be
48 cost effective or achieve recycling goals. He said paying from landfill reserves is not prudent or
49 equitable, as these funds were derived from all County and town residents who have used
31
1 disposal facilities over the years. He said this money is also needed for post closure monitoring
2 of landfills.
3 Jan Sassaman said it is time to put this in the hands of the Solid Waste Management
4 staff.
5
6 Commissioner Gordon referred to the solid waste convenience centers. She said her
7 understanding is that the solid waste convenience fees only pay for 25 percent of the total. She
8 said she understood that the original intention was that there would be a 4 year program to
9 increase the fees to cover more. She asked how much money is coming from the general fund
10 to subsidize the convenience centers and if there is any more money coming from the general
11 fund to subsidize any aspect of solid waste.
12 Gayle Wilson said the $1.85 million is contributed from the general fund this year, and
13 about the same amount will be proposed for next year. He said this equals about 25 percent.
14 Commissioner Gordon said she would like to know what fees would be needed.
15 Gayle Wilson said the plan was to increase the fee over time and reduce or eliminate
16 the general fund contribution.
17 Commissioner Gordon asked staff to come back with the fee structure that would be
18 needed to make up the shortfall to eliminate a general fund contribution to the convenience
19 centers. She said if you look at the statutes presented by John Roberts, you are allowed to
20 charge for expenses.
21 John Roberts said he and the manager have had the discussion on funding, including
22 how to address the fees for the convenience centers. He will talk about this at the work
23 session.
24 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan is to continue talking about recycling separate
25 from solid waste. He feels like these things are on two separate tracks.
26 Chair Jacobs said that is not accurate. He said the first part of the work session will talk
27 about the parameters of the inter -local agreement, and this includes everything from recycling
28 to transfer stations. He said once those questions are answered, there will be conversations
29 about some of the shorter and longer term issues.
30 John Roberts said town and County staff have negotiated a draft interlocal agreement.
31 He said it is comprehensive and addresses all types of waste issues in Orange County. He
32 said this will be ready for review at the next work session.
33 Chair Jacobs said there may need to be an additional assembly of governments
34 meeting just to discuss solid waste.
35 Michael Talbert said item 7 -f is 66 pages long. He asked the Commissioners to please
36 bring the document to the May 13 meeting in order to avoid having to re -print it.
37
38 8. Reports NONE
39
40
41 9. County Manager's Report (10:10- 10:15)
42
43 DEFERRED
44
45
46 10. County Attorney's Report (10:15- 10:20)
47
48 DEFERRED
49
50 11. Appointments - NONE
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
32
12. Board Comments
DEFERRED
13. Information Items
• April 15, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow -up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report — Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report — Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Collector's Report — Releases and Refunds Under $100
• Memorandum Regarding Major Fund Financial Statement for the Nine Months Ended
March 31, 2014
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from the April 15, 2014 Regular Board Meeting
14.
Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded Commissioner Dorosin by to go
into closed session at 11:10 p.m. for the purpose stated below:
"To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions
of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143- 318.11(a) (6).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
reconvene into regular session at 11:42pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
adjourn the meeting at 11:42pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk
Barry Jacobs, Chair