Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-08-2014 APPROVED 6/1712014 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING May 8, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Addition of a closed session: "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). Chair Jacobs noted that the network system was down, and there would be no live internet access or web streaming of this meeting. Chair Jacobs reviewed the information at their places: - White Sheet— Letter from Friends of the Senior Center— Item 2-a— Public Comments - White Sheet— Letter requesting support for the Fairview Senior Center— Item 2-a — Public Comments - White Sheet— PowerPoint for Item 5-a - Class A Special Use Permit—Solar Array Off Redman Road in Cheeks Township - Public Hearing Closure and Action - White Sheet—Questions and Comments from Commissioner Gordon for Item 6g — Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance—Approval and Certification of 2104 Report - White Sheet— PowerPoint for Item 7-a - Cedar Grove Community Center Project Update - White Sheet—Questions and Answers for Item 7-a - Cedar Grove Community Center Project Update -White Sheet—Questions and Answers for Item 7-b - Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts—Orange Public Transportation and Triangle Transit - Beige Sheet— Update to Attachment#1 for Item 7-b - Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts— Orange Public Transportation and Triangle Transit - 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). VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Dorosin said he was recently in a meeting with some housing advocates. He said there was a decision by certain private landlords of apartment complexes in Orange County to no longer accept section 8 housing vouchers; and as a result, approximately 90 voucher holders are facing the possible loss of their housing. He said 43 of those voucher holders are still looking for housing alternatives, and 47 have either found housing or turned in vouchers and moved out of the County. He requested a report from the Housing and Human Relations Commission with a breakdown of how many have surrendered vouchers, as well as the prospects for the residents still looking for housing. He would like to know if support or advice is being offered to these people. Commissioner Price said she has been getting emails from the Human Relations Commission and department staff about moving forward with Women and Equity. She petitioned the Board to allow this to happen. Chair Jacobs said he would like to petition the Board to honor Judson Edeburn, who has served for 35 years as the manager of Duke Forest. He said, thanks to Judson Edeburn's efforts, the Board was able to form a partnership with Duke and purchase property from Duke. Chair Jacobs said he wanted to make sure that the Board is comfortable with the proposed dais and screen for the new Whitted Building meeting room. He said the mock-up indicated that it would be very large, and it would be an impediment to the public's ability to see. He suggested the possibility of moving this to the side. He would like for all Board members who have not toured the facility to take a look at it before the technology equipment is ordered. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations a. Reconnition of Project EngAGE Graduates The Board recognized the inaugural class of Project EngAGE, a senior leadership program sponsored by the Department on Aging. Department on Aging Direction Janice Tyler said the graduates have completed a 12 week training and have been organized into community resource teams. She outlined some of the projects, such as working with 4-H groups to develop service projects that serve older adults. She said the purpose of tonight is to recognize the 15 graduates for their achievement and the impact of their future service in the community. Chair Jacobs said several Board members had the opportunity to attend some of the group functions over the past 4 months. He said this is a dedicated group of people who want to do good for the community. Chair Jacobs recognized the following graduates, who received their graduation plaques: Gail Alberti Bill Barrows, Jaki Shelton Green Sue Heckman Cliff Leath Dee Lowdermilk Rod Magson Lenore Martin Betty Melanson Yvonne Mandenhall Delores Ramsey Donna Scandlin Tana Hartman Norma White b. Older Americans Month Proclamation The Board considered approving a proclamation joining Federal and State governments in designating the month of May as Older Americans Month and a time to honor older adults for their contributions to society and to Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Janice Tyler said the purpose of this is to proclaim May as Older Americans Month. She said the national theme is "Safe Today, Healthy Tomorrow." She said there are over 22,000 older adults ages 60 and better in this community, and 1,600 of these residents are over age 85. She said the goal is to promote a healthy active lifestyle. She encouraged the community to get to know their local senior center and participate in an exercise program. She outlined several upcoming programs. She said she is proud of the department, and she thanked the Commissioners for their support. She read the following proclamation: Orange County Board of Commissioners Proclamation Older Americans Month — May 2014 Theme - "Safe Today, Healthy Tomorrow" Whereas, Orange County includes over 22,000 persons aged 60 and older; and Whereas, Orange County is committed to helping all individuals live longer, healthier lives; and Whereas, the older adults in Orange County have made countless contributions and sacrifices to ensure a better life for future generations; and Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes the value of injury prevention and safety awareness in helping older adults remain healthy and active; and Whereas, our community can provide opportunities to enrich the lives of individuals young and old by: • Supporting their ability to stay healthy and physically active • Emphasizing the need to take action to safeguard themselves from unintentional injuries where they live, work and socialize ■ Providing information on avoiding leading causes of injury for older adults, particularly falls and offering opportunities to participate in falls prevention fitness programs. • Creating opportunities to stay engaged and active in their communities. Now therefore, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim May 2014 as Older Americans Month and urge every resident to take time this month to recognize older adults and the people who serve and support them as powerful and vital individuals who greatly contribute to the community. This, the 8th day of May, 2014. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon for the Board to approve the proclamation designating May as Older Americans Month and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Class A Special Use Permit—Solar Array Off Redman Road in Cheeks Township - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from the Public or Applicant Accepted) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by Strata Solar and Stout Farms LLC proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Chair Jacobs noted that this is a public hearing that does not include public comment. Michael Harvey presented the abstract and included attachments and public hearing excerpts, to enter as part of the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich, to accept the submitted materials. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Michael Harvey reviewed the PowerPoint slide and the manager's recommendations as follows: - Erect individual solar array panels on both properties (52 acres). - Typical array is between 7 and 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground clearance and approximately 63 feet in length. -Arrays will be screened by combination of existing and new vegetation. -An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall enclose the perimeter of the array to prevent access, - Gravel paths shall be installed to afford access to technicians. Commissioner Price asked if the chain link fence will be visible to the residents next door. Michael Harvey said no, and he showed the location of the fence on the map. He said staff has also met with the owner of the neighboring property to make sure all of her concerns regarding the buffer are addressed. Chair Jacobs said the recommendations note that the applicant will submit a formal landscaping and tree preservation plan. He asked if this has been submitted. Michael Harvey said this has already been submitted. He said there must be a storm water and erosion control plan in place before clearing. Chair Jacobs said the Strata Solar site near White Cross did not look buffered, and he can see the entire property from the road without impediment. He encouraged staff to make sure that regulations are followed with this project. John Roberts said the Board is limited to consideration of the project at hand in this decision making process. Commissioner Dorosin asked if Chair Jacobs has information that the property is already being cleared in advance of the special use permit. Commissioner Price said the neighbors say clearing has occurred or there is activity at the site. Michael Harvey said, according to the applicant, only soil testing has been done. John Roberts said any information received outside of the fact finding process should not be considered in the determination of this matter. Michael Harvey said the applicant has removed some trees for soil testing, but there is no mass clearing of trees. He said this has been done within the allowed perimeters. Commissioner Price asked for details on the buffer. Michael Harvey said it is a 50 foot buffer. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the LIDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the March/April Planning Board meetings. •Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning Board meetings. •Adjacent property owner a-mails and applicant responses. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public; and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the LIDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the LIDO from the Public Hearing and the March/April Planning Board meetings. •Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning Board meetings. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project would not have an impact on adjacent property value, and: •A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the LIDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. •Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the LIDO and •A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 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. 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. L 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 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#7-13 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 Hearina— 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. 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 g: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance—Approval and Certification of 2014 Report The Board considered approving the 2014 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certifying portions of the Report. Commissioner Gordon referred to the top of page 11, which pertains to an analysis of the 5 years of projections. She said it is important to know whether these projections are accurate or not. She said the chart is unclear about what is included, and she outlined some of this information, while referring to the columns in the report. She said the first column for each year includes the actual number of students instead of the projections, and she suggested an insertion to explain this. She said past projections are not as important, and the important thing is the actual numbers. She would like to change these two charts on pages 11 and 12 by adding a simple statement to note that the first column is the actual number of students. Commissioner Dorosin said the number at the bottom of page 11 is a projection, and he asked if Commissioner Gordon is saying this should be listed as actual. Commissioner Gordon said the report leads people to believe it is actual, and there should be an explanation to say what it is. Commissioner Dorosin said the whole chart is to show whether the predictions were off. He reviewed these numbers. He said this seems pretty clear to him. Commissioner Gordon said all she is asking for this year is that the column be labeled within the text. Craig Benedict said this sentence can be added. He said the purpose is to show how well the County did with the projections. Commissioner McKee said he is okay with adding the clarification, but he feels that the other columns make the numbers clear. Chair Jacobs noted that when the projection is high, the County funds for the higher number, and there is no refund for this. Craig Benedict said staff uses the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections. Commissioner Gordon reviewed the following sheet and asked that this be entered into the record: Questions/Comments for May 8, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting Agenda from Commissioner Gordon: (2) pp. 65 and 66 -Attachment 5 - Student Projections On page 65, CHCCS student projections, there is a note showing that high school#3 was completed in Fall 2007. The previous year, high school capacity was at 116%, which exceeds the 110% level of service that should have triggered the construction of an additional CHCCS high school. On page 66, OCS student projections, there is a note showing that middle school#3 was completed in Fall 2006. The previous year middle school capacity was at 108.5%, which exceeded the 107% level of service that should have triggered the construction of an additional OCS middle school. Please confirm the reason that these levels of service were exceeded. My understanding is that, in the MOU for SAPFO, the SAPFO adequacy test was suspended for these two levels of service (CHCCS high school level and OCS middle school level) until the proposed capacity 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 h. 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 a. Cedar Grove Community Center Project Update The Board considered confirming the project plan as approved in the FY2013-14 Capital Investment Plan and presented to the Board of County Commissioners during the November 12, 2013 and March 11, 2014 work sessions (Attachment 1, "Base Plan"); or amending 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 (Attachment 2, "Alternate Plan"); or providing new direction to staff. Jeff Thompson recognized the resident advisory work group, and he reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: • Intended Outcome — Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County Commissioners during its March 11, 2014 work session; — Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013-14 Capital Investment Plan ("Base Plan"); or — Amend the project plan for"mothballing" and improving the classroom wings for future occupancy and current storage use ("Alternate Plan"); or — Provide new direction to staff. • Methodology — Informal Resident Advisory Work Group — 7 Meetings over 3 Months • Perceptions and Dreams • Programming • Concept Development — 8 Concepts Explored • Existing Conditions (4 map/photo slides) — Through inventory of existing conditions — Code compliance review • Challenges - Septic capacity - 2,400 gals/day—allowed to combine community center and parks uses - Limited Occupancy - No Commercial Kitchen - Lot Coverage - 12% Impervious Surface - Memorializing Community Significance - Historic Aesthetic • Base Plan (2 blueprints) • Proposed Solution (5 renderings of interior space) • Base Plan (table chart) • "Mothballing"; Dry Storage in Classroom Wings • Mothballing • Dry Storage • Proposed Solution • Mothballing/Dry Storage • Alternate Plan • Alternate Plan • Intended Outcome — Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County Commissioners during its March 11, 2014 work session; — Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013-14 Capital Investment Plan ("Base Plan"); or — Amend the project plan for"mothballing" and improving the classroom wings for future occupancy and current storage use ("Alternate Plan"); or — Provide new direction to staff. Jeff Thompson said Rick Hines was here tonight. Jeff Thompson reviewed the maps, blueprints and renderings of the facility. Jeff Thompson said environmental health has now allowed staff to combine the building capacity with the park capacity, which gives a total of 2,400 gallons per day to be shared. He said this allows the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) to program heavy uses for either space to maximize capacity. He said this change will allow a 220 person capacity at one time for 8 hours and a 350 person capacity at one time for 4 hours. He said this is assuming a 2,200 gallon capacity with minimal use for the park. He said this can be modified for special events or tournaments in the park. He reviewed the base and alternate plans and renderings. He said the base plan cost is approximately $2.36 million, and the contingency has been increased from 8 percent to 15 percent due to higher demand in the market. He said moving forward this evening would place this project in the construction market in the spring and summer of 2015. He noted the addition of the classroom and the park and ride shelter. Jeff Thompson said the Board has appropriated $2.5 million for this project, and the difference between this amount and the base plan is $113,526. He said this is what is being requested in additional appropriations for the base plan. He said the alternate plan is two phase, and includes the mothball and dry storage components. He said the mothballing objective is to protect the space for future use. He said the dry storage involves using this existing space, and it would require fire protection increases and access modification. Jeff Thompson said the mothball cost will be $579,000 plus the design fees, and the storage costs will be $85,000. He said the mothball subtotal is $608,700, and the Storage subtotal is $100,000. He said these are not connected. He said this brings the alternate plan subtotal to $708,700. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the storage option for $100,000 could be done without doing the mothballing. Jeff Thompson said the facility could be used for storage today, with minor modifications to the fire alarm system and access doors. He said DEAPR is currently using some of these classrooms for storage. He said the difference between the current appropriation and the alternate plan amount is approximately $822,000, as compared to the difference of$113,000 with the base plan. Jeff Thompson referred to attachment 4 in the packet, which highlights the potential storage configuration. He said this includes record storage, solid waste roll cart storage, and working storage for the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center. Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the color chart. Jeff Thompson explained the chart as provided. Commissioner Gordon clarified that there is no difference in the footprint between the mothball and storage options. Jeff Thompson said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the loading dock would be at the south end in the blue area of this slide. Jeff Thompson said yes. Steve Brantley discussed the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center (PFAP). He said PFAP has achieved several milestones in the past several years, including being incorporated as a nonprofit, and forming a board of directors representing the four inter- local member counties. He said PFAP has added clients and used up all available storage and freezer space. He said PFAP has established a cash flow and is able to operate independently. Steve Brantley said the organization has seen success with clients such as Vintage Bees and others who are exporting to other countries, and Luna Pops who is now selling through Harris Teeter. He said PFAP is gaining a statewide reputation as a model for food and agricultural processing, and this is resulting in various tour groups and media coverage. Steve Brantley said PFAP presently has 43 total clients, and 35 are active. He said there are 23 additional clients in various stages of the application process. He said 12 of these are expected to go all the way through the process. He said there is an immediate need for additional storage, including 21 pallet spaces and four storage cages. He said PFAP also needs an additional 14 by 18 foot general storage area. He said these storage needs are expected to increase significantly by the fall, to include a total additional storage space of between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet. He said four of the top six clients may move out of the County if affordable manufacturing space, operational capital, and competitively priced food storage locations are not available. Steve Brantley said PFAP has looked at several potential storage locations in Orange County, but no suitable space has been found. He said there is also a need for short term storage, which is difficult in the commercial market. He said several clients have already struck out, and one of them relocated to Alamance County. He noted that the clients are constrained by transportation costs. He said the Cedar Grove is not exactly ideal, but it is a currently viable option. Steve Brantley said there are 3 facilities that could be considered, but all of them have their problems. He said one of these options is the old ABC store, which is priced at $5 per square foot. He said PFAP has considered all of these options and feels that there are constraints with all of them. He said Orange County has few options, and the Cedar Grove facility does offer the possibility for PFAP to play a role and generate a lease payment. Commissioner Gordon asked if PFAP is going to pay rent. Steve Brantley said he is not sure that the discussion has matured to that point, and this would be the Board's decision. Jeff Thompson said the process would be to work out a series of rate options for discussion. He said the market rate is around $8 per square foot, including insurance, taxes, and utilities. He said this would be brought to the Board in the form of options. Commissioner Gordon said the Board would be offering flexibility and a fair price, but she would assume there would be some payment. She asked if Orange County would get 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. Jeff Thompson said there is no shelter designated, but planning staff are talking about placing it near the south side door. He said there is adequate room for a park and ride at this site. Commissioner Dorosin asked if that is still true even if the loading dock is added. Jeff Thompson said the loading dock would project at the edge and would be on the western side. Chair Jacobs addressed some of the funding concerns. He said the roof could be done as part of the CIP and could be spread out over the next 2 to 5 years. He said one wing could also be done in the short term and the other in the longer term. He said mothballing seems counterintuitive at this point, and the cost of upgrading could be spread out. Jeff Thompson said there are some components, like the abatement of the window glazing, which would need to be taken out at one time. He said the face would also need to be cleaned up so that the exterior would match. He said other parts, like the roof, could be done in phases. Chair Jacobs said perhaps the number could be broken down into separate components to make it easier to swallow. He said, with PFAP, part of the goal was to promote startups to stay in Orange County. He said most of the startups from UNC have left over time, and some have grown into companies like Quintiles. He said the idea was to grow companies until they built facilities in Orange County. He said it would be good to create loyalty by accommodating the companies with the start up storage space. He said the charge does not have to be market rate, but should be enough to recover the costs of the investment. He suggested the creation of a structured fee to accomplish this over a relatively short period of time. A Brief power outage occurred at 8:59:23 PM. Chair Jacobs said this is consistent with the County's economic development policy. He is encouraged that this is feasible at a relatively low cost. Commissioner Pelissier said she hears the argument about incentivizing, however she has also heard that there is an issue with a lack of production facilities, so this is only a half way step. She does not feel that the provision of storage will be enough, unless there is a way to find the larger facilities that are also needed to keep the businesses from leaving. She feels more needs to be done. She suggested the possibility of only doing one wing and not the other. Commissioner Gordon said she also has some concerns regarding the fact that there is no long term comprehensive facilities plan. She feels that things are proceeding in an ad hoc fashion. She said that there is no comprehensive revenue stream. She said the higher budget number concerns her, and she knows there will be other increases in the county budget, such as those related to school needs. She said there are a lot of demands on the county budget, and this new request has a very high price tag. Commissioner McKee said he understands the concerns about the cost and the concerns about the lack of fully developed incentives. He said incentives in Orange County are still a work in process. He said this is a way to use this facility and prevent tearing it down. Commissioner Rich asked what the roof would cost. Jeff Thompson said it would be $200,000 to $275,000, and this would be part of the $600,000, along with HVAC, window deglazing, brick cleaning and landscaping. Commissioner Rich asked what it would cost to just use one wing for storage. Jeff Thompson said if it was just used for storage today, the entrances would have to be modified, and the truck dock would be most of the $100,000. He said if one wing were done with the mothballing concept, it would only cost half. 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 Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Price, Chair Jacobs, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Gordon) b. Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts — Oranae Public Transportation and Triangle Transit (8:15-9:05) The Board received a presentation on concepts for expanding Orange Public Transit (OPT) and Triangle Transit (TTA) bus operations in central and rural Orange County over the next five years. Craig Benedict introduced Peter Murphy, the new Orange Public Transportation (OPT) Director. Craig Benedict thanked everyone for the work that has gone into this proposal. He turned the presentation over to Erik Landfried with Triangle Transit. Erik Landfried reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts May 8, 2014 Started with Public Involvement To Derive Service Concepts • Four Joint County/TTA public outreach meetings in Hillsborough, Cedar Grove, Efland, and Mebane - 83 total attendees • 230 surveys completed at public meetings, on board buses and online • Survey of Duke employees living in Orange and Alamance Counties - 647 Responses • Meetings with Stakeholders - OUTBoard - Department on Aging - Department of Social Services - Health Department - Libraries Structure of Presentation Triangle Transit— Erik Landfried, Service Planning Supervisor Service Expansion in Central and Northern Orange County provided by Triangle Transit • Funded from 24% share of Orange County transit sales tax/vehicle registration fee revenue apportioned to Triangle Transit Orange County— Bret Martin, Transportation Planner • Service Expansion in Central and Northern Orange County provided by Orange Public Transportation • Funded from 12% share of Orange County transit sales tax/vehicle registration fee revenue apportioned to Orange Public Transportation Orange-Durham Express (Route ODX) • Goal is to provide peak-hour, commuter service between central Orange County, DukeNA Hospitals, and downtown Durham • Would provide connection to Route 420 (Hillsborough-Chapel Hill), DATA routes, and a potential future connection with PART • Seeking endorsement of Orange County Board of Commissioners • Final approval of the route will be made by the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Implementation Timeline • Phase 1 (Hillsborough-Durham): August 2014, pending agreements with property owners at the North Hills (former Maxway) shopping center and ABC Board • Phase 2 (extension to Mebane and Efland): 2015, pending agreement with property owner in Mebane for Park-and-Ride lot • Phase 3 (new Park-and-Ride lots in Hillsborough and Mebane): 2016, pending construction of new Park-and-Ride lots Service Characteristics • Service span: Monday-Friday, 6-9am and 4-7pm • Service frequency: Once every 60 minutes Stops served: Phase 1: North Hills (former Maxway) shopping center Park-and-Ride in Hillsborough, DukeNA Hospital, Durham Station. Phase 2: Add Mebane Park-and-Ride at an existing lot (location TBD), Efland-Cheeks Community Center (secondary direction only) and downtown Mebane bus stop. Phase 3: Replace short-term Park-and-Ride lots in Mebane and Hillsborough with new lots on currently unimproved property. Route ODX map General Survey Responses (pie chart) General Survey Responses (bar graph) Duke Survey Responses (bar graph) Hillsborough P&R preferences (map) Mebane P&R preferences (map) Serving Efland in Secondary Direction (bar graph) Orange-Durham Express Decision making Timeline • Public outreach period: May 8-30 • Triangle Transit Operations & Finance Committee: June 3 • Approval by Triangle Transit Board of Trustees: June 25 • Implement Phase 1 (Hillsborough-Durham), pending agreements with property owners: August 18 Erik Landfried said this specific route is part of a larger program, and it would be complemented by the OPT services and vice versa. He said the Orange Durham Express Route would have split funding, with half coming from Orange County revenues and half coming from Durham County revenues. Erik Landfried referred to the implementation timeline and said the goal in phase 3 would be to create a transit hub in Hillsborough to be a connection point for many of the services to be discussed tonight. He said Piedmont Area Regional Transit (PART) is the partner to the west, and they have a grant to build a park and ride lot in Mebane. He said PART is working with town staff in Mebane to identify potential locations for that lot. Commissioner Rich asked if Triangle Transit would negotiate to buy the lots. Erik Landfried said yes, for the one in Hillsborough; but the Mebane lot will be done by PART through their federal grant. Erik Landfried reviewed the Route ODX map visual. He discussed the survey results and said there was good interest in cross-County routes, with 42 percent of respondents saying they would use the route and 18 percent responding maybe. He said another question was regarding the preferred times for the route, and there was a spike in preferences for mid-day, evening, and Saturday. He said many of the respondents were already riding on mid-day OPT routes, so this is a market that needs to be served. He said the other market is the commuter market into Duke University and downtown Durham. He said the majority of respondents start work between 7 and 9 in the morning and end between 4 and 6 p.m. Erik Landfried said the survey also asked for preferences for the location of a Hillsborough park and ride lot, and responses were pretty scattered. He reviewed the maps of these locations. He said the Board and town responses have made it clear that there is a strong desire to have the main stop located close to Highway 70. He said the idea of creating a transit hub around Highway 70 and NC 86 is very attractive. He said the survey regarding the Mebane park and ride lot showed a strong preference for a location toward Interstate 85 and Mebane Oaks Road. Erik Landfried said the Duke survey asked for preferences on a town location for a park and ride lot. He said the response showed that there is not a strong market from Efland to Duke at those peak times. He said this is the reason for service in one direction here and not the other. He said there are lots of other services being proposed for this area. He said the morning the route will head further west to connect people to the Greensboro area. He said OPT is proposing to provide a more direct connection for Efland to Hillsborough. He reviewed the slide on the decision making timeline and turned the remainder of the presentation over to Bret Martin. Bret Martin presented the following PowerPoint slides: Orange Public Transportation Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts developed from: • OCBRIP goals; • OUTBoard-adopted service expansion goals; • Public input from outreach meetings and on-board surveys; • Inter-departmental input (Social Services, Aging, Health, Libraries); • Demographic analysis; and • Survey data Program Constraints and Resource Limitations • Fiscal Constraint • Staffing • Bus capital cost, availability, suitability and eligibility OPT Proaram Goals • Adopted by OUTBoard February 19, 2014 Goals in Priority Order: 1) Improve Access to Important Destinations • Work/School • Senior Centers • Social Services and Medical • Shopping/Social/Personal Business • 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 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. Commissioner Gordon referred to the fiscal constraints and asked if the annual revenue made available was for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan or something else. Bret Martin said this is just from the half cent sales tax and the vehicle registration fees. Commissioner Gordon said she wants clarification on what Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) is proposing, and what Orange Public Transit (OPT) is proposing. She suggested a matrix to make it clear. She said her understanding is that TTA is proposing the ODX, and Orange Public Transit is proposing the other ones. She said her question is how many bus service hours are being offered in each case, and how differential costs between the two entities are accounted for. The operating costs for the bus service hours are so different, and she wonders how this works. Bret Martin said the full implementation for OPT's program would give a total of 7,520 hours. Erik Landfried said phase 1 will give 1,500 hours per year, and when it expands out to Mebane, it will be about 3,000 hours per year. Commissioner Gordon said she is trying to figure out the time period for this full implementation. Bret Martin said full implementation for OPT will happen by fiscal year 2016. Commissioner Gordon referenced a report that listed a number of 34,000 hours in the first 4 years. She said these numbers don't match. Erik Landfried said that figure includes all Triangle Transit, and Chapel Hill Transit. Bret Martin said OPT is getting more hours than its share. He said the pie chart shows less than the 7,520, because it was assumed at the same operating cost as the other providers. He said OPT's operating cost is so much lower that it can squeeze out more hours. Commissioner Gordon said this is a little hard to follow, and that is something to consider before it goes to the public. Commissioner Rich referred to slide 22. She asked why it is not worth it to collect the $4,000 on the current 420 route. She asked if this is because there is not enough ridership and she asked if the fare correlates with how many people are riding the bus. Erik Landfried said part of the problem is that riders have to pay a fare on the 420, but not on the circulator; so riders transfer to the 420 and then have to pay a fare. He said this is not a user friendly service, and the 420 is the only service that charges a fare. He said the $4,000 was the maximum amount ever brought in. He said this service just does not bring in a lot of revenue. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the assumption is that the ridership will increase if it is a fare free bus service. Commissioner Pelissier asked how much money the park grant has for the park and ride lot and what percentage of the cost will be covered. Erik Landfried said he does not have the amount in front of him, but the federal grant will cover 80 percent of the cost of the park and ride lot. He said the assumption is that local revenues in Orange County to pay the local share. He said this has not been formalized yet. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is money in the plan for capital costs, including park and ride lots. She knows the rules have changed regarding how much the federal government will share in the purchase of buses. She asked how this will work in the plan. Bret Martin said TTA is still paying for capital through the revenue that is coming in. He said there is an expectation that 30 percent of the cost of your capital should come from the federal share and 5 percent from the state. He said there is still work to be done on the federal and state shares for the buses. He said this will come before the Board. Erik Landfried said these questions about the full plan, revenues and capital cost will be brought back to the Board on June 3. He said tonight's focus is on the services the public would like to see and the projects that should be implemented. He said the questions about the 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. 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. Commissioner Gordon said she is just trying to understand how the revenue is allocated. She said it seems that the numbers should be comparable, and it should be an apples to apples comparison. Bret Martin said that $44 figure is operating an administrator per hour, but the marginal cost of rolling out additional services does not necessarily include that administrative cost. He said the marginal cost of new services is, for a period of time, all operating. Commissioner Gordon suggested this just be taken under advisement and possibly the two entities could figure out something to better explain the cost per hour. She also asked for an explanation in June of how this proposal matches up with the actual Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan. She asked for an explanation of the overall Bus and Rail investment Plan and how the assumptions changed. Commissioner Rich thanked staff for answering these questions. She said she is hoping that some of the points made tonight would be available in case the questions come up again. Chair Jacobs said the Board has now provided feedback and staff has additional direction. He thanked staff. c. Consideration of a Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Home Occupations The Board was to receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider a decision on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). DEFERRED A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to defer the item to the May 20, 2014 BOCC Regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Future of Employees in Contract for Family Specialists with Orange County Schools The Board received an update on the anticipated loss of a contract with Orange County Schools, to discuss options for staff currently employed in Family Specialists Positions and to consider the option of extending employment for current social workers. Nancy Coston said staff has known for several years that funding used for the contract to provide social workers to the Orange County Schools (OCS) might be at risk due to federal interpretation of how the moneys can be used. She said the problem has been dodged a couple of times, but it could not be dodged this year. She said there are 8 positions with the County that are funded through June 30. She said there is a new program coming in to replace the program that was there, but it will not be advantageous to the Orange County Schools to have this contract. She said the schools have decided to move on and fund whatever they can afford to do within their own budget. She said this has left 7 employees (there is one vacancy) who have to be given notices unless there is a plan for them. She said this could not wait for the budget process because of the required timeframe for notices. She said staff came up with a plan to allowing these people to stay on as employees. She said there are two social services positions that have been frozen while this decision is made, and there is a proposal for two social workers in next year's budget. She said this would still leave 3 people with problems as of July 1. She suggested 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 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. Michael Talbert said this issue has been looked at for a little over a year, and there are 60 pages of history on where this has been. He said this is not about going over that again, but this is about looking at what the County could do and what the legal options are for the future. He referred to page 4 of the abstract and reviewed the following issues and decisions to be discussed: Issues to be discussed at May 13, 2014 Work Session • Discussion of Frequently Asked Questions from the Public Hearings (see Attachment 9) • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so, what is the customer base - the existing rural district (13,700 customers) and/or additional customers • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015 • Recycling and Solid Waste issues with the County's partners • Other ways to provide recycling services and look at options • New Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement •A stable funding source for recycling that is fair and equitable • Discuss different options for servicing high density rural residential clusters, including costs/benefit analysis Decisions by July 1, 2014: • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so, what is the customer base, the existing rural district (13,700 customers) and/or additional customers • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015 Michael Talbert said the above decisions are in the budget, and staff is recommending continuation of services to the existing customers and moving forward with the roll carts. He said the proposal for funding at this point is to use the reserves for the upcoming fiscal year. He said a work group, task force, and/or a solid waste advisory board could examine this issue for moving forward. Chair Jacobs said he would be meeting with the Mayors again soon, and this will be a major topic of conversation as they try to find a common approach to this issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Jan Sassaman said he understood that no decisions will be made tonight. He said he has some expertise with Orange County's solid waste management systems. He said the Board of County Commissioners needs to decide on funding for rural curbside recycling now. He said the Board has kicked the can so far down the road that it is running out of road. He said whatever decision is made should be: 1) consistent with what is expected from the municipal partners; 2) designed to maximize citizen participation in recycling; and 3) should equitably allocate costs among eligible citizens. He said combining rural, municipal and family curbside collection, paid for by the general fund, may be the most cost effective and equitable approach. He said it would also provide a political incentive to extend curbside recycling throughout the County. He said this would cost about 1.4 cents on the tax rate. He said this solution is not currently before them, so the tax district is still the best interim solution. He said a voluntary subscription service will not likely be cost effective or achieve recycling goals. He said paying from landfill reserves is not prudent or equitable, as these funds were derived from all County and town residents who have used disposal facilities over the years. He said this money is also needed for post closure monitoring of landfills. Jan Sassaman said it is time to put this in the hands of the Solid Waste Management staff. Commissioner Gordon referred to the solid waste convenience centers. She said her understanding is that the solid waste convenience fees only pay for 25 percent of the total. She said she understood that the original intention was that there would be a 4 year program to increase the fees to cover more. She asked how much money is coming from the general fund to subsidize the convenience centers and if there is any more money coming from the general fund to subsidize any aspect of solid waste. Gayle Wilson said the $1.85 million is contributed from the general fund this year, and about the same amount will be proposed for next year. He said this equals about 25 percent. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to know what fees would be needed. Gayle Wilson said the plan was to increase the fee over time and reduce or eliminate the general fund contribution. Commissioner Gordon asked staff to come back with the fee structure that would be needed to make up the shortfall to eliminate a general fund contribution to the convenience centers. She said if you look at the statutes presented by John Roberts, you are allowed to charge for expenses. John Roberts said he and the manager have had the discussion on funding, including how to address the fees for the convenience centers. He will talk about this at the work session. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan is to continue talking about recycling separate from solid waste. He feels like these things are on two separate tracks. Chair Jacobs said that is not accurate. He said the first part of the work session will talk about the parameters of the inter-local agreement, and this includes everything from recycling to transfer stations. He said once those questions are answered, there will be conversations about some of the shorter and longer term issues. John Roberts said town and County staff have negotiated a draft interlocal agreement. He said it is comprehensive and addresses all types of waste issues in Orange County. He said this will be ready for review at the next work session. Chair Jacobs said there may need to be an additional assembly of governments meeting just to discuss solid waste. Michael Talbert said item 7-f is 66 pages long. He asked the Commissioners to please bring the document to the May 13 meeting in order to avoid having to re-print it. 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report (10:10-10:15) DEFERRED 10. County Attorney's Report (10:15-10:20) DEFERRED 11. Appointments - NONE 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 Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk