HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 4, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
April 8, 2014 BOCC Work Session
April 29, 2014 BOCC Joint Meeting with School Boards
May 20, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
May 22, 2014 BOCC Budget Public Hearing
May 27, 2014 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
June 3, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
June 17, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 APRIL 8, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, April
10 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
18 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 Commissioner McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04. He said Chair Jacobs will be
21 a few minutes late.
22
23 1. Follow-up Discussion on Potential Establishment of a Women's Commission
24 Cheryl Young said at the June 18, 2013 BOCC Meeting, Commissioner Price petitioned
25 the Board regarding the establishment of a Women's Commission as an Orange County
26 advisory board to be staffed by and receive technical support from the Orange County
27 Economic Development Department. She said a draft resolution was presented.
28 She said Commissioner Price noted that there currently was not an Orange County
29 advisory board to address issues unique to women and to provide policy and program
30 recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners since the former
31 Commission for Women, established in 1978, was eliminated as an advisory board in 2010.
32 She said the functions of the original Commission for Women (CfW) were made a responsibility
33 of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) in 2011, and CfW as a separate entity was sunset
34 in April 2011.
35 Cheryl Young said the BOCC discussed the request at the October 8, 2013 work
36 session and there were various opinions related to how to proceed and the advisability of
37 establishing an independent group. She said there was consensus that the issue warranted
38 further discussion.
39 She said the possibility of having the Human Relations Commission establish a
40 subcommittee was among the ideas discussed. She said the Human Relations Commission
41 had discussed this matter and voted against creating a subcommittee whose sole focus is on
42 issues of gender inequality. She said the HRC had created a subcommittee entitled Diversity
43 Matters which will address a cornucopia of issues of inequality for different minority groups, i.e.
44 women and persons with disabilities. She said this decision was based on the idea that if the
45 HRC created a subcommittee that focused only on women's issues, then there would be a need
46 to create additional subcommittees with a targeted focus on each different protected class. She
47 said the HRC is currently working on a written report for the BOCC regarding the HRC's role in
48 addressing women's issues.
2
1 She said the manager's recommendation is that the Board receive this information and
2 allow the HRC the additional time to explore their role in addressing women's issues, in order to
3 give a written report to the Board at the May 20th, 2014 regular meeting.
4 James Davis said the HRC continues to discuss the options, and this has been an
5 ongoing topic of discussion since October 2013.
6 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the HRC currently has any sub committees.
7 James Davis said yes, and one of them is the Diversity Matters subcommittee, which is
8 tasked with addressing outreach and programs that address an array of issues regarding
9 equality. He said this group recently facilitated a discussion on inter-racial marriage, and it also
10 was responsible for the Human Relations Forum that occurred in January.
11 He said another subcommittee is the Building Integrated Communities committee, which
12 addresses issues with relationships with the immigrant population.
13 Commissioner Pelissier requested more information when this comes back in May
14 regarding which other women's organizations the committee has contacted.
15 Cheryl Young said she has had conversations with these groups, and she said each of
16 them would be interested in being included in future discussions if the Board decides to re-
17 create another Women's Commission.
18 Chair Jacobs arrived at 7:08 pm.
19 Commissioner Price said she is pleased that there is interest in this with the HRC, but
20 originally when the Board worked on this there was discussion about the economic
21 development aspect. She wondered why nothing was heard from the economic development
22 department. She asked if this is something that the HRC wants to take on again.
23 James Davis said the HRC does not want to focus on one particular class. He said since
24 the HRC is charged with addressing issues of equality for all classes then they would address
25 gender inequality as part of this sub-committee. He said the group would increase awareness
26 and provide outreach. He said if it is a matter of addressing an issue with a finite resolution,
27 then the committee would ask the Board to hire a consultant to find out what those issues are
28 and help define how to address them.
29 Commissioner Price said when she talked with women in the community they were very
30 concerned about women in the workplace with regard to salary, promotions and the ability to
31 get loans from banks. She suggested highlighting women that have been successful, and
32 examining whether schools are encouraging young women to take the STEM courses. She
33 said this is about empowerment. She said it may be good for Orange County to look at what
34 Durham is doing, and she noted that Durham recently highlighted 30 prominent business
35 women.
36 Commissioner Gordon said she supports what Commissioner Price has said regarding
37 the establishment of some type of women's group or commission. She said this is necessary,
38 and many things have changed since the Women's Commission was eliminated and an
39 agreement was set up with the Women's Center. She said there is no longer a separate
40 Women's Center. She said women are not a minority, and the basis of discrimination is
41 different from other protected classes. She said some of the things that were expectations
42 when the group was eliminated have not been fulfilled. She said feels this needs to be taken
43 from the HRC, and the manager and staff should come back with a proposal on what it would
44 take to set up a separate Women's Commission. She said she would accept the
45 recommendation that this could go under Human Rights and Relations instead of Economic
46 Development. She would like to see staff come up with a recommendation of what resources it
47 would take to set this up. She urged the Board to give this to staff.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not in favor of setting up another commission. He said
49 the Board needs to give specific guidance to the HRC. He said the HRC has a broad charge to
50 promote equity, but if this proposed group has a specific social justice goal or agenda for
3
1 women, then that charge should be developed by the Board of County Commissioners and
2 given to the HRC. He feels that this applies to any priority that is important to the Board. He
3 said there needs to be a more specific charge on these issues. He said the Board needs to
4 establish priorities for a specific time period and create a real civil rights agenda for the County.
5 Commissioner Price said President Obama issued another executive order yesterday,
6 dealing with pay raises for women who are contract workers for the federal government. She
7 said this shows that the matter has not gone away, and it needs to be attacked. She said she
8 can see this starting off as a small charge, and then it can be re-vamped once it has taken hold.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said the long time staff person at HRC is retiring, and this is an
10 opportunity to re-think how this department will work as it relates to social justice. He thinks
11 more should be done, and the Commissioners have the responsibility to provide the direction.
12 Commissioner Rich said she thinks it is often true that the Board discusses items without
13 giving a clear direction. She said she is still unclear what the proposed women's group would
14 do. She can see why the Diversity Matters group is important, but this is still too broad. She
15 does not have a clear vision of this. She would like to talk with the Diversity Matters group as
16 well as Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Price to help her understand this.
17 Chair Jacobs said part of the proposal is that the Board will get a clearer proposal in May.
18 Commissioner Rich questioned whether this is the right way to move forward, by having
19 staff tell the Board what they think the Board wants them to do.
20 Chair Jacobs said yes. He does not see a problem with working with an advisory board
21 that has already put energy into exploring related issues. He said this group has made a
22 proposal to come back to the Board, having done work before and after this meeting.
23 Chair Jacobs said the HRC used to do an annual symposium, years ago. He said one
24 element that has not been part of this conversation is community involvement. He could see
25 bringing in female entrepreneurs and someone from the Compass Center to have a day with
26 various presenters and subgroups. He said this could draw out recommendations for the
27 County Commissioners about how to move forward to address certain issues. He said this
28 would bring in the community engagement part, instead of just leaving this to the advisory
29 board.
30 Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Dorosin made a good point about the Board
31 needing to be more specific in providing direction and guidance for the focus of this group. He
32 said he is hearing that the HRC is coming back with a report, and this is an opportunity to
33 provide information that can be incorporated into this report. He said he is suggesting this be
34 done before the group comes back with the report.
35 Commissioner Price said the Commission for Women used to have community events in
36 the late eighties and nineties, and a lot of that has been lost now. She said there are a
37 women's center and the Compass Group, so the issues of domestic violence and rape are
38 being covered. She said the goal here was to step away from that to look at other ways that
39 women could be empowered, looking at jobs, economic development, and salaries. She said
40 the goal was not to make it too broad, but to start with one aspect. She said her resolution may
41 not have been as defined as the Board would like, but it was a starting point to look at economic
42 development.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said overall she does not see the Board creating a new
44 commission. She feels things can be accomplished thought the HRC sub-committee, in
45 partnership with other organizations. She suggested a partnership with the Chamber of
46 Commerce's Women's Entrepreneur Group. She just does not see that there is a clear mission
47 to create a new group on this topic.
48 Cheryl Young said the purpose of the HRC report being worked on now is to tell the
49 Board what the group has been doing, as opposed to a plan going forward. She said this is
4
1 meant to be a picture of current status and the ways they can integrate women's issues into
2 their current groups.
3
4 Commissioner Dorosin proposed that the Board provide a list of the issues of interest to
5 the HRC, with a request that they come back in May with a 6 -12 month plan to do outreach
6 around those issues. He suggested the focus should be: 1) Issues facing low income and
7 impoverished women (a. childcare, b. job training, and c. general impediments identified in the
8 County); 2) Issues of pay equity; and 3) Women owned businesses. He said this would be his
9 suggestion for a 12 month agenda, and the HRC could decide where this should go. He said a
10 specific focused direction is the key. He said the report that comes back could also detail the
11 partnerships involved. He would like to get feedback from the community to define the issues.
12 Commissioner Gordon suggested that HRC should go ahead and do the report, and she
13 suggested the Board should not decide on a list of issues tonight. She said she and
14 Commissioner Price could come up with some issues that the Board of County Commissioners
15 can review. She does not perceive that the HRC has the time to work on the issues that are
16 being proposed tonight, since they are under staffed and time is short.
17 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board needs to have a clear direction. She is hearing
18 that Commissioner Price and Commissioner Gordon are in favor of a commission, but the rest
19 of the Board is not. She asked if Commissioner Price and Commissioner Gordon are going to
20 work on a new commission. She supports Commissioner Dorosin's priorities, but they are big
21 priorities, and she questions whether a public forum will really provide the hard data needed to
22 know what is going on in the County. She does not want to hand out a task that is too large for
23 an advisory board to take on.
24 Chair Jacobs summarized that HRC will provide a status report on May 20th. He said the
25 Board recognizes that the department is short staffed and that an advisory board is what is
26 being requested. He said there are several proposals for what the Commissioners would like to
27 see, and some of them overlap and some don't. He noted that some of Commissioner
28 Dorosin's priorities would involve other departments, such as DSS. He said if the Board is
29 going to lay out priorities for issues related to women, it may be too complex than even the
30 HRC can do in a report.
31 He said the goal on May 20th should be to identify the issues that are important to the
32 Board of County Commissioners moving forward. He said once these are identified, staff can
33 determine where these issues can be addressed and accomplished in the County government.
34 He said the Board wants to give specific direction, and will take the next opportunity to do that.
35 He said a decision can then be made on whether to have Commissioners partner with HRC to
36 do this, or whether a new organization should be developed.
37 Commissioner Price said it is important to realize that they have spoken to women in the
38 community who were upset that the Commission for Women had been abolished. She said
39 times have changed, and it is important to look at what is affecting the lives of women now.
40 She said there has been concern that the proposal was too broad, so she came back with a
41 narrower focus in her resolution regarding economic development, jobs and pay equity. She
42 said now there is discussion of broadening this to include other issues, but the department is
43 small, which is why the issues were initially kept narrow. She said the narrow focus was based
44 on what the people in the community said, which she feels is as important as what the
45 Commissioners think. She said the hope was to generate data, create awareness, and address
46 the issue.
47 Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Price did a great job in stating her case, but the other
48 Commissioners have different ideas. He said if this is going to be brought before the whole
49 Board, then it is open to everyone's ideas. He said if this is going to go forward there needs to
50 be consensus on what the group wants to do. He said this was a great start, and there is
5
1 obviously a galaxy of issues to be discussed around the original focus. He said this can start
2 with the resolution at the next meeting and then include the other items mentioned by
3 Commissioner Dorosin, which are consistent with items discussed at the retreat. He said these
4 can be synthesized and used to give staff more direction.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if the HRC has a poverty task force.
6 Staff answered no.
7 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to clarify what she wants to do. She said she
8 wanted to take input at this meeting. She said she does want a commission, but there is no
9 consensus on that, so now she wants to define the issues and move forward in another
10 direction to address this.
11
12 2. Decision Items for the Unified Animal Control Ordinance
13 Bob Marotto reviewed the following background information:
14 The Board most recently discussed the proposed unified animal control ordinance at its October
15 4, 2013 meeting. There was appreciation for the effort of Animal Services staff and the Animal
16 Services Advisory Board (ASAB) and the overall effort to create a more coherent and
17 comprehensible animal control code for Orange County residents. At the same time, the Board
18 asked staff and the ASAB to further consider several particularly challenging issues arising from
19 the ordinance and to return to the Board with recommendations for addressing and ideally
20 resolving these 4 issues.
21 Bob Marotto said the recommendations included in the abstract have been compiled
22 based on substantial consultation with Professor Aimee Wall at the School of Government. He
23 hopes the Board will find merit in what the group has done. He said the unified ordinance is a
24 significant step forward for Orange County and a smarter form of government to allow for
25 meaningful collaboration among different jurisdictions around a single flexible set of rules. He
26 said there is significant confusion over what rules apply where in the County.
27 He said the board is aware that these four issues were not the only issues that were of
28 concern, but these seemed to be the most vexing issues. He said he speaks for staff and the
29 advisory board in saying that this unified ordinance is the result of a significant amount of work.
30 He said these four issues have caused the board to pause and reflect. He hopes these issues
31 can be resolved in order to move the whole ordinance forward.
32
33 Animal Services Advisory Board Chair Michelle Walker said the board has prepared a
34 summary and a recommendation for of each of the four issues as follows:
35
36 1. Trespass: The issue of trespass is how to define trespass since a dog that bites a person
37 who enters the dog owner's property may not be declared a vicious animal under the proposed
38 ordinance if the bitten person is "trespassing".
39 2. Watchdog: There are additional exceptions to application of a vicious animal declaration for a
40 dog that bites a person on the dog owner's property in the circumstance where a dog is acting
41 in a security capacity. The formulation of one of those exceptions — if the dog is being a "watch
42 dog" — concerns the need to recognize a necessary and lawful role for a dog watching over its
43 owner's property.
44 3. Administrative appeal: Some procedural issues, such as whether there should be sworn
45 testimony, are in need of clarification; and more generally, there is the question of the best
46 format for appeals in the absence of an established standard.
47 4. Livestock and Public Nuisance: The issue of whether there should be a special provision for
48 livestock in the public nuisance provision of the ordinance is included among these issues
49 because historically it has needed clarification.
50
6
1 Bob Marotto said he is hoping that the Board will provide staff direction tonight, so that
2 that steps can be taken to bring this back as a finished product.
3 Chair Jacobs suggested an outline be given of each issue.
4
5 Michelle Walker said the first issue is listed on page 7 as follows:
6
7 LIVESTOCK & PUBLIC NUISANCE
8 Affected section of proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-45. - Public nuisance.
9 Substitute the following language into the public nuisance section (Sec. 4-45) of the proposed
10 ordinance for (b) (6):
11 Except in the case of domestic livestock, any animal at large off the premises of the owner or
12 keeper. At large domestic livestock will be considered a public nuisance when it, in the
13 judgment of the Animal Services Director, or designee, presents an immediate public danger, is
14 destroying or damaging property, is violating property rights, or has been habitually at large.
15
16 Susan Elmore said historically there has been a need to update this portion of the
17 ordinance and this is a good time to do it. She said the ASAB has worked closely with the
18 Agricultural Preservation Board in getting input on what their recommendation would be for this
19 unified ordinance. She said this information is included in the abstract.
20 Chair Jacobs asked for a brief explanation of the change.
21 Susan Elmore said the change is that if there is livestock off of property, it is not
22 immediately designated as a public nuisance, and the farmer is not automatically fined. She
23 said it will instead be up to the Animal Services Director to determine if the animal presents an
24 immediate public danger, is destroying property, violating property rights, or has been habitually
25 at large. She said if there is a storm that takes down a fence and livestock gets loose, the
26 farmer will not be cited or fined for that. She said, on the other hand, if the fence stays down
27 for weeks and the animals continually leave the property, then the farmer would be fined. She
28 said these are the kind of issues that the Animal Services director will handle.
29 Bob Marotto said one principal difference is that there isn't presently a distinction within
30 the ordinance of livestock versus other animals. She said the language that has been
31 recommended gives much more detailed guidelines for decisions to be made about livestock.
32 Commissioner McKee said this seems to be a better fix, and it makes sense to better
33 define and highlight the differentiations.
34 Commissioner Price asked if it makes sense to put in some kind of timeline instead of
35 just leaving it up to Director's discretion as to how to distinguish one incident from another. She
36 asked if there would be any legal hassle if it was just the Director's discretion.
37 Bob Marotto said there is considerably more detail in this version than in the last
38 version. He said you want to have the flexibility to deal with the variety of issues that arises in
39 broad community like Orange County. He said he would defer the legal questions to the staff
40 attorney and the County attorney.
41 Annette Moore said the Director should have enough experience and judgment to make
42 these decisions. She said being too specific could create more problems.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said this discretion applies only to domestic livestock; he asked
44 about a scenario where a storm hits, and a tree takes out fence, and a dog gets out and is at
45 large. He asked if there is any discretion for that situation.
46 Bob Marotto said there can be discretion in all circumstances, but there were multiple
47 strong reasons why this needed to be specifically articulated for livestock.
48 Annette Moore said when you see the designation of discretion in one place and not in
49 another it would typically say to you that the director does not have discretion there. She said
50 this was originally why that language was there, but there were a lot of questions about whether
7
1 or not there would be discretion. She said this language could be added to other areas of the
2 ordinance to make the discretion broader.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said even with discretion, this only relates to the animal control
4 ordinance; but if livestock gets out and destroys a neighbor's yard, the owner can still sue.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if this discretion applies to chickens as well. She noted that a
6 lot of people have chickens now and things can come and wreck the chicken wire.
7 Bob Marotto said they need to have discretion to make good enforcement judgments in
8 all areas.
9
10 Michelle Walker said the next issue is the appeals process. The recommendation is
11 outlined in the abstract as follows:
12
13 APPEAL PROCESS: SCOPE AND FORM (PART I)
14 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. -Control of vicious animals; security
15 dogs; Sec.4-45. - Public nuisance; Sec. 4-54. —Appeals; Sec. 4-71. —Class I kennels.
16 1. Limit the process of administrative appeal in the proposed ordinance to two issues: (1)
17 potentially dangerous dog declarations under state law (such appeals are currently conducted
18 by a committee of the ASAB) and (2) vicious animal declarations. Identify any alternative
19 appeal mechanism for administrative actions that would be taken under the proposed
20 ordinance, i.e., an order to remove a nuisance animal or the revocation of a kennel permit.)
21 2. Define the judicial processes available for the appeal of civil citations for code violations and
22 certain administrative actions in a manner that is readily available to residents.
23 3. Consider in due time whether there is a need for a more general administrative appeal
24 process to be included in the unified animal ordinance.
25
26
27 APPEAL PROCESS: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES (PART II)
28 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: None
29 1. Animal Services staff and the County Attorney should develop procedural guidelines for any
30 administrative appeal processes conducted under the proposed ordinance.
31 2. The procedural guidelines should include delineation of:
32 a. The role of Animal Services staff
33 b. The general structure of hearings
34 c. The swearing in process for witnesses
35 d. A process of indirect cross-examination
36 3. There should be appropriate training for ASAB members and/or others who are members of
37 a body responsible for administrative appeals
38 4. Review of the procedural guidelines and proposed training should be requested from School
39 of Government staff
40
41 Michelle Walker said state statute requires that an appeal be available for any person
42 whose dog has been declared potentially dangerous. She said the County's current ordinance
43 also provides a provision for an animal to be declared vicious. She said in order to be declared
44 dangerous under the state statute a dog on its owner's property has to break bones and inflict
45 incredibly severe injury. She said the County ordinance is intended to provide for an additional
46 designation as a vicious animal for an animal on the owner's property that does bite but does
47 not rise to that severe level. She said this provides for a bit more enforcement ability. She said
48 the impact of this declaration allows for designated fencing and muzzling requirements.
49 Michelle Walker said one hole that the proposed ordinance is trying to fix is having an
50 appeal process for the vicious animal, and they wanted to make it clear what the options were
8
1 to the public. She said previously there was also a recommendation to include appeals for
2 other types of enforcement actions, but after further reflection it was determined that the main
3 hole in the process is for the declarations for vicious and dangerous dogs, and so this was
4 dialed back a bit. She said the other recommendations are to provide more information to the
5 public about alternative routes of appeal for other types of action.
6 Bob Marotto said the administrative burden involved if the AS/ASAB were required to
7 provide quasi-judicial appeals for all of the citations issued would present problems with
8 carrying capacity. He said Professor Wall also said there could be liabilities from having
9 appeals provided by quasi-judicial bodies in all circumstances.
10 Bob Marotto said the group realizes that there is a need for some type of appeals
11 process all for citations; however they feel it is best to find the judicial venue in which this
12 should occur and to provide this information to residents.
13 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that for dangerous dog and vicious dog citations, there
14 will be a quasi-judicial hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the ASAB, and procedures will
15 be the same in both designations. He asked if it would be a process similar to the Board of
16 Adjustment.
17 Bob Marotto said he is not familiar with the process of the Board of Adjustment, but the
18 procedure would fit the criteria Commissioner Dorosin described.
19 Commissioner Dorosin asked if cases can be appealed to the superior court if someone
20 is dissatisfied.
21 Bob Marotto said this can be done under the statute, but he is not sure about the
22 ordinance.
23 John Roberts said the process sounds very similar to the Board of Adjustment, with
24 sworn witnesses and a formal process. He said he did not hear anything specific in the
25 ordinance that outlines a 30 day period for an appeal, like the Board of Adjustment, but there
26 are certainly other legal avenues with the court system if you have been through the process.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said if state statutes provide people that opportunity, then
28 something should be included about the right to appeal.
29 Commissioner Dorosin said he agreed that people who receive citations should have a
30 means of appeal. He said he is hearing that the ASAB has not determined what that means
31 should be, and this is open for suggestion.
32 Bob Marotto said that is correct. He said the recommendation would be to delineate
33 what appeal is available in the courts.
34 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that residents would get a citation from someone on
35 staff, and this would have a fine. He suggested the option of a written appeal to a higher
36 authority. He said if the person cited is dissatisfied with that, they would have the right to
37 appeal to a hearing from a higher authority, such as the Board of County Commissioners or a
38 subcommittee.
39 Commissioner Price asked how the ordinance defines the difference between a
40 potentially dangerous versus a vicious animal.
41 Bob Marotto said a vicious animal is determined by a bite, regardless of the severity of
42 the bite. He said that is not how potentially dangerous is determined under state statute.
43 Commissioner Price asked for the definition of a non-severe bite.
44 Bob Marotto said the language of the statute is very specific. He said if a bite does not
45 meet the specific criteria that it resulted in broken bones, disfiguring lacerations, or required
46 hospitalization or cosmetic surgery there are no grounds to declare the dog a potentially
47 dangerous dog under state statute. He said this is why the designation of vicious is important.
48 He said there are going to be many bites that occur that are less severe from a legal definition,
49 and these bites would have no coverage without that ordinance. .
9
1 Chair Jacobs said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner Dorosin's recommendation
2 by suggesting that appeals could go from the ASAB to the Manager, who would make a
3 recommendation on whether the case should go before the Board of County Commissioners as
4 a last resort.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said his suggestion was regarding the appeals for citations. He
6 said the vicious dog citation is the one that goes through a quasi-judicial hearing.
7 Michelle Walker pointed out that the state statute does require the County authority for
8 animal control to designate a person or a board to be responsible for determining when a dog is
9 potentially dangerous, and to designate a separate board to hear any appeal.
10 Commissioner McKee referred to the top of page 9, which states that there were no
11 strong concerns about the process being quasi-judicial. He said he had no strong concerns,
12 but he did voice the opinion that it should be a different board. He questions the perception of
13 this. He said the appeal of a vicious dog can be very highly charged. He still feels that appeals
14 for a vicious dog declaration should be heard by a different board, separated from the ASAB,
15 who issued the declaration. He said this would be a better public relations move.
16 Chair Jacobs questioned who would board would be.
17 Susan Elmore said currently it is three members of the ASAB. She said there was
18 previous discussion of not having Animal Services staff involved except in more of an
19 administrative role. She said they would not be involved in the hearing. She said the hearing
20 would remain as it is now, with the 3 members of the subcommittee of the ASAB. She said it
21 can be a very charged process, but so far the process has worked well in reference to vicious
22 dog declarations. She said there have been times when the declaration has been overturned,
23 and the process is very fair.
24 Bob Marotto said it is very important that staff is removed from the process, with the
25 exception of administration. He said he feels the issue is to have a fair, impartial process. He
26 said there does need to be work and training on the procedure for the ASAB.
27 Commissioner McKee said he does not question the fairness. His only concern is that
28 the greater amount of separation the ASAB can have from the appeals process, the better the
29 public perception will be.
30 He said for him, a vicious declaration sounds more dangerous that a dangerous dog
31 declaration. He wonders if there is a way to indicate in the wording that this is one level below
32 the state definition.
33 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the clarification of the appeals process. She said
34 she would like to know how many citations are served per year, as this information is important
35 in considering the workload and the appeals process for discussions in the future.
36 Commissioner Price asked about the timing and process for an appeal. She asked if
37 the dog would be impounded.
38 Bob Marotto said if a dog bites someone and the dog is declared a potentially
39 dangerous dog, this declaration would be made as soon as possible in order to place
40 restrictions on the dog. He said if there is a second bite from the same dog in violation of the
41 restrictions on keeping that dog, the standard practice is to initially impound the dog and
42 negotiate a written agreement with the owner. He said the agreement would stipulate the
43 conditions under which the dog will be kept, as well as a stipulation that if these conditions are
44 not met the dog will be surrendered to animal services. He said there are many variations that
45 can happen in reality, but this is the process.
46 Commissioner Price asked if there is a statute of limitations as to when you appeal.
47 Bob Marotto said under the state statute there is a 10 day time period for the appeal,
48 from the time of notice. He said the ordinance had suggested 10 days, but this was going to be
49 designated "working days" to allow more time.
10
1 Chair Jacobs noted the time allotted for this item and asked for more concise
2 commentary. He noted that this item would be coming back to the Board, and he asked if the
3 Commissioners responses were being noted. He clarified that there is no vote being taken
4 tonight.
5 Michelle Walker said the ASAB would like to have recommendations tonight so that the
6 attorneys can draft language to move forward.
7 Chair Jacobs said the Board is not voting tonight on whether they agree with one
8 another on these issues. He said the requested information on the amount of citations could
9 potentially have some influence on decisions regarding this process, based on staffing and
10 time.
11 Commissioner Price asked whether the person who was attacked would have to go to
12 civil court if an owner successfully appealed a dangerous dog declaration down to a vicious dog
13 declaration.
14 Annette Moore said this is a separate process, and that person always has the
15 opportunity to go through a civil proceeding. She said appeal is just for the declaration that
16 limits the dog.
17 Commissioner Gordon said she would support the idea of staff being separated from the
18 appeal process. She does not think it is advisable for the Board of County Commissioners to
19 be the appeals board. She said the Board of County Commissioners is a political board and
20 this is a technical appeal.
21 Chair Jacobs clarified that Commissioner Gordon is agreeing with Commissioner McKee
22 that this should be a separate body for this appeals process.
23 Commissioner Gordon said it has to be an independent body, and she is just saying it
24 should not be the Commissioners.
25 Annette Moore said generally in administrative law, the body that hears an appeal has
26 some technical knowledge about the issue. She said this is why this was placed with the ASAB
27 sub-committee, as this group has the understanding of animals that is critical to understanding
28 what happened.
29
30 Michelle Walker combined the next two issues, which involve exceptions to the
31 declarations when a dog bites in its owner's property. These are outlined in the abstract as
32 follows:
33
34 TRESPASS
35 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. - Control of vicious animals; security
36 dogs.
37 1. Develop ordinance language that defines willful trespass more explicitly according to whether
38 there is
39 a. Apparent consent to enter onto the property in the absence of overt or express
40 permission to do so, i.e., the absence of express consent.
41 b. Gross negligence on the part of the bite victim.
42
43 2. Consider further whether there can be ordinance language that discriminates between
44 children and others for the purposes of determining whether a willful trespass has occurred and
45 if so develop such language for Board discussion
46 3. Develop language for a two-step process for "non-severe bites" on the property of the dog
47 owner under the Unified Ordinance's vicious animal provisions
48 a. A citation for a first bite that serves to notify the owner of his or her dog's propensity
49 without declaring the dog vicious in a manner that imposes conditions and restrictions.
11
1 b. A vicious animal declaration for a bite occurring after the issuance of the citation at
2 step one that imposes conditions and restrictions on the dog.
3 WATCH DOG
4 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-37. - Definitions.; Sec. 4-42. - Control of
5 vicious animals; security dogs.
6 1. Exclude watch dogs from the general category of security dogs in the proposed ordinance
7 2. Develop language to exempt a dog from being deemed vicious if the dog is being protective
8 of person or property in circumstances in which either or both of the following apply:
9 a. There is an absence of consent (expressed or implied) for the bite victim to have
10 entered the property on which s/he was bitten
11 b. The bite victim could have avoided the bite by responding to signal behaviors from the
12 dog and removing him or herself from the property (or some portion thereof) of the owner
13 of the biting dog.
14
15 Michelle Walker said as the ordinance is currently written, it simply states "in the case of
16 trespass." She said this can be problematic under the law because there are varying definitions
17 of trespass. She said the proposed ordinance adds the term "willful trespass." She said this
18 proposal attempts to strike a balance of allowing dogs to act like dogs in appropriate situations,
19 but also protecting innocent people that come onto other people's property.
20 She said for trespass the two main insights were regarding the issues of consent and
21 gross negligence. She said express consent can be used to decide if someone is a trespasser,
22 considering situations of invitation or implied consent to enter a property. She said it is difficult
23 to write an ordinance to address every situation that may arise, and the goal was to cover as
24 many scenarios as possible. She said this is embodied in that term "willful." She said one
25 thought was to add language that makes it clear that the ordinance is saying willful trespass
26 without implied consent, which might make it clear that implied consent will be considered.
27 Michelle Walker said the other issue is watchdogs, which are a particular exception to
28 the vicious dog declaration, but this was not clearly defined as anything other than a dog that
29 barks or alerts. She said any dog could fit into that definition. She said the recommendation
30 had been to eliminate that exception, as it could swallow the rule. She said the group thought it
31 might make sense to make it explicit that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchdog-like
32 behaviors would also go into the above consideration of whether someone was trespassing or
33 not. She said this might go into the express or implied consent and gross negligence
34 considerations. She said the recommendation would be that a willful trespass would be an
35 exception, and that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchful behavior could be taken into
36 consideration.
37 Susan Elmore said there is a good flowchart on page 39 illustrating how to determine if
38 a trespass was willful.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said this is tremendous advance, and he suggested putting the
40 flowchart chart in the ordinance. He thinks it is very useful and can be used to inform
41 discretion.
42 Commissioner Gordon said the chart is very helpful and should be used somehow.
43 She asked how it would interact with this issue if people put up signs such as "no
44 soliciting" or "no trespassing."
45 Bob Marotto said this would indicate there is an absence of implied consent, and if
46 someone entered the property, it would be willful trespassing and the dog would not be
47 declared vicious if a bite were to occur.
48 Michelle Walker said in the proposed ordinance there is a separate exception if a bite
49 happens on the owner's property when signs are posted.
50 Commissioner Gordon asked if this applies to "no soliciting."
12
1 Bob Marotto said that bears on whether there is implied consent to enter the property,
2 and it would indicate that there is not consent when people are soliciting, but it might not apply
3 to a neighbor entering the property.
4 Commissioner Gordon said it sounds like "no trespassing" is stronger.
5 Commissioner Rich said this was very informative, and she feels that the board heard
6 the Commissioner's comments and applied the fixes.
7 Commissioner Pelissier echoed what Commissioner Rich said. She said a lot of work
8 has gone into this and the concerns have been addressed. She also thinks the chart should go
9 into the ordinance.
10 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated the ASAB incorporating some of their
11 comments and concerns.
12 Chair Jacobs said it sounds like there is consensus on 3 of the 4 items, and there is
13 work to be done on the appeals process. He said the Board appreciated the effort that has
14 been put into getting this right.
15
16 3. Energy and Environmental Updates —CFE Renewable Energy Work Group;
17 Environmental Responsibility; State of the Environment 2014
18 David Neal said this started when the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received
19 a letter from NC WARN recommending Orange County form an Alternative Energy Task Force.
20 The BOCC referred this request to the Commission for the Environment (CfE) to consider the
21 issues and report back to the BOCC, and CfE took this and proposed a workgroup that would
22 be focused on both efficiency and renewable energy.
23 He applauded the County for its leadership in making its buildings more energy efficient.
24 He said the question now is how to take the lessons learned and get them out to the community
25 to help businesses save on their energy bills. He would like to get the Board of County
26 Commissioners' feedback to take back to the CfE. He said the hope is to make Orange County
27 a leader in this effort and make this an engine of economic development in the County.
28 Commissioner Gordon applauded the efforts to attack this issue. She asked how this
29 would work within the CfE and whether the committee would be the organizer or convener.
30 David Neal said the CfE as a whole would be the convener to invite people for
31 discussions and partner with local entities. He said the group would also find out if there was
32 anything in the current policies that would impede issues.
33 Commissioner Gordon said the present committee would act as a host and liaison to
34 CfE. She asked in terms of staffing, whether there would be separate meetings of the work
35 group and whether AMS could help staff it. She said the Department of Environment,
36 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) has a lot of work to do, and the department might
37 not have enough staff. She thinks a coordinated effort would be helpful. She suggested a
38 possible standing work group and trying out different scenarios.
39 Commissioner Gordon asked Dave Stancil about the greenhouse gas emissions
40 initiative that got pushed aside because of a lack of resources. She asked if this could
41 somehow be folded in or taken up again.
42 Dave Stancil said this is a related topic. He said the County did do an inventory and
43 forecast of greenhouse gas emissions along with Chapel Hill and Carrboro several years ago.
44 He said one of the recommendations for next steps of this group is related to encouraging
45 energy efficiency and renewable energy in the community. He said a lot has been done in-
46 house, but the question how is how to take this to the community in outreach.
47 Rich Shaw said as it relates to staffing, the CfE meets every month, and he suggested
48 that every other meeting could be used to address issues like renewable energy.
49 David Neal said that would be a good plan so as to not overtask the staff.
13
1 Commissioner Rich said one of the problems they had in Chapel Hill when promoting
2 programs in the past was an inability to get to the people that really needed it because of the
3 affordability of some of the fixes. She said it is important to consider that lower income families
4 might need some funding.
5 Chair Jacobs said when there was stimulus money, there was funding to do what
6 Commissioner Rich is suggesting. He said there may be entities established to bring together
7 funding for energy rehab for low income families, and he suggested this might be an avenue to
8 follow.
9 He said Economic Development needs to be a part of this process. He imagines there
10 are non-profit foundations that would give grant money to incentivize businesses to be greener.
11 He said if the County has to make an investment in this, it would have a return for the
12 community.
13 David Neal said a proposal was put together about two years ago to have Counties put
14 together a rebate system to encourage residential and commercial buildings to be built more
15 efficiently. He said there are only a couple of counties that have taken advantage of this. He
16 said this is another way to incentivize on the efficiency side through the rebate of permitting
17 fees. He said there was another idea for how to incentivize the use of solar. He said the
18 Green Plus Program that came out of Chapel Hill would be another potential partner.
19 Commissioner Pelissier emphasized the need for collaboration with other partners in the
20 community. She said there are so many groups that are doing things and putting on
21 presentations. She said she would welcome any suggestions the group may have for the
22 Board of County Commissioners and for future legislative goals.
23 Chair Jacobs asked what is needed from the Board at this point.
24 David Neal said the group would like the blessing of the Board and any encouragement
25 the Board can offer other volunteer boards to encourage partnership and engagement in this
26 effort.
27 Commissioner Price asked if work is still being done with the planning department.
28 David Neal said he realizes that the planning board has a full work load and he does not
29 want to overburden them, but there is a need for some way to communicate policy
30 recommendations and suggestions.
31 Chair Jacobs said this could come in a budget recommendation from Dave Stancil's
32 department. He said the next way to move forward would be through the budget process and
33 either a budget public hearing or staff's request to the manager.
34 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on what kind of encouragement is needed.
35 Dave Stancil said he was looking to see if the Board sees this as an area of value that is
36 worthy of exploration.
37 Chair Jacobs said yes, and the Board agreed. He said there is a sense of direction to
38 work with the advisory board and then move forward with other departments or come back to
39 the Commissioners.
40 Dave Stancil said there is enough direction to run with this.
41 David Neal said he thinks a pilot run is needed to get a better sense of limitations and
42 capacity.
43 Commissioner McKee likes the idea of a pilot run.
44
45 2. Environmental Responsibility in County Government/ Energy Scorecard:
46 Dave Stancil said this is the annual update on Environmental responsibility. Dave Stancil
47 reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
48
49 Environmental Responsibility in Orange County Government
50 Purpose:
14
1 • To receive information on three related environmental and energy topics:
2 — Commission for the Environment's proposal for a Renewable Energy Committee
3 (RENEW) to explore renewable energy and sustainable development
4 opportunities;
5 — the annual Environmental Responsibility in County Government report (including
6 the Energy Scorecard), and;
7 — the upcoming State of the Environment 2014 report and Environmental Summit.
8
9 Background:
10 • December 2005 - Board adopted goals and policies:
11 — Environmental Responsibility in County Government Goal
12 — Energy, Water and Fuel Policies
13 • February 2006— Environmental Stewardship Action Committee (ESAC) established
14 • November 2009/May 2010 — Environmental Responsibility Goal (ERG) status report
15 • June 2011 —Inaugural Utility and Fuel Conservation Report
16 • October 16, 2012 — Inaugural Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report
17
18 Objectives:
19 To:
20 — Provide useful information to the Board as part of the budget development
21 process
22 — Revisit department objectives
23 — Present Utility and Fuel Scorecard FY 13 results
24 — Present current and future Initiatives
25 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
26
27 DEAPR Objectives:
28 • Re-energize Environmental Responsibility Goal Progress
29 • Environmental Education Efforts (internal/external)
30 • Assess/Promote Natural Resource Conservation (water, air, land)
31 • 10% Campaign (Local Foods)
32 • No Net Loss of Woodlands on County Lands
33
34 DEAPR Current Initiatives:
35 • State of the Environment 2014 Report
36 • Environmental Summit (May 31)
37 • Orange WeIINet/ Groundwater Guardian ("GWG")
38 • Environmental Responsibility Steering Committee
39 • Sustainable Landscaping /Arbor Day
40
41
42 DEAPR Results:
43 • GWG Program — 11th Year
44 • GWG Green Sites —3 Sites (parks/preserves)
45 • Implemented:
46 — Forest Management Policy (No Net Loss)
47 — Landowner Conservation Planning
48 — Forest Management Plans /Wildlife Enhancement Project
49 • Adding 5 new wells to Orange WeIINet
50 • Grant Funding to Relocate Eroding Trails
15
1 • Stream Corridor Protection at future Northeast Park (state grant)
2 • Earth Evening event (in conjunction with "Last Fridays")
3
4 DEAPR New Initiatives:
5 • Eno River Riparian Buffer Restoration projects (pending federal grant funding)
6 • Renewable Energy Options for Parks
7 • Create New Forest Management Plans
8 • Restart "10% Campaign" (with Economic Development Commission, Cooperative
9 Extension Service)
10 • New Environmental Education Efforts
11
12 DEAPR Horizon:
13 • Implement Targeted Action Strategies for Environmental Responsibility Goal
14 • Pursue Additional Groundwater Guardian "Green Site" Designations
15 • Implement Sustainable Landscaping Policy
16 • Complete 10% Campaign for Departments
17
18 Dave Stancil said a steering committee has been formed in an effort to refocus and is
19 working with representatives from asset management, economic development, solid waste,
20 financial services and others to develop ideas and a ways to attack the initiatives.
21 He said this is the 11th year in the Groundwater Guardian (GWG) program, and there
22 are now 3 sites in the County that have received that national recognition.
23 He said the 10% Campaign started with the cooperative extension, and the idea is to
24 spend 10 percent of your local food dollars on local foods.
25
26 Blair Pollack reviewed the following PowerPoint slides.
27 Solid Waste Objectives
28 • Reduce Waste Landfilled by 61% per capita
29 • Maximize recycling and waste reduction opportunities in Orange County
30 • Continued exploration of alternatives to landfilling of waste
31 • Develop revised interlocal solid waste agreement with municipalities
32 • Continue to redevelop convenience center sites in accord with adopted plan
33
34 Solid Waste Goal & Results
35 FY 2012/13
Category State Orange Cty
Reduction goal 40% 61%
Reduction achieved (1991-92 baseline) -12% 58%
Waste landfilled per capita (1991-92) 2,140 2,720
Waste landfilled per capita (2012-13) 1,800 1,140
36
37
38 Solid Waste Current Initiatives
39 • Conversion to single stream recycling
40 • Cart based recycling - 1/3 of rural customers - 2012-13
41 • Walnut Grove Ch. Rd. solid waste convenience center - 2012-13
42 • Concept plan for second convenience center - 2013
43 • Closure of lined landfill - June 30, 2013
44 • Municipal solid waste to Durham Transfer Station for 2013-14
45 • Establish additional internal goals for waste reduction/recycling for 2013
16
1
2 Solid Waste Future Initiatives
3 • Urban curbside converting to roll carts in June 2014
4 • Next - 1/2 of current rural curbside recycling to carts in fall 2014
5 • Continue modernization of Solid Waste Convenience Centers:
6 - Eubanks Road plan in progress, construction projected to begin FY 2014-15
7 - Walnut Grove district site expansion completed May 2014
8 • Continue to consider alternatives to Durham City Transfer Station
9 • Develop Interlocal Agreement on solid waste with Towns (ongoing)
10 • Evaluate commercial recycling expansion in 2015-16
11 • Develop formalized `buy recycled' policy; paper use reduction goal for County
12 government
13 • Achieve 61% waste reduction goal and set new higher goal.
14
15 Blair Pollack said the planning for Eubanks Road is going well, and staff just received
16 approval from the town of Chapel Hill to work though their administrative process rather than
17 going before the council, which should accelerate things.
18 He said to ignore the negative sign in the waste reduction. He said the waste reduction
19 went up. He said the state had 12 percent less waste per person landfilled, which is the metric
20 that is used. He noted that the County has much less waste then most other places in terms of
21 waste landfilled per capita, and this includes all types of waste.
22 Blair Pollack said he wanted to clarify the discussion about pounds recycled per capita,
23 where the County came in sixth versus being first in waste reduction. He said departmental
24 opinion is that measuring how much less you put in the ground is really the key measure of
25 success, and that has been the goal. He said the pounds recycled per capita are important, but
26 it does not capture some of the efforts.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any measure of how much of the material going
28 into the single stream is not recyclable.
29 Blair Pollack said there are two components to that. He said when this goes to the
30 materials recovery center, their out throw rate is about 6 or 7 percent. He said it goes up when
31 you switch from multiple sorted to single stream, but the increased tonnage tends to trump the
32 increased residue.
33 Blair Pollack said staff believes that the early adopters of the roll carts will encourage
34 others to want them.
35 He said staff expects to have a draft interlocal agreement with the towns in May.
36
37 Wayne Fenton reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
38 Asset Management Services
39 Chronology:
40 • June 2011 - Inaugural Utility and Fuel Conservation Report
41 - Established goals for reduction of:
42 • Energy (20% cumulative through FY15; additional 10% cumulative
43 through FY17),
44 • Water (5% cumulative through FY17); and
45 • Fuel (10% cumulative through FY15; additional 5% cumulative through
46 FY17)
47 - Established a baseline year (FY 2010) against which progress is measured
48 - Identified annual progress against goals
49 • October 16, 2012 - Inaugural Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report,
50 including second annual Utility and Fuel Conservation Report
17
1 • April 8, 2014 — Second Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report, including
2 third annual Utility and Fuel Conservation Report
3
4 Background - Facilities:
5 • Reports to date have examined energy and water use and cost for most, but not all,
6 County owned buildings
7 • Have included only facilities managed by Asset Management Services
8 • Have not included:
9 — SportsPlex;
10 — Solid Waste facilities (enterprise fund);
11 — Animal Services (special use facility)
12 — Eno River Parking deck (special use facility);
13 — Outdoor lighting, including that managed by DEAPR
14 • AMS will update future reports to include all County energy and water use
15
16 Background -Vehicles:
17 • Reports to date have examined fuel use and cost for most, but not all, County owned
18 vehicles and equipment
19 • Have included only vehicles and equipment managed by Asset Management Services
20 (AMS)
21 • Have not included:
22 — Solid Waste vehicles and equipment (enterprise fund)
23 • AMS will update future reports to include all County fuel use
24
25
26 Alan Dorman presented the following PowerPoint slides:
27 Energy Scorecard
28 • Energy Scorecard (chart)
29 • Water Scorecard (chart)
30 • Fuel Scorecard (chart)
31 • Fuel Use: (chart)
32 • Miles Driven: (chart)
33 • Miles Per Gallon: (chart)
34 Note: A new fuel management system was implemented during FY 11, providing
35 greater data reliability
36
37 Fuel Scorecard Comments:
38 • Increased fuel use attributed to:
39 • Increased law enforcement and emergency response vehicle miles
40 • Driver behavior including idling, hard acceleration, hard braking, speeding
41 • Solution:
42 • Active vehicle replacement program;
43 • higher fuel efficiency standards;
44 • consistent, comprehensive, sustainable driver behavior training and education
45
46 • Cost Avoided — Energy (image)
47
48 • Cost Avoided —Water (image)
49
50 • Cost Avoided — Fuel (image)
18
1
2 Alan Dorman reviewed the Energy Scorecard and said the energy use per square foot
3 has reduced 14.3 percent since the FY 2009/10 baseline year. He said this is ahead of the goal
4 for FY 2013.
5 He said the water reduction per square foot has reduced by 6.7 percent since FY
6 2009/10, to 14.87, which was ahead of the goal.
7 He said fuel consumption and efficiency have not improved, and fuel usage has
8 increased by 8 percent since FY 2009/10, to 260,000 gallons. He said miles per gallon have
9 decreased by 8 percent. He said fuel usage by Emergency Services has increased by 37
10 percent due to the introduction of a larger ambulance platform and an increase in mileage as a
11 result of more vehicles driving more miles. He said in the category of miles driven, the same
12 increase occurs for Emergency Services and the Sheriff's Department, related to more vehicles
13 on the road driving more miles.
14 Commissioner Dorosin questioned why an increase in the size of the fleet would not be
15 accounted for in the calculation.
16 Alan Dorman said he will talk in a few minutes about some of the initiatives to address
17 the issue, such as driver behavior and idling.
18 Chair Jacobs noted that there was a sheriff candidate forum where it was stated that for
19 every hour on the road, the sheriffs are idling for 15 minutes.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said it is one thing if it is an issue of efficiency, but it is another
21 issue if 911 calls are up by 50 percent.
22 Alan Dorman said Emergency Services has had the largest drop in miles per gallon, and
23 this is directly attributable to the larger ambulances.
24 He reviewed the Scorecard comments slide and the solution ideas.
25 Alan Dorman said $370,000 in energy cost has been avoided over the past 3 years
26 through the County initiatives, and $53,000 in water usage cost has been avoided. He said the
27 fuel cost has increased, but through targeting driving behavior staff hopes to turn this in a
28 positive direction.
29
30 Wayne Fenton reviewed the following PowerPoint slides regarding current year
31 initiatives:
32 Current year initiatives:
33 • Downtown Hillsborough geo-thermal project completion - impact beginning FY 14-15
34 - Estimated annual reduction of- 2,025 MMBTU's
35 - Associated annual cost avoidance of- $8,000
36 • Current year initiatives:
37 • Orange Public Transportation relocated from modular office building
38 - Cost avoidance of- $2,000 annually due to reduced electrical consumption.
39 (estimated 50% reduction).
40 Energy Bank:
41 • Revolving fund for energy and water reduction projects
42 • Annual avoided costs used to "pay back" energy bank account
43 • Current fund: $100,000
44 • FY 14-15 request: $50,000
45 • Total fund to be capped at $150,000
46 • Invested funds to date: $41,220
47 •
48 Current year initiatives (Energy Bank):
49 • Eno River Parking deck lighting replacement- LED fixtures
50 - Initial investment: - $34,000
19
1 - Annual savings: - $5,000
2 - Estimated payback: - 5.6 years
3 • Note: savings are calculated based on reduced wattage of lights. Concurrent with
4 installation of LED replacement fixtures, hours of operation for lighting system were
5 increased for security purposes.
6 • Central Orange Senior Center solar film - heat reduction
7 - Initial investment: - $7,200
8 - Annual savings: $900
9 - Estimated payback: - 9 years
10
11 Current year initiatives:
12 • Insulation upgrades as part of roof replacements (F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Court
13 Street Annex)
14 - Costs included in overall roofing replacement project
15 - Battle Courtroom - R-value of roof insulation increased from 18 to 30
16 - Court Street Annex- R-value of roof insulation increased from - 5 to 30
17 • Building control improvements
18 • Asset improvements - Whitted Center door replacements
19 • LED lighting in new BOCC meeting room at Whitted (operations to begin FY 14-15)
20 • Employee education and outreach - "Know Your Building" (includes discussion of not
21 using portable appliances; use of programmable stats; sustainable driving practices,
22 etc.)
23
24 Current year initiatives:
25 Vehicle related:
26 • Vehicle utilization monitoring and analysis (GPS trial/ demo in progress) - route
27 planning, driver behavior
28 • Continuing addition of more fuel efficient vehicles added to fleet
29
30 FY 14-15 Planned/Proposed Initiatives
31 • Southern Campus Master Plan Infrastructure analysis -feasibility analysis of: geo-
32 thermal, solar thermal (hot water), solar power (photovoltaic), rain gardens/water
33 reclamation, vehicle charging stations
34 • "Energy Bank project contest" held in conjunction with local middle and high school
35 science and entrepreneurial programs
36
37 FY 14-15 Planned/Proposed Initiatives
38 • Begin reporting on total County energy, water and fuel data
39 • On-going organics management initiative analysis in conjunction with Solid Waste and
40 DEAPR
41 • Reclassification of vacant position within AMS as Project Manager/Sustainability
42 Coordinator
43 - included in FY 14-15 AMS proposed budget
44 • Public/Private partnership "fast charge" stations for electric vehicles (to Board on
45 04/15/14)
46 - Eno River Farmers' Market; Skills Development Center
47 • Liquid propane and compressed natural gas vehicle technology evaluation
48 • "Zip Car" (optimal vehicle utilization model) for public sector evaluation
49 • Additional fuel efficient vehicles added to fleet
20
1 • Potential mutual aid agreement for vehicle maintenance at nearest "local government"
2 maintenance facility
3 — fuel and time savings associated with reduced driving distance to nearest facility
4 — especially valuable during periods of inclement weather
5
6 Wayne Fenton said the relocation of Orange Public Transportation falls in line with the
7 Board's guidance on space use to get rid of leased facilities and own facilities.
8 Commissioner McKee asked if there has been any discussion on cross governmental
9 cooperation on the initiative for vehicle maintenance at the nearest maintenance facility.
10 Wayne Fenton said yes. He said local government includes the towns. He said this
11 initiative would be especially valuable during inclement weather periods.
12 Commissioner Gordon asked about the slide referencing the Southern Human Services
13 Center master plan. She asked if the plan will avoid future building footprints when placing
14 geothermal wells. She asked that this be considered when planning.
15 Wayne Fenton said one of the beautiful parts of having this at the beginning of the
16 process is the ability to incorporate it with overall planning. He said potential building pads can
17 be avoided.
18 Commissioner Gordon applauded this effort.
19 Chair Jacobs said he is glad to see that there will be a sustainability coordinator. He
20 said this is a great total package, but he has a few concerns.
21 He said there are still faucets at the Central Orange Senior Center that run for 30
22 seconds, and he has asked about this twice before. He said this is not a way to have water
23 efficiency.
24 Chair Jacobs said, despite the fact that it has been stated, it still does not seem to be
25 the County policy to avoid using Styrofoam and plastic ware. He said this is the policy, and he
26 would like to make sure that people follow it.
27 Chair Jacobs said he hopes to be able to talk to the new sheriff about using local foods
28 in the jail kitchen.
29
30 3. State of the Environment 2014/ Environmental Summit
31 Rich Shaw said this will be the 5th edition of the State of the Environment Report. He
32 said this is being developed by the CfE with staff help. He said this will be done next month
33 and unveiled at the environmental summit on May 30th
34 He said this report will outline the health of the environment with regard to air resources,
35 water resources, and land resources. He said the format of the reports has stayed constant,
36 but there are improvements each time.
37 He said the summit will be held on May 31 from 9:30am-noon at the Maple View
38 Agricultural Environmental Center.
39
40 4. Next Steps - Strategic Communications Plan
41 Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board ask questions about this item to the individual
42 department heads, instead of having a presentation.
43 Michael Talbert said on January 31, 2014 the Board held a Retreat and discussed the
44 need for an Orange County Strategic Communications Plan. He said as he looked at plans he
45 considered three previous failed strategic technology plans, and these were all staff generated
46 plans. He did not think staff could do justice and bring something that would work for the entire
47 Board. He said he put together a three step process that he hopes the Board will like. He said
48 the Manager-appointed Communications Plan Committee met to discuss how the County could
49 move forward with a Strategic Communications Plan and the following questions were raised:
50
21
1 1. What is the role of the Board of County Commissioners in developing a Strategic
2 Communications Plan?
3 2. What is the purpose of the plan?
4 3. Is there a need for a communications team approach and, if so, would the appointees to the
5 team be staff, or staff and elected officials?
6 4. Will the Plan be a county-wide plan or a plan to address communications from the Board of
7 County Commissioners?
8 5. Where and how does the Public Affairs office fit into the Plan?
9 6. How do individual County Departments fit into the plan and how would the plan govern the
10 role of each individual department's communications and outreach programs?
11
12 He said a three phase approach is recommended to move the process of developing a
13 Strategic Communications Plan toward to a successful conclusion. The plan is as follows:
14
15 Three Phase Approach
16 Phase One
17 Identify and share with the Board Individual department public information strategies.
18 Outlining the dedicated resources, communications tools, target audiences and how the
19 department interacts with the Public Affairs Office.
20 Phase Two
21 Engage Rod Visser or another School of Government professional to gather internal
22 information by interviewing the Board and County staff to present a summary to the Board at a
23 May, 2014 work session. The summary will outline Board of Commissioner's consensus
24 regarding a Strategic Communications Plan, target audiences, communications tools,
25 composition and purpose of a Communications Committee.
26 Phase Three
27 With the assistance of Rod Visser or other School of Government professionals, draft a
28 Strategic Communications Plan to be presented to the Board in September, 2014.
29 Phase One & Two is estimated not to exceed $10,000.
30
31 Chair Jacobs asked if Michael Talbert wants answers to all six questions tonight.
32 Michael Talbert said the initial six questions will probably be answered through the
33 process with Rod Visser. He thinks there are very strong opinions on the Board regarding what
34 the plan could or should be, so coming up with consensus will require someone from the
35 outside.
36 Commissioner Rich said this is a good start. She asked about the different
37 communication plans in each of the departments and asked if there is communication and
38 overlap amongst departments.
39 Michael Talbert said sometimes there is not a lot of coordination, and they are each
40 doing their own thing.
41 Commissioner Rich asked about the use of twitter sharing.
42 Michael Talbert said there have been opportunities for tweets to be re-tweeted, and there
43 has been some intercommunication.
44 Lucinda Munger said this topic had come up at one time, and there was discussion about
45 using each others' twitter feeds to reach a broader audience. She said this has come in to
46 some play. She said her staff is seeking to work on communications on an interdepartmental
47 level in order to understand the initiatives for each department and how to best support each
48 other. She said this kind of sharing is mostly happening on an informal level.
22
1 Commissioner Rich said that is exactly how it works, and the way to use technology to
2 your advantage is to coordinate with other departments and between entities. She said it is a
3 good idea to integrate this into all of the departments.
4 Lucinda Munger said one of the questions on the manager's recommendation notes that
5 it would be helpful to have a formal communications team. She said this team could gather on
6 a regular basis to do this on a more formal level and share initiatives.
7 Michael Talbert said this is evolving as the technology evolves.
8 Carla Banks said when departments decide that they want a social media page she
9 encourages them to like and follow all of the departments that are active on social media so
10 that everyone is aware of each other's pages. She said the new website design will include a
11 page that shows all of the social media accounts.
12 Stacy Shelp is the Communications Manager from the Health Department. She said
13 knowing your own target audience and understanding how to integrate the newer social media
14 with traditional media is a key element. She said it helps that she and some others in the room
15 are on the larger countywide communicators work group that also works with the municipalities.
16 She said this support is key in situations like inclement weather or emergencies.
17 Commissioner Price said what she does not see here are goals and objectives. She
18 also asked about a timeline.
19 Stacy Shelp said this depends on the department and what needs to be communicated.
20 She said the goals can be different for each one. She said the main overall goal can be the
21 same, but how you get there is changing so quickly and the communication differs depending
22 on the audience. She said it is important to integrate a variety of tools.
23 Chair Jacobs said this process is designed to get the Board to a strategic plan.
24 Commissioner Gordon said given the time constraints, she wants to make sure some
25 kind of blessing is given to this approach so that it can get them to a strategic plan. She said
26 this is phase one, and for phase two she supports getting the interview process going. She
27 hopes that staff will let the Board of County Commissioners know what the interview will consist
28 of, in order to allow for brief feedback.
29 Commissioner Gordon said she would also like to receive some good examples of
30 strategic plans. She said this will allow the Board to give feedback on what they like.
31 Commissioner Gordon said the questions and the things that have been presented are
32 really good, but these are just examples, and she would like to see the overall objective. She
33 would like to see a draft plan in September.
34 Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Gordon regarding the desire to
35 see a draft plan in September. He said he also agrees that there needs to be coordination
36 between the towns and the County.
37 Chair Jacobs asked if the rest of the Board needed to see the questions before hand,
38 and the response was no.
39 Michael Talbert said he sees this as a free form discussion. He said these are the six
40 obvious questions to him, but he is sure the Commissioners have other ideas or plans that they
41 like or dislike. He said this will be the time to communicate that.
42 Chair Jacobs said the Board seems comfortable with the process, but would like to see
43 examples of some strategic plans. He said this will move forward with Rod Visser interviewing
44 the Board of County Commissioners.
45
46 5. CLOSED SESSION
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to go
49 into closed session at 10:10 p.m. for the following purposes:
50
23
1 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
2 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
3 143-318.11(a)(5).
4
5 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
6 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
7
8 Approval of Closed Session Minutes
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
14 reconvene into regular session at 11: 05 pm.
15
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Chair Jacobs said he would like to share briefly with the Board a conversation that he,
20 Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, John Roberts and Michael Talbert had this
21 morning about options going forward in reference to rural curbside recycling.
22 After two public hearings they heard that a single large rural solid waste service tax district may
23 not be desirable for everyone.
24 Chair Jacobs said that staff has indicated that the Board needed to approve the
25 establishment of a solid waste service tax district, as discussed at the public hearing, by April
26 15, 2014 to allow the Tax Department time to establish new tax district codes for tax billing by
27 July 1, 2014.
28 If a Board decision to establish a solid waste service tax district is not possible by April
29 15, 2014, the Board would need to provide direction to staff as to the future of the rural curbside
30 recycling program for Fiscal 2014/2015.
31 Chair Jacobs said the manager has told them that if approved by the Board, the rural
32 curbside recycling program for Fiscal 2014/2015 could be funded with Solid Waste Fund
33 reserves, as long as there is a revenue source to repay Solid Waste, approximately $650,000.
34 They did discuss one option such as a revenue source to repay Solid Waste could be the sale
35 of the Greene Tract (60 acres), from the Solid Waste Fund to the County for a future park.
36
37 Discussion ensued.
38
39 Chair Jacobs said possible Rural Recycling options are below but can't be implemented by July
40 1, 2014:
41
42 1. A revised solid waste service tax district different than the one identified and discussed
43 at the public hearing.
44 2. Multiple solid waste service tax districts, similar to fire districts, that could serve
45 individual uniform communities that want to continue the rural curbside recycling
46 program.
47 3. Multiple solid waste service tax districts combined with a rural curbside recycling
48 subscription service (opt out) for the remaining unincorporated areas of the County and
49 the Board could limit the fee.
24
1 4. A rural curbside recycling subscription service (opt out) for the unincorporated areas of
2 the County.
3 5. Eliminate rural curbside recycling services and rely exclusively on Convenience Centers
4 for both the collection of solid waste & recycled materials.
5
6 Chair Jacobs said the Solid Waste staff will be presenting a draft Solid Waste Interlocal
7 Agreement for discussion at the May 13, 2014 work session.
8 He said if directed by the Board, staff could also explore rural recycling options to be
9 presented at the May 13, 2014 work session, for implementations on July 1, 2015.
10
11 ADJOURNMENT
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
14 adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 Barry Jacobs, Chair
19
20
21 Donna Baker
22 Clerk to the Board
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
6 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
7 JOINT MEETING
8 April 29, 2014
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel
11 Hill—Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Tuesday, April
12 29, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Alice M.
15 Gordon, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
19 Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other
20 staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Donna Coffey
22 and Board Members Steve Halkiotis, Debbie Piscitelli, Lawrence Sanders, and Anne
23 Medenbleck. Superintendent Gerri Martin was also present.
24 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Stephens and
25 Tony McKnight
26 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
27 PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, and Board Members Mia Burroughs, Michelle
28 Brownstein, James Barrett, Gregory McElveen, Mike Kelly Andrew Davidson and Annetta
29 Streater. Superintendent Tom Forcella was also present.
30 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
31
32 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He said it is good to come together and
33 share common ground.
34
35 Opening Comments
36 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School (CHCCS) Board Chair Bedford said thank you to the
37 Board of County Commissioners for this meeting. She recognized Debbie Piscitelli from the
38 OCS board, since she is retiring. She read from a statement written to welcome back school
39 staff for a new year. Her remarks outlined the budget challenges and recognized the support of
40 the Board and Commissioners and community.
41 She said the CHCCS Board is presenting its full needs in its budget request. She said
42 the board wants to prioritize teacher pay and related benefits in order to recruit and retain
43 teachers. She said reviews are being done regarding the needs of older facilities, safety and
44 the issues of capacity. She said CHCCS is requesting $750,000 in CIP funds for renovation
45 and architectural plans. She said the situation with the older facilities is worsening, and the
46 amount of funding to bring the schools to safety is enormous. She said it is time for action.
47 She said the CHCCS board appreciates the balancing act faced by the Commissioners in
48 funding County needs. She asked that they do their best to fund education.
49 Orange County School (OCS) Board Chair Coffey said that Tony McKnight and Brenda
50 Stephens will not be able to attend.
2
1 She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to come together. She said district serves a
2 very diverse population, and tonight the Board will hear an outline of some of the initial steps
3 the school board would like to take in addressing the district needs.
4 Chair Jacobs said he is proud of the collaboration that occurs with the Board and the
5 two districts. He said this was not always the case. He said the Board has appreciated the
6 support from the school boards and the community during the past difficult budgetary years.
7 Introductions were made.
8
9 1. Presentation of and Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill Carrboro City
10 Schools Boards of Education Approved FY2014-15 Operating and Capital Budgets
11 Tom Forcella said this is a joint effort within their system to present their budget. He
12 said the schools are facing a fiscal cliff, and preparations on this budget began very early in
13 anticipation of the difficulties that would be faced. He said the districts are in an environment
14 where they are losing teachers due to reduced salaries. He said the schools put together an
15 initiative called Focused Dialogue to gather input from schools, principals, and school
16 improvement teams. He said this involved conversations about the current budget crisis and
17 what they could do in reaction to this crisis. He said the school district tried to stay true to their
18 vision in the midst of these difficulties.
19 He said most of the problems fall back on what is happening to all schools in North
20 Carolina as they try to balance state cuts with their fund balances. He said the board of
21 education had been trying in past years to balance the state shortfall with fund balance, but that
22 has come to an end. He said $1.5 million has been included in this year's budget due to the
23 anticipated state salary increases for teachers. He said if that does not happen, the goal of the
24 school board will be to keep that money in the budget to pay for local positions and
25 supplements. He said it is important to do something to honor the salary increases that the
26 teachers have not received in the past years. He said the absence of salary increases has hurt
27 staffing and staff retention over the past year and into next year.
28
29 Tom Forcella reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
30
31 CHCCS 2014-15 Board's Budget Request
32 April 29, 2014
33
34 Agenda
35 Share our Success
36 Present Budget Priorities
37 -Professional Development
38 -Teacher Recruitment and Retention
39 The Numbers
40
41 Impact of Financial Support
42 -Rich Curricular Offerings
43 -A Variety of Programs
44 -Strong EC Program
45 -Supports for Fragile Students
46 -Safety in our Schools
47
48 Impact of Financial Support
49 -Lowest dropout rate in NC
50 -Cohort graduation rate is 92.6% (versus 80.4% for NC)
3
1 -83.5% graduates met UNC ACT requirements (NC standard 58.5%)
2
3 Impact of Financial Support
4 Accountability Results
5 Eight Schools met 100% NCLB goals
6 Overall 96.6% of NCLB goal met
7
8 Work Still To Do
9 -Achievement Gap
10 -Discipline Disparity
11 -Increased Rigor for All
12 -Professional Training
13
14 Major Budget Priorities
15 - Professional Development and Support for Student Learning
16 - Recruiting and retaining Great Teachers
17
18 Professional Development and Support for Student Learning
19 - Focused on Specific Curricular Content
20 - Organized on Real Problems of Practice
21 - Student Six Focus
22 - Linked to Analysis of Student Learning
23 - Supported by Coaching, Modeling, Observation and Feedback
24 - Integrated into School and Classroom Planning around Curriculum, Instruction and
25 Assessment
26
27 Tom Forcella said over the last several years the district has worked hard to make all
28 classes conform to the capacity set in the board policy. He said the number of students
29 involved with the virtual public schools program has been reduced.
30 He said safety needs are a rather new issue. He said safety studies are being done,
31 and money is needed to provide safe schools.
32 Tom Forcella said you hear a lot about "rigor" in schools. He said much of the money
33 and professional training is about rigor. He said rigor is not just about kids doing more stuff.
34 He said it is about creating the kind of instruction where kids are thinking, solving problems, and
35 working in teams, which will prepare them for real life work.
36 He said the new career growth plan for teachers is not merit based, but rewards
37 teachers through the local supplement based on their professional growth and how this comes
38 out in the classrooms. He said professional training is also working to address the issues of the
39 common core.
40 Tom Forcella said Student Six is a program created by students from the minority
41 student achievement network, who worked together to talk about what impacts instruction and
42 learning in the classrooms. He said the students have presented nationally and have presented
43 to a consortium of districts.
44
45 Todd LoFrese presented the following slides:
46
47 2014-15 Budget Drivers
48 - Student Enrollment Growth
49 - Fund Balance
50 - Continuing Cost Increases
4
1 - Teacher Raises
2
3
4 2014-15 State Student Enrollment Projection
5 2014-15 State Enrollment Projection 12,353
6 2013-14 State Enrollment Projection 12,256
7 District Projected Enrollment Increase 97
8
9 Enrollment Growth 2008-09 to 2014-15 (Bar Graph)
10
11 Unassigned Fund Balance
12 2012-13 Audit 4.1%
13 2013-14 Year End Estimate 3.1%
14 Policy Target 5.5%
15 $2.2 million assigned to balance this year's budget is not available for 2014-15
16
17 Local Continuation Budget Requests
18 State Mandates
19 Employer health insurance match increase $ 165,000
20 State retirement match increase —from 14.23% to 14.59% $ 250,000
21 Read to Achieve summer camp $ 50,000
22 Employee salary increase — 3% for locally-paid staff $1,450,000
23 Subtotal $1,915,000
24 Continuation of Current Services
25 State sales tax on contracted services $ 150,000
26 1% Unemployment reserve $ 50,000
27 Reserve homeless transport, translation, and 504 services $ 50,000
28 Equal Opportunity Schools $ 30,000
29 Subtotal $ 280,000
30 TOTAL OF CONTINUATION BUDGET REQUESTS $ 2,195,000
31
32 Mandated Cost Increases 2007-08 through 2014-15 (bar graph)
33
34 Local Expansion Budget Requests
35 Culbreth Science Wing Custodian $39,349
36 Contracted Services (Strategic Plan)$50,000
37
38 Total Budget Request
39 Total: Mandates, Continuation, & Expansion Requests $2,284,349
40 Less: Increased enrollment anticipated funding ($317,093)
41 Less: Inflationary Increase— special district tax ($321,692)
42 Add: Fund balance short fall $2,222,913
43 Amount of Requested Increase $3,868,477
44
45 NC Average Teacher Compensation vs. National Average (graph)
46
47 State Teacher Compensation
48 16 years to earn $40K
49 2008-09 6th year teacher earns $36,670
50 2013-14 6th year teacher earns $31,220
5
1 Adjusting for inflation average salary has decreased 15% over past ten years
2 CHCCS turnover = 14.6%
3 Note: Based on Bachelors Salary Schedule
4
5 Respect for Teachers?
6 -Elimination of masters pay
7 -25% receive $500 in exchange for relinquishing tenure
8 -Salary proposal left veteran teachers out
9 -Increased class sizes
10 -Reduction in support
11 -Declining Medical Benefits
12
13 Local Support for Teachers
14 -Local Supplement
15 -Public School Foundation
16 -Mentoring
17 -Teacher of Color Support Group
18 -Teacher Assistants
19 -Volunteers
20
21 Todd LoFrese said the district has had steady enrollment growth since well before 2008-
22 09 and continues to grow each year. He said this requires the addition of classrooms,
23 teachers and eventually new schools.
24 Referring to the Unassigned Fund Balance slide, Todd LoFrese said three years ago the
25 Board of Education developed a three year strategy and communicated to the Board of
26 Commissioners where things stood with respect to the fund balance. He said the fund balance
27 was being used to hold off teacher assistant and professional development reductions occurring
28 at the state level, called the discretionary reduction. He said better economic times have come,
29 but not for public education. He said the discretionary reductions were eliminated; however this
30 was done by making permanent funding formula changes. He said the district lost 40 teacher
31 positions that it would have otherwise been entitled to. He said, in essence, the state increased
32 class sizes and cut the equivalent of 25 teacher assistants to the district. He said these
33 positions were being held with fund balance, and in this year's budget those positions were
34 retained using $2.2 million in fund balance.
35 He noted the fund balance reductions outlined on the slide and said it is clear that there
36 will not be fund balance available for next year. He said this means difficult reductions will have
37 to be made, or additional revenues will be needed to balance the budget.
38 Todd LoFrese referred to the bar graph outlining mandated cost increases since 2007.
39 He said there have been significant cost increases each year, ranging from a high of over $2
40 million to a low of$343,000. He said since the great recession of 2009-10, state revenues have
41 been declining, and County officials have struggled to make up for those differences. He said
42 increases at the local level were relatively flat. He said tough choices have been made and
43 there have been reductions upward of$5 million in local budget expenses. He said enrollment
44 continues to grow, but revenues have not.
45 Todd LoFrese said the Culbreth Science Wing is taking shape, and it is a large space.
46 He said the additional square footage and cleaning needs will necessitate another custodian
47 position.
48 He said a program review is planned for the guidance department, and $50,000 has
49 been requested to complete this. He said this will show where the guidance department stands
50 in relation to national standards.
6
1 Todd LoFrese showed the slide on average teacher's salaries and said there is a
2 $10,000 difference between North Carolina and the national average. He said North Carolina
3 ranks 46th in the nation for average teacher salaries, and 48th in the nation for beginning teacher
4 salaries. He said the ability to recruit teachers from out of state has become increasingly
5 difficult. He said the turnover rate is at its highest rate in 10 years, and in many cases teachers
6 are moving out of state or leaving the profession.
7 Todd LoFrese said even with local support, the realities at the state level are making it
8 difficult for teachers to make ends meet. He asked for the Boards' help with the budget, and he
9 thanked them for their continued support
10
11 OCS Superintendent Geri Martin thanked the Commissioners for their support and
12 consideration of the needs of the district. She referred to the Board packet and said there had
13 been a change in the initial request for per student funding after the latest projections showed
14 an increase of 197 students instead of the 75 used in the original budget numbers. She said
15 the board of education also discussed revisions to the budget to reflect the needs of the district.
16 She said the local current expense budget was approved last night, and the report before the
17 Board reflects an increase of$283 per student.
18 She discussed the cover photos on the budget document and said these photos reflect
19 the initiatives of the district.
20 Gerri Martin reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
21
22 Local Current Expense Budget Request
23 Orange County Board of Commissioners
24 April 29, 2014
25
26 District Mission
27 "Orange County Schools, in partnership with students, families and the community, is
28 committed to providing challenging and engaging educational experiences that will
29 develop responsible, knowledgeable and resourceful citizens prepared to contribute in our
30 global society."
31
32 District Celebrations
33 • Digital Learning Environment (Grades 3-12)
34 • C.W. Stanford Middle School designated as a "School to Watch"- only 2 chosen in North
35 Carolina: dedicated to academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social
36 equity, and organizational structure and support
37 • A.L. Stanback Middle School was named as a 21st Century School by the Partnership
38 for 21st Century Skills or "P21" for their successful 21st century learning environment
39 • Central Elementary School Engineering is Elementary STEM Program growth
40 • New Hope Elementary School was designated as a Lighthouse School by the NC
41 Association Supervision & Curriculum Development Board of Directors for continued
42 academic excellence during the last 4 years and developmental responsiveness
43
44 District Celebrations
45 • 83% (10/12) traditional schools met or exceeded growth
46 • OCS met 92.1% (58/63) of its federal targets
47 • OCS met 86.5% (122/141) of its state targets
48 • Award Winning Athletic, Band, Choral, and Career and Technical Education Programs
49 • Education: The Key to Progress
50 • Achievement Results
7
1
2 Local Budget Request
3 There are two major components:
4 Local Current Expense Fund
5 Capital Improvements Fund
6
7 All Governmental Fund Types (flow chart)
8
9
10 2013-2014 OCS Budget
11 Local: $29,088,153
12 State: $41,503,068
13 Federal: $ 4,025,649
14 Other Restricted: $ 1,645,499
15 Capital Improvement: $ 7,981,264
16 Total Funding for the
17 2013-2014 School Year: $84,243,633
18
19 2013-2014 OCS Budget
20 Local :
21 *County Appropriation $ 25,554,154
22 *Fines & Forfeitures $ 200,000
23 *Interest $ 70,000
24 *Fund Balance Appropriated $ 3,263,999
25 Total Operating Budget
26 Funding for the
27 2013-2014 School Year: $29,088,153
28
29 OCS Per-Pupil Appropriation (bar graph)
30 Increase in Enrollment (bar graph)
31 Local Funding and Student Enrollment (chart)
32 OCS Historical Profile (chart)
33 Full Time Employees 2004-2013 (spreadsheet)
34 OCS Staff Profile (chart)
35
36 Budget Assumptions
37 1. State and federal budgets are not final.
38 2. The local budget will be adjusted according to state and federal budgets.
39 3. The majority of funding is in staff including salaries and benefits (around 85% of total
40 operating budget).
41 4. Student enrollment has increased 7 of the last 8 years.
42
43 Budget Assumptions
44 5. Anticipated salary increases impact local salaries and supplements.
45 6. The cost of benefits will increase.
46 7. The loss of Medicaid reimbursement will impact the local budget if we are to preserve
47 the DSS Social Workers.
48 8. The impact of the increasing number of students attending charter schools will
49 negatively impact the budget.
50
8
1 Setting Priorities
2 In addition to the preceding budget assumptions, the following items were also considered in
3 developing the budget:
4 ➢ Board of Education Priorities
5 ➢ District programs
6 ➢ District initiatives
7 ➢ District data
8 ➢ Recent reports on safety
9 ➢ Maintenance needs
10
11 Expansion Budget Requests
12 (In Priority Order)
13 1. Preserve D.S.S. School Social Workers
14 2. Add 2 Secondary Literacy Specialists
15 3. Add District Math Specialist
16 4. Add Academic Support Specialist
17 5. Restore Maintenance Position
18 6. Address Salary Compression
19 7. Living wage adjustment
20
21 Expansion Budget Requests (con't.)
22 8. Add Pre-K Program Specialist (1/3 salary)
23 9. Expanded Free Breakfast for all K-12 students
24 10. Provide Dental/Vision benefit for employees
25
26 Fund From Fund Balance:
27 1. Allocate funds to address Safe Havens report
28 2. Increase funding to address deferred maintenance
29
30 2014-2015 Local Appropriation Projection
31 Per-Pupil Allocation $3,269
32 Projected Student Population (increase 197) 7,698
33 Projected additional funds
34 with no increase: $ 643,993
35 2013-14 Allocation: $25,060,154
36 Predicted Local Appropriation: $25,704,147
37 (If no increase to the per-pupil allocation)
38
39 2014-2015 Local Funding Request
40 Current Expense Requested: $27,929,376
41 Increase requested per pupil: $283
42
43 Gerri Martin gave an outline for the general public of the different governmental fund
44 types, as outlined on a flowchart included in the abstract.
45 She noted that the last 8 years have seen an increase in student enrollment. She said
46 the recent report on enrollment projections for next year shows an expected increase of 297
47 students. She said the historical profile of Orange County Schools (OCS) shows not only 6
48 years of increase in enrollment, but also an increase in childhood poverty, from 35 percent to 41
49 percent in Orange County. She said in spite of this negative trend, the level of pupil/teacher
50 ratio has stayed the same.
9
1 Gerri Martin noted that the current total number of full time school employees is 990.
2 She said this is the same number of total employees that the district had in 2007. She said the
3 total number of teachers has increased from 486 to 546, and this reflects the board's focus on
4 the classroom and instruction. She said previous slides have shown that OCS has grown by
5 744 students in that same time frame and that the poverty level has increased. She said this is
6 important to note in considering that there are still the same number of employees.
7 Gerri Martin reviewed the expansion budget requests. She said there are some gap
8 needs in the district that should be focused on. She said there is square footage to warrant the
9 addition of maintenance staff.
10 She noted that there is a full detailed listing of the expansion items on page 50 and 64
11 of the booklet provided to the Board. She said these items are also reflected at the bottom of
12 pages 31 and 32 in the footnotes.
13 Gerri Martin said the slide on expected appropriation represents the expected
14 appropriation if there were no per pupil allocation increase, and an increase of 197 students;
15 however the board is requesting an increase of$283 in per pupil allocation. She said this
16 means the total current expense request is for $27,929,376 for this budget.
17 She said the focus is on classroom instruction, student achievement and the wellbeing
18 of students and staff. She thanked the Board in advance for its consideration of this budget.
19
20 Chair Jacobs opened the floor for questions.
21
22 Commissioner McKee asked what the fund balance target is for OCS.
23 Chair Coffey said the target is 3.1%.
24 Commissioner McKee asked if the turnover rate for OCS is in the same range as
25 CHCCS.
26 Chair Coffey said this is at 4.61 percent.
27 Commissioner McKee asked for the state average.
28 Staff answered that is a little over 14 percent.
29 Commissioner Gordon asked what the current percent is for OCS fund balance.
30 Gerri Martin said the quantity is $2.5 million, but she is not sure about the percentage.
31 Commissioner Gordon said she would like for CHCCS to explain more about the
32 $750,000 being requested for renovations.
33 Todd LoFrese said the school board recently adopted a comprehensive
34 recommendation for facility needs. He said part of that resolution included making a request for
35 preliminary renovation funding to start one of the projects. He said the reason for this is
36 because the timing of the bond could potentially impact when the construction could occur, and
37 there could be a conflict with the timing of addressing facility needs and increasing capacity at
38 older schools while children are there. He said this is a delicate phasing process. He said this
39 will be covered in the bond discussion.
40
41 Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 8:06 pm.
42
43 Commissioner Gordon said her understanding is that if this renovation money were
44 approved, it would delay the need for funding elementary school #8.
45 Commissioner Price asked if OCS has any planned renovations.
46 Gerri Martin said the Board has only the first 5 years of their CI P. She said elementary
47 school #8 is not slated to happen until 2022. She said there is a facility assessment report that
48 identifies $160 million in renovation and deferred maintenance and construction needs for the
49 district. She said this would be part of a bond conversation.
10
1 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to understand the role of the state monies.
2 She said she does not see this for OCS, but the CHCCS shows two different figures.
3 Gerri Martin said OCS only received state planning allotments last month. She noted
4 that it is never the case that the actual state funding received matches their state planning
5 allotments.
6 Commissioner Pelissier asked which of the two CHCCS figures is correct.
7 Todd LoFrese said the second figure is the initial information received through DPI, but
8 this number will be different once the state sends its final allotments.
9 Commissioner Pelissier asked if both of these reflect a substantial decrease.
10 Gerri Martin said the OCS number will be increased because of the increase in students.
11 She said the allotment is based on the number of children.
12 Todd LoFrese said there are also things that are held back, such as the transportation
13 allotment. He said the initial number does not represent the end product, and he is not
14 expecting a decrease in state funds at this time.
15 Commissioner Rich asked why the number of expected student increase for OCS is so
16 different than what was originally projected.
17 Gerri Martin said these numbers are based on the Principals' Monthly Report (PMR),
18 and those numbers usually match with the numbers funded from the state. She said this year
19 there was a changeover, and those numbers didn't get verified initially. She said this was a big
20 part of the delay. She noted that the numbers were also wrong last year, as OCS already has
21 75 more students than projected. She said there is a formulaic process for these projections,
22 and it remains to be seen if the numbers are accurate.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if, with the increased level of students, OCS is anticipating
24 that the 41% poverty level will increase.
25 Gerri Martin said there is no way to know this, but the trend in Orange County shows
26 that the poverty rate has increased every year for the past 6 years. She does not know if this
27 will turn around.
28
29 2. Potential Bond Issuance Schedule and Timeline for a May 2016 Bond Referendum
30 Clarence Grier said recent Board of County Commissioners meetings and school
31 collaboration meetings led to a decision to move this referendum to the spring of 2016 to
32 improve voter participation. He said the older school needs are part of this discussion and the
33 combined needs total about $330 million dollars. He said the current estimated bond
34 referendum is $100 million, and the debt service on this amount is $6.7 million per year. He
35 said interest rates are going up right now. He said the current debt service on $330 million
36 would be $20 million, and 12.15 cents on the current property tax rate.
37 Clarence Grier said he wants to make sure the Board takes the opportunity to discuss
38 the older facilities needs tonight. He said CHCCS has requested funds for planning for
39 potential renovations of$750,000.
40 Commissioner Gordon said the background information said the Board of County
41 Commissioners had decided to move the referendum to May 2016. She said she did not
42 remember that this had been decided definitely or voted on by the Board.
43 Chair Jacobs said the Board has not decided on this yet. He said May and November
44 had been discussed.
45
46 Todd LoFrese presented the following PowerPoint slides:
47
48 Joint Boards Meeting
49 April 29, 2014
50 Facilities Assessment Recommendations
11
1
2 Overview
3 • Process
4 • Results
5 • Recommendations
6 • Example: Estes Hills Elementary School
7 • Capacity and Costs
8 • Timing is Critical
9 Facilities Assessment
10 Purpose
11 Assess the physical and educational needs of the district's 10 oldest facilities to determine
12 required repairs and maintenance and what is necessary to bring each school to the minimum
13 student capacity as established by the Orange County School Construction Standards.
14 Scope
15 1) Carrboro Elementary 6) Seawell Elementary
16 2) Ephesus Elementary 7) Culbreth MS
17 3) Estes Hills Elementary 8) Phillips MS
18 4) FP Graham Elementary 9) Chapel Hill HS
19 5) Glenwood Elementary 10) Lincoln Center
20
21 General Findings
22 • Significant interior and exterior physical repairs required
23 • Complete HVAC and lighting replacements
24 • Insufficient support spaces for program delivery
25 • Campus style facilities are inefficient and more difficult to secure
26 • ADA and life safety code upgrades
27 • Many campuses are relying on temporary facilities that are also in need of significant
28 repair
29
30 Recommendation
31 • Comprehensive Renovations
32 • Deconstruction of some buildings
33 • Additions
34 — Address Safety and Security
35 — Address Program deficiencies
36 • Increase Capacity and delay the need for new schools
37
38 ESTES HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (photos)
39 Facilities Assessment Recommendation (spreadsheet)
40 ESTES HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (captioned photos)
41
42 Facilities Assessment Recommendation
43 and Differed Cost of New Schools
44 • Recommendations increase student capacity as follows:
45 • Carrboro Elementary +52
46 • Ephesus +137
47 • Estes Hills +58
48 • Seawell +119
49 • Lincoln Center Pre K +189
50 • Total Elementary +555
12
1 • CHHS +105
2 • Total +660
3
4 Facilities Assessment Recommendation
5 and Differed Cost of New Schools
6 $160.8 mil Cost of Recommendation
7 ($34.5) Budgeted Cost of New Elementary School
8 (delayed beyond 10 years)
9 ($23.1) Budgeted Cost of High School Addition
10 (delayed beyond 10 years)
11 $103.2 mil Net Cost of Recommendation
12
13 Timing is Critical
14 • Initial funding for Facility Needs Analysis approved in Jan. 2011
15 • CHCCS Facilities Assessment Needs presented in Feb. 2013
16 BOND APPROVAL and CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
17 If Bond approval in Nov. 2014, the following schedule:
18 — Planning and regulatory reviews during 2015
19 — Construction activities start in 2016
20 — Initial elementary level capacity relief begins in 2017-18
21 A November 2016 Bond adds two years to each of the above dates. Consider:
22 — In 2019-20, Elementary SAPFO Level of Service projected to approach 105%.
23 — Current CI P shows funding in 2018-19 for Elementary School #12
24 — If Bond approval is delayed until Nov. 2016 and the Facilities Recommendation
25 for elementary schools is approved, overcrowding will complicate the movement
26 of students and implementation of improvements.
27 • Requesting $750K in preliminary renovation planning funding
28 — Completing one project will delay #12 by two years
29
30 Summary
31 • Older schools need significant investments
32 • Recommendations
33 — Fix aging infrastructure issues
34 — Bring older schools to OC standard
35 — Address safety and security
36 — Increase capacity and delay new schools
37 • Also delays operational increases
38 • Timing is important
39 • Continued Collaboration
40
41
42 Todd LoFrese outlined two examples of how the facilities needs impact education and
43 instruction. He discussed the moisture and mold growth issue at Chapel Hill High School,
44 which was a result of exterior drainage issues and an aging HVAC system. He said the library
45 was closed for a week for repair and renovation, which interfered with education and caused a
46 ripple effect of concern regarding other classrooms.
47 He said there was another issue at Estes Hills over the winter with boiler issues. He
48 said many of the classrooms developed heating issues, and students had to be relocated due
49 to cold temperatures. He said there was discussion of the need to replace this boiler and where
50 this is in the capital plan. He said the current plan had the boiler replacement in 2018, but
13
1 clearly this needed to be reprioritized. He said, in 2008 and 2009 when revenues were up, the
2 CIP had the boiler project slated for 2010. He said the decline in revenue caused this
3 necessary maintenance to be deferred. He said this will now be taken care of over the
4 summer, but that means something else has to give.
5 He reviewed the slide listing recommendations. He said the renovations have been
6 refined and revised to reduce the amount from $205 million to $160 million.
7 Todd LoFrese discussed the photos of the issues of Estes Hill Elementary, including
8 aging infrastructure, ADA egress issues, campus security and monitoring, and lighting. He said
9 there is a recommendation to add a small administrative area to provide a secure vestibule and
10 point of entry. He said the rear classroom wings have also had moisture issues and
11 deconstruction and reconstruction are recommended here. He said there is also a
12 recommendation to enclose the front area of the school with a breezeway. He said this school
13 was not designed in a time of kiss and go drop off, so there is a lot of traffic conflict. He said
14 there is no designated access point for the different modes of transportation. He said the
15 recommendations for Estes Hills Elementary would increase the schools capacity by 58
16 students, bringing it to the Orange County standard of 585 students.
17 Todd LoFrese said looking at this type of approach for all of the older schools could help
18 increase district capacity by a total of 660 seats.
19 He noted that even base level renovation needs would cost $50 million, without
20 addressing capacity.
21
22 Pam Jones said the OCS facilities assessment is a mirror image of what was just
23 presented, and the needs of this district also total $160 million. She said the facilities
24 assessment is 913 pages long and reflects a lot of deferred maintenance and deconstruction
25 needs.
26 She said OCS has started to address some of the deferred maintenance, and some of
27 this may be added to the budget through fund balance appropriations. She said the addition of
28 a maintenance staff person has also been proposed. She said the issues are too big to
29 address, even with a bond, given the amount needed from both districts. She said the board of
30 education has just begun to dissect the facilities report, and this will be brought back in June to
31 work out priorities to present to the Board. She said there are two projects in the OCS CIP, and
32 those are elementary#8 and the classroom wing at Cedar Ridge High School.
33
34 Chair Jacobs asked Todd LoFrese about the cost to build Northside.
35 Todd LoFrese said Northside cost $24 million.
36 Chair Jacobs said the cost for Estes Hills renovations is $16 million, which is almost as
37 much as the cost to build a new school. He asked when a decision is made to retire a school
38 and build a new one.
39 Todd LoFrese said the challenge here is that there are very few spaces within the
40 CHCCS district boundaries to build new schools. He said a complete deconstruction and new
41 build on site, given the fact that the schools are at 100 percent capacity, would be a challenge.
42 He said there are so many different needs at so many different schools, and the price tag is
43 often outside of reality. He said the goal was to identify the parts of the schools that were in
44 good shape and could be renovated to add another 50 years of life expectancy. He said the
45 schools that are beyond repair, too costly or with difficult code issues were recommended for
46 deconstruction.
47 Commissioner McKee asked about the $750,000 planning budget request. He asked if
48 this was directed to a specific facility.
14
1 Todd LoFrese said three facilities are being considered, including: Ephesus, Seawell,
2 and the Lincoln Center pre-k center. He said these facilities would increase capacity by the
3 greatest amount and one of them would be brought forward.
4 Commissioner McKee asked if all of this hinges on the bond being passed. He asked
5 what happens if the $750,000 is spent and the bond does not pass.
6 Todd LoFrese said the design work could be done, and then used years later. He said
7 this was what happened with both Northside and the Carrboro High School addition.
8 Commissioner McKee said does not question the rationale for doing this. He just wants
9 to make sure the money is well spent.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates the inclusion of the capacity increases in
11 these proposals. He said the list by schools that was submitted in the packet does not show
12 increased capacity for either of the middle schools. He said even if the elementary school
13 renovations are done, the middle school would still be in the queue.
14 Todd LoFrese said this is correct.
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there been any discussion about possible opportunities
16 to increase capacity in the middle schools. He asked specifically about Phillips Middle School.
17 Todd LoFrese said this was considered. He said there are layout challenges with
18 Phillips Middle School, and the standards also have to be considered. He believes that the
19 number of students that would have to be added would change the standards, and you would
20 have to consider how the school functions academically. He said there are two teams at each
21 grade level and as size changes the instructional program has to run differently. He said the
22 other thing with Phillips is that this type of renovation would likely involve so much
23 deconstruction that a new school makes more sense.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said given limited space and the increasing costs of renovations,
25 weighing that balance needs to be more of a factor. He questioned whether it makes sense to
26 do the elementary renovations or to do a larger new building. He said a balance has to be
27 found. He said the list of needs and the bond create an opportune moment to reevaluate
28 things.
29 James Barrett said it is worth noting that within their ten year window, a space has been
30 identified for middle school #5. He said looking at middle school capacity is not a big deal at
31 this point. In reference to Commissioner McKee's concern about the $750,000, he said it is
32 really re-swiveling the CIP Plan. He said there is an elementary school included there now for
33 more money than the proposed expansion of the current school. He said capacity will be added
34 at one of these schools, which will allow them to push out elementary #12 so that the overall
35 CIP picture does not change. He feels that the $750,000 is useful regardless of what happens
36 with the bond.
37 Commissioner Price asked if OCS would also be looking at the same type of financial
38 outlay as CHCCS. She asked if OCS would recommend deconstruction of an older school.
39 Pam Jones said the study the board received did not recommend wholesale de-
40 construction. She said the report looked at older schools and whether it was appropriate to
41 take down some of the less compliant and serviceable wings. She said her board has not had
42 an opportunity to discuss this report yet. She said a decision to deconstruct might be made
43 later.
44 Steve Halkiotis said the school boards have been wrestling with issues with these
45 schools for years. He said the board is doing the right thing in catching up for 50 years of
46 neglect. He thanked the Board of Commissioners for their help.
47 Michelle Brownstein said the CHCCS board is working hard to make sure the
48 information presented allows the Board of Commissioners to compare apples to apples. She
49 said there is collaboration happening between the two districts in this process. She echoed that
15
1 the Board of County Commissioners has consistently been supportive of education in Orange
2 County.
3 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the required process if a student in OCS wants to
4 take a class or extracurricular activity that is only offered in CHCCS.
5 Mike Kelly said the sharing of classes arrangement was proposed after the first
6 collaboration meeting in the early 2000's. He said this option was offered, and only one student
7 took advantage of this. He said this process is very challenging and requires students to
8 transfer for half the day, which most of them do not like.
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if transportation is provided if a student wants to do this.
10 Mike Kelly said he does not know if this was proposed or not.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said transportation could be significant impediment.
12 Steve Halkiotis said that a recent report showed that CHCCS students have come to
13 OCS schools to take the IB program at Cedar Ridge High School, and these students have not
14 been charged to attend this program.
15 Chair Bedford said this charge was waived, and administration made these decisions.
16 Mike Kelly said it was his understanding that OCS gets state and county allocations.
17 Steve Halkiotis said the important thing is that the kids were warmly welcomed and
18 received an education.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said each of these districts has responsibilities to their students
20 and they each do an outstanding job. He said the County Commissioners are the only Board
21 that is charged with the responsibility of every student in the County. He respects the fact that
22 the County has chosen a dual system, but he wants to be sure every opportunity is available to
23 every student, regardless of their school assignment.
24 Chair Jacobs asked if Commissioner Dorosin would like the school collaboration group
25 to re-visit this issue.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said yes.
27 Chair Bedford said this type of issue has been discussed at the last two collaboration
28 meetings. She said Middle College is one example of this, and transportation is an issue here.
29 She said the hope is that there will be an extension of the Orange County branch. She said
30 there have also been discussions about the possibility of a collaborative dual language school.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said there are also online possibilities.
32 Chair Bedford said they hope to pilot an online program for dual languages in August if
33 the funding is available. She said this could be expanded for other classes.
34 Chair Bedford said their policy is to allow AP classes to be taken online through NC
35 Virtual if the class is not offered in the district.
36 Commissioner Price asked about the minimum number of social workers needed.
37 Geri Martin said there are currently 4 social workers employed, but the additional 8 are
38 needed to cover the 13 facilities.
39 Commissioner Price asked if that number will be sufficient or if the schools would prefer
40 to have more.
41 Gerri Martin said this is a conservative number to maintain their current level of service.
42 Chair Jacobs asked how many students are attending Middle College, and how much is
43 being paid for this.
44 Mike Kelly said the allocation is 25 students per district and $50,000 is being paid.
45 Chair Bedford said about 12 are attending per district. She said the students who go
46 there probably have higher per pupil costs, but they are graduating. She said undocumented
47 students can get 1-2 years of college for free. She said this is a very successful program.
48 Chair Jacobs asked if there have been discussions with Durham Tech about moving into
49 Hillsborough now.
16
1 Chair Bedford said she has talked with the president of the community college, but one
2 building is not a college experience.
3 James Barrett said the president is very interested in this. He said the campus is not
4 big enough to keep the high school class from standing out. He said it would be a big benefit if
5 students could access the program more easily in Orange County.
6 Chair Bedford said the biggest issue with Durham Tech is transportation.
7 Commissioner McKee asked if the low number of students is a result of lack of demand
8 or transportation issue.
9 Chair Bedford said she couldn't say for sure, but it is a hardship for students to travel
10 one and half hours on a bus to Durham Tech.
11 Chair Jacobs asked if the boards are still committed to the program.
12 Both school districts answered yes.
13 Steve Halkiotis said the facilities in Guilford County were a success because of the
14 availability of mass transit.
15 Commissioner McKee asked if additional public transportation services address this
16 problem.
17 Michelle Brownstein said the amount of children is not huge, and you would need to look
18 into whether it was worth the investment to increase a bus line.
19 Commissioner McKee said he brings this up because everyone is paying a half cent
20 sales tax for transportation, and perhaps more funding should be directed toward immediate
21 needs.
22 Commissioner Price said the Durham Board of Trustees has talked about providing
23 transportation for residents who want to take classes in Orange County. She said, as
24 Commissioner McKee said, this might be a good place for Orange County to allocate the
25 money being paid for public transportation. She said the issue is getting to a central point to
26 get on the bus.
27 Annetta Streater said she believes convenience might be part of the issue, but the more
28 pressing reason is the lack of interest in connecting to that type of educational experience
29 versus the traditional high school experience.
30 Chair Jacobs asked Clarence Grier if there is funding in the CIP for expanding Durham
31 Tech.
32 Clarence Grier said no.
33 Chair Jacobs said when Durham Tech was built the campus was supported by 50
34 percent state bond monies for educational facilities. He said things are different now, and the
35 Board will need to figure out a better way to utilize available resources like transportation.
36 Commissioner Price asked how many students are participating in Middle College.
37 Chair Bedford said 12-14, and Gerri Martin said Orange County has around 20
38 students.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said this is a particular opportunity for students who are not
40 necessarily going on to a 4 year traditional university model. He said this is a population that
41 has historically been underserved. He said the schools may need to do a better job of selling
42 the advantages of this.
43 Commissioner Price said Middle College is also for youth who are a little advanced or
44 more mature. She said Durham Tech is sending a lot of students on to a four year school to
45 finish.
46
47 Chair Jacobs referred to the issue of kiss and go lanes. He said there is an
48 environmental issue with having people line up in cars and run them for 15-30 minutes every
49 morning and afternoon. He asked if there are any school districts that have looked at
50 alternatives, such as fare free busing.
17
1 Todd LoFrese said this has come up before, but this is a tall order. He said they are
2 currently in the process of looking at the walk zones in order to create policies or guidelines.
3 He said the goal is to encourage students to walk or bike to schools. He said there is also a
4 partnership with the Town of Carrboro to promote walking and biking. He is not aware of other
5 approaches to limiting parent drop offs.
6 Chair Jacobs said he would be interested in having this looked into.
7 Mia Burroughs said many parents are fearful about putting their children on a bus. She
8 said a lot of people also do not like adding extra time for commuting.
9 Commissioner Rich said it would help if there were more sidewalks.
10 Commissioner Pelissier said there are parents that feel the commute is their quality time
11 with their children. She said if a parent feels this way, it does not matter what other options are
12 available.
13 Chair Jacobs said we need to test the assumption that this is the way things are and the
14 way things always will be.
15 James Barrett said it is good to continue the conversation on public transportation.
16
17 3. Charter School Enrollment and Funding
18 Clarence Grier said a topic at the recent collaboration meeting was the impact of charter
19 schools on school enrollment. He said the County, since 2002 has held the number of charter
20 school students at the same level. He said the numbers for 2013-14 and the projected
21 numbers for 2015 show those numbers going up substantially. He said these numbers may
22 change as Pace Academy did not have their charter renewed.
23 Tom Forcella said Pace Academy serves a different type of student population than
24 some of the other schools.
25 Geri Martin said the abstract lists only two charter schools in Orange County, and OCS
26 pays money to 15 charter schools on a monthly basis, for 343 students that attend charter
27 schools. She said this costs the district $1.2 million, and this number is expected to increase as
28 a new charter school (The Expedition School) opens in August.
29 Debbie Piscitelli said The Expedition School's website shows numbers to be higher than
30 projected.
31 Commissioner McKee asked if the districts are required to provide extracurricular
32 activities to charter schools.
33 Both answered no, not yet.
34 Chair Bedford said charters that have been denied will have another opportunity to apply
35 for opening next August. She said there are 37 of these. She said the opposition is only to
36 charters that don't provide free or reduced meals and transportation, and EC services, who
37 therefore are not really serving the public. She said these schools also become very racially
38 segregated.
39 Steve Halkiotis said charter schools also pay off of the state salary schedule and receive
40 the same retirement schedule. He said teachers have been lost to the charters for higher
41 salary.
42 James Barrett said another legislative item is a model out of Colorado that allows inter
43 district and intra district transfers throughout the state. He said this could have a significant
44 impact.
45 Commissioner McKee said charter schools should offer all of the services of traditional
46 school.
47 Commissioner Price asked about the achievement rates of the students leaving the
48 charter schools.-
49 Chair Bedford cited a study showing that 37 percent of charter students do worse than
50 the public schools that surround them.
18
1 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about the transfer issue.
2 James Barrett said there was a study commission that was asked to look at the
3 Colorado model, and then returned with proposed legislation. He said this is cued to be
4 considered in the short session.
5 Commissioner Gordon asked if this means students can enroll in any school district.
6 James Barrett said yes, if there was space.
7
8 Debbie Piscitelli said students get to go where they want to go and schools get state
9 funds but not local money. She said another issue is the virtual charter schools, which are
10 requesting the same per pupil funding.
11 Chair Bedford said this morning the school board association asked that a survey be
12 done regarding the abolishment of common core. She said she hopes that all of the school
13 board members did the survey.
14 Chair Jacobs said he just read that Indiana was the first state to adopt common core
15 and the first state to drop out.
16 Chair Bedford recognized Steve Halkiotis. She said he has quietly served for years on
17 the Board of the New Voices committee, which honors teachers and therapist in the triangle
18 who advocate for students with special needs.
19 The meeting was adjourned at 9:46:04 PM.
20
21
22 Barry Jacobs, Chair
23
24 Donna S. Baker
25 Clerk to the Board
26
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 May 20, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May
10 20, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
24
25 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
26 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places:
27 - Plaque - Item 4a - Distinguished Budget Award Presentation for the 2013-14 County
28 Budget
29 - White Sheets — PowerPoint for Item 4-b- Presentation of Manager's Recommended
30 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Annual Operating Budget and 2014-19 Capital Investment Plan
31 - White Sheets -- PowerPoint for Item 5a - Comprehensive Plan and Unified
32 Development Ordinance Text Amendments for Agricultural Support Enterprises
33 Outside of the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification
34 - White Sheets — PowerPoint for Item 7a - Consideration of a Unified Development
35 Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Home Occupations
36 - Blue sheet— Revised application for Item 11-h — Orange County Planning Board
37 Appointments
38
39 PUBLIC CHARGE
40 Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
41
42 2. Public Comments
43
44 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
45
46 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
47 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
48 below.)
49
50 3. Petitions by Board Members
2
1 Commissioner Rich said a couple of things of interest came up during the forum season.
2 She said Mark Marcoplos suggested creating a database of local businesses, and she would
3 like to ask Economic Development to look into this. She said the idea was not for promotion of
4 businesses, but just for creation of a database.
5 Commissioner Rich said the Community Home Trust has provided a draft of their
6 charter and would like to make a presentation before the Board of County Commissioners. She
7 said the charter is for the next budget season, so this could be scheduled in the fall.
8 Chair Jacobs said the Board had talked about trying to get the state to provide an air
9 quality monitor in Orange County. He noted that Orange County is at the confluence of two
10 major interstates and downwind of a number of power plants. He said he would like to raise
11 this issue again on behalf of a citizen request. He suggested partnering with one of the
12 research universities in the area.
13 Commissioner Rich said PORCH is outgrowing their space for keeping food, and the
14 organization is looking for assistance in finding warehouse space in Orange County, close to
15 Chapel Hill. She said there is a small budget to pay for rental fees.
16
17 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
18
19 a. Distinguished Budget Award Presentation for the 2013-14 County Budget
20 The Board recognized the budget staff of the Orange County Finance and
21 Administrative Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association
22 (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2013-14 fiscal year budget
23 document.
24 Clarence Grier said the GFOA distinguished budget award is the highest form of
25 recognition that a budget can receive, and it has stringent criteria. He said the County has
26 received the award for the past 22 years. He recognized budget staff members for their
27 contributions.
28 He noted that yesterday the County received notification from Moody's bond rating that
29 Orange County now has AAA bond rating. He said Orange County is now one of 7 counties in
30 North Carolina with this rating and is now AAA with all three bond ratings. He said this will keep
31 interest rates low.
32 Chair Jacobs expressed appreciation for all of the work completed in creating the
33 budgets. He thanked the budget staff on behalf of himself and the tax-paying residents of
34 Orange County.
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
36 Board to recognize the Finance and Administrative Services Director and staff for the receipt of
37 the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the 2013-14 County Budget and present the GFOA
38 plaque to them.
39
40 VOTE UNANIMOUS
41
42 b. Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2014-15 Annual
43 Operating Budget and 2014-19 Capital Investment Plan
44 The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2014-15 Annual Operating
45 Budget and 2014-19 Capital Investment Plan.
46 Michael Talbert referred to the previous item. He said the receipt of the AAA rating was
47 a product of the policies adopted three years ago by the Board of County Commissioners
48 regarding fund balance and funding policies. He said the Board gets credit for stepping up and
49 making this happen. He said this will have a significant impact on borrowing cost moving
50 forward.
3
1 Michael Talbert expressed thanks to the budget staff. He said this year's operating
2 budget is $195.6 million, and there is no property tax increase. He said there is an
3 appropriation of$8.5 million of general fund balance to balance the budget. He said this is an
4 increase of$7.9 million from the previous year's budget. He said the budget was prepared with
5 the Board's goals in mind. He reviewed several goals from the January retreat as follows:
6 Goal 1 - Defending the quality of public education.
7 He noted a $95 per pupil increase and the addition of 294 new students. He said the
8 Board has as target not to exceed 48.1 percent of general fund revenues for public education.
9 He noted that the recommended budget equals 49.3 percent. He said if all of the requests from
10 the school system were honored, this would exceed 51 percent, so the recommendation is a
11 balancing act.
12
13 Goals 2 and 4— Ensure safety net services and target funding to address child poverty.
14 He said there are two initiatives included this year to address this. He said funding is
15 being increased in social services for daycare and general assistance, and the social justice
16 fund is being continued. He said the health department is working on a child poverty
17 intervention initiative, and this is also being funded.
18
19 Goal 3— Funding for sewer hookups in the Rogers Road area.
20 He said the Board will be asked to approve the preliminary engineering for the Rogers
21 Road sewer to fund 86 homes. He said the capital investment plan also includes $3 million for
22 the County share of that sewer in year two.
23
24 Goal 5— Support a broad range of economic development.
25 He said the Board has been very active in supporting recruitment of new industry and
26 the retention of existing industry. He said funds from the quarter cent sales tax continue to be
27 used in these initiatives.
28
29 Goal 6— Consider limit to a viability of a tax increase.
30 He said in 2010-11, the Board appropriated $401,000 to balance the budget. He said
31 this year it is $8.5 million, which is a considerable difference; however the budget is balanced,
32 and the County is within all of its policy guidelines. He said this trend is not sustainable and
33 there will be tax increases in the future. He noted that there is a bond referendum being
34 discussed for the fall of 2016, as well as property tax revaluation in January 2017 and $300
35 million in older school needs. He said there will be pressure on the budget in years to come.
36 He said the budget also funds continuing strategic initiatives such as strategic plans for
37 emergency services, information technologies and the library, as well as funding for core
38 services.
39 Michael Talbert said funding is also for human resources, and staff is recommending a
40 1.5% COLA and merit increase, as well as an increase in the 401 k match from $1200 to 1500
41 contribution. He said health insurance cost increases are not being passed on to employees at
42 this point.
43
44 Clarence Grier presented the following PowerPoint presentation:
45
46 County Manager's Recommended FY 2014-15 Annual Operating Budget and Capital
47 Investment Plan
48 Presentation
49 Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill
50 Orange County, NC
4
1 May 20, 2014
2
3 Guiding Principles
4 • Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase —6th
5 Consecutive Year
6 • Provides funding for County services at current levels
7 • Funds local school districts enrollment growth, operational funding and debt
8 service.
9
10 Recommended General Fund Budget
11 • Totals $195.6 million
12 • Represents an increase of$7.9 million from original current year budget of
13 $187.7 million, which is a 4.21 percent increase from previous year original
14 budget
15 • Represents a $2.1 million decrease in the current year's amended budget
16
17 Components of General Fund Budget
18 General Fund Revenues $ 187,131,286
19 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance $ 8,507,219
20 General Fund Expenditures $ (195,638,505)
21 Net $22
23 Tax Savings Generated By the Use of Fund Balance
24 Fiscal Year Fund Balance Utilized Property Tax Rate Effect
25 2009-2101 $0 0
26 2010-2011 $401,673 .26
27 2011-2012 $1,131,417 .74
28 2012-2013 $2,187,872 1.39
29 2013-2014 $8,507,219 5.19
30 - The cumulative tax effect of utilizing fund balance to balance the budget totals 10.81
31 cents.
32
33 Orange County Projected Cash flows for FY2014-15 (spreadsheet)
34
35 Orange County Budget Past 6 Fiscal Years (bar graph)
36
37 Proposed Ad Valorem Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2014
38 • Proposed tax rate of 85.8 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
39 • This rate produces $140.6 million in property tax revenues for FY 2014 -
40 15
41 • Overall Real Property Valuation increased 1.9%
42 • One cent on property tax estimated to generate $1,638,241
43
44 Orange County Property Tax Revenues Past 6 Fiscal Years (bar graph)
45
46 Sales Tax Revenues
47 • Recommended Sales Tax Revenues of$19.0 million is $1.8 million higher than
48 the $17.2 million budgeted in FY 2013-2014 due to increase in consumer
49 spending , and current year projections
5
1 • Actual sales tax revenues are down over 16% since the peak of$22.5 million in
2 fiscal year 2007-2008
3
4 Orange County General Fund FY 2014-15 Revenues (pie chart)
5 Proposed Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2014
6 • Recommended tax rate of 20.84 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
7 • Represents no increase in the property tax rate for the District
8 • Recommended tax rate will generate $21.8 million for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro
9 City School District
10 • This represents an additional $1,764 per pupil above the County's allocation
11 • One cent on district tax is estimated to generate $1,044,521.
12
13 Recommended Funding for Chapel Hill - Carrboro City and Orange County Schools
14 • Total General Fund appropriation totals $92.3 million
15 • Funds day-to-day operations, repayment of school related debt, and capital
16 • Equals an appropriation of 49.3 percent of total General Fund Revenues
17 • Reflects $2.9 million increase from current year General Fund appropriation
18 • Equates to a current expense allocation of$3,364, a $95 increase, per student
19 for each of the 20,202 students in both districts for day-to-day operating funds
20 and projected enrollment growth.
21
22 County Education Funding
23 Fiscal Year Original Budget % of Revenues
24 2009-2010 $86,378,040 48.6%
25 2010-2011 $87,135,916 49.8%
26 2011-2012 $84,175,033 47.5%
27 2012-2013 $85,455,533 48.1%
28 2013-2014 $89,424,651 49%
29 2014-2015 $92,281,361 49.3%
30
31 Additional Funding for Local Schools
32 • In addition to the $92.3 million for operations, debt and capital, recommended budget
33 allocates $1.25 million to fund non-mandated safety net initiatives for both school
34 districts Some of these initiatives are:
35 • School Health Nurses - $697,380
36 • School Resource Officers - $556,424
37 • School Social Workers - $0, due to the of loss State revenue
38 • With these additional non-mandated funding initiatives, the total funding for the local
39 school districts total 49.9% of the General Fund Revenues
40
41 Major Funded County Initiatives
42 • Maintains all County services at current levels
43 • Funds the increase in medical insurance and fully funds the 401(k)/457 plans for
44 non-sworn employees
45 • A cost of living and merit increase equating up to 2% in compensation for
46 employees
47 • Provides for an increased funding for Emergency Services to address the
48 recommendations of the Emergency Services Study and Work Group
49 • Provides funding to the Town of Chapel Hill Library totaling $568,139
50 • Allocations provided to non-profit organizations total $1,074,100 for FY 14-15.
6
1 • Long range/pay-as-you go County capital is $464,800.
2 • Debt service for the General Fund will be $26.5 million.
3
4 Orange County General Fund FY 2014-15 Expenditures (pie chart)
5
6 Solid Waste Initiatives
7 • Provides for an increase in the Landfill Fees due to both an increase in tonnage and
8 a $2 increase (from $42.50 to $44.50) in the City of Durham's tipping fees.
9 • The closure of the landfill with public education and other related planning efforts.
10 We expect to incur $3.7 million in closure cost in FY 2013-14.
11 • Provides for $1.36 million in Urban Curbside/Multi-Family Fees to fund the cost of
12 recycling programs and operations for urban curbside collections. This is a new
13 contract for urban curbside recycling, with a fee with a rate of$59/unit. The program
14 will transition from 18 gallon bins to 95 gallon roll carts.
15 • Provides for $840,106 in Capital Outlay for the Recycling Division; $462,106 of those
16 funds are in the Vehicles account and are for the replacement of vehicles based on
17 the replacement schedule, the remaining $378,000 is in the Equipment account and
18 will be used to purchase 7,000 roll carts for the rural roadside recycling program.
19 • The General Fund contribution to Sanitation in the FY14-15 Manager
20 Recommended Budget is $1.8 million; this equates to 1.13 cents on the current
21 property tax rate.
22 • Provides for construction for the Eubanks Solid Waste Convenience Center
23 improvement
24
25 Additional Funding Options
26 • Appropriate Fund Balance, if necessary; The Board may use up to $650,000 without
27 a negative impact on fund balance
28 • Property tax rate increase
29 • Increase in CHCCS Special District Tax
30
31 Revenues Generated By Property Tax Increase
32 Tax Increase Property Tax Revenue Generated Per Pupil Equivalency
33 1 cent $1,638,241 $81.09
34 2 cents $3,276,482 $162.19
35 2.4 cents $3,931,778 $194.62
36 4 cents $6,552,964 $324.37
37 5.5 cents $9,010,326 $446.01
38
39 Revenues Generated By Increase in CHCCS Special District Tax
40 Tax Increase Property Tax Revenue Generated Per Pupil Equivalency
41 1 cent $1,044,521 $84.56
42 2 cents $2,089,042 $169.11
43 3.5 cents $3,655,824 $295.95
44 - Based on 12,353 projected students for the CHCCS School District
45
46 County Capital Investment Plan (chart)
47
48 Concerns and Issues for FY 2015-2016
49 • Federal State Budget Issues
50 • Debt Service
7
1 • County Capital Projects
2 • School Capital Projects
3 • Health Insurance
4 • Post-employment Insurance benefit for retirees
5 • Economic Development
6 • Economy
7 • Revaluation
8 • General Fund Revenues
9 FY 2015—2016 Budget (chart)
10 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
11 (All Meetings Begin at 7:00 p.m.) (Chart)
12
13 Document Availability
14 • Clerk to Board of Commissioners
15 • County Finance &Administrative Services Office
16 • Orange County Library
17 • Chapel Hill Public Library
18 • Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
19 • Cybrary, Carrboro
20 • Orange County Website
21
22 Clarence Grier referred to the slide on projected cash flow. He noted that the
23 manager's recommended budget showed only one quarter with positive cash flow. He said the
24 County needs fund balance to mitigate the periods of negative cash flow. He said the current
25 fund balance for the general fund is approximately $36.7 million. Referring to the slide titled
26 Orange County Budget Past 6 Fiscal Years, he noted that the County's budget has increased
27 from $177.6 million to the current $195.6 million, which is an increase of$18 million over the
28 past 6 years. He said the increase in the current year is $8 million by itself, which is the result
29 of an improving economy after the recession.
30 Clarence Grier referred to the bar graph on property tax revenue. He said the
31 components of the property tax include motor vehicles and real property. He said real property
32 has increased by 1.5 percent in the past 6 years. He said the registered motor vehicles amount
33 is projected to increase to $7.9 million due to the change in how the taxes are collected, as well
34 as increased property tax values.
35 He said that property taxes currently account for 72.9 percent of the budget and this is
36 reduced based on the increased reliance on appropriated fund balance. He said sales tax is
37 currently the second largest revenue source, followed by intergovernmental sources. He said
38 these two sources were reversed during the recession, and the improved economy has moved
39 sales tax back to the second highest spot.
40 Clarence Grier said the additional $95 per student funding funds the growth of
41 approximately 297 additional students, as well as the recommended local portion of the state's
42 recommended 3 percent raise for state employees.
43 He said the County Department of Social Services and the schools have worked out an
44 agreement for schools to hire social workers, given the loss of state revenue. This will ensure
45 that services are not lost.
46 Clarence Grier reviewed the pie chart on County expenditures and noted that education
47 is the largest expenditure at 48.7 percent. He said this is the percentage of the total budget
48 and not the general fund revenues alone.
8
1 He said the necessary tax increase to fully fund the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools'
2 requests would be 2.7 cents, and it would be 2.32 cents to fully fund the Orange County
3 schools.
4 Clarence Grier said the total amount for the County Capital Investment Plan would be
5 $22,816,805. He said this includes county capital projects, special revenue fund (article 46
6 sales tax), proprietary capital projects, and schools capital projects.
7 Clarence Grier reviewed the concerns and issues for the 2015-16 fiscal year. He said
8 there are $330 million in older school needs. He said there is an increase of 14.5 percent in the
9 health insurance costs this year. He said there is a liability of$63 million dollars for the post
10 employment insurance benefit for retirees. He said this is fully funded by setting aside $3
11 million per year, and he would recommend that this practice continue.
12 He noted the revaluation coming in 2017. He said the state currently does a calculation
13 of property values versus property sales. He said the current County tax valuation numbers are
14 5.5 percent over the sales price. He said that would equate to a 4.42 cent property tax increase
15 if the revaluation occurred now.
16 Clarence Grier said the general fund revenues are expanding, but more and more of the
17 fund balance is being used to balance the budget. He said the gap continues to get larger and
18 a mechanism needs to be found to reduce this. He reviewed numbers from the chart for the FY
19 2015-16 Budget. He noted that this budget would bring the budget over the general fund target
20 of 48.1 percent. He said there is an expected increase of$600,000 in the debt service. He
21 said this puts the expected adjustments to expenditures at $2,605,431, and the estimated
22 preliminary expenses for 2015-16 at $198,243,936. He said this would be a shortage of
23 $3,934,185, which would mean a potential property tax increase of 2.49 cents.
24 Michael Talbert thanked the departments for putting together a very conservative budget
25 that maximizes the service to citizens.
26 He said the schools asked for $750,000 in planning funds for upcoming older schools
27 construction. He felt this was premature without priorities or a schedule from the Board. He
28 said if this was to happen sometime mid-year, it would be reasonable to go back and establish
29 planning funds for both school systems
30 Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation on the target percentages for schools.
31 She asked for an explanation of what is and is not included in that target percent and how the
32 school capital projects relate to this.
33 Clarence Grier said the 48.1 percent target for schools is comprised of current
34 expenses, long range and recurring capital, and fair funding. He said the current expense is
35 $67 million; the recurring and long range capital is about $6.7 million; and the fair funding is
36 $988,000 divided equally between both school districts. He said the County debt service for
37 schools is $16.6 million. He said those make up the 48.1 percent target of the general fund
38 revenues. He said the general fund revenues total $187,131,286, and that is the determining
39 factor for the 48.1 percent target, which would be $90 million. He said the fund balance is not a
40 component of this because it is not a general fund revenue.
41 Commissioner Gordon asked if school capital projects numbers are figured in to the
42 48.1 percent target.
43 Clarence Grier said yes.
44 Commissioner Gordon asked if the school nurses were for both school systems, and the
45 school resource officers were for only the Orange County schools.
46 Clarence Grier said Chapel Hill Carrboro City schools use the fair funding with the police
47 department to fund their school resource officers. He said the Orange County Schools use
48 officers funded in the sheriff's department, which equates to $556,424.
49 Commissioner Gordon said the capital expenditures will all be reflected in the operating
50 budget, as they will be debt service or outright dollars in recurring or long range capital.
9
1 Clarence Grier said this is correct.
2 Commissioner Gordon referred to the funding that goes into this budget. She said this
3 includes the per pupil allocation, and she asked if the sales tax allocation is counted in this as
4 well.
5 Clarence Grier said yes. He said this is comprised of property tax and sales tax. He
6 said part of the sales tax is mandated by the state to go towards capital. He said the County
7 already funds at such a high rate that it is over the required threshold.
8 Commissioner Gordon said, looking at the current expense appropriation and how it
9 relates to the 48.1 percent target, the per-pupil is a big part of it, but it is not all of it.
10 Clarence Grier said the per pupil funds only the current expenses. He said the recurring
11 capital and the long range capital are outside of the per-pupil if you want to phrase it that way.
12 He said the school nurses and the resource officers are an additional 1.25 percent that is above
13 the mandated categories for the 48.1 percent.
14 Commissioner Gordon asked if the fair funding still comes out of the per pupil amount.
15 Clarence Grier said no; the fair funding is not part of the per pupil expense.
16 Commissioner Gordon confirmed the only thing that comes out of the per-pupil is
17 current expense.
18 Clarence Grier said that is correct. He said the $1.25 million in additional mandated
19 services brings the percentage up to 49.9%. He said this has been in place since fiscal year
20 1999-2000.
21 Commissioner Rich asked about the Cost of Living (COLA) Merit increase. She asked if
22 the 2% increase is comparable to what the towns and OWASA are doing.
23 Michael Talbert said it is somewhat comparable. He said the amounts range from 2-3
24 percent. He said the past several years the County has done about 2 percent for cost of living
25 and has stayed ahead of other local governments. He said the County is trying to build up the
26 401k contribution, as this is one area of disadvantage.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if this is part of the package with the $1,200 match.
28 Michael Talbert said that is correct. He said it maxes out at 4 percent max, up to
29 $1,500.
30 Clarence Grier said the County had great participation in the 401K program, and it
31 exceeded expectations by $675,000.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner Gordon's
33 questions with regard to school funding. He said he would appreciate some simplification of
34 how schools are funded. He referred to the slide regarding the resource officers and nurses.
35 He asked how much of the $697,000 for nurses goes to each school district. He asked the
36 same question for the resource officers. He would like to see how this is broken down.
37 He said he is curious why there is a separation where the percentage is 49.3 in one
38 place and 49.9 in another place. He feels like there should be a total amount and then a clear
39 designation of how much is going to each school district.
40 Michael Talbert said staff will provide all this detail at the work session. He said this is a
41 somewhat older formula that is based on historical information, and this information will be
42 shared.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said this is his second time through the budget, and he feels like
44 all of the information is there, but it is not coming across in the way that is most accessible. He
45 wants to make sure everything is being done as equitably as possible between the two school
46 systems.
47 He asked where the school district tax for the Chapel Hill school district shows up. He
48 said he looked at the Orange County projected cash flows for 2014-15. He asked if the school
49 district tax is part of this.
10
1 Clarence Grier said this slide only shows the County's revenues and expenditures. He
2 said the $21.8 million from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools district tax is in their budget
3 only. He said since the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for setting the tax rate,
4 this amount is listed just for informational purposes.
5 Michael Talbert said the tax rate for the school districts is set very much like the fire
6 district tax. He said it is collected and the schools get all of the revenue regardless of the
7 collections.
8 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it is fair to say that the inequity in the per-pupil funding
9 between the two school districts is the result of the district tax.
10 Michael Talbert said that is correct.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said everything else should have equity.
12 Clarence Grier said that is correct.
13 Michael Talbert said the state law mandates how the County does this.
14 Chair Jacobs said he has seen many Commissioners over the years try to figure out the
15 inequity created by the district tax. He said this is a conundrum.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said it is stark to see that one cent on the overall County rate is
17 $1.6 million and one cent on the school district rate is $1 million. He said this could be
18 distributed more equitably.
19 Chair Jacobs said it is proportional to the population. He said over the long term,
20 changes in the revenue generation with the economic development districts might change some
21 of those percentages.
22 Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons that the sales tax changed in 2007 is because the
23 state legislature changed the way it allocates sales tax revenues. He said this adversely
24 affected Orange County. He said if this was calculated the way it used to be, the County is
25 doing even better than before. He said the fact that 58 percent of the sales tax is retained
26 within the County means that the County gets hurt more than most counties in the current
27 formulation.
28 Michael Talbert said that is pretty accurate. He said it was a complicated formula, but
29 the County also gave up the expense on the Medicaid.
30 Chair Jacobs said the County is one of the lowest Medicaid counties in the state.
31 Clarence Grier said this continues to be the case.
32 Chair Jacobs asked if the County is still getting the compensation amount promised
33 during this deal.
34 Clarence Grier said yes. He said recently it was $3.2 million.
35 Chair Jacobs said it is a wash that is not reflected in the sales tax.
36 Clarence Grier said yes.
37 Michael Talbert said it is a wash in a "hold harmless" provision. He said this is a
38 complicated provision.
39 Chair Jacobs asked about the fund balance. He heard the figure $36.7 million, which is
40 a little more than 20 percent, and the goal is 17percent. He asked if the money set aside for
41 other post employment benefits (OPEB) is reflected in the difference between the 17 and the
42 20.
43 Clarence Grier said that is in a separate fund, and it is not part of the $36.7 million.
44 Chair Jacobs asked if some of the fund balance has been appropriated toward OPEB
45 this year
46 Clarence Grier said yes, but the $36.7 million is without the OPEB.
47 Chair Jacobs asked if the difference between the 17 percent and the 20 percent would
48 be available for spending.
49 Clarence Grier said yes
11
1 Chair Jacobs asked if this is apart from what has been appropriated or if it is reflected in
2 what has been appropriated.
3 Clarence Grier said this is reflected in the $8.5 million that has been appropriated.
4 Chair Jacobs asked if it would really be 17 percent if you look at the $8.5 million, or if it
5 would still be 20 percent.
6 Clarence Grier said that would be about 18.15 percent. He said the only reason this is
7 not changed is because there is the ability to change the appropriation of the $8.5 million. He
8 said to be consistent the amount is said to be $36.7 million.
9 Chair Jacobs asked if this $36.7 million reflects the $650,000 that could be spent.
10 Clarence Grier said no; that would be over and above.
11 Michael Talbert said each year the County creates a certain amount of fund balance,
12 and staff thinks this $8.9 million is in the range of what will be created this year.
13 Chair Jacobs asked if the revaluation in 2017 is reflected in the 2018-2018 budget.
14 Michael Talbert said yes.
15 Chair Jacobs asked what the tax increase would be on a $100 million bond issue.
16 Clarence Grier said this would be 3.78 cents.
17 Chair Jacobs said, based on the scenarios presented, this could be 7 or 8 cents, which
18 would exceed the proposed limit on property tax increases being discussed by the state
19 legislature.
20 Clarence Grier said this is correct.
21 Chair Jacobs said moving forward with bonds, there may be a need to project about
22 what happens if the revaluation does not bring things back up. He said defensive measures
23 may be needed.
24 Clarence Grier said the first defensive measure was getting the AAA rating with all of the
25 bond rating agencies, and the second would be making sure to close the gap on general fund
26 revenues versus fund balance. He said it is important to make sure nothing is done to
27 adversely affect fund balance. He said the County is in very good financial shape. He said
28 there should be fund balance generated this year and next fiscal year, but it will not be at the
29 same levels, due to the appropriations that have been done stave off a property tax increase.
30 Chair Jacobs asked how fund balance is generated.
31 Clarence Grier said some people say he is very conservative with budgeting. He said
32 there has been a lot of under-spending in the departments. He said there has also been 1.5
33 percent growth, and there have been improvements in sales tax generation as the economy
34 has improved. He said it is a composite of things, but the main thing is the departments holding
35 the line on budgets and adhering to the policies and procedures put in place.
36 Michael Talbert said an oversimplification would be to say that the fund balance is
37 money appropriated but not spent, and money over collected from conservative revenue
38 estimates. He said there will be a significant build in fund balance from the vehicle property tax.
39 Clarence Grier said the collection rate on registered vehicles has always been low, and
40 with the new method of paying taxes along with your registration, revenues are expected to go
41 up.
42 Commissioner Price referred to the cash flow page and asked for an explanation of the
43 overage in the second quarter.
44 Clarence Grier said property taxes are generally collected in the months of October,
45 November, December, and January. He said there is no positive cash flow until property taxes
46 are received. He said this is why fund balance is critical, as the County relies on this during the
47 periods when expenditures exceed revenues.
48
49 5. Public Hearings
50
12
1 a. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
2 for Agricultural Support Enterprises Outside of the Rural Buffer Land Use
3 Classification - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
4 Accepted)
5 The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, closed the public hearing,
6 and made a decision on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Comprehensive
7 Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to implement a program commonly referred to
8 as "Agricultural Support Enterprises" outside of the Rural Buffer land use classification.
9 Perdita Holtz said the purpose tonight is to make a decision on a long standing item.
10 She presented the following PowerPoint slides:
11
12 Agricultural Support Enterprises Outside of the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification
13
14 Unified Development Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan Amendments
15 • Presented at February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing
16 • Create new conditional zoning district (ASE-CZ)
17 • Add additional permitted uses to some of the existing general use zoning districts
18 • Create use-specific standards for the new uses
19 • Update some existing development standards
20 • Add definitions
21 • Amend Land Use/Zoning Matrix in Comprehensive Plan
22
23 Purpose of Amendment
24 • Augment allowable uses famers can pursue in order to generate additional farm-related
25 income and to potentially allow farming support/related uses in rural areas while
26 minimizing any adverse impacts on adjoining property.
27 • Intent is to better enable farmers to keep farming which will help preserve the
28 rural heritage of Orange County and lessen pressure to sell farmland for
29 conversion to residential uses.
30 • Balance between rights of property owner and rights of neighboring property
31 owners
32 History
33 • A work-in-progress since 2001
34 ➢ Need for Conditional Zoning construct was one of the "sticking points"
35 ➢ We now have this type of zoning in the UDO
36
37 Two Proposed ASE Amendments
38 • Outside of Rural Buffer land use classification
39 • Within Rural Buffer land use classification
40 • Requires amendments to Joint Planning Area documents
41 • Orange County, Towns of Chapel Hill & Carrboro must approve JPA
42 amendments
43 • March 27, 2014 joint public hearing for JPA amendments
44 • Governing boards scheduled to consider JPA amendments at
45 meetings in June
46 • The three separate Planning Boards have all recommended
47 approval of the JPA amendments to their respective governing
48 boards
49 • Public hearing for UDO/Comprehensive Plan amendments was adjourned to the
50 September 4 BOCC meeting
13
1
2 Advisory Board Review & Recommendations
3 • Agricultural Preservation Board has reviewed three times
4 • Supports moving forward with amendments
5 • Planning Board reviewed twice prior to quarterly public hearing and again at April 2
6 meeting to make a recommendation
7 • Unanimous recommendation to approve
8 • Planning Director also recommends approval
9
10 Text Changes
11 • Color coding in Attachment 2
12 • Green text is changes proposed after the quarterly public hearing to correct
13 errors, clarify intent, and address issues of legal sufficiency
14
15 Recommendation
16 - Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval;
17 - Close the public hearing; and
18 - Deliberate as necessary and decide accordingly and/or adopt the Ordinance in
19 Attachment 2 which approves the amendments.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
22 receive the planning board's recommendation and close the public hearing.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 Commissioner Price asked about the water supply analyses. She asked how defensible
27 this will be, as it is difficult to ask a business to determine how much water they will use. She is
28 curious as to how this would be managed.
29 Perdita Holtz said it is going to be one piece of the puzzle, and the ground water
30 analysis will tell them the drill rates on the particular piece of property and how much water
31 would be available to be used. She noted that this can vary tremendously throughout the
32 County. She said this information would be used in deciding whether to approve or not approve
33 a particular application.
34 Commissioner McKee asked if he is correct in saying that bona fide farms do not have
35 to use this.
36 Perdita Holtz said bona fide uses on the farm would not have to be considered, but the
37 uses being added to the UDO are not considered bona fide farm uses. She said the existing
38 bona fide farm use would not be part of the calculation.
39 Commissioner Price said that when new subdivisions were being put in there was
40 concern with the water flow, but the County could not regulate that. She asked how this is any
41 different.
42 Perdita Holtz said staff is asking for a study to be done to determine if there is water
43 flow available on the property for the use.
44 Commissioner Gordon said this has been discussed, and she feels confident that this
45 can be calculated. She thinks it is important to keep this analysis in there. She said this
46 County is fortunate to have a pure water supply, but there is not a lot of water. She said the
47 point was made in the public hearing that it would be important to find out if the use was
48 comparable to a residential use. She said she lives in an area that does not have a lot of
49 groundwater, and this would be important in areas like that. She urged the Board to keep this
50 requirement.
14
1 Commissioner Gordon said she is concerned in some cases about the intensity and size
2 of the uses, particularly with the Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional Zoning ASE-CZ.
3 She said the point was to be more flexible with the standards. She said in some cases it has
4 gotten a little more flexible and a little less predictable. She has general concerns of that
5 nature, but she feels the general concept of agricultural support enterprises is a worthy one.
6 Commissioner Gordon noted for future reference, that the R-1 zoning is not included in
7 Agricultural Support Enterprises outside of the rural buffer.
8 Commissioner Price referred back to the water issue and said she agrees that it is
9 important to know. She is concerned about how much it will cost to do a study and how it will
10 affect others in the vicinity. She questioned whether it will be helping or hurting people to
11 require a study that could cost thousands of dollars.
12 Perdita Holtz said when staff spoke with potential consultants the answer was $3000 to
13 $6000 for a simple study and up to $20,000 for an extensive study.
14 Commissioner Price noted that the outside storage cannot be in the front of the building
15 but could be at the side. She asked how this will work. She said this is on page 74 in the
16 packet.
17 Perdita Holtz said this means outdoor storage would not be allowed in the front of a
18 building between the building and road. She said storage would be allowed from the front
19 building line backwards to the rear yard, and this is meant to limit unsightly storage in the front
20 of buildings. She said for the purposes of zoning, the front yard is defined as the area between
21 the road and the building, regardless of the direction the building faces.
22 Commissioner Pelissier said she hopes that the Board will pass this item, since it has
23 been around since 2001. She said some of the advisory boards have lost faith in the County.
24 She hopes that the passage of this might redeem the Board and the County. She hopes that if
25 this passes the Board would find a way to let the community know that this is opening up rural
26 Orange County for more entrepreneurship related to agriculture and food.
27 Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Pelissier's comments. He said this has been
28 adjusted several times to make it more feasible in every possible way. He is pleased that this is
29 moving on a parallel track with similar uses in the rural buffer. He said residents were promised
30 30 years ago that they would not be disadvantaged by being zoned rural buffer. He said it has
31 taken a little while but the Board is now at the threshold of fulfilling an obligation and creating
32 opportunities. He said he hopes that the planning department will monitor the effect of the
33 water analysis costs and let the Board of County Commissioners know if changes are needed.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
36 adopt the Ordinance for Agricultural Support Enterprises as outlined in Attachment 2 which
37 approves the amendments.
38
39 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Gordon)
40
41 Commissioner Price said this is a topic that hit her when she first got on the planning
42 board in 2001, and it is nice to see it finally happen.
43
44 6. Consent Agenda
45 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
46 Commissioner Gordon requested the removal of item 6b for discussion.
47 Commissioner Dorosin requested the removal of item 6d for discussion.
48 6d
49
50 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
15
1 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
2 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
7
8
9 b. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budqet Amendment#8
10 The Board considered approving budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2013-14.
11 Commissioner Gordon referred to section 5, which specifies a Hook-lift truck to be
12 purchased out of the general fund. She would like to change this to say that the truck will be
13 paid for out of the solid waste fund.
14 Commissioner Gordon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve
15 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#8, with a change stating that the $190,548 Hook-Lift
16 truck on number 5 for solid waste be paid for from the solid waste fund.
17 Clarence Grier said staff had suggested funding through the general fund because the
18 general fund supports sanitation to approximately $1.8 million per year. He said there are
19 sufficient funds to pay for this from the Solid Waste fund if that is the pleasure of the Board.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked why Commissioner Gordon feels this suggested change is
21 important when the Solid Waste fund is already being used to cover recycling cost.
22 Commissioner Gordon said the Board still has not decided how to do the recycling costs
23 yet. She said she thought there was a long range plan to do everything related to solid waste
24 out of the solid waste enterprise fund instead of the general fund. She thought this transition
25 was already happening, and she feels it should continue. She said the $1.8 million from the
26 general fund was mainly there for historical reasons, and the solid waste convenience center
27 fees were increased to wean off of this dependence.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 d. Housing Rehabilitation Program — N.C. Housing Finance Agency
32 The Board considered adopting the Assistance, Procurement and Disbursement Policies
33 for the 2014 Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program funded by the N.C. Housing
34 Finance Agency and authorizing the Chair to sign.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said the policy states that $170,000 will be used to do three
36 renovations, and then later on it states that only $45,000 can be spent on each project. He
37 asked if money will be sent back at the end of the program.
38 James Davis said this is a loan pool, and the money covers the entire umbrella of what
39 they can max. He said a certain number of properties must be proposed, but that number can
40 be exceeded. He said properties may require a lesser amount of rehab, and that will allow for
41 more projects than originally proposed. He said there are also change orders that may come
42 in after projects are proposed, so they feel safest with three.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks, in the policies in d-1, the priority should be a
44 higher number of houses repaired with a lower targeted rate. He said he would rather see them
45 do 10 houses at $17,000 than just 2 or 3 houses that need $45,000 in repairs. He said the
46 Board may need to talk about this policy.
47 Commissioner Dorosin said the program guidelines also talk about prioritizing families
48 with children under age 6. He said Orange County's priority ranking (page 4) does not prioritize
49 families with children in its scoring system. He feels this should be a priority at least equal to
50 the elderly. He is wondering why it is not.
16
1 James Davis said these priority rankings are from the housing finance agency. He said
2 while there may be priorities that can be set for things that come out of the County's general
3 fund, these are monies from the housing finance agency, and this requires compliance with the
4 agency's rankings. He referred to the idea of focusing on more properties with lower cost and
5 said it has been difficult to get properties that come in under $40,000 that meet all of the other
6 criteria. He said this is because the entire structure must meet a certain qualification for a
7 rehab, unlike an urgent repair.
8 Commissioner Dorosin said he would be interested in either the Board or the Affordable
9 Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) giving feedback to the finance agency regarding the County's
10 priorities, or at least requesting more information on how the priorities are set.
11 Chair Jacobs suggested approving this item with direction to refer the matter to the
12 AHAB for additional examination on how to use the remainder of the funds to address more
13 properties within the parameters set by the housing finance agency.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
16 adopt the Assistance, Procurement and Disbursement Policies for the 2014 Single Family
17 Housing Rehabilitation Program funded by the N.C. Housing Finance Agency and authorize the
18 Chair to sign, with direction to refer the matter to the AHAB for additional examination on how to
19 use the remainder of the funds to address more properties within the parameters set by the
20 housing finance agency.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 a. Minutes
25 The Board approved the minutes from both meetings on March 27, 2014 as submitted
26 by the Clerk to the Board.
27
28 b. Approval of Budget Amendment #8-A Appropriating Unassigned Fund Balance
29 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for Additional Landfill Closure Costs and
30 Purchase of 19,500 Urban Roll Carts
31 The Board approved Budget Amendment#8-A appropriating $1,456,555 in Unassigned
32 Fund Balance from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for the additional Landfill closure costs and
33 the purchase of 19,500 roll carts related to the Urban Curbside Recycling program.
34
35 7. Regular Agenda
36
37 a. Consideration of a Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to
38 Home Occupations (8:25 — 8:50)
39 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation and made a decision on a
40 Planning Board and Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development
41 Ordinance (UDO).
42 Ashley Moncado reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
43
44 Unified Development Ordinance
45 Text Amendment
46 Home Occupation Standards
47 May 20, 2014
48 Item 7-a
49 Purpose
17
1 • To receive the Planning Board recommendation and make a decision on a Planning
2 Board and Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development
3 Ordinance.
4
5 Review History
6 • November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing
7 • December 4, 2013 Planning Board
8 • January 8, 2014 Planning Board
9 • February 18, 2014 BOCC
10 • April 2, 2014 Planning Board
11
12 Ashley Moncado said a report has been presented that addresses reservation and
13 concerns with impacts from the revisions to setback and screening standards, and this is
14 included as attachment 4. She said the Planning Board has voted 4-2 to recommend approval
15 of the UDO text amendment. She said no revisions have been made to the text amendment
16 since its submission at the February 18th meeting. She noted that the amendment is proposed
17 to take effect July 1 to allow time for outreach regarding the revised standards.
18 Commissioner Price said she will vote for this, but she is still unsatisfied with the size of
19 the setbacks. She feels it is excessive, and she would like to decrease the buffer to 15 feet.
20 Chair Jacobs proposed a change of language in article 5, section 5.5.3.2 iii on page 5-
21 36 regarding use of accessory structures. He feels that the wording "structures built with
22 suitable residential construction materials to resemble the appearance of a residential
23 accessory structure" is too restrictive. He feels it should just say "materials not incompatible
24 with a residential accessory structure." He said it is overreach by the government to tell people
25 what their accessory structures should look like. He would rather see them err on the side of
26 flexibility rather than put the planning staff in the position of having to police what is an
27 acceptable material on somebody's property.
28 Ashley Moncado said staff has discussed this, and they would be willing to change the
29 language here tonight.
30 Ashley Moncado referred to Commissioner Price's concern and said there is reference
31 to the accessory structures and setback for a major home occupation in the text language on
32 agenda page 26. She said the site plans were in attachment 4 on pages 44-47.
33 Commissioner Price said there was also one on page 41.
34 Ashley Moncado said these are regarding minor home occupations. She said the 40
35 foot setback is regarding the screening waiver. She said if a screening buffer is not provided
36 then you would be required to exceed setback standards of 40 feet. She said the 40 foot
37 requirement is on the major home occupations on a property that is at least 5 acres in size.
38 Commissioner Price said she just wanted to bring this to their attention, and she does
39 feel it is excessive.
40 Commissioner Gordon said it is fine to give home occupations more leniency, but she is
41 struggling with the balance of non-residential uses in a residential area and the effect on
42 neighbors. She said her general concern is the intensity and size of some of the uses and that
43 it exceeds the balance in the rural area. She said there were some building trade related uses
44 added after the quarterly public hearing in 2013, and she has some concerns about these being
45 added.
46 Chair Jacobs said staff went to some length to try and strike that balance.
47
48■ A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
49 approve the text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, as contained in
18
1 Attachment 2, with a change in language from Chair Jacobs regarding the materials for an
2 accessory structure.
3.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there will be an inventory of these home occupations or
5 if there is already a listing or index of where these exist. .
6 Ashley said there is a listing. She said there are currently 63 home occupations with a
7 log showing back to 10 years, and these will continue to be logged moving forward.
8 Commissioner Dorosin asked for an electronic copy of this to be provided to the Board
9 of County Commissioners, with an update annually.
10 Chair Jacobs said the Board had asked for periodic updates from the planning
11 department, and this could fit into those reports. He would like to see updates regarding new
12 agricultural enterprises and new home occupations as a result of the changes approved tonight.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said work could potentially be done with economic development
14 to support these new occupations.
15 Michael Talbert said the first report from the planning department, and he will email this
16 to the Board tomorrow.
17
18 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Gordon)
19
20
21 b. Addition of the Unified Development Ordinance to the Code of Ordinances of
22 Orange County, North Carolina
23 The Board considered codifying Orange County's Unified Development Ordinance
24 ("UDO") by adding it to the Code of Ordinances of Orange County, North Carolina (the "Code")
25 as Appendix A thereto and authorizing the Chair to sign.
26 John Roberts said this process started in 1996 when the Board at that time voted for
27 and authorized staff to work with Municode to codify all of Orange County's ordinances at that
28 time. He said for various reasons that never happened. He said an unofficial code of
29 ordinances has been available and regularly updated on the County website. He said people
30 would refer to it, but the only actual ordinances were maintained in the offices of the clerk,
31 which caused confusion. He said the Board in 2011 codified all of the general ordinances, and
32 those are now available through a published document available in the clerk's office and on the
33 internet.
34 He said staff is now asking the Board to add the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
35 to that codification, as appendix 1. He said this will allow it to be plead and proven in courts, as
36 the code of ordinances.
37 John Roberts said the second to last paragraph reads "be it further resolved a recently
38 adopted amendment to the UDO, ordinance 2014-17, related to kennels, which was adopted in
39 April of this year, is not included." He said a motion would be needed to include in this
40 statement the home occupations and agricultural support enterprises text amendments that
41 were adopted tonight.
42 Chair Jacobs clarified that the statement should read "be it further resolved a recently
43 adopted amendment to the UDO, ordinance 2014-17, related to kennels, home occupations
44 and agricultural support enterprises, adopted in April and May of 2014 are not included in the
45 unified development ordinance proofs."
46 Commissioner Rich asked if this will be updated annually.
47 John Roberts said it is updated as often as staff sends in notifications to Municode, and
48 this is usually done quarterly. He said Municode updates the website and sends a republication
49 amendment to the County. He said any text amendment that is adopted will be effective. He
19
1 said it will show up on Municode's website as not officially published, but there will be a link to a
2 PDF version of the document.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if John Roberts anticipated any confusion from the time that
4 things are adopted to the quarterly report.
5 John Roberts does not anticipate any problems from that.
6 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to clarify that the kennels, home occupations,
7 and agricultural support enterprises amendments will not be included. She asked if this has to
8 be said every time an ordinance is adopted.
9 John Roberts said the UDO is not part of the code now. He said, since the County is
10 adding it, it is being added based on the re-publication that was submitted to the County a
11 month ago, and that did not include these three text amendments. He said, in the future,
12 whenever a text amendment is passed by the Board, it will automatically be effective, and it will
13 be put into the code as soon as it is sent to Municode. He said there will be no need for any
14 extra action in the future.
15 Chair Jacobs asked if these three items will be incorporated the next time there is an
16 update.
17 John Roberts said Municode should be able to add these before the final publication is
18 completed.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
21 adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution of Adoption and add the UDO to
22 the Code of Ordinances of Orange County, North Carolina, with the inclusion of the following
23 change to the second to last paragraph: "be it further resolved that recently adopted
24 amendments to the UDO, related to kennels, home occupations and agricultural support
25 enterprises, adopted in April and May of 2014 are not included in the unified development
26 ordinance proofs."
27 . Commissioner Gordon suggested a friendly amendment to say "agricultural support
28 enterprises outside of the rural buffer."
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts if this is needed.
30 John Roberts said it will not hurt anything. He said only one agricultural support
31 enterprises ordinance was adopted tonight.
32 Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price accepted the friendly amendment.
33
34 The complete resolution, including revisions reads as follows:
35
36 A RESOLUTION ADDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF
37 ORANGE COUNTY TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, ORANGE COUNTY,
38 NORTH CAROLINA, AS APPENDIX A
39
40
41 WHEREAS, on December 17, 1996 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners,
42 pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §153A-49, authorized the codification of its
43 ordinances into a code of ordinances; and
44
45 WHEREAS, for various reasons the code of ordinances was not adopted but remained
46 available to residents using the Orange County website thus creating confusion regarding the
47 actual adopted laws of Orange County; and
48
20
1 WHEREAS, the issues regarding adoption were ultimately resolved and on December 5, 2011
2 the general ordinances of Orange County were codified by the Board of County Commissioners
3 into the Code of Ordinances of Orange County, North Carolina (the "Code"); and
4
5 WHEREAS, due to multiple problems with the complexity of converting the Unified
6 Development Ordinance ("UDO") to an appropriate format and also several staff changes and
7 other issues at Municipal Code Corporation, the entity with which Orange County contracted to
8 maintain the Code, the Code did not include the UDO which was adopted in its unified form on
9 April 5, 2011; and
10
11 WHEREAS, the Code's adoption ordinance specified that the UDO would remain in effect,
12 however, and work was continued on adding the UDO to the Code; and
13
14 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2014 Municipal Code Corporation completed the final proofs of the UDO
15 and delivered them to the County Attorney's office after which both planning staff and the
16 County Attorney reviewed the proofs and determined the Proofs are ready for codification.
17
18 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §153A-49
19 and the Adopting Ordinance of the Code of Ordinances, Orange County, North Carolina, dated
20 December 5, 2011, the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, having been originally
21 adopted on April 5, 2011 and amended from time to time thereafter, and as it is reflected in the
22 Unified Development Ordinance Proofs dated April 3, 2014 provided by Municipal Code
23 Corporation, is added to the Code of Ordinances, Orange County, North Carolina, as Appendix
24 A thereto.
25
26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED recently adopted text amendments to the UDO, Ordinance 2014-
27 017 regarding kennels adopted April 15, 2014, Ordinance 2014-007 regarding home
28 occupations adopted May 20, 2014, and Ordinance 2014-022 regarding agricultural support
29 enterprises outside the rural buffer adopted May 20, 2014, are not included in the Unified
30 Development Ordinance Proofs and will not be published at this time, but shall continue in full
31 force and effect until and beyond such time as they are officially published in Appendix A of the
32 Code of Ordinances, Orange County, North Carolina.
33
34 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all future amendments to the UDO shall be approved and
35 codified in accordance with applicable state law and the Adopting Ordinance of the Code of
36 Ordinances, Orange County, North Carolina, dated December 5, 2011.
37
38 This, the 20th day of May 2014.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42
43 b. Orange Unified Transportation Board Request to Authorize the Planning Staff
44 to Review Private Road Standards, Access Standards, and Trail System
45 Standards of the Unified Development Ordinance; Amendment Outline
46 The Board considered instructing Planning staff to review the private road, access and
47 trail system standards, and develop recommended amendments to the Unified Development
48 Ordinance (UDO) for consideration.
49 Abigaile Pittman said this activity was identified in the accepted 2014 work plans for the
50 Outboard as well as the planning board. She said this relates primarily to ensuring the
21
1 properties can be reached by emergency services personnel, there have been reports of public
2 safety concerns regarding the adequacy of certain private roads and other standards. She said
3 additional issues have arisen with requests to convert some private roads to public roads and
4 problems with bringing those private roads up to acceptable construction standards.
5 She said in the review of these standards planning staff would seek input from other
6 County departments to explore a range of perspectives and options.
7 Commissioner Gordon asked if there would ever be an instance where a private road
8 that is already in existence would have to upgrade.
9 Abigaile Pittman said if a road was created legally under the existing ordinance, it would
10 be grandfathered in and would not be required to go back and make revisions. She said it is
11 not uncommon for subdivisions on a private road to seek conversion to a public road for
12 maintenance. She said the class B private roads, which are often 12 feet wide and gravel, can
13 be expensive and difficult to convert.
14 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the existing roads would be grandfathered in, and a
15 new home built in a neighborhood with an existing private road would not be required to make
16 changes to the road.
17 Abigaile Pittman said the ordinance states the any subdivision above 5 homes requires
18 a class A road.
19 Commissioner Gordon asked what would happen if an existing neighborhood decided to
20 subdivide lots to create more homes.
21 Michael Harvey said if a neighborhood is going to create 5 lots, a class B road is
22 adequate. He said the ordinance also requires the accommodation of one additional lot as a
23 means of insuring access. He said if there are 3 lots on a class B private road, and a 4th lot is
24 created, that is still serviceable by a class B private road. He said if there are 5 lots and a 6th
25 lot is created, the road will need to be upgraded to a class A road.
26 Commissioner Gordon clarified that this need to upgrade is only triggered when you go
27 above 5 lots.
28 Michael Harvey said that is correct.
29 Commissioner Pelissier asked, if a sub-division had a class A road, whether this would
30 involve looking to see if the Class A road really exists versus a class B. She asked about the
31 current process to verify that a road has been constructed as specified.
32 Michael Harvey said the current practice requires final subdivision plats cannot be
33 recorded until the road is bonded or staff has verified that it meets the appropriate standards.
34 Commissioner Pelissier asked about the role of the Commission for the Environment
35 (CfE) in this process.
36 Abigaile Pittman said when the OUTBoard was considering some of the issues,
37 concerns were brought up about emergency access on trail systems. She said it has been
38 suggested that there be staging areas where trails cross roads. She said this relates to
39 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) and CfE, and it would
40 go to both boards.
41 Chair Jacobs said he has environmental concerns too, and he would be thrilled to have
42 CfE and DEAPR consider these. He said the Board labored for years to create private road
43 standards that would be environmentally sensitive. He said there was discussion about how in
44 other states you can build environmentally sensitive development without roads built to DOT
45 standards. His concern is that in saying that every private road should accommodate the
46 possibility of becoming a public road or accommodate the large ambulances, it will mean losing
47 the ability to maintain the character of the property. He does not see this concern articulated.
48 He said there are also smaller vehicles that can get down the trails. He does not want to see
49 this item result in the cutting of large swaths through trails to get large emergency vehicles
50 down. He does not see anything articulated about these concerns.
22
1 Chair Jacobs said there have been past discussions with DOT about adjusting their
2 standards so that they are not one size fit all. He said his concern would be that some of these
3 other boards that have interest in land use and preservation should be part of this discussion.
4 He would like people to have the opportunity to make choices.
5 Abigaile Pittman said staff has not yet begun to do detailed research or consultation with
6 other departments. She said this is a request to allow that research and then come back with
7 the findings. She said staff recognizes that there will be many interests to balance.
8 Commissioner McKee said he does not disagree with any of the statements that have
9 been made. He does want to offer the flipside of DOT road standards. He said there is at least
10 one subdivision in the County where residents have found the maintenance costs to be
11 impossible to meet, and they have asked the DOT to take this road. He said the request was
12 refused because the road did not meet standards. He said DOT is probably not going to
13 change their standards to accommodate any needs but their own.
14 Chair Jacobs said it was mentioned yesterday that the Board should petition the state
15 NCDOT to investigate alternative methods for the provision of public roads. He said the
16 arguments would need to be marshaled before there was any hope of success in this. He
17 suggested efforts should be made to put those arguments together.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner McKee to move
20 forward with the OUTBoard's recommendation to:
21
22 1. Authorize the Planning staff to review the private road standards, access standards, and trail
23 system standards of the UDO;
24 2. Authorize the Planning Board to provide review comments to the Planning staff;
25 3. Authorize the Planning staff to solicit comments from Department of Environment,
26 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation staff and the Commission for the Environment and/or
27 Parks and Recreation Council;
28 4. Authorize the Planning staff to solicit comments from the Emergency Services staff and
29 the Fire Chief's Council; and
30 5. Return to the BOCC in the Fall of 2014 with an update and request to proceed with text
31 amendment(s).
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 8. Reports
36
37 a. Report of the Human Relations Commission (HRC)
38 The Board received and discussed the Human Relation Commission's (HRC) position
39 regarding the establishment of a subcommittee that focuses on matters of the equitable
40 treatment of women.
41 James Davis reviewed the highlights of the report. He said the HRC has discussing an
42 issue presented by the Board regarding the reinstallation of the Commission for Women or the
43 creation of a subcommittee to address the equitable treatment of women. He said this report
44 highlights the points of this discussion. He said this includes a recommendation that the HRC
45 continue to do its duty to carry out the mission of the equitable treatment of everyone and to
46 increase its awareness and involvement in issues regarding women.
47 He said the HRC further recommended that if there are any identified inequities in the
48 County, the Board would permit a consultant to figure out what those inequities were with
49 regard to wage and salary and to administer a charge on how to address those.
50
23
1 Commissioner Gordon said she is happy about the last part of the report. She is not so
2 sure that the only way to do this is with additional resources. She asked why there cannot be a
3 sub-committee on this since there are so many other sub-committees.
4 James Davis said the HRC is comprised of a diverse membership, and having a sub-
5 committee focused strictly on women sparked a discussion about sub-committees for all of the
6 other minorities. He said it occurred to the HRC that this could lead to a never ending creation
7 of subcommittees and issues with failing to include certain groups. He said the Diversity
8 Matters subcommittee was created prior to these discussions, and it was decided that this
9 subcommittee should be the one to discuss all matters of diversity, including women and equity.
10 Commissioner Price said she is pleased that this is going forward, but she wonders if
11 hiring a person to address this issue may not be the way to go. She said if the staff person
12 does not get funded, there may be other ways to collect the data. She said this could be
13 addressed with Diversity Matters.
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board is supposed to give direction to HRC on what
15 to prioritize over the next year.
16 Chair Jacobs said the request is for a response to this report.
17 Michael Talbert said the purpose is specifically to deal with the study of women's issues
18 by the HRC, and give feedback on where the HRC should go from here and whether their idea
19 of addressing it through the Diversity Matters subcommittee is adequate.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said he has not signed on to the idea that study of pay equity is
21 the highest priority human relations issue. He said if there are limited resources on what can be
22 focused on, he has some different ideas on gender discrimination and what the focus should
23 be. He noted that the Health Department is going to have the poverty council, which will be
24 looking at issues including gender discrimination and the problems faced by single mothers and
25 female heads of household. He feels there is an opportunity for synergy here, and he wants to
26 be clear on what the Board is supposed to be doing here. He said he would propose a broader
27 agenda than just pay disparity, as he does not think this is the most pressing issue.
28 Commissioner Price said this was in response to a request she made along with
29 Commissioner Gordon to bring back a commission that focused on women's issues. She
30 realizes there are many issues that can be tackled, but after talking to many women a decision
31 was made to hone in on such issues as pay equity, raises, promotions, and the ability to get
32 loans. She said there are many issues, but an advisory board can only do so much, and she is
33 pleased to see this step in the right direction. She said there are already plans to do a
34 community read to begin the dialogue.
35 James Davis said this is planned for the fall.
36 Commissioner Price said she does not see why other issues could not be addressed
37 further down the road.
38 Commissioner Pelissier said as she understands it the Board does not have to give any
39 direction and can just accept the report. She said a pay study has been proposed, but she
40 would agree that this is not the best way to address this. She likes the approach of Diversity
41 Matters and looking at all of the different groups where there may be issues. She said the
42 work plan will come to the Board early next year and this can be approved and direction given
43 as needed at that time.
44 Commissioner Rich said she agrees with Commissioner Dorosin, and she feels the
45 focus should be on more than one issue. She does not feel this is the most important issue for
46 women right now. She said she talked with the Durham Human Rights Commission (HRC)
47 about how they handle their women's division. She said Durham does not have a women's
48 commission, and everyone is involved in the conversations. She said this group is in their 7th
49 year of producing a Women's Forum in March and there are all kinds of issues addressed here.
50 She said it is a very successful all day event, and there are public and private partnerships.
24
1 She would like to see this on a broader scale, and she thinks it should be under the Diversity
2 Matters committee. She said some issues discovered with women's issues will be true across
3 the board for other groups.
4 Commissioner Gordon said it seems that the HRC may not do anything in particular
5 about women's issues unless they are given more money. She said this concerns her, as it
6 seems like the resources of the Diversity Matters group could be focused on women's issues.
7 She feels that pay equity is important, because if women were paid equally a lot of other issues
8 would fall into place. She said she still thinks there should be a focus on women's issues. She
9 would like to see Diversity Matters have a focus on women to determine the concerns and
10 issues for women in Orange County.
11 Commissioner Rich said it is already known that women are paid less than men, and
12 she does not understand what the goal is in researching this and putting it on paper. She
13 asked if this is a proposal to come up with a solution. She said the County cannot tell private
14 companies to pay women more.
15 Chair Jacobs said the manager is asking the Board to provide feedback to staff on next
16 steps. He said the Board feels there are several issues of interest that could be pursued, and
17 the HRC has heard these issues. He said the goal now is to have them look at the gamut of
18 issues and how they impact women in Orange County and then report back to the Board of
19 County Commissioners before going out too far on a limb. He asked about a timetable for this
20 report. He suggested there be a specific time line for deliberation, discussion, investigation and
21 reporting
22 Chair Jacobs said the HRC used to do an annual day-long symposium, and then it
23 stopped. He said this may be a fruitful area for the creation of this type of event.
24 Commissioner Price said the point of this was just to get the ball rolling. She said the
25 HRC has a forum every January, and she understands that women may be the focus of this
26 event in 2015.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
29 accept the report, inclusive of the points raised in this discussion and the articulated timeline.
30
31 Michael Talbert said he feels the Board is on the right track. He said feedback has been
32 given and James Davis will take this back to the HRC for further discussion. He suggested that
33 the HRC bring back a plan in late fall as to how these issues will be addressed.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board needs to have a discussion about how priorities
35 are set for advisory boards. He said this should be discussed and voted on. He is not saying
36 this is not an important issue, but he has talked to a lot of women in the community who have
37 different sets of issues that are priorities. He does not think the Board had agreed that pay
38 equity is the highest priority. He feels the Board should provide clearer and broader direction
39 when setting priorities.
40 Commissioner Pelissier asked why the Board would ask the HRC to come back in the
41 fall since they submit their work plan in January for review. She referred to Commissioner
42 Dorosin's point and said the plans of all of the advisory boards are approved by the
43 Commissioners and there can be direction given regarding priorities. She feels that the report
44 from the HRC should just wait until January.
45 Chair Jacobs said it would be nice to receive a report in the fall if there is potentially
46 going to be a forum in January, so that the Board can address the priorities of this event.
47 James Davis said the forum in January is proposed to be an acknowledgement of the
48 50th anniversary of the 1965 Voter's Rights Act, combined with the anniversary of the 19th
49 amendment, which granted women the right to vote.
25
1 Chair Jacobs said the Board has given some direction and having this timeframe will
2 allow impact of how this discussion moves forward. He said it sounds like this event will be
3 centered on voting rights, but there are a lot of related issues, such as civil rights that can be
4 brought to bear.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 9. County Manager's Report
9 Michael Talbert asked Carla Banks to show a promotional video of the recent County
10 expo.
11 Carla Banks gave a brief overview of the expo. She said the month of April was County
12 Government Month, and staff hosted the first every Orange County Expo. She said there were
13 250-300 people who stopped by University Mall. She said WCHL radio was there and this was
14 a good public private partnership event. She said the expo resulted in collaboration among
15 more than 20 County departments who were able to showcase their programs and services.
16 Carla Banks showed a video highlighting the event. She thanked all of the departments
17 for their participation.
18 Michael Talbert referred to the hand out of the annual report for the Community Giving
19 Fund. He said this is the first year of the fund, and the donations totaled $9,386. He said
20 Animal Services received the lion's share of this. He said the donations can be categorized for
21 a specific purpose. He said most people giving money have a specific need that they want to
22 see addressed. He said the fund is moving at a faster pace now that residents are finding out
23 about it.
24 Commissioner Rich asked who creates the buckets.
25 Michael Talbert said a combination of staff and resident input contributes to the creation
26 of these buckets.
27 Commissioner Gordon suggested the mention of this fund during the televised budget
28 public hearings.
29 Michael Talbert said Orange County was before the Chapel Hill Town Council last night
30 in reference to the SUP as it relates to the development of the 33 acres here at the southern
31 campus. He said the town received comments and the presentation. He said it was generally
32 well received, and the town will act on this on June 23.
33
34 10. County Attorney's Report
35 NONE
36
37 11. Appointments
38 Commissioner Dorosin said he has noticed that there are several people seeking
39 appointments to a second commission. He thinks the wealth should be spread around, and he
40 feels that this should be adopted as a rule. He said he will not vote for anyone to be appointed
41 to a board if they are already serving on another board.
42 Chair Jacobs said this is currently allowed, but it could be discussed at a future work
43 session.
44
45 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
46 The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community
47 Advisory Committee.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
50 appoint Dr. Mario Battigelli to a second full term (Position #1) At-Large ending 03/31/2017.
26
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 b. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointment
5 The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
8 appoint Ms. Virginia Fitt to a first partial term (Position #10) Animal Advocate ending
9 06/30/2014.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 c. Commission for the Environment—Appointments
14 The Board considered making appointments to the Commission for the Environment.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
17 make the following appointments to the Commission for the Environment:
18 • To move Lydia Wegman from (Position #3) At-Large Land Resources to (Position #2) At-
19 Large Air Quality (please see attached recommendation letter) ending 12/31/2016.
20 • Appointment to a first partial term (Position #3) At-Large Land Resources for Mr. William
21 Kaiser ending 12/31/2014.
22 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) At-Large for Mr. Clifford Leath ending
23 12/31/2016.
24 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) At-Large for Ms. Judy Miller ending
25 12/31/2016.
26
27 VOTE: 2 ayes (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier), 5 nays (Chair Jacobs,
28 Commissioner Dorosin. Commissioner Price. Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Rich)
29
30 A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
31 • Leave Ms. Wegman in Position #3 ( At-Large Land Resources) with an ending term of
32 12/31/2014.
33 • Appoint William Newby to Position #2 (At-Large/Air Quality) with an ending term of
34 12/31/2016.
35 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) At-Large for Mr. Clifford Leath ending
36 12/31/2016.
37 • • Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) At-Large for Ms. Judy Miller ending
38 12/31/2016.
39
40 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin. Commissioner Price.
41 Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Rich); Nays,2 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner
42 Pelissier)
43
44 d. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointment
45 The Board considered making an appointment to the Economic Development Advisory
46 Board.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
49 appoint Mr. Ronald Keizer to a first full term to the Core Business Position with an expiration
50 date of 6/30/2016.
27
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 e. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment—Appointment
5 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
8 appoint Mr. Dustin Williams to a first partial term to position #2 - Hillsborough ETJ with a term
9 ending 09/30/2016
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 f. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
14 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
17 appoint Ms. Jamie Morris to Position #3 (Hillsborough ETJ) with a term ending 5/31/2017.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
21 g_ Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
22 The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
23 Advisory Committee.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
26 appoint Ms. Vibeke Talley to a one year training term (Position #12) ending 04/15/2015.
27 (POSITION EXPIRATION DATE of 12/31/2016)
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 h. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments
32 The Board considered appointments to the Orange County Planning Board.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Price to
35 make the following appointments:
36
37 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #11) Chapel Hill Township for Ms. Lisa Stuckey
38 ending 03/31/2017.
39 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #12) At-Large Representation for Ms. Maxecine
40 Mitchell ending 03/31/2017.
41
42 Commissioner Dorosin said he will be voting no to this because one of these applicants
43 is already serving on a board. He requested a statement of any other advisory boards that
44 applicants are serving on. He would like to see this information clearly in the application.
45 Donna Baker said this information is taken directly from the database and she can work
46 with IT to make sure the information is clear and up to date once someone is already serving on
47 a board.
48
49 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1(Commissioner Dorosin)
50
28
1 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
2 appoint Bryan Warren to a first full term to position # 5(Hillsborough Township) with an ending
3 term of 3/31/2017.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
8 appoint Ms. Laura Nicholson to a first partial term to position # 6 (Eno Township) with a term
9 ending 3/31/2016.
10
11 VOTE: 4 Ayes (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin,
12 Commissioner McKee); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner
13 Pelissier)
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
16 appoint Kim Paracci to position# 9 ( At-Large) with and ending term of 3/31/2017.
17
18 Motion failed — no vote taken with previous vote taking precedence.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
21 appoint Lydia Wegman to position # 9 ( At-Large) with an ending term of 3/31/2017.
22
23 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier,
24 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner
25 Price)
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Price to
28 appoint Kim Paracci to position# 9 ( At-Large) with and ending term of 3/31/2017.
29
30 Motion failed — no vote taken with previous vote taking precedence.
31
32 12. Board Comments
33 Commissioner Pelissier said the Jail Alternatives Report probably will not be available to
34 the board before the break. She said the report is still incomplete and needs more comment
35 and discussion. She noted that this does not affect the planning for the new jail.
36 Commissioner Price said she attended the Ladies of Excellence program at Stanford,
37 which was spearheaded by the 4-H club. She wanted to highlight that there are some great
38 young people in the County.
39 Commissioner McKee said the gross income requirement for farm use valuation is
40 proposed to be increased from $1,000 to $10,000. He said this is scheduled to be voted on
41 tomorrow, and it is unlikely that there are enough votes to defeat it. He said this will have an
42 impact on a lot of the smaller farmers in North Carolina, especially those who are trying to get
43 started.
44 Commissioner Dorosin — none
45 Commissioner Rich thanked the staff for arranging for the groundbreaking for the
46 Rogers Road Community Center. She said there was also a groundbreaking for the new Inter
47 Faith Council (IFC) community home. She said it is nice to see them moving forward with some
48 of these community homes.
49 Commissioner Gordon said, in connection with the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro
50 Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), the state has now released the prioritization
29
1 3.0 scoring. She said these are the scores that will be the underpinning of the prioritization of
2 the state transportation projects.
3 Commissioner Gordon said the public hearing on the SUP for the Southern Human
4 Services Center Campus with the Town of Chapel Hill was an interesting experience. She feels
5 it was well received and she hopes the town will act favorably on June 23.
6 Chair Jacobs said the Burlington Graham MPO is another planning organization that
7 involves Orange County, and he just attended their meeting and received a sheet on the
8 prioritization 3.0. He said there was a DOT luncheon meeting yesterday and Sheryl McQuery
9 was there. He said there was discussion about how the 1-40 project might be funded if it was
10 done in phases or segments as opposed to one big $70 million project. He said there will be a
11 report from staff to get the Board up to speed on all of the projects.
12 He said there was a meeting last week with another waste disposal group called
13 Greenwave. He said this was an entity that is trying to get started doing plasma torch
14 destruction of solid waste. He said staff was going to pursue whether this idea was feasible
15 and cost effective. He said this is just part of trying to get ideas on the table.
16 Chair Jacobs said there was a meeting last night at Cedar Grove to discuss the bus plan
17 expansion for central and northern Orange County. He said there are 4 of these meetings
18 listed on the website. He said there were two dozen people there.
19 He congratulated all of the people who won election in the democratic primary. He
20 expressed gratitude for the support of staff and the public and said it is a privilege to serve the
21 citizens of Orange County.
22
23 13. Information Items
24 • May 8, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
25 • Memo Regarding Orange County Web site Redesign
26
27 14. Closed Session - NONE
28
29 15. Adjournment
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
32 adjourn the meeting at 10:19 p.m.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 Barry Jacobs, Chair
37
38
39 Donna Baker
40 Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
6 May 22, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Public Hearing on
10 Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough,
11 N.C.
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
13 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Opening Remarks
24 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to add
27 Approving the County Manager's Employment Contract item to the agenda.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS (6-0) (Commissioner Dorosin had not arrived yet)
30
31 a. Approving the County Manager's Employment Contract
32 The Board considered approving the County Manager's Employment Contract
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
35 approve the County Manager's Employment Contract.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 Commissioner Dorosin arrived.
40 Chair Jacobs welcomed Bonnie Hammersley.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said it is her pleasure and honor to begin her service as County
42 Manager. She looks forward to working with the Board and staff in the coming months and
43 years on the issues and challenges before them. She hopes to work with government partners
44 to find cost effective solutions to concerns, while exploring opportunities to strengthen the
45 County's economic and financial base.
46 Chair Jacobs said he and the Board appreciate the opportunity to work with Bonnie
47 Hammersley.
48 Commissioner Gordon welcomed Bonnie Hammersley and praised her many years of
49 experience.
50 Commissioner McKee added his welcome and said Bonnie Hammersley's experience in
51 other parts of the country will come in handy in Orange County.
2
1 Commissioner Price welcomed the new manager and said she looks forward to working
2 with her.
3 Commissioner Pelissier welcomed the manager. She hopes that Bonnie Hammersley
4 will bring new ideas to continue to make Orange County a creative and innovative county.
5 Commissioner Price said she was excited to start working with the new manager. She
6 said Michael Talbert will set her in the right direction.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said the only thing constant is change, and it is coming. He said
8 Bonnie Hammersley is part of this change, and he welcomes it.
9
10 2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2013-14 Budget (PowerPoint
11 Presentation)
12 A copy of the County Manager' Recommended FY 2014-15 Budget can be found at the
13 following website: http://www.orangecountync.gov/finance/index.asp
14 Michael Talbert said the proposed 2014-15 Fiscal Year budget is $195,638,505, which is
15 an increase of$7.9 million, or just over 4 percent. He said this budget does not include a tax
16 increase but does appropriate a significant amount of fund balance ($8.5 million).
17 He said the budget addresses the goals set at the retreat. He said the per-pupil funding is
18 recommended to go up $95, to $3,364 per pupil, which is a 2.9 percent increase. He said the
19 Board had a target of 48.1 percent, and this year's recommended budget is 49.3 percent. He
20 said the safety net services and target funds for child poverty are addressed, and these are
21 taken up in the social services and health department budget. He said there is also funding to
22 move the Rogers Road Sewer project forward. He said there is also $3 million in year 2 of the
23 CIP to fund the County's share of this sewer project.
24 He said there will be pressure in future years to raise taxes, with the possible bond
25 referendum, the property revaluations in 2017, and over $300 million in older school needs.
26
27 Clarence Grier presented the following PowerPoint slides:
28 County Manager's Recommended FY 2014-15 Annual Operating Budget and Capital
29 Investment Plan
30 Presentation
31 Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill
32 Orange County, NC
33 May 20, 2014
34
35 Guiding Principles
36 • Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase—6th
37 Consecutive Year
38 • Provides funding for County services at current levels
39 • Funds local school districts enrollment growth, operational funding and debt
40 service.
41 •
42 Recommended General Fund Budget
43 Totals $195.6 million
44 • Represents an increase of$7.9 million from original current year budget of
45 $187.7 million, which is a 4.21 percent increase from previous year original
46 budget
47 • Represents a $2.1 million decrease in the current year's amended budget
48
49 Components of General Fund Budget
50 General Fund Revenues $187,131,286
51 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance $8,507,219
3
1 General Fund Expenditures $(195,638,505)
2 Net $
3
4 Tax Savings Generated By the Use of Fund Balance
5 Fiscal Year Fund Balance Utilized Property Tax Rate Effect
6 2009-2010 $0 0
7 2010-2011 $401,673 .26
8 2011-2012 $1,131,417 .74
9 2012-2013 $2,187,872 1.39
10 2013-2014 $5,190,118 3.23
11 2014-2015 $8,507,219 5.19
12
13 The cumulative tax effect of utilizing fund balance to balance the budget totals 10.81
14 cents.
15
16 Orange County Projected Cash flows for FY2014-15 (spreadsheet)
17
18 Orange County Budget
19 Past 6 Fiscal Years (Bar graph)
20
21 Proposed Ad Valorem Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2014
22 • Proposed tax rate of 85.8 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
23 • This rate produces $140.6 million in property tax revenues for FY 2014 - 15
24 • Overall Real Property Valuation increased 1.9%
25 • One cent on property tax estimated to generate $1,638,241
26
27 Orange County Property Tax Revenues Past 6 Fiscal Years (Bar graph)
28
29 Sales Tax Revenues
30 • Recommended Sales Tax Revenues of$19.0 million is $1.8 million higher than the
31 $17.2 million budgeted in FY 2013-2014 due to increased in consumer spending , and
32 current year projections
33 • Actual sales tax revenues are down over 16% since the peak of$22.5 million in fiscal
34 year 2007-2008
35
36 • Orange County General Fund
37 FY 2014-15 Revenues (Pie chart)
38
39 • Proposed Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax Rate Effective July 1,
40 2014
41 Recommended tax rate of 20.84 cents per $100 of assessed valuation
42 - Represents no increase in the property tax rate for the District
43 Recommended tax rate will generate $21.8 million for the Chapel Hill — Carrboro City
44 School District
45 - This represents an additional $1,764 per pupil above the County's allocation
46 One cent on district tax is estimated to generate $1,044,521.
47
48 Recommended Funding for Chapel Hill - Carrboro City and Orange County
49 Schools
50 • Total General Fund appropriation totals $92.3 million
51 • Funds day-to-day operations, repayment of school related debt, and capital
4
1 • Equals an appropriation of 49.3 percent of total General Fund Revenues
2 • Reflects $2.9 million increase from current year General Fund appropriation
3 • Equates to a current expense allocation of$3,364, a $95 increase, per student
4 for each of the 20,202 students in both districts for day-to-day operating funds
5 and projected enrollment growth.
6
7 Components of the Education Funding Manager Recommended
Current Expense $67,959,528
Recurring Capital $3,000,000
Long Range Capital $3,724,849
Debt Service $16,608,984
Fair Funding $988,000
Total Education Funding $92,281,361
General Fund Revenues $187,131,286
Percentage to General Fund Revenues 49.3%
8 The BOCC target is 48.1% of General Fund Revenues
9
10 • County Education Funding
Fiscal Year Original Budget % of Revenue
2009-2010 $86,378,040 48.6
2010-2011 $87,135,916 49.8
2011-2012 $84,175,033 47.5
2012-2013 $85,455,533 48.1
2013-2014 $89,424,651 49.0
2014-2015 $92,281,361 49.3
11 Current Expense, Recurring and Long-Range Capital, Fair Funding, and Debt Service
12
13 Additional Funding for Local Schools
14 • In addition to the $92.3 million for operations, debt and capital, recommended budget
15 allocates $1.25 million to fund non-mandated safety net initiatives for both school
16 districts Some of these initiatives are:
17 • School Health Nurses - $697,380
18 • School Resource Officers - $556,424
19 • School Social Workers - $0, due to the of loss State revenue
20 • With these additional non-mandated funding initiatives, the total funding for the local
21 school districts total 49.9% of the General Fund Revenues
22
23 Major Funded County Initiatives
24 • Maintains all County services at current levels
25 • Funds the increase in medical insurance and fully funds the 401(k)/457 plans for non-
26 sworn employees
27 • A cost of living and merit increase equating up to 2% in compensation for employees
28 • Provides for an increased funding for Emergency Services to address the
29 recommendations of the Emergency Services Study and Work Group
30 • Provides funding to the Town of Chapel Hill Library totaling $568,139
31 • Allocations provided to non-profit organizations total $1,074,100 for FY 14-15.
32 • Long range/pay-as-you go County capital is $464,800.
33 • Debt service for the General Fund will be $26.5 million.
34
5
1 Orange County General Fund
2 FY 2014-15 Expenditures (Pie Chart)
3
4 Solid Waste Initiatives
5 • Provides for an increase in the Landfill Fees due to both an increase in tonnage and a
6 $2 increase (from $42.50 to $44.50) in the City of Durham's tipping fees.
7 • The closure of the landfill with public education and other related planning efforts.
8 We expect to incur $3.7 million in closure cost in FY 2013-14.
9 • Provides for $1.36 million in Urban Curbside/Multi-Family Fees to fund the cost of
10 recycling programs and operations for urban curbside collections. This is a new contract
11 for urban curbside recycling, with a fee with a rate of$59/unit. The program will transition
12 from 18 gallon bins to 95 gallon roll carts.
13 • Provides for $840,106 in Capital Outlay for the Recycling Division; $462,106 of those
14 funds are in the Vehicles account and are for the replacement of vehicles based on the
15 replacement schedule, the remaining $378,000 is in the Equipment account and will be
16 used to purchase 7,000 roll carts for the rural roadside recycling program.
17 • The General Fund contribution to Sanitation in the FY14-15 Manager Recommended
18 Budget is $1.8 million; this equates to 1.13 cents on the current property tax rate.
19 • Provides for construction for the Eubanks Solid Waste Convenience Center
20 improvement
21
22 Additional Funding Options
23 • Appropriate Fund Balance, if necessary; The Board may use up to $650,000 without a
24 negative impact on fund balance
25 • Property tax rate increase
26 • Increase in CHCCS Special District Tax
27
28 Revenues Generated By Property Tax Increase
Tax Increase Property Tax Revenues Per Pupil Equivalency
Generated
1 cent $1,638,241 $81.09
2 cents $3,276,482 $162.19
2.4 cents $3,931,778 $194.62
4 cents $6,552,964 $324.37
5.5 cents $9.010,326 $446.01
29 Based on 20,202 students
30
31 Revenues Generated By Increase in CHCCS Special District Tax
Tax Increase Property Tax Per Pupil
Revenues Generated Equivalency
1 cent $1,044,521 $84.56
2 cents $2,089,041 $169.11
3.5 cents $3,655,824 $295.95
32 Based on 12,353 projected students for the CHCCS School District
33
34 County Capital Investment Plan
Fiscal Year
Appropriations
County Capital Projects $5,328,410
6
Special Revenue Fund(Art. 46 Sales
Tax)
Economic Development $1,386,490
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools $852,690
Orange County Schools $533,800
Proprietary Capital Projects
Water & Sewer Utilities $5,030,000
Solid Waste $3,449,286
Sportsplex $1,175,000
Schools Capital Projects
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools $3,119,726
Orange County Schools $1,941,403
Total $22,816,805
1 Details of the Capital Investment Plan are included in the Budget
2
3 Concerns and Issues for FY 2015-2016
4 • Federal State Budget Issues
5 • Debt Service
6 • County Capital Projects
7 • School Capital Projects
8 • Health Insurance
9 • Post-employment Insurance benefit for retirees
10 • Economic Development
11 • Economy
12 • Revaluation
13 • General Fund Revenues
14
15 FY 2015—2016 Budget (spreadsheet)
16
17 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
18 (All Meetings Begin at 7:00 p.m.)
19
20 Document Availability
21 • Clerk to Board of Commissioners
22 • County Finance &Administrative Services Office
23 • Orange County Library
24 • Chapel Hill Public Library
25 • Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
26 • Cybrary, Carrboro
27 • Orange County Website
28
29 Clarence Grier said the projected County cash flows show that there is only one quarter
30 (October-December) in which there is positive cash flow. He said this is why fund balance is so
31 critical. He said the current unassigned fund balance is approximately $36.7 million.
32 Clarence Grier said the Orange County budget in the past 6 fiscal years has increased
33 approximately $18 million, growing from $177.6 million in 2009-10 to $195.6 million for the
34 current year. He said this is reflective of the recovery of the economy.
7
1 He said the largest components of the property tax revenues are real property, being
2 $132.6 million, and registered motor vehicles, being $7.9 million. He said it is anticipated that
3 the new collection method will make registered motor vehicles a larger component moving
4 forward.
5 Clarence Grier said property tax continues to be the largest portion of the general fund
6 revenues, at 72.8 percent. He said property taxes have been 74 to 76 percent in past years, but
7 the use of fund balance has decreased the reliance on property taxes.
8 He said the bond rating has been upgraded to AAA rating for all three major rating
9 services, and this lowers the debt service rates moving forward.
10 Clarence Grier noted that the largest expenditure of General Fund Revenue is
11 education, at 48.7 percent, and this is followed by Human Services, at 16.8 percent, and Public
12 Safety at 11.5 percent.
13 He referred to the slide on Concerns and Issues for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and said both
14 school systems have a combined total of$330 million in outstanding projects and older facility
15 needs. He said the health insurance costs for the County continue to increase, and this year
16 the increase was 14.5 percent. He said the outstanding post-employment insurance benefit is
17 $63 million, and the County has fully funded the past 2 fiscal years annual required contribution.
18 He said the property tax revaluation is an issue because current assessed values are
19 higher than property sales by 5.5 cents. He said a revaluation conducted at this time would
20 require a $4.42 property tax increase to generate the same amount of revenue as is budgeted
21 this year. He said the gap in general fund revenues and expenditures is growing at a rate that is
22 unsustainable. He suggested a property tax increase or reduction in expenditures may be
23 necessary in the next fiscal year.
24 Clarence Grier reviewed the spreadsheet outline of the projected future budget for fiscal
25 year 2015-2016. He said the Revenues are projected at $187,131,286, with 1.5 percent
26 property tax growth and a 2 to 3 percent sales tax growth. He said the anticipated appropriated
27 fund balance excess is $4.5 million, with expected adjustments of$7.1 million and estimated
28 preliminary revenues of$194,309,751. He said taking into account the estimated expenditures
29 of$2.6 million and estimated expenses of$198.2 million, there would be a budget shortfall of
30 $3.9 million He said this would equate to $2.59 cents on the current property tax rate.
31 He reviewed the dates for future public hearings and the document availability.
32
33 Commissioner Gordon said this budget presentation was given on May 20th and
34 questions arose about the CHCCS district tax. She said she had found a couple of interesting
35 historical notes related to this. She said in 2005, there was a referendum to implement an OCS
36 district tax, and it was defeated. She said there was also a referendum in 1996 to expand the
37 use of the CHCCS special use tax from just operating to also to include capital. She said this
38 passed with a vote of almost 2-1.
39 Chair Jacobs noted for the public that the Board does not make any decisions about the
40 budget until after the public hearings.
41 Chair Jacobs said that the Board may have its own opinions about how the schools'
42 money should be used, but that is not the role of the Commissioners. He said the Board gives
43 the schools a per-pupil amount, and the school systems decide what the money is used for.
44 Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Gordon's comments on the past
45 history of school taxes. He hopes no one will conclude that the County school system is any
46 less passionate about funding the needs of the children in the OCS district. He said it is
47 common for the County not to have a special tax because the district is funded with a property
48 tax.
49 Commissioner Gordon said she is a strong supporter of both school systems, and she just
50 thought the historical information was interesting.
51
8
1 3. Public Comment
2 Art Menius welcomed the new manager. He said he greatly appreciated the proposed
3 increase in their budget for the Arts Center, where he is executive director. He said this past fall
4 the center increased their arts and education program to all four Title 1 schools in the Orange
5 County system. He said they serve a total of 93,000 people at the center, and 1/3 of them are
6 school children. He said 90 shows have been presented, all tied to the core curriculum in the
7 Chapel Hill Carrboro School system, and more than 2,200 adults took classes in the art school.
8 He said the after school arts emersion has reached a high of 40 kids every day, and this
9 includes bus transportation from the school to the center. He said there are conversations
10 ongoing with the Hillsborough Arts Council to bring services north of Interstate 85, and the goal
11 is to have art school classes in downtown Hillsborough as early as this coming fall.
12 He said the goal is to serve all of the citizens of the County. He said the center has an
13 economic impact of almost $3.5 million annually in Orange County.
14 Jeff Danner has lived in Orange County for 14 years. He said the school districts bring
15 the Board budgets, but no new initiative. He said the schools requests are never fully funded,
16 and teachers are fired and course offerings are reduced. He said this process has worn
17 everyone down, and it has been accepted as the new normal. He said the Board has a means
18 to raise revenue, and it has been 6 years without a tax increase. He understands that the Board
19 does not set how the school spends money, but this is a partnership. He recommended that the
20 Board put together a budget with a guiding principle of firing no teachers. He asked the Board
21 to think about why they want to serve. He said there seems to be a higher value placed on tax
22 minimization than anything else. He said this is the year to do something differently and just
23 fund the schools.
24 James Barrett said he is not speaking officially for the CHCCS Board, but he would like
25 to offer some reactions. He referred to the $750,000 addition to the CIP for the older school
26 projects and said he agrees that it is preferable to build capacity at existing facilities versus
27 building new green built schools. He said the issue is timing, and it takes more time to add on
28 that it does to build new. He said the additions need to be started right away in order to
29 increase capacity enough to avoid plan B for elementary#12. He said this $750,000 is a
30 request to get started earlier on an alternative plan for elementary#12, which is already in the
31 CIP. He said if this is not started next year, there will be a need to build new in order to meet
32 the growth.
33 He referred to the operating budget and said that every additional dollar received will be
34 used to save teacher and assistant positions. He said the requested budget is not some huge
35 expansion budget, but simply provides for all of the existing positions. He said the school board
36 has looked at the cuts that would be necessary to meet the manager's recommendation, and all
37 of them would have a negative impact on teachers, assistants and students. He said the Board
38 is their last hope. He thanked them for their past support of education, and said he looks
39 forward to their continued support.
40 Robert Dowling said he is the executive director of Community Land Trust and he
41 expressed thanks for the County's on-going funding, support and advice to him and his board.
42 He said the Board gives them $149,000, which is a lot of money, but this same amount has
43 been given since 2008-09. He said the Community Land Trust has grown a lot in that time. He
44 said there are discussions about a proposed charter amongst the local governments and the
45 home trust. He said he hopes there will be a funding formula in this charter. He said there are
46 227 homes in their inventory, and they have sold 38 homes this fiscal year. He described one
47 owner who is an employee of the Orange County school system and bought a townhome off Old
48 86. He said this person is a real community builder and a great ambassador for the Home
49 Trust.
50 Ann Gerhardt is the executive director of Compass Center, which is a domestic violence
51 agency that also provides health sufficiency and debt reduction programs, as well as community
9
1 education. She said Compass Center has never asked for an increase in funding. She said
2 when the Family Violence Prevention Center and the Women's Center merged, the agency
3 programs remained the same, and this came with the same amount of funding. She said the
4 merger has been a great success, and capacity has grown and so has the ability to serve
5 domestic violence victims. She said the center is losing $85,000 in funding from both the state
6 and United Way. She said she is asking the County for an increase of$10,000 in funding. She
7 said this funding is to help prevent the police departments, legal systems, and towns from doing
8 the job that the center can do. She said this saves the County money, and reduces police
9 domestic violence calls and employee absences for business owners. She said the center
10 gives back to the County and leverages $600,000 back in revenue from stated other resources.
11 She thanked the Board for their help, and asked for an increase in funding from $59,500 to
12 $69,500.
13 Ashley Desena said she just moved to Orange County about a year ago. She referred
14 to County employee salaries and said there is a growing disparity between private and public
15 employee salaries. She said it is estimated that public workers now make an average of 30
16 percent more than private sector workers. She said this figure has increased when you count
17 the benefits received by public employees. She said the register of deeds, which is an elected
18 position, makes a salary of$76,000. She said county employees need to absorb more of
19 increased health care costs.
20 She does not think the government should be in the business of funding non-profits,
21 especially to the tune of$2 million. She said it is impossible to appropriate tax payer money
22 and process it through the inevitable administrative process and expect the same amount of
23 money to come out on the other side. She said it is just common sense that the amount
24 received by the non-profit will be less than what was appropriated. She cited a study that
25 showed non-profits receiving government funding reduced how aggressively they pursue
26 outside money through fund raising.
27 Gary Wallach said he is here to support fully funding the schools. He said this year is
28 different, since the CHCCS has gone through all of their rainy day funds, and it is still raining.
29 He said he knows the County cannot make up for state cuts, but it is a bit direr for their school
30 systems this year. He said his son has a disability and has managed to survive this long in the
31 school system because he has had superb help. He said his son is a junior, and he got this far
32 with so much support. He said when assistants are taken away, it is critical for someone like his
33 son. He said the district is down to the bare bones and he hopes the Board will consider this.
34 Marie McAdoo is from Elfand, and she is a member of United Voices. She said she
35 stands on behalf of the school boards and she asked the Board of County Commissioners to
36 fully fund their budget.
37 Karen Dunn is with Club Nova, and she thanked the Board of County Commissioners for
38 all of their support and funding. She said this is one of the stronger club houses in the world,
39 and this is because of the support from Orange County. She said the club house model is an
40 intentional community for people with serious mental illness. She said the model is based on 36
41 international standards created by members and staff of the worldwide community. She said
42 people with mental illness have the same needs, hopes and aspirations as everyone else, and
43 the club house model offers all of those opportunities and provides a critical safety net that
44 saves lives. She thanked the Board again for their support.
45 Elvira Mebane lives in Efland, and she speaks on behalf of the Orange County Schools
46 and asks the Board to fund their budget. She said one reason is the fact that the schools will
47 have to fund the social worker positions this year, and these positions are needed. She said her
48 grandson may need this service. She said he does not have a teacher assistant in his
49 classroom this year, and he has had some regression in his learning. She asked the Board to
50 fully fund what OCS has requested. She also asked the Board to please look carefully at
51 funding activities in the rural areas, specifically the Efland- Cheeks Center expansion.
10
1
2 THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED VIA EMAIL:
3
4 From: Bridget Mora
5 Dear Chairman Jacobs and Board of County Commissioners:
6
7 I am writing to urge you to make fully funding all Orange County schools (OCS and CHCCS)
8 your top budget priority this year. Our public schools are the heart of our community; not only for
9 the students, parents, and teachers, but also for the businesses that requires an educated
10 workforce and the community that needs the next generation of leaders to keep our county
11 vibrant.
12 The BOCC has a long tradition of supporting our public schools, for which I thank you. Our
13 public schools need your help more than ever - even as enrollment grows and state mandates
14 increase, our state funding has dropped, our fund balances have been exhausted, and the grant
15 monies have been spent. You are the last line of defense, and the citizens of Orange County
16 are counting on you.
17 Please do whatever it takes to fully fund the budget requests of Orange County Schools and
18 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. If it means raising taxes, cutting other programs, or some
19 other creative means, fully funding the schools must be our county priority right now. We trust
20 you to make wise decisions about how to fund the requests.
21 Once again, thank you for your ongoing commitment to high quality public education in Orange
22 County, and for your service on the Board.
23
24 Respectfully,
25 Bridget Mora
26 Co-Chair, Special Needs Advisory Council for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
27
28
29 From: Renate Deckner
30
31 I am kindly asking the BOCC to fund the FULL budget request of both CHCCS and Orange
32 County Schools.
33 We are depending on the BOCC to fund our schools. I do believe in their commitment to
34 education in our community and their ability to think creatively about how to fund our schools.
35 Please do whatever it takes to make full funding happen. I would be happy to pay more taxes if
36 that is what it takes to ensure quality education for our kids.
37
38
39 From:
40 Anne Beaven
41 109 Braswell Rd.
42 Chapel Hill
43
44 I am writing to urge you to continue current funding to our schools and even to look for ways to
45 increase funding. The good reputation of the Chapel Hill School systems is a huge draw for
46 young families to move to CH. If the funding continues to drop and poorly paid teachers
47 continue to leave then the town will no longer have this advantage.
48
49 I have a 5 year old son who will be starting at the Chapel public schools next year. I live in CH
50 because of the reputation of the schools. This means that I commute to Durham and my
51 spouse commutes to RTP, which is a lot of wasted time driving when we could live closer. I
11
1 know there are many families like mine who would consider moving away if things continue to
2 move in the same direction.
3
4
5 Hello,
6
7 I am writing again to urge the board to fully fund both the Orange County and Chapel Hill
8 Carrboro School Districts' budget requests. I was very disappointed to see the interim county
9 manger's recommendations. He mentions that not raising taxes is unsustainable and what are
10 more unsustainable are the cuts to education that will occur if taxes are not raised this year
11 (both the county and the special district tax).
12 Funding public education is one of the most important things we can do to ensure economic
13 stability. We just had an election and we returned some of you to the board to do the right thing,
14 to stand by your promises to support our schools at a time when the state has turned their back
15 (despite some recent talk out of Raleigh). We have not raised the county tax in over 6 years; it
16 is time, the future of our region is too important to not make this choice. Please show the
17 courage to do what is best for our students and our economy, it is the correct moral choice and I
18 would argue the correct political choice as well. Thank you.
19
20 Karen Herpel
21 204 Wild Oak Lane
22 Carrboro, NC 27510
23 216.287.7758
24
25
26 From: Debra Gomes
27 Phone Number: 919-338-2141
28 Message:
29 My husband and I are very concerned with our public schools. We moved from California 7
30 years ago and chose Chapel Hill because of the quality of the schools. We know how quickly
31 schools can decline. We want you to creatively figure out a way to FULLY fund the budget
32 requests of Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools.
33 People will not only leave the schools if they quality starts to decline, they will also leave the
34 area effecting everything from our property values, schools, ability for companies and the
35 Universities to find quality employees. We live in a town where people put their children's
36 education FIRST. I know my husband and I would not stay if we see the quality of our kids
37 education start to slip.
38 The problem with our districts budget it not an issue that can be put on the back burner. It is an
39 issue that must be addressed NOW. It has already been postponed and our reserves are gone.
40 Tomorrow is too late.
41
42
43 From: Chris and Claire Giordano
44 Phone Number: 9199678327
45 Message:
46 We have 2 children in the CHCCS (1 at MES and 1 at FPG). We have been so happy with the
47 quality of the teachers and administrators at both schools. However, we are very concerned
48 that if the County Commissioners do not fully fund the proposed budget that the quality of the
49 teaching at our district schools will decline. Education is crucial to our children's future and to
50 the success of NC. We live in Chapel Hill because of the quality of the schools. We are happy
51 to pay an increase in property tax to fully fund our schools. Thank you for your past support of
12
1 schools in Orange County and I thank you for your future support. We vote based on support
2 for education.
3
4 Gentlemen and Ladies:
5
6 I am writing to urge you to fully fund the Carrboro City School District's budget request. I have
7 two grandchildren who attend McDougle Elementary School, and I am impressed over and over
8 again with the kind of attention, dedication and professionalism my grandchildren's teachers
9 have exhibited over these past five years when my grandson began kindergarten. These
10 teachers need to be compensated well for what they do for our children and ultimately our entire
11 society. Please do not cut back the teacher's salaries nor do we want to cut back on the fine
12 programs that are offered at this school. Our children need them, we need them, and our
13 country needs them.
14
15 Yours truly,
16 Carolyn Fahey
17 Grandmother
18
19
20 From: Mira Brancu
21 Phone Number: 9192404278
22 Message:
23 Dear County Commissioners,
24 Due to cuts in state funding, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District has been requested to
25 make significant cuts ($2.2 million) in education. I am asking as a parent to please fully fund the
26 district's budget request. Most parents move to this area specifically because of the excellent
27 quality of education in this school district. We pay extremely high taxes specifically assuming
28 that a large portion of those taxes are going to education. The district has excellent teachers
29 who are underpaid and stretched very thin already with lack of school supplies for the kids, We
30 as parents already support the schools by volunteering our time and resources and purchasing
31 supplemental materials throughout the year in order to make up an already tight budget above
32 and beyond the high taxes we pay. Further cuts will probably drive our excellent teachers out
33 due to frustration at the lack of support. It will also anger parents who are already paying taxes
34 and purchasing additional ma!
35 terials and donating funds and time to the district. A quality education is one of the things that
36 makes the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district an extremely highly desirable place to live. If the
37 quality of education is compromised, more people will leave the community and less will be
38 interested in coming in, which will ultimately effect the overall economy of the area. Funding
39 education is actually an incredibly wise long-term investment in the community's economic
40 viability.
41
42 Thank you so much for your support and public service during such a tough fiscal time.
43
44 From: Kelly Hogan
45 Phone Number: 9199603373
46 Message:
47 Like many parents, I urge you to fund our schools. When Chapel Hill is listed as a great place to
48 live, it is for the people, the weather and the educational environment of our schools from
49 kindergarten right through UNC's graduate programs. I have a friend moving from Vermont, and
50 while she would rather live in Durham for proximity to her future work-- she would only look in
51 Chapel Hill because of the schools. Durham is making their city quite attractive in a lot of ways--
13
1 but they do not have what we have wonderful schools. Top notch schools. Please help us retain
2 what makes Chapel Hill the Southern part of heaven-- the teachers and the quality education at
3 all of our 11 elementary schools, our four middle schools, and our three high schools.
4
5
6 From: Mellicent Blythe
7 Phone Number: 919-929-1008
8 Message:
9 Dear County Commissioners,
10 I am writing to urge you to fully fund CHCCS and Orange County schools. While the slowly
11 recovering economy creates many challenges for our local budgets, strong schools are a critical
12 part of driving growth and property values in Orange County. We already lose out to
13 neighboring counties on much of people's spending money. If our schools fall from their place
14 as state-wide leaders, there will be irreparable damage to what makes our community attractive
15 to small businesses and residents.
16 We cannot wait for next year or the next budget. If we lose teachers and programs, we will
17 struggle for years to make up from our backsliding.
18 Thank you for your public service. I realize you face many difficult decisions and devote much
19 time and energy to improving our community. Please continue to do what is best for our
20 community by fully funding and supporting our schools.
21
22 Respectfully,
23 Mellicent Blythe
24
25
26 From: Alexander Kovalev
27 Phone Number:
28 Message:
29 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
30
31 I am writing this note to urge you not to make cuts to educational budget for the Orange County
32 and CHCCS districts.
33 High quality public education is the main magnet for the professionals to move to Orange
34 County from many other places in and out of state.
35 This drives demand for homes and rental property and increases tax revenue.
36 If you inflict cuts on this county's educational system, there will be very few incentives left to
37 move here and buy homes and start businesses.
38 Please don't undermine business growth in the county by reducing educational funds. Please
39 find some other way to reduce any budget shortfalls.
40
41 Thank you for your consideration.
42 Alexander Kovalev
43 102 Quailview Drive
44 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
45
46
47 Dear Esteemed Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
48
49 On reading the Chapel Hill News this morning I am reminded what wonderful people live
50 in our community. There are great ideas about how to do reasonable, lovely things to enhance
14
1 life for all of us. But I feel compelled to express to you that some of these ideas, unfortunately,
2 need to wait for a better day when it comes to funding.
3 As you know, children in Orange County have had some protection from the agenda of
4 our State Legislature to privatize education. That is to say, creating failure of public schools via
5 de-funding. Some protection of our children owes a debt of gratitude to you, our County
6 Commissioners. Other aspects of this protection have come from the two school boards,
7 educators, and parents. Unfortunately the reserves are gone, and we have hit a point of crisis.
8 Where we value the provision of quality services for all children, and would like to do as
9 much as possible to create opportunities for the next generation, we are now in a position to
10 desperately hold onto the shreds that are left after all "extras" are gone. We are to the point of
11 no more textbooks (causing teachers to require time to create curriculum), significantly reduced
12 funding of school libraries (inability to purchase books), reduced number of teachers/increased
13 class size, reduced number of teacher liaisons to assist with children who have time-consuming
14 needs (e.g., a fourth grader who cannot read in a classroom of 29 other children who are
15 reading at or above grade level), reduced number of school office staff(e.g., no one left to spare
16 if there is a need to stay with an emotionally disturbed child - who would be suspended from a
17 charter school(!), or sick child until a parent arrives, or proctor an exam for a child with special
18 needs)... The list goes on and on, honestly making me feel sick.
19 Please, where it is in your power to do so, fully fund all schools in Orange County. The
20 provision of quality education — how can it even be in question that it is important? You have
21 many lovely ideas in front of you, all requiring funding, but our schools are in crisis. Thank you
22 for taking on this very difficult job. Your work makes a difference in the life of your community.
23 Sincerely yours
24 Kenneth and Alexis Poss
25 Chapel Hill
26
27
28 From: Greg McAvoy
29 Phone Number: 9199678349
30 Message:
31 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
32
33 I appreciate the difficult choices that you have to make, balancing people's ability to pay
34 additional taxes with the need to provide necessary services.
35 Our son attends Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. We couldn't be more impressed with the quality
36 of teachers and the schools he has attended. However, even with the great teachers he has
37 had. However, he is a highly gifted student and even with current staffing it has been a
38 challenge to meet his academic needs. Although he had a tremendous teacher in second
39 grade, he would come home saying that he wished he had more challenging work. In third
40 grade, his teacher was Candace White at Glenwood Elementary, the winner of teacher of the
41 year at Glenwood the year she was our son's teacher. She was even more skilled as a teacher,
42 particularly at providing gifted students with extra work. In our third quarter meeting with her,
43 she said that she thought of herself as someone who could meet the needs of high-level
44 students, but she found it difficult to keep up with our son. It was only with the help of Ms. Bittle,
45 the gifted specialist at Glenwood at his needs were more fully met. The lesson here is that even
46 at current staffing levels the needs of the district's best students are not effectively being met,
47 and it is disturbing to think that due to a budget shortfall the district is considering eliminating
48 some or all of the gift specialists. The services that they provide are necessary, not luxuries that
49 students can do without.
50 I urge you to fully fund the school district's budget request even though this means an increase
51 in taxes for residents of the county. The failure of the General Assembly to think responsibly
15
1 about the students' future means that others must make up for their shortsightedness. County
2 residents are behind you. Please take bold action and fully fund the school district's request.
3
4
5 From: Andrew Ross
6 Phone Number: 9196196178
7 Message:
8 Dear County Commissioners,
9
10 I am a resident of Chapel Hill for over 7 years now. I am writing with some great budget
11 concerns regarding education in North Carolina and specifically, in our district. However, I first
12 want to thank you for your service during this tough fiscal time. I am a strong Democrat and
13 recognize the challenges that you have had to deal with. As an involved parent of an 8-yr old
14 daughter at a Chapel Hill Public School (Seawell Elementary), I also understand the challenges
15 that each school administration and it's teachers have had to deal with. To say a lot is asked of
16 them is an understatement. Likewise, parents are asked to give more money, give more time
17 and get more involved. I probably receive on average 5 emails a day either from the school or
18 district with some specific request of parents, usually money or a request for volunteers.
19 I don't think the school administration, it's staff or it's parents should have to devote so much
20 time and effort to funding schools. For example, I run a committee that helps to maintain the
21 school grounds on a $500 annual budget. There are several acres. Just purchasing basic tools
22 will run me beyond that on an annual basis. I have spent at least$1000 of my own money to
23 ensure the grounds are in good shape in addition to contributing to most fundraisers that the
24 school has and believe me, there are many.
25 Schools must be adequately funded and by that I mean funded to ensure proper support is in
26 place for educators and students and only teachers and their bosses really know what that
27 means. Teachers must be paid and paid well. It is despicable that we want to pat ourselves on
28 the back for offering a starting salary at $35000, and I believe that number won't hit for years to
29 come. We love to talk about how important our teachers are but we sure don't pay them like
30 they're that important. North Carolina has become the laughing stock for a number of issues
31 across the country and our education spending per pupil is at the bottom. I think if we are going
32 to look back in 15-20 years with any sense of pride about policies that were created, schools
33 must be funded at or near requested levels and teachers should be paid at rates near the top of
34 the nation, not the bottom. Raise taxes, cut other programs, end the giveaways to industries that
35 don't need it, do whatever it is you have to !
36 do to show how important education is in this state. Education is the beginning, the middle and
37 the end and without a good, accountable, well-funded system, little else will be achieved. I'm
38 confident you will do the right thing and stand up for fully-funded schools.
39
40 Thank you.
41
42 From: Melissa Maloney
43 Phone Number: 9199290132
44 Message:
45 Dear Commissioners,
46 I am a resident of Carrboro and the parent of two children: one in middle school and one in
47 elementary school. I am writing to ask you to, please, do whatever you can to fully fund our
48 schools.
49 Year after year our schools have been experiencing cuts and we feel them. Seriously, at the
50 holidays we were asked to not send gifts of candy or a teacher's mug?What they really would
51 appreciate was copier paper.
16
1 The fact that we are losing talented teachers to other states and other professions is very real.
2 Two of my daughter's middle school teachers (Great teachers!) have left during this school year.
3 If we continue to chip away at teacher support as we add more responsibilities (and more
4 testing) and freeze their salaries, we can't expect any different results. We hire quality teachers
5 not martyrs, not superheroes, not dummies.
6 I know that you have been very supportive of education, and I am proud of our reputation of
7 having some of the best schools in the State. Our great schools have drawn many people and
8 businesses to this area, but we can't continue these cuts year after year without them having an
9 impact. I really believe we are at a tipping point, and that we have to find a way to fully fund our
10 schools.
11 I know that you are faced with many tough budget decisions, and I appreciate your service to
12 our community! I know that much of this issue stems from decisions made by our legislature
13 and cuts to education made at the State level. Be assured, I am contacting my elected State
14 officials with my concerns as well.
15
16 Thanks for your consideration.
17
18 Respectfully,
19 Melissa Maloney
20
21
22 From: Andrea Richardson
23 Phone Number: 919-537-8432
24 Message:
25 To the County Commissioners
26
27 Please commit to education in North Carolina!
28 This is the most important issue and it is up to you to act.
29
30 The future of North Carolina depends on our children. Without a solid education our children will
31 face a bleak future where they cannot successfully compete for jobs and the welfare of our
32 population will be in peril. My husband and I are both scientists, we live in the Chapel Hill
33 Carrboro School district, and we cherish our children's education. This last year we were thrilled
34 that our eldest son has become very motivated to excel in school and it's due in large part to his
35 wonderful 5th grade teacher, Kalie Norton. She is bright and dedicated and has fully engaged all
36 the children in her class. We was such a refreshing change after having seen our son struggle
37 with less than stellar teachers who only go through the motions without passion or joy. You see,
38 while we currently have some fantastic and talented teachers we do have some lackluster
39 teachers. Students with poor teachers suffer because they lose interest in school resulting in
40 almost certain academic failure. !
41 We cannot afford to lose our great teachers. Ms. Norton's job is so vital to our son's future as
42 well as the state's future.
43
44 If we suffer more budget cuts we will lose our most talented and vital teachers, like Ms. Norton.
45 As the best teachers leave so will the families. North Carolina will suffer a brain drain. Ignoring
46 our children's education by implementing shortsighted budget cuts will have lasting harmful
47 consequences.
48
49 In closing, we appreciate your public service during such a tough fiscal time. Please prioritize
50 education by raising teacher pay to the national average and fully fund our schools budget
51 request!
17
1
2 Sincerely,
3 Andrea Richardson
4
5 From: Catherine Neal
6 Phone Number: 9199698820
7 Message:
8 I respectfully request that you act in the best interests of all North Carolina's children by raising
9 teacher pay. If the May legislative session does not take corrective action, we will lose many of
10 our most talented teachers. Such losses would cause devastating and lasting harm to North
11 Carolina public school children.
12 According to the National Association of Educators, the average public school teacher's salary
13 in North Carolina dropped 15.7% from 2001-2012. This drop meant that North Carolina was
14 51st in the country in the growth of teacher pay during that decade. While no one enters the
15 teaching profession to get rich, the contraction of their pay combined with an increase in student
16 testing, accountability and expectations has combined to leave our teachers' professionalism
17 questioned and their calling under assault. I am embarrassed by these facts, and you must be,
18 also.
19 You must already know that North Carolina teachers are leaving the state at an alarming rate for
20 better paying opportunities in neighboring states or outside of their chosen profession. Teachers
21 cannot afford to financially support themselves or their families. Entire websites have sprung up
22 filled with their stories. The loss of these dedicated and talented professionals negatively affects
23 our students and the future development of our state.
24 PLEASE find a way to raise North Carolina teacher pay to the national average, where it was as
25 recently as 2008. Recent surveys show that well over 90% of North Carolina's citizens agree
26 that teacher pay should be raised. This is a nonpartisan issue that is about the future of North
27 Carolina.
28
29
30 From: Fleur Meng
31 Phone Number:
32 Message:
33 Hello,
34
35 I am a parent of two boys in Chapel Hill-Carrboro (6th grader at Culbreth Middle, 5th grader at
36 Northside Elementary), and I am writing to respectfully request that the Orange County
37 Commissioners fully fund CHCCS's request for $3.8 million to continue its commitment to quality
38 education, including its gifted programs.
39 Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions, and thank you for your time.
40
41 Kind regards,
42 Fleur Meng
43
44
45 From: Nicole Bratten
46 Phone Number: 9192404775
47 Message:
48 Respected Commissioners,
49
18
1 Please vote to fully fund the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. The budget cuts our district
2 faces will directly and negatively impact the quality of education my two children currently
3 receive at our local public elementary school.
4
5 Three years ago, my family relocated to Chapel Hill from the Silicon Valley. We were excited at
6 the possibility of living somewhere that not only had good jobs and a reasonable cost of living,
7 but still maintained a reputation of excellence in public schools. We were okay paying Chapel
8 Hill's higher property taxes if it meant we could send our kids to good neighborhood schools.
9 This was the type of place every family dreamed of living, and we had made it our reality.
10 Three years later, we are faced with budget cuts that change 2 out of 3 of the reasons we
11 moved here in the first place. Without quality education for our children, we will be forced to
12 look for private school which makes this no longer an affordable place to live. And what about
13 those families who cannot afford private school?
14 Cutting our district's budget sends a message that education is not a priority here. People who
15 live here will be forced to seek out quality education elsewhere and people who were
16 considering living here will look elsewhere. This does not lead to a growing, thriving community
17 in which people dream of living.
18 Though we already pay higher taxes than surrounding areas, I would support a tax increase if it
19 meant that we could protect and fully support the education services in our public schools.
20 Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful consideration.
21
22 Sincerely,
23 Nicole Bratten
24
25 Dear Commissioners,
26 We would like to say thank you. Thank you for your service to our community, your leadership,
27 and your ongoing commitment to education in Orange County. We know that you are faced with
28 many difficult choices, especially as retrenchment from Raleigh puts increasing pressure on
29 local municipalities to make up the difference. We recognize that it puts you in a tough spot, but
30 we also urge you to bear in mind the following facts:
31 Education drives growth.
32 One of the great values of this community is its schools. The quality of public education in
33 Chapel Hill, Carrboro and greater Orange County draws businesses, property owners and
34 taxpayers like no other feature in our community. Failure to fully fund the budget requests of the
35 school districts has a real impact on their ability to educate our children. We risk losing a
36 significant part of our attractiveness as a community when we lessen our financial commitment
37 to the educational institutions that have served as the most visible beacon leading people to call
38 this place home.
39 Education builds value.
40 Property values in Orange County significantly exceed those of our neighbors. Much of that
41 value is driven by the quality of our schools. The best way to keep property values high is to
42 continue to ensure that OCS and CHCCS remain among the very best schools in the state. The
43 only way to keep our schools among the best in the state and region is to fully fund the budget
44 requests of both school districts. Fully funding our schools sends a message to students and
45 teachers that our community remains committed to the best possible future for our citizens, no
46 matter what happens in Raleigh.
47 There is no tomorrow.
48 Capital projects have been delayed. Fund balances have been exhausted. Central office staffs
49 have been gutted. Every last bit of fat has been drained from the budgets of both OCS and
50 CHCCS. If you fail to fully fund the schools' budget requests, real and seriously impactful cuts
19
1 will have to be made. Cuts that will impact every student. Cuts that will impact the lives and
2 livelihoods of staff members that work, live and pay taxes in Orange County.
3 We call on the Board of County Commissioners to think creatively to determine the most
4 efficacious way to fully fund the budget requests of our school districts. This may mean raising
5 taxes, cutting costs in other areas, or some combination of the two. We trust in your ability to
6 make the best decisions for the County.
7 The parents, teachers and students of Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill / Carrboro City
8 Schools look forward to the Board of County Commissioner's decision to fully fund our schools,
9 and thank you for your demonstrated commitment to growth and value in our community by your
10 continued support of public education in Orange County.
11 Respectfully submitted,
12 CHCCS PTA Council
13
14
15 From: Karen Herpel
16 Phone Number: 216.286.7758
17 Message:
18 Thank you for your past support and dedication to provide full funding for the CHCCS school
19 district. I am asking you to continue this support and support Orange County Schools' full
20 funding request as well. I know this will require a tax increase, possibly one higher than you
21 have asked of citizens before, but I firmly believe that you have the public's support and the
22 support of the business community who has gone on record stating their support. Without
23 excellent schools, you do not have an excellent community. At a time when the state has turned
24 it's back on public education, we must all come together and weather the storm, we cannot let
25 our schools suffer and our students and teachers academic needs and morale decline. If there
26 was ever a time to raise our taxes it is now. We must also reach out to other counties and band
27 together to make changes at the state level. Without people in the legislature who understand
28 what a strong public education system means to us!
29 the economic vitality of a state and the future if it's citizenry we will be in this same position of
30 having to make painful instructional cuts to both districts, cuts that will be detrimental, cuts that
31 will have long lasting effects; our region will not thrive if this is the path we go down.
32 Please fully fund both Chapel hill-Carrboro and Orange counties' requests and help us make
33 changes at the state level.
34 Thank you.
35
36
37 From: Kim Eheman
38 Phone Number: 919-260-0069
39 Message:
40 I fully support legitimate and appropriate education in Chapel Hill, Orange County and beyond.
41 Please increase our tax rate so we can secure the future for the children of our community.
42 Sincerely,
43 Kim Eheman
44 Resident of Chapel Hill
45
46
47 From: Virginia Purcell
48 Phone Number:
49 Message:
50 Please fully fund the Chapel Hill school budget for 2014-2015! Our children's futures depend on
51 it! The gifted specialists improve education for the entire classroom not just individual students!!
20
1 Sincerely,
2 Virginia Purcell
3
4
5 From: Jessica Sherrieb
6 Phone Number: 9194380623
7 Message:
8 I am writing to respectfully ask that the Commissioners fully fund the CHCCS schools. I am a
9 parent of two children in CHCCS schools and a rising Kindergartner. My family moved to Chapel
10 Hill in part for the excellent schools and we are in favor of increased taxes to pay for them.
11 Thank you for your time.
12 Sincerely,
13 Jessica Sherrieb
14
15
16 From: Marissa Elk
17 Phone Number: 919-904-4355
18 Message:
19 Dear County Commissioners,
20
21 I am writing to express my wholehearted support of the proposed budget, including a tax
22 increase as needed to fully fund the CHCCS budget. As the mother of 2 school-age and 1
23 soon-to-be school age child, I can tell you that we moved here a little over a year ago based
24 largely on the strength of the school system. Despite having family in Raleigh, we chose to buy
25 a house in Chapel Hill so that our children could benefit from what we feel is a superior public
26 school education. Just as we try to shop at Chapel Hill businesses and attend local activities,
27 we are fully supportive of the school system and would happily pay even more in taxes than we
28 already do to maintain as high a level of quality as possible in the school system.
29 I ask you as strongly as possible to approve the budget as proposed.
30
31 Regards,
32 Marissa Elk
33
34
35 From: Laura Morgan
36 Phone Number: 9196244946
37 Message:
38 Dear County Commissioners,
39 i am writing as an advocate of our schools and our county. Please look carefully at this budget
40 and fully fund our schools. It appears it is time for a tax increase - but only to fund our schools.
41 There is nothing more important than our schools and children.
42
43 Thank you for your consideration.
44 Laura Morgan
45
46
47 From: Emily Moseley
48 Phone Number: 919-932-8507
49 Message:
50 Dear Commissioners: As you know, recent state budget cuts have put our schools in the
51 terrible position of being underfunded, even with just continuation budgets. The CHCCS and
21
1 OC schools have had very little increase in budget over the past six years, when our area has
2 experienced great growth. I know the CHCCS have already absorbed $11 million in cuts over
3 the last 10 years. There is nothing left to trim without slashing substantive services to
4 instruction which will hurt students.
5 As a property owner and taxpayer, I want to see a raise in the property tax rate to fully fund all
6 schools in Orange County.
7 Many thanks for your service,
8 Emily Moseley
9
10
11 From: Claire Nelson
12 Phone Number:
13 Message:
14 I have taught third grade in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools for 18 years. Every year tough
15 decisions have to be made regarding the budget. Chapel Hill has a diverse population of
16 students all with legitimate needs. Our service needs are different from other districts. The
17 demands are ever increasing. Classroom teachers need those additional resource and
18 specialist positions to help us meet the needs of ALL our students. Please consider fully funding
19 the budget request for the 2014-15 school year.
20 Sincerely,
21 Claire Nelson
22
23
24 From: Alice Chuang Ivester
25 Phone Number: 9196362749
26 Message:
27 Dear Board of County Commissioners,
28 I am writing to plead with you to fund the Chapel Hill 2014-2015 school budget. I understand
29 that financially you have to make difficult decisions. I work as an educator and physician at
30 UNC, and we are faced with some of the same decisions daily for patient care and for our
31 medical student programs. It is hard sometimes to step forward and advocate, but because this
32 is my job I try to remember that the best decisions are the ones that benefit my students and my
33 patients first.
34 I am proud to say that my child attends Chapel Hill public school. When I explain this to our
35 physician friends who live elsewhere, they don't understand why our child goes to public school.
36 I explain it very simply. Chapel Hill schools are excellent. Chapel Hill schools are diverse.
37 Chapel Hill schools provide my child (and soon second child this fall) with a myriad of
38 opportunities that I did not have going to private school growing up. Gifted education, music
39 education, special needs education, arts education, language education...all of this is important
40 and contributes to our NATIONAL reputation for having excellent schools.
41 Our service needs are different from other districts and because this has always been
42 recognized by you, we have been able to maintain this reputation of excellence. Please
43 approve our budget so we can continue our diverse excellent educational programs.
44
45 Regards,
46 Alice Chuang, MD
47 Associate Professor
48 UNC School of Medicine
49
50
51 From: Jennifer Carbrey
22
1 Phone Number: 919 942 7598
2 Message:
3 As a property owner and taxpayer, I want to see a raise in the property tax rate to fully fund all
4 schools in Orange County.
5
6
7 From: Alyse Levine
8 Phone Number: 919-240-5434
9 Message:
10 Please fully fund all schools in Orange County.
11 As a property owner and taxpayer, I want to see a raise in the property tax rate to fully fund all
12 schools in Orange County.
13
14
15 From: Casey Saussy
16 Phone Number: 919-698-6570
17 Message:
18 Please fully fund all schools in Orange County.
19 As a property owner and taxpayer, I want to see a raise in the property tax rate to fully fund ALL
20 schools in Orange County.
21
22
23 From: Debra Gomes
24 Phone Number: 919-338-2141
25 Message:
26 My husband and I are very concerned with our public schools. We moved from California 7
27 years ago and chose Chapel Hill because of the quality of the schools. We know how quickly
28 schools can decline. We want you to creatively figure out a way to FULLY fund the budget
29 requests of Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools.
30 People will not only leave the schools if they quality starts to decline, they will also leave the
31 area effecting everything from our property values, schools, ability for companies and the
32 Universities to find quality employees. We live in a town where people put their children's
33 education FIRST. I know my husband and I would not stay if we see the quality of our kids
34 education start to slip.
35 The problem with our districts budget it not an issue that can be put on the back burner. It is an
36 issue that must be addressed NOW. It has already been postponed and our reserves are gone.
37 Tomorrow is too late.
38
39 Commissioner McKee said someone mentioned teachers had been fired without
40 adequate funding. He asked the schools systems to provide numbers on this.
41 Michael Talbert said this will be requested.
42
43 4. Adjournment of Public Hearing
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
46 adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Barry Jacobs, Chair
51
23
1
2 Donna Baker
3 Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 5
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 May 27, 2014
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
11 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 27, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices,
12 Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
15 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
19 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
21 members, Lisa Stuckey, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, and Herman Staats
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, H.T.
23 "Buddy" Hartley, (not sworn in yet: Bryant Warren, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman)
24
25 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
26
27 OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
28 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following documents at the official's places:
29 - Blue sheets - Emails related to Item c-1- Class A Special Use Permit
30 - PowerPoint slides for Item c-1 - Class A Special Use Permit
31 - PowerPoint slides for Item c-2 — Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
32 Amendment
33
34 A. PUBLIC CHARGE
35 Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
36
37 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
38
39 1. Class A Special Use Permit -To review a Class A Special Use Permit application
40 seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling
41 approximately 50 acres in area, off of Mt. Sinai Road near Cascade Drive in Chapel Hill
42 Township.
43 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck introduced this item.
44
45 Pete Hallenbeck: Good evening, everyone. We will start with the first agenda. I will turn it over
46 to Michael Harvey.
47
48 Michael Harvey: Thank you very much. Michael Harvey, current planning division. I think at
49 this point in time, since we are about to call a public hearing to order on a quasi-judicial item,
50 any individual intending to offer testimony before the Board, needs to come up and be sworn.
51
2
1 Those who were planning to speak were sworn in.
2
3 Michael Harvey: Good evening, once again my name is Michael Harvey. I am with the Orange
4 County Planning Department. It is my duty this evening to present you staff's abstract related to
5 a Class A special use permit proposing the development of a solar array public utility on a
6 parcel of property off Mount Sinai Road in the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County.
7
8 You will note that, beginning on page 3, you have staff's abstract. You also have four
9 attachments. Beginning on page 9, is attachment 1, which is the application packet. This
10 contains a narrative, an appraisal report, an environmental assessment application, as well as a
11 memorandum of lease for these properties. Attachment 2 on page 82 is the vicinity map
12 denoting the property. You will note - we will get to it in a minute - this property is located at the
13 intersection of Cascade and Mount Sinai Road. Attachment 3 beginning on page 83 are staff's
14 comments. This includes, on page 87, State Clearinghouse review comments on the proposed
15 project. And then finally, attachment 4, which is the notification materials where we sent out -
16 certified letters to all property owners within 500 feet, informing them of them public hearing.
17 I have a very brief presentation, and then I would like to turn it over to the applicant.
18
19 Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
20
21 Powerpoint
22 MAY 27, 2014
23 AGENDA ITEM:
24 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
25 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
26 DEVELOPMENT OF A
27 SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
28
29 PROPERTY INFORMATION
30 • PIN(s): 9881-38-8874 and 9881-49-3072.
31 • Size: Approximately 50 acres total.
32 • Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB).
33 • Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer.
34 • Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
35 • Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer— Rural Residential Area
36
37 REQUEST:
38 • Erect individual solar array panels on approximately 19 acres of property.
39 • Typical array is between 6 and 10 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of
40 ground. Clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
41 • Arrays will be screened by an installed 50 ft. wide land use buffer.
42 • An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall surround the perimeter of the array field,
43 outside of the proposed land use buffer, to prevent access.
44 • REQUEST (Continued):
45 • Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
46 technicians to service the panels. In certain areas there will be natural, grass, paths
47 depending on soil.
48 • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot access gate off of Cascade Road.
49 • Initial soils assessment, required per Section 5.9.6 (C) (1) (d), indicates property can
50 support project. Applicant proposing condition that final, detailed, soil assessment be
51 completed after SUP issued due to expense.
3
1
2 — STAFF COMMENT: consistent with other similar projects.
3
4 REQUIRED REVIEW:
5 Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions
6 of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
7 • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
8 provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
9 merits of the proposal.
10 • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
11 • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony
12 and competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply with
13 the provisions of the Ordinance.
14 • Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
15 • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
16 record the project does not comply, the permit must be issued.
17
18 REVIEW PROCESS:
19 • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
20 Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the
21 Planning Board recommendation.
22 • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who makes a recommendation on
23 the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
24 public hearing.
25 — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and
26 review this item at their June 4 and July 2, 2014 regular meetings, which
27 convene at 7:00 p.m. each evening. Meetings are held in the lower level
28 conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131 West Margaret
29 Lane in downtown Hillsborough.
30 • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
31 recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted. BOCC takes
32 action on the proposal.
33
34 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW:
35 • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project
36 • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
37 required by Section 2.7.3)
38 • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to
39 the viability of the proposal
40
41 RECOMMENDATION:
42 1. Receive the application,
43 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
44 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
45 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 16, 2014
46 BOCC regular meeting.
47 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 16, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
48 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
49
50 Michael Harvey: As we all know from your packet, the property in question again intersects
51 with Mount Sinai/Cascade Road. It has frontage on Cascade, as well as Mount Sinai. We have
4
1 the Bishop Homestead here, where a portion of the solar facility is going to be located. The
2 total approximate acreage of both properties is 50 acres. It is zoned Rural Buffer. It is within
3 the rural buffer future land use map designation (of the Comprehensive Plan). It is also
4 designated rural on the Growth Management System Map and is located within the rural
5 buffer/rural residential area land use category as detailed within the Joint Planning Land Use
6 Plan.
7
8 The request is to erect individual solar arrays on the property, totaling approximately 19
9 acres. The typical array, according to the site plan, is anywhere between 6 to 10 feet in height,
10 with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground clearance. The arrays will be approximately 63 feet in
11 length. They will be screened by an installed 50 feet land use buffer, which we will get to an
12 example in a moment. And there will also be an 8 foot high chain link fence surrounding the
13 perimeter of the array.
14
15 The applicant is proposing to develop gravel paths and drives around these arrays in
16 order to permit access. Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot gate that will be
17 posed off of Cascade Road. There has been some concern expressed to staff over an initial
18 soils report. What I will stipulate is that the applicant, specifically beginning on pages 69 with
19 their environmental assessment, has supplied topographic, slope, and hydrological maps
20 detailing the project's ability to be developed on the property. The property is composed with
21 Georgeville soil according to the Orange County soil survey report. What the applicant has
22 specifically requested is that a final condition is that a detailed soil assessment, including
23 geotechnical compaction data, be done after the SUP is issued. Rationale for this is there is a
24 large expense incurred with respect to the production of this report, and they feel it is necessary
25 that the SUP be issued before they go into that level of detail. My comment at this point in time
26 is this condition - this request is consistent with other similar projects reviewed and acted upon
27 by this Board where such a report is required.
28
29 This is a copy of the site plan. A couple of things I want to bring to the Board's attention
30 - You will note that there are streams that are located on the property. Both our comprehensive
31 plan and the future land use plan —the joint land use plan between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
32 Orange County- denote these areas as being resource protection areas. The applicant has
33 been made aware, and there are notes in the site plan indicating that these will be buffered in
34 accordance with article 6 of our unified development ordinance, the preservation of stream
35 buffers. The array is located on an upland portion of property and again, as indicated, it is
36 approximately 19 acres of coverage. This is the proposed access road off of Cascade, with the
37 access point going through the project. You will note that the applicant is indicating their
38 inverter and transformers. Transformers located at various key points of the property. This
39 here is a temporary staging area that will be eliminated once the project is developed, if
40 approved. And this green area here denotes the required 50 foot wide land use buffer, which
41 we are going to get to in a moment.
42
43 This is also from the site plan, providing the typical fence detail as well as the typical
44 elevation for the array. And this actually gives you a typical detail of the proposed buffer. As
45 required by the unified development ordinance, there has to be a 50 foot wide buffer Type D
46 land use buffer developed on this property. That requires a certain number of plantings per
47 every 100 linear feet. There has to be 7 evergreen trees. There has to be then 16 evergreen
48 understory trees and then a grand total of 68 shrub trees. And that is, again, for every 100
49 linear feet of the property. The proposed fence will be located on this side of the landscape
50 buffer, not here. So what you will see is the landscape buffer, and then you will have a fence
51 here securing the site.
5
1
2 As the Chair has already alluded, this application is a Class A special use permit. The
3 review if this permit is held in a quasi-judicial format, meaning all parties for and against the
4 application provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on
5 the merits of the proposal. The applicant, according to our regulations, ultimately has the
6 burden of demonstrating that the project complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone
7 opposing this application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony and competent
8 material evidence that the project does not comply with the ordinance. You will remember from
9 past meetings, hearsay and unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. What I will
10 remind the Board is if the applicant proves compliance with the applicable standards of the
11 ordinance, and there is no evidence it the record demonstrating that the project does not comply
12 with the regulations, then the permit must be issued.
13
14 The review process is as follows. We are in step 1. This is the review of the application
15 at a joint quarterly public hearing by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. The
16 BOCC will be asked to —or is going to adjourn the public hearing to a date time certain, in order
17 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Step 2 is the review of the application by the
18 full Planning Board, who is going to make a recommendation on the application, based on the
19 evidence and testimony entered into record. What I would like to remind everybody is that the
20 Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and begin review of this item at their June 4 and
21 July 2 regular meetings. These meetings convene at 7 o'clock and are held at the west campus
22 office building —the Planning Department Building, at 131 West Margaret Lane in the main
23 conference room on the lower level. Step 3 will be the re-convening of the public hearing to
24 receive the Planning Board recommendation. As you will note, no additional public comment or
25 testimony is accepted at this hearing. This is specifically to allow the Board to receive the
26 Planning Board recommendation as well as any additional written testimony that has been
27 offered into the record. You will then take action on this proposal based on evidence entered
28 into the record this evening, as well as other written testimony introduced to the Planning Board.
29
30 Our initial review, which we have covered on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the abstract, is the
31 applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of this project. They have
32 submitted required documentation for a Class A special use permit, as outlined within section
33 2.7.3, and staff will indicate that there are goals, objectives and policies within the
34 comprehensive plan lending credence to the viability of the proposal. I will also point out to the
35 Board, that on page 7 we provide an assessment that this project appears consistent with the
36 various goals outlined within the joint planning land use plan. You will also note on page 8, we
37 have submitted this (application), per the joint planning agreement we have, to the Town of
38 Chapel Hill for review and comment. As of this time, we have not received any comments from
39 the Town of Chapel Hill, so we are obviously moving forward with the project.
40
41 The recommendation, as detailed in our abstract, is that you: receive this application;
42 you conduct the public hearing and accept public, County Commissioner, and Planning Board
43 comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
44 returned to you in time for your September 16'2014 regular meeting; and that you adjourn the
45 public hearing until that date, in order to receive and accept the Planning Board
46 recommendation as well as any additional submitted written comments on the project.
47
48 Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I would like to turn it over to the applicant.
49
50 Chair Jacobs: The attorney.
51
6
1 Michael Harvey: I'll turn it over to the attorney. Thank you, sir.
2
3 (Staff Attorney) James Bryan: Thank you. The Chair asked me to briefly mention some
4 ground rules for tonight. This is going to be a quasi-judicial hearing, which means that it has to
5 have a fair trial standard. We have both the petitioner and neighbors represented by attorneys
6 in this matter. When the witnesses have to be made available for cross examination, since we
7 have attorneys on both sides, we are going to let the attorneys take the lead on that and offer
8 their witnesses up to the other for that cross examination. One other point that I wanted to
9 make,just clarify for myself if nothing else, is the speaker's time - that any witness offered up
10 will have unlimited time to make their offer of evidence that is competent material and
11 substantial.
12
13 Chair Jacobs: May I ask one more clarifying question for you or for Mr. Harvey? When we
14 mention the two Planning Board meetings, what kind of testimony is acceptable at the Planning
15 Board meetings? Is it just written, not oral? Is that correct?
16
17 James Bryan: It depends on what this Board does at the end of this hearing. Once —A quasi-
18 judicial hearing has two big components of it. You've got the actual hearing where you present
19 evidence, and then you have the deliberations afterwards. Once the first part is ended, this
20 Board cannot get any more evidence, and that includes from other bodies. But, if you leave this
21 and continue it to another date where the hearing is open, then you can receive anything this
22 Board wishes.
23
24 Michael Harvey: Let me also re-iterate that we require written testimony to be submitted to the
25 Planning Board. The reason being is so that you have a record of it. We have allowed
26 individuals to speak before the Planning Board to essentially present that written testimony, and
27 obviously the Planning Board can ask questions of the applicant that there is an obligation that
28 they have to respond. When you adjourn this hearing, obviously you are adjourning it to a date
29 time certain to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional testimony
30 evidence that has already been entered.
31
32 Chair Jacobs: But essentially the people who want to speak are going to get their best
33 opportunity right now.
34
35 James Bryan: Yes sir.
36
37 Pete Hallenbeck: Mr. Harvey, you wanted to let the applicant speak now.
38
39 Michael Harvey: I do. However, before I do that, let me do a couple of housekeeping matters if
40 the Board will indulge me. First is, I would like the abstract, including all four attachments,
41 entered into the record. I would also like to ask that the attachment which the planning staff
42 provided —the blue cover attachment— be entered into the evidence as part of the record. I
43 would also ask that the Board accept and enter into the record the current iteration of the
44 Unified Development Ordinance, the current iteration of the comprehensive plan, the most
45 recent joint planning land use plan, and the Orange County soil survey into the record as part of
46 this request.
47
48 Pete Hallenbeck: We will now hear from the applicant then.
49
50 (Attorney) Mike Fox: Good evening, my name is Mike Fox, and I am pleased to be her tonight
51 to represent Sunlight Partners who is the applicant in this hearing. Miss Hayworth is handing
7
1 your clerk some written materials, which are in this format, which I was told the clerk will hand
2 out to each of the Commissioners and the Planning Board members. What I will do is briefly
3 introduce what we are going to do tonight, and then we will let our witnesses tell you about the
4 project.
5
6 Essentially we have three witnesses here tonight. All are experts in their field. The first
7 is Michael Wallace. Michael, will you stand up. Michael is an employee with Sunlight Partners
8 and is the project manager on this project and is a licensed engineer here in North Carolina and
9 in other states. Next, we have Tommy Cleveland, who is also an engineer here in North
10 Carolina, and his daytime employment is with the N.C. Solar Center. We have engaged him
11 separately as an expert on solar energy, and he will discuss those topics tonight. And then
12 lastly, but not least, Rich Kirkland is a licensed appraiser here in North Carolina, and Rich will
13 talk about the property value issues in this case.
14
15 If I could, let me just—since you - I believe you all have booklets now. Let me just flip
16 you through just the booklet, and then I'll get our witnesses up here so you can start hearing
17 from them. Tab one is a site plan for your reference, and we tried to make it large enough so
18 that it's readable. If you have any questions during the process, you can refer to that. Tab two
19 is a landscaping plan, which is essentially a site plan with the landscaping notes on it, in the
20 event you have questions about the landscaping plan.
21
22 Tab three is some information about Sunlight Partners and their company, and behind
23 that is the resume of Michael Wallace, detailing his experience. And I would tender that, along
24 with his testimony, as proof of his qualifications as an expert. Tab 4 is some illustrative pictures
25 of solar farms. Tab five is the information from Tommy Cleveland, the solar expert. The first
26 two pages are an affidavit. We had that prepared. Tommy's wife is —Her due date is tomorrow,
27 and we were concerned that Tommy might not be here. But, he was able to be here, and we
28 had an affidavit ready in case he couldn't. So, if he gets a phone call and he has to leave, I hope
29 you'll understand. We're hoping not. Behind that is Tommy's resume, which details his
30 education and professional experience, which we wound tender as an expert. And then Tommy
31 has a presentation behind that, which he will walk you through, on solar materials. The last tab
32 in the book, tab 6, is from Mr. Kirkland, and his report is included in that, along with his
33 conclusions. And at the end of the report there is his professional experience and resume,
34 which we would tender also qualifies him as an expert in the appraisal business.
35
36 Again, I will also be happy to answer any questions, but the substance of our
37 presentation is from our three witnesses, and with that I will ask Mr. Wallace to come up. In
38 keeping with the County attorney's direction, after each of my witnesses is through with their
39 presentation, I will offer them to Mr. Brooks, the attorney for the neighbors, for an opportunity for
40 him to question them.
41
42 Michael Wallace: Thank you, Mike. As stated, my name is Michael Wallace, representing
43 Sunlight Partners and Cate Street Capital. Cate Street Capital is a management company that
44 sources, develops and commercializes businesses within the green renewable energy markets.
45 We have projects roughly over several states —solar as well - California. We do biomass in
46 Maine. We are working on paper mills in the state of Maine, and also any type of venture with
47 renewable energy and green energy. Cate Street is based in Portland, Maine, employs 30
48 people with expertise in operations, finance, marketing, and engineering. In addition to
49 operating environmentally responsible businesses, we believe in being good neighbors and
50 participating regularly in causes, organizations and activities in the communities that our
51 projects are located in. So, essentially what that means is we're here to be a good neighbor to
8
1 this County, adhere to the ordinance, and also do what we can to answer any questions that
2 you guys might have tonight.
3
4 So my main objective is to walk through the site plan with you guys and explain kind of
5 what we're doing. So if you can turn to tab one please for me. There are a couple of things I
6 would like to point out with this site plan. What you will notice is we have three inverter stations
7 located here, here and here. You will also notice that the main entrance to the property comes
8 off Cascade Drive. The reason that location was initially chosen was because of the ease of the
9 location. There is grading —there is no grading that needs to be done there. We essentially
10 can put our road in and travel up through the site much easier than if we came off the other
11 drive access. If we came off this way, there are many trees that we would have to cut and
12 remove to get a road up through there. So that was the initial reason that that location was
13 picked. This inverter right here, which was kind of, probably most of the concern to the public -
14 This inverter is located 117 feet off the main road. So the noise level of that inverter at 10 feet
15 away is roughly 68 decibels. As you move out that number to the 117 foot mark, you are in
16 roughly the 46 decibel range, to 44, and that does not include the buffer that will be placed in
17 the property. So, that would be considering if you were open in a field, and it was just coming
18 across that open area with nothing else for those sound waves to bounce off of.
19
20 Another thing to make note of is this is our buffer that comes around the entire property,
21 here. And that buffer, as we will kind of get to in a second, on page 2 of the site plan, includes
22 shrubs as well as undergrowth trees and then above canopy trees for the main purpose, so that
23 that fence line is not something that will be seen. The fence is represented as an 8 foot chain
24 link fence per the ordinance and again it is the purpose of the buffer so that that fence will not
25 be seen to the public or the residents on either side of it. The stream that sits on both sides, we
26 are adhering to the 80 foot buffer around that stream. You will see the small area of trees that
27 will be removed. The reason that tree line comes back where it does, so that we don't have
28 issues with shading the solar panels. All silt fences will be placed in here to control any runoff
29 or storm water that may come if we had a very heavy thunderstorm to take care of that. Site
30 grading will be left as is, so the purpose is not to come in with any type of heavy machinery or
31 equipment and make this site flat. The purpose is to leave it as is and place our panels on the
32 exiting grade. There have been concerns with pesticides and herbicides. There will be none.
33 Twice a year, the site will be mowed. Anything that may come under the panels would use a
34 standard weed whacker to remove that. That will be done with a local landscaping company as
35 well, in the area. Traffic into the site —you will be looking at probably twice a month, and that is
36 just more or less to check on the inverters and make sure everything is functioning as it should.
37 The construction trailer lay down site will be there approximately four months to allow the panels
38 to come in, with approximately a truck per day as panels come in. Traffic from workers are
39 probably 2 to 3 cars a day during that four month period of time and then again after that it will
40 just be a couple of times a month.
41
42 If we could really quick go over to tab two, which will kind of talk a little bit about the
43 buffer, which I think is very important. The focus of that buffer is the evergreen trees on the —
44 the seven trees —and then I believe it's sixteen or—sixteen trees that come in the 100 foot
45 section. The purpose of these trees right here will be a minimum of eight feet, once planted.
46 Those trees will grow to roughly 30 feet plus. These trees under the canopy will be a minimum,
47 I believe, of 6 feet. Those are 16 evergreens. Eight feet tall — excuse me those will be a
48 minimum of eight, and will not have the growth expectancy of the larger trees, and then the
49 shrubs are roughly under just right in front of the fence line. So again, the purpose of this buffer
50 is so that the residents on the other side do not see the chain link fence that will be there. And
51 that fence is there to protect the property and the assets inside the property.
9
1 So I think I have covered —talked a little bit about the noise that I wanted to hit. Also,
2 something that is important just kind of to note—the panels do get dirty over time. And what we
3 are planning on doing with those panels is they will be washed one to two times per year with
4 water only. So there will be no chemicals or any type of cleaning agent that will be put on those
5 panels. So essentially this is going to be a chemical free installation, and we will maintain that
6 throughout the life of the site.
7
8 Mike Fox: Michael, before I ask Mr. Rooks if he has any questions for you, will you confirm,
9 according to the attorney that you were sworn?
10
11 Michael Wallace: Michael Wallace, I was sworn in.
12
13 David Brooks: Mr. Wallace, I am David Rooks, and I represent some of the residents. Who is
14 your employer?
15
16 Michael Wallace: I work for Cate Street Capital.
17
18 David Rooks: And who is the applicant in this case?
19
20 Michael Wallace: The applicant is Sunlight Partners.
21
22 David Rooks: And I notice that your site plan says Binks, LLC on it.
23
24 Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
25
26 David Rooks: And what is Binks, LLC?
27
28 Michael Wallace: Binks, LLC was a name given to—We have several solar projects in the
29 state that we are working on in the same process as this one right now. And each site was
30 given a name as it made it through the process for the North Carolina Utility Commission to
31 identify each site.
32
33 David Rooks: Binks, LLC is a company is it not?
34
35 Michael Wallace: It is a company, yes, correct.
36
37 David Rooks: A limited liability company.
38
39 Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
40
41 David Rooks: And who are the principals of Binks, LLC?
42
43 Michael Wallace: It is going to be Sunlight Partners.
44
45 David Rooks: Okay. Does Sunlight Partners actually own any operating solar farms?
46
47 Michael Wallace: Ah, no, currently—Well let me take that back. They put in a whole array in
48 California, and I do not know the size of that. They do not currently still operate that. They sold
49 that off, but I do not know what that number is.
50
10
1 David Rooks: And if this project were approved and constructed, would Sunlight Partners,
2 through whatever entity it might have created, own that entity— own that array?
3
4 Michael Wallace: Yes sir, they would. Sunlight Partners is working with a company—
5 Sundurance Energy—who is a company, a construction company- Conti -who does work in the
6 state of North Carolina. It's a joint venture, 50/50. Sundurance will come in and set up the
7 panels and maintain them from an 0 and M standpoint under the joint venture. And Sunlight
8 Partners acts as the developer in this venture.
9
10 David Rooks: And after it is all constructed, will Sunlight Partners continue to have an interest?
11
12 Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
13
14 David Rooks: And this is a departure from your normal practice.
15
16 Michael Wallace: No it is not, sir. We uh —typically this is what we do as a company.
17
18 David Rooks: I'm confused, because you told me a few minutes ago that Sunlight Partners
19 owns only one solar farm in the country.
20
21 Michael Wallace: Correct. So Cate Street Capital works with several companies across the
22 country in ventures like this, whether it is biomass, whether it be paper mills, and they are wholly
23 owned by Cate Street Capital; but they operate on their own terms. So Sunlight Partners will
24 continue to own and operate this with Sundurance as a 50/50 venture, which is typical to how
25 Cate Street Capital operates their businesses.
26
27 David Rooks: That's all I have. Thank you.
28
29 Michael Fox: If I could, Mr. Wallace, just get you to clarify one question. Could you explain the
30 relationship between Sunlight and Cate Street? Is one owned by the other and is that...?
31
32 Michael Wallace: Yes, so Sunlight Partners is a company that is wholly owned by Cate Street
33 but operates under its own entity. We, Cate Street, has a— obviously an interest in the party.
34 We work with Sunlight, as a representation of me being here tonight, and it is part of our interest
35 to see the project successful with Sunlight Partners.
36
37 Michael Fox: And just to clarify, could you — I think you mentioned it briefly, but I don't think
38 you explained it—the Cate Streets principal business, and the sister companies that- to
39 Sunlight—that Cate Street owns.
40
41 Michael Wallace: Yes, so the uh —there are several sister companies under Sunlight Energy,
42 approximately 48 in the state of North Carolina now, that are under this same process
43 submitting applications for solar within the state of North Carolina.
44
45 Michael Fox: I was actually asking about the sister companies to Sunlight that Cate Street
46 owns in your business - green energy business.
47
48 Michael Wallace: Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely. Sorry, Mike. We have several other companies
49 within —one operating within the state of Florida, one operating within the state of Maine,
50 another within the state of New Hampshire. And these are different ventures for renewable
51 energy—some solar, some biomass, some into the paper mill industry— all with the same type
11
1 of function of coming in and trying to operate some sort of renewable energy entity under a
2 company that Cate Street in turn owns and operates.
3
4 Michael Fox: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I'd next like to ask Tommy Cleveland to come up. And
5 Tommy if you would indicate whether you were sworn previously, and give your credentials.
6
7 Tommy Cleveland: Good evening. My name is Tommy Cleveland, and I have been sworn in
8 this evening. My background is I am a mechanical engineer with degrees from N.C. State and
9 have been a solar energy engineer at N.C. Solar Center, which is an extension and
10 engagement center at N.C. State University, for just over 10 years now, where I have been
11 working with these technologies for the last ten years.
12
13 I am here tonight as a private engineer, having been engaged by the applicant, and I
14 have been a professional engineer in North Carolina since 2008. And I want to talk tonight
15 about the technology and any health and safety concerns that would result from the technology.
16 And my general plan by how I am going to do that is to talk about what the technology is, how it
17 functions, and what's there in the— in the site, so you can become familiar with what's there and
18 thereby see the health and safety implications — really the lack of health and safety concerns
19 because of the technology.
20
21 So, if you would flip to tab five in your books, I've got a few visuals, and I will try to
22 describe that as much as I can for everybody that can't see the presentation.
23
24 We'll wait a minute and see if we can get this on the screen.
25
26 Alright, thank you. There is a brief overview on the solar center. Anyone not familiar with
27 the solar center, it is a very well respected national center for solar energy research and
28 promotion. It has been around since 1988. And here are the layers that are in a solar panel or
29 PV module. What is going to be used in this project and what is typical across projects by this
30 developer and other developers in North Carolina is a crystal and silicone PV module. There
31 are other types of photovoltaic modules or PV modules that have different chemistries, but the
32 vast majority in the world right now are silicone based, which is a very benign element—you
33 know the main ingredient in sand —very common in the whole crust of our earth. But then there
34 are other things there. The silicone layer is really just a small percentage—3 or 4 percent by
35 weight of the whole panel — and there are other things there. The heavier part, the main part is
36 a sheet of tempered glass. So this is typical glass that's tempered, that has an anti-reflective
37 coating on it, and if it does break, it breaks up into tiny little safe pieces of glass. There are two
38 encapsulation layers on the other side of those cells, and they are there to keep moisture away
39 from the cells, so they have a very long life. The panels generally come with a 25 year power
40 warranty that says after 25 years this thing will still produce 80 percent of what it did on day 1.
41 So, it is a very long lasting product. And then there is a very heavy duty plastic back sheet that
42 protects the back of the cells from any kind of physical damage while being installed, and then a
43 junction box where the wires finally come out the back.
44
45 Inside the cell, this really just to show that there's not any toxic or worrisome materials
46 inside the cell. It's almost entirely silicone with tiny bits of phosphorus and boron that get added
47 on each side, and that makes it a functioning solar cell, with little bits of very thin layer of metal
48 on the back and some thin strips of metal on the front to conduct away those electrons. And
49 then in the full array these serve to send DC electricity to an inverter. In that inverter, that DC
50 direct current electricity is converted to alternating current, and synced up to the grid's
51 alternating current. And then normally there is a transformer on the edge of this to take that to a
12
1 higher voltage, to whatever the voltage is of that local power line. It is often a misconception
2 that a large solar system like this would need special power lines brought in or would have to
3 connect to really large power lines. These are connecting to common distribution power lines,
4 you know like the size you would see running down any highway road, not a large road but just
5 small wooden poles. These aren't the large metal poles. These are just small wooden poles
6 that this power can feed into.
7
8 This is an image of what it looks like putting all of these panels out in the field. This is
9 from a different developer, but here in North Carolina. It is how these are commonly installed
10 and how they are planned to be installed for this project. It is galvanized steel structures that
11 are just driven into the ground, so there is no concrete in the ground. These are just pounded
12 into the ground with machinery, and at the end of the life, they could be pulled out and the
13 ground left just as it was beforehand. As you heard Mike say, there are no plans for grading of
14 the site. These will just follow the natural contours of the site. As you can see here, you don't
15 have to tear up the grass or vegetation that's there before these go in. You can just go right on
16 top of that and just pound in these structures. And then you've got aluminum cross members
17 that bolt on top of that and finally the panels holding to that aluminum framework. And you end
18 up with a large array— a field of the solar panels, but still, lots of space. It's a little bit hard to tell
19 from this angle, but there are still lots of space between those panels. So there is lots of room
20 for rainwater that hits the panels and drains to the bottom side of the panel to absorb into the
21 ground — right there, that vegetative ground right in front of the panel, because each area of
22 panels is really fairly small.
23
24 As I'm sure many people are aware, there have been lots of similar size solar farms
25 going in in North Carolina the last couple of years. In fact they are becoming common here
26 across the state. One of the largest systems was put in by Apple, a little bit further west in the
27 state, in Maiden. This is a photo of it under construction, but it has now been operating for
28 some time. This is quite a bit larger that the project proposed here, but just to give an example
29 of another project in the state.
30
31 So in conclusion, the solar system is safe and environmentally friendly for the area.
32 There are no site emissions. Those panels are entirely encapsulated and there is no water
33 intrusion. There is air intrusion. There is not water. There is no solution, no materials coming
34 out into solution from the water, nothing released into the air, nothing released in to the soil. In
35 fact, it is cleaner than not putting it there, because it is offsetting emissions from other plants.
36 About half of the state's power electricity, power generation comes from coal and natural gas,
37 which does have harmful local emissions. So this is directly offsetting those emissions from a
38 nearby power plant, and we have seen widespread support of solar by many environmental
39 organizations demonstrating the positive environmental aspects of the systems. A couple of
40 local examples — EPA building in RTP has repeatedly put on new rooftop solar systems,
41 showing there the lack of concern for the panels causing any trouble for their workers in their
42 own buildings. They have put in systems in 2002, 2010, and 2011. They just kept adding, more
43 systems to the top of their own buildings. These technologies have been around for 50 years,
44 this crystalline, silicone technology, so it's not anything there that is going to surprise us.
45 There's lot of experience for many decades now, of these being implemented out in the world.
46
47 Michael Fox: Tommy, just two - two quick questions. One, do these panels move in any way,
48 or are they fixed?
49
50 Tommy Cleveland: At this site they'll be fixed. There are designs that move, but these will be
51 fixed.
13
1
2 Michael Fox: And, are there any batteries on this site that store energy?
3
4 Tommy Cleveland: Good question. No, that's — people often feel like, or expect there to be
5 batteries, but there are no batteries. There are really only those two components. There are
6 the panels, and they feed the power directly to the—to the inverter.
7
8 Michael Fox: That's all we have. Do you have any questions? Okay. Alright, thank you
9 Tommy.
10 And our final witness here this evening is Rich Kirkland. And Rich, if you would come up
11 and affirm that you were sworn, and talk about your credentials.
12
13 Rich Kirkland: Hi, again my name is Rich Kirkland. I was sworn in. I am a local MAI appraiser
14 coming out of Fuquay. I was um — I've been appraising for about 18 or 19 years now. It starts
15 to run together, but a common bit of what I do —a big part of what I do is land appraisals. I
16 appraise land for subdivision developers, for local environmental groups. Land is a big focus of
17 what I do. Let's see, I'm state certified general, and again I was hired to address the question of
18 whether or not this property is going to have impact on adjoining property values. I was also
19 asked to consider whether or not this was a harmonious use or not. To that end, I have done
20 research through the appraisal institute. I have spoken with three other MAI's about this, other
21 folks who have been researching on this. And, I have found that there really is not a lot of
22 national studies that show any information on this; so I had to go out and do my own. The
23 appraisal institute method for identifying whether or not there is any kind of impact on property
24 value is this idealized thing called matched pair or paired sales analysis. That is where you just
25 look at two properties that have sold, and you want to isolate things down to where there is only
26 one difference, and then you can measure to see if that one difference had anything. So in this
27 case I'm looking for a property that sold next to a solar farm and one that is not next to a solar
28 farm to see if there is anything there. I found a really good — really an ideal set of matched pairs
29 — a series of matched pairs in Goldsboro. The AM Best Solar Farm is adjoining a new
30 development going in. There are new homes being built. Some of the homes are backing up to
31 the solar farm, and some of them are not. They are being sold —the exact same floor plans are
32 being sold for the same price— both backing up to the solar farm, as well as those that are down
33 the street. I spoke with the sales agents about it. They said that they've had no issues or
34 concerns with that. I spoke with the developer. They had no concerns or issues with selling
35 that. And I stopped and I knocked on the doors of some of the folks that bought those homes
36 that back up to the solar farm, and they again said they have no real concerns with it and didn't
37 really care.
38
39 I have included in my report some pictures of the view from the homes that are there in
40 Goldsboro, and there is also a series of matched pairs. You can see the homes that are selling.
41 There's —This is an image in the yellow. That is the area where the solar farm was put in.
42 Excuse me. And Spring Gardens subdivision is the subdivision where the homes are going in.
43 You can see they are still listing. They are still selling homes out there. It is going to be really to
44 see this, but these are the different home sales I've looked at since the solar farm. I've got
45 different categories where I've looked at them. Some of them are showing homes that sold
46 before the solar farm was announced. I've got some that are showing when it's been
47 announced but not built and then those since they built the solar farm. You can see going
48 through there, especially after the solar farm was announced and built; they are still going for
49 the same prices - and again the same price per square foot. So it is strongly showing that the
50 solar farm itself is having no impact on those home prices, whether it's adjoining or not adjoining
51 through that area.
14
1 I've looked at, additionally, another solar farm in Zebulon. This one has actually been
2 approved but not built. And there is no way you are going to be able to read all that information
3 unless your eyes are way better than mine; but to sum up, there is a subdivision up here that
4 was put in place and developed before the downturn in the market, and they sold one lot in the
5 back that you can't even see there before the downturn. Those lots sat there through the whole
6 downturn. And the solar farm that got approved —after it got approved, those lots went on the
7 market. They sold at a discount- a bulk discount for multiple lots. It's very common in
8 subdivisions, and I compared that to bulk lot sales of two other subdivisions nearby out in the
9 Zebulon area. Again, it's a rural sort of transition area where you have single family homes and
10 rural properties next to each other. The other areas that are selling the bulk lots, they actually
11 sold at much deeper discounts than the lots that sold next to the solar farm. So again, the
12 matched pairs here are showing that there is really no impact from that potential solar farm right
13 there.
14
15 Then also, closer to this location, I looked at the solar farm on White Cross — solar farm
16 that's — it's now operational. They actually— after that solar farm was built—this is in Chapel
17 Hill —after it was built—the - actually from the parent tract the land was —the solar farm was
18 built on —the owner of that sold the rest of the property they had, and again it is selling at very
19 similar prices to those tracts of land in the area. So looking at those different matched pairs, I'm
20 seeing no sign of any impact on property values due to the proximity of that solar farm or any of
21 those solar farms. And again, the location of these comes into harmony of use. I've visited over
22 40 solar farm sites. The first 22 I've looked at are in this chart here. I broke down showing what
23 kind of uses are near these solar farms. Where are the solar farms going, and you can see that
24 the vast majority of the uses that these properties are located are agricultural and single family
25 residential. There is very little of these being developed in commercial or industrial areas.
26 These are all going to these areas where there is that transition area. That makes sense
27 because you need some open acreage, some land, to put the panels on; but you also need
28 users, homeowners, to receive that power. So going through that, again I'm finding that this is a
29 typical area where a solar farm would be located.
30
31 I go through and looked at the various components of why there would be an impact. A
32 lot of times if there is going to be an impact, you would find it, and you would identify it with a
33 certain thing, whether it's traffic or noise or odor or hazardous materials, things like that. This
34 site is going to have less traffic than even a single— one single family home on the site; so
35 traffic is not going to be an issue here. There is— of the 40 sites I have been to, I have never
36 smelled anything that was attributable to the panels. As far as noise goes, I have never heard
37 anything off of those. Trying to think — Hazardous materials —There is no hazardous materials
38 that are proposed for this location. The question that comes up mostly though is appearance.
39 And I've again tried to show some pictures of some greenhouses next to these solar panels. So
40 on the left are greenhouses, and on the right are solar panels, and I consider those to be very
41 similar visual impacts. Both are very typically found in these sort of transition areas, between
42 agricultural areas and residential single family homes. In fact this location here is right around
43 the corner from my house and right off the road.
44
45 So again, to sum up it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm is going to
46 have no impact on these adjoining single family and agricultural uses, and that it is not going to
47 have any impact on property values, but also that it is a harmonious use.
48
49 Michael Fox: Mr. Rooks, do you have questions for Mr. Kirkland?
50
15
1 David Rooks: Mr. Kirkland, is this the first time you have appraised for this applicant in a
2 special use permit application?
3
4 Rich Kirkland: No.
5
6 David Rooks: How many have you done before?
7
8 Rich Kirkland: One - one more.
9
10 David Rooks: And have you done any other appraisal work for this applicant.
11
12 Rich Kirkland: No
13
14 David Rooks: Have you visited the site —the Cascade Drive area?
15
16 Rich Kirkland: Yes. Yes sir.
17
18 David Rooks: And have you have you actually gone to each of the lots that are adjacent and
19 contiguous?
20
21 Rich Kirkland: I drove the neighborhood. I did not specifically like walk on anybody's
22 property, no.
23
24 David Rooks: So you have not visited any of the lots.
25
26 Rich Kirkland: Again, I visited from the road. I did not walk on anybody's property.
27
28 David Rooks: The Best commercial site, in Goldsboro...
29
30 Rich Kirkland: The AM Best site?
31
32 David Rooks: Have you visited that site?
33
34 Rich Kirkland: I have.
35
36 David Rooks: Have you actually walked the lots?
37
38 Rich Kirkland: Those, yes I have.
39
40 David Rooks: And were you able to see the solar farm from those lots.
41
42 Rich Kirkland: I was.
43
44 David Rooks: You were?
45
46 Rich Kirkland: Yes.
47
48 David Rooks: And what time of year did you go?
49
50 Rich Kirkland: Winter.
51
16
1 David Rooks: And was that a fully developed subdivision at the time that you went?
2
3 Rich Kirkland: They were still building.
4
5 David Rooks: That's all I have. Thank you.
6
7 Michael Fox: Thank you, Mr. Kirkland. Those are all the witnesses we have. I'd like to just
8 take a brief moment to conclude and also give the Board an opportunity for any questions, if the
9 Board has any before I conclude—the Planning Board or the County Board.
10
11 Pete Hallenbeck: I think go ahead with your conclusion. And we want to get all the
12 information, and then we'll be able to ask you better questions.
13
14 Michael Fox: Great. Thank you. My conclusion is fairly short. We believe that this is a good
15 project on its own, and it's a good project for Orange County and for this area that it's in. There
16 are none of the traditional negatives that you see with some sort of proposed zoning project.
17 There is no noise, no pollution, no traffic, no smell or odor. The site will be buffered and
18 screened so that it will not be visible from the adjoining properties. And importantly to Orange
19 County in particular, your County has made a point to promote sustainable businesses and
20 sustainable energy. And there have been other sites similar to this that have been approved,
21 and we feel that this site is worthy of approval as well. I know that there have been some issues
22 about the particular zoning classification that this site is in —a rural buffer zone —and we
23 understand that, and we understand that part of your goal was not to have traditional
24 commercial development or industrial development in that zone. We feel that this project
25 supports your goals of keeping that as a buffer zone, because you will not have commercial
26 development in terms of shops or industrial development, businesses, buildings. This is a very
27 passive use. It is really the best use if you want to keep land open and available for agriculture,
28 because once— if the lease is ended at some point, you know after 15, 20, 30 years, it's very
29 easy to go in and disassemble this site, and the land is back exactly like it was. So it preserves
30 the land in the way that it is even better than a traditional single family subdivision, because
31 once that goes in it, that is what it is always going to be. And you are going to have all the
32 issues related to that—traffic—You are going to have to build, you know, the water system and
33 the sewer system out to support that. You are going to have to have the additional schools. So,
34 you know even a single family subdivision has a price to pay, although that is generally
35 considered a desirable use. This site has none of those negatives. We feel like that, you know,
36 here tonight we've presented competent evidence that would allow your boards to find that this
37 should be approved. We've presented evidence that it would maintain or promote the public
38 health, safety or general welfare; that it would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
39 property; and that it was in harmony with the area in which it is located, and it is in compliance
40 with the plan for the physical development of the County. As a final note, I would like to ask that
41 our exhibits be entered into evidence. And we would be happy to answer any questions the
42 boards may have, and thank you for your time, and ask that you would consider this and
43 approve it.
44
45 Pete Hallenbeck: All right. Thank you very much. At this point, and Mr. Brian you can correct
46 me if I am making a procedural mistake here - the gentleman there - and I forget your name—
47 the attorney.
48
49 Chair Jacobs: Mr. Rooks
50
51 David Rooks: David Rooks, R-O-O-K-S.
17
1
2 Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, thank you, Mr. Rooks. Is there additional evidence that you would like to
3 enter?
4
5 David Rooks: There is.
6
7 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, before we continue, may I ask anyone coming to speak
8 obviously speak directly into the microphone as humanly possible so that we can insure the
9 recording picks up everything.
10
11 Pete Hallenbeck: Very good, thank you. Alright, well Mr. Rooks, I know everybody's got
12 questions. I know people would like to talk, but I think it would make sense to get all the
13 information out there first. So if you would like to present any evidence, please go ahead and
14 do so now.
15
16 David Rooks: What we have done is —the neighborhood opponents have sort of organized,
17 and I'm trying to organize that organization and present it to the—to the board in the most
18 expeditious way possible. I would first of all ask that, of the folks in the audience who are— live
19 in the adjoining neighborhood who are not planning to speak, but are nonetheless opposed to
20 the project, would you please stand. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman and council, I tender all of
21 these folks to be cross examined as opponents to the project. Thank you.
22
23 Mr. Chairman, at this point we are going to start with our first witness, who is a resident—
24 Bob Cantwell. He is going to make a presentation: and then after that we are going to have two
25 expert appraisers testify; and then following that, we are going to have a group of residents
26 come and testify to you, summarizing their views. So we will at this point call Mr. Cantwell. And
27 I ask that he confirm that he is — his name and that he has been sworn.
28
29 Robert Cantwell: My name is Robert Cantwell, I have been duly sworn in. Nice to see you all.
30 The speaker provided 3 printed appraisals and read the following statement:
31
32 Statement to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, May 27, 2014.
33
34 My name is Robert (Bob) Cantwell. My wife Lydia Wegman and I live at 5704 Cascade
35 Drive, where we have been for twenty-three and a half years. Our property is immediately
36 contiguous with the proposed solar development, which, should it be approved, will be almost
37 literally in our back yard.
38
39 I am a supporter of solar energy. I accept the principle that landowners have the right to
40 use what they own and to prosper from it. But the exercise of that right will likely affect the
41 health, wealth, and well being of everyone nearby in one way or another. That's why we're here.
42 We live in many environments, local and global; reverence for one implies reverence for the
43 other. Consistency does not require that we accept an installation which jeopardizes property
44 values and quality of life, and which is grossly incompatible with the character of the
45 neighborhood--not when there are better alternatives. In any case it will not advance the cause
46 of solar energy to allow an Arizona company, without any feeling for life on the ground here in
47 North Carolina, to go wherever Google Earth tells them to go.
48
49 The Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County states that in order to grant a
50 Special Use Permit, the County Commissioners must find that "the location and character of the
18
1 use...will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located," and that"the use will maintain
2 or enhance the value of contiguous property..." (UDO 5.3.2(c),(b). [my emphasis]
3
4 The proposed project does not satisfy either of these conditions.
5
6 We bought our house because we wanted to live in the Rural Buffer. As we understood
7 it, the Rural Buffer was conceived to preserve so far as possible the rural character of Orange
8 County by erecting a barrier against suburban sprawl; a phrase one heard consistently at the
9 time was "open space."
10
11 Today we see seven or eight acres of meadow from our north windows and porch. Were
12 this project to be approved, we will see, given the rising topography of the land, a solid wall of
13 solar panels whose metal frames, rising well above the top of the eight foot fence at the edge of
14 the property, will glint and glare in our direction all day long. Only two decades or more of tree
15 growth--roughly the useful life of the solar project--might conceivably insulate us.
16
17 That the project is so close to a residential neighborhood raises a host of troubling new
18 concerns for all of us on Cascade Drive. Among these are reflection from the panel frames; the
19 audible buzz of the inverters and the whirr of the transformer; the microclimatological effect of a
20 twenty-acres surface operating at 120 degrees; grass and brush fires; hail, hurricane, or tornado
21 damage; animal incursion; and the potential for leaching or leaking of hazardous materials and
22 the possible contamination of our wells and New Hope Creek.
23
24 Here then is an unforeseen and unprecedented problem for Orange County: the site
25 proposed is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood more than half a century old. As
26 far as we know two large-scale solar utilities have so far been approved in Orange County;
27 neither is situated next door to a residential neighborhood. And none should be. Our ordinances
28 must be rewritten to guarantee it.
29
30 No other public utility as far as I know has so large a footprint as this one. No other
31 permitted use so dominates the landscape as a solar array on this scale. Nothing that I can
32 think of even remotely resembles it--unless you can imagine a twenty-acre mini-storage facility.
33 No other public structure that I can imagine, other than a penitentiary, requires thousands of feet
34 of chain-link fence nor hundreds of plantings to secure the perimeter and block the view. The
35 point is that while a solar installation may be technically a "public utility," it is not, on this scale,
36 compatible either with a residential neighborhood or with the Rural Buffer, if"Rural Buffer"
37 means anything. However high the fence or dense the plantings, this facility with its 18,000
38 panels over twenty acres will permanently transform one of the most tranquil and bucolic
39 residential neighborhoods in Orange County into what amounts to an industrial zone.
40
41 Solar installations are a comparatively new phenomenon. There is nothing yet really
42 comparable to a twenty-acre solar installation built cheek-by-jowl next to a preexisting
43 residential neighborhood. For this reason we believe Sunlight Partners has not shown and
44 cannot show that their project will "maintain," let alone "enhance," our property values. On the
45 contrary, we all know it to be the case that the value of our homes and our property will be
46 markedly reduced and the appreciation on our investment largely or wholly lost.
47
48 The developers, Sunlight Partners in Mesa, Arizona, have targeted North Carolina to
49 take advantage of tax credits, a renewable energy requirement, and favorable zoning
50 regulations; by March 2013 they had applied for nineteen new projects in the state.
51 (http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/print-edition/2013/03/29/solar-industry-sees-bright-future-
19
1 in.html?page=all) The proposed solar array is not a "farm" in any sense but major commercial-
2 industrial project conceived exclusively in technical and economic terms without the least
3 consideration for the neighbors or the neighborhood. Its boundaries reach to the very edge of
4 adjacent properties, observing only the legal minimum setbacks, while both construction access
5 and electrical transformer-inverter equipment lie well within earshot along our gateway
6 residential street. (I am not clear from the testimony we just heard what will happen to the
7 leases, but our understanding has been that they are sold, sometimes as soon as the facility is
8 built out.) Our understanding is that Sunlight Partners will likely sell its lease to the investment
9 company that owns them even before the project is fully built out. While there may be a short-
10 term tax benefit to Orange County, in the long run the project's only effects will be to despoil the
11 neighborhood, enrich the investors and the developers, and, for potential new residents,
12 compromise Orange County's reputation for livability.
13
14 (So just let me repeat)This issue is not about solar power. It is about siting an extensive
15 solar utility, typically associated with thinly settled rural areas, deserts, rooftops and brownfields,
16 in sharp juxtaposition with a long-established residential neighborhood. We on Cascade Drive
17 do not want to be the test-case for large-scale solar utilities in any of Orange County's back
18 yards.
19
20 Bob Cantwell
21 5704 Cascade Dr.
22 Chapel Hill, NC
23
24 David Rooks: If I may ask this witness like two questions. Mr. Cantwell I'm going to ask you to
25 indentify the photographs. I'm going to hold up first, this photograph and if you could identify for
26 the record what this photograph is of.
27
28 Robert Cantwell: Up to the trees in the distance is our lot, is Nunn Acres lot number 3.
29 Beyond those trees, the field, which is the whole extent of the background of the photograph, is
30 where the solar panels will be located from one end to the other.
31
32 David Rooks: So this is where the panels would go in this photograph.
33
34 Robert Cantwell: That's right.
35
36 David Rooks: And this is what is there now.
37
38 Robert Cantwell: That's right
39
40 David Rooks: And that is the view that you now have from your property.
41
42 Robert Cantwell: It is.
43
44 David Rooks: I am pulling out now, the second photograph, which we will put up. If you will
45 identify this photograph.
46
47 Robert Cantwell: That is the solar array at White Cross, mentioned in earlier testimony,
48 approved by the County I'm not sure how long ago. It was built up, I think about a year ago, and
49 we offer that image by way of comparison to suggest what the—what might occur in that field
50 should the project be approved.
51
20
1 David Rooks: I am going to mark the first - the current- as exhibit as one—the photograph of
2 what is as exhibit one. I am going to mark the other photograph — proposed - as exhibit two.
3 And I'm going to tender that to the clerk for the record, and I tender the witness.
4
5 Michael Fox: Excuse me, Mr. Cantwell. I'm sorry we both have to share the same mic here
6 so. I don't want to get in your space too much, but I do have a few questions for you. My name
7 is Mike Fox. I am an attorney with Sunlight. Do you have any personal experience with solar
8 farms, solar energy or solar power?
9
10 Robert Cantwell: No.
11
12 Michael Fox: Okay. So all of the issues that you just testified to of potential problems, you
13 don't have any personal experience with that?
14
15 Robert Cantwell: With the issues, certainly I do. I have been following residential
16 development in Orange County for the 24 years I've lived here, and to some extent I am actually
17 quite familiar with - with the kinds of issues that affect quality of life, open space. The rural
18 buffer designation — I was involved in that debate 24, 25 some odd years ago. So, I would say I
19 have some familiarity with these kinds of issues. I actually taught a course in development and
20 suburbanization at UNC Chapel Hill for a number of years.
21
22 Michael Fox: But you don't have any personal experience in relationship to solar farms,
23 correct?
24
25 Robert Cantwell: No.
26
27 Michael Fox: And the picture there that you took of the solar farm — I think it's White Cross. Is
28 that correct?
29
30 Robert Cantwell: Correct.
31
32 Michael Fox: Are you aware whether or not that solar farm is required to have buffering like the
33 one — like what's proposed here?
34
35 Robert Cantwell: My understanding is that it's not required to have buffering. We did note a
36 few dead shrubs along the perimeter, and I didn't know what the origins of the shrubs might
37 have been. But as far as I know, buffering is not as — not required of that installation.
38
39 Michael Fox: So, the picture that you presented is — is not representative of what you might
40 see if you look out your back door, because this project would have landscaping, trees, shrubs
41 that would obscure.
42
43 Robert Cantwell: No. No, as I testified just a moment ago, the topography of the land will
44 make it essentially impossible for either fencing or plantings to obscure our view of the solar
45 panels. It doesn't make the installation invisible. On the contrary, the installation will be visible
46 over the top of the fence. I don't know how many years it will require to grow a tree that can
47 fully obscure the view of the solar array you're proposing.
48
49 Michael Fox: You are aware that at their planting, the trees are a minimum 8 feet.
50
51 Robert Cantwell: Yes
21
1
2 Michael Fox: And that ultimately they will grow to approximately 30 feet.
3
4 Robert Cantwell: Ultimately, for how many years will that be?
5
6 Michael Fox: I get to ask the questions here.
7
8 Robert Cantwell: Sorry.
9
10 Michael Fox: And as far as your opinion of property value, do you have any expertise in terms
11 of assessing property values.
12
13 Robert Cantwell: We have actually hired professional appraisers to address that question.
14
15 Michael Fox: And that's what you are basing this on.
16
17 Robert Cantwell: Absolutely.
18
19 Michael Fox: Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Rooks.
20
21 David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at this point we call Pam Davis. And I believe earlier we had
22 circulated Mrs. Davis' appraisal report. I would ask at this point, Mrs. Davis, if you would briefly
23 summarize your background, education, knowledge and experience in appraising, and then a
24 summary of your work in this particular case.
25
26 Pam Davis: My name is Pam Davis. I am a state certified -
27
28 Pete Hallenbeck: Have you been sworn in?
29
30 Pam Davis: I have been sworn in, yes. I am a state certified residential real estate appraiser in
31 Orange County, have been for almost 30 years. My license number is A-76. There is now over
32 7,000 appraisers in the state, and I am number 76, so I have been doing this a long time. My
33 home base is Chapel Hill, Orange County. I'm not from Zebulon. I'm not from Goldsboro. I'm
34 from Chapel Hill. I've done thousands of appraisals here, and what I did was look specifically at
35 this property that is owned by the Cantwell and Weigman, which if you look at that diagram up
36 on the screen —where you see the blue area and you see the road to the left—their property is
37 immediately to the south. In fact the green line actually goes through a portion of their vacant
38 lot. They've got a vacant lot there immediately to the south and then their house in a 2 acre lot
39 a little bit further south. So, in order to address this and try to determine whether this solar farm
40 would affect their value, I did an estimate of their property value as it is —with the home and 2
41 acres - and then a separate evaluation of the vacant lot, which is also about 2 acres.
42
43 So, appraising the property as-is is a very simple task for me. That's what I've been
44 doing for 30 years. Appraising the property assuming that the solar farm already exists was a
45 little bit more difficult. So, to do that, I reviewed the site plan. I visited the White Cross property,
46 and I made a determination in my mind of how the view would change, which is essentially as
47 those pictures showed —the before and after - the current and the proposed. There is not a lot
48 of data out there about single family houses selling adjacent to solar farms since it's such a new
49 development. So, I looked at other adverse conditions, such as power lines, power transition
50 lines, busy highways, transformers, anything that could be a negative view. And having done
51 this for 30 years, I could — I was very comfortable in evaluating the affect.
22
1 In Chapel Hill, we seem to value our privacy, our views, our aesthetics, more than some
2 other areas of the state. Chapel Hill is not Burlington, where there is industrial and commercial
3 development everywhere. Chapel Hill is - prides itself on maintaining wooded areas, natural
4 areas. It is more valuable in Chapel Hill than anywhere else to maintain a beautiful view.
5 Buyers will pay a premium for lots or homes with views of golf courses, or lakes, or mountains,
6 or anything that's pretty to look at— a meadow. That view over there is very gorgeous. It's very
7 serene. It's very pretty. I estimated the value of their property with the 2 acres, their home,
8 which is about 2200 square feet, built in 1990, in its existing condition and its existing view, to
9 be $365,000. I then went back and re-evaluated, using some of the same and some different
10 comps to estimate what would that property be worth with the second view in the backyard,
11 taking away the value of that view. And I came up with $330,000. That is a 10 percent decline
12 in value for that particular property. I did the same thing with the lot, the vacant lot, and I
13 estimated the value of that lot with the view to be $95,000 as it currently is. I estimated the view
14 — I mean excuse me, the property with the solar farm view, as of the same day, to be $62,000.
15 That's roughly a 35 percent decline in value. That is a vacant lot. It's gonna—the external
16 obsolescence is going to impose a higher penalty on the vacant land than it does the total
17 property. And then I believe my support has been submitted, both before and after, for both
18 properties, and it was specific to the Cantwell's house. I didn't do an appraisal of any other
19 property—just that property.
20
21 David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you use the term external obsolescence?
22
23 Pam Davis: Yes.
24
25 David Rooks: And would you explain to the board what that means.
26
27 Pam Davis: External obsolescence is an effect on a value of a property from something
28 outside the property. Again, it could be anything. It could be - It could be anything. It could be
29 a highway. It could be a power line. It could be a sewer plant, noise, view. It creates a
30 negative impact on property value, but it isn't on the property itself. It's adjacent.
31
32 David Rooks: So that's a term used in the appraisal business for something external to the
33 property that has an impact on value.
34
35 Pam Davis: Yes.
36
37 David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you have occasion to form an opinion as to whether the use, as
38 proposed by the applicant - and you have heard their application, read their application and
39 heard their testimony tonight— Did you form an opinion as to whether the use as proposed, of
40 the adjacent property for a solar farm, would maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous
41 property that you appraised?
42
43 Pam Davis: I have.
44
45 David Rooks: And what is that opinion?
46
47 Pam Davis: As I stated on this particular property I thought it was a 10 percent negative effect
48 on the home with the 2 acres and a 35 percent effect on the vacant lot.
49
50 David Rooks: Is it your opinion that the use as proposed, if it were installed, would not
51 enhance or maintain the value of the contiguous property?
23
1
2 Pam Davis: It would not.
3
4 David Rooks: That's all I have. It is your witness.
5
6 Michael Fox: Thank you Mr. Rooks and Mrs. Davis. I'm Mike Fox, and I apologize for being in
7 your space her, but we're sharing one microphone. A few questions just about the basis of
8 your opinion; as I listened to your testimony, it appeared that there was really one factor here
9 that you viewed as an external obsolescence, and that was the view. Is that correct?
10
11 Pam Davis: Yes.
12
13 Michael Fox: So, you didn't consider noise, odor, anything like that?
14
15 Pam Davis: At this point I can't determine whether those will be factors or not, so I did not
16 account for those.
17
18 Michael Fox: So yours was solely based on your opinion that the view was a negative.
19
20 Pam Davis: Yes.
21
22 Michael Fox: Okay. You indicated that you had looked at the solar farm on White Cross Road.
23 Are you aware that that solar farm does not require any buffering or screening?
24
25 Pam Davis: It did have a fence, and it did have minimal landscaping.
26
27 Michael Fox: Right. Did you examine the landscaping plan for this project in the course of
28 your review?
29
30 Pam Davis: I examined what's up there on the screen, yes.
31
32 Michael Fox: So, did you take into account any of the landscaping that is planned and required
33 by this plan?
34
35 Pam Davis: Yes. But, as Mr. Cantwell stated, the property rises so it isn't going to be fully
36 blocked by trees and shrubs.
37
38 Michael Fox: Would it be your opinion that at the time that the trees are grown there would be
39 no negative impact?
40
41 Pam Davis: I can't answer that question. At the time the trees— Show me what the view
42 would look like, and I'll tell you whether I think it would.
43
44 Michael Fox: I'm actually really glad you brought that up. Did you look at any solar farms that
45 had screening?
46
47 Pam Davis: I only looked at White Cross. I only had a few days, a week to do this appraisal.
48
49 Michael Fox: Why did you not look at others that had screening?
50
51 Pam Davis: Where are they?
24
1
2 Michael Fox: Again, I get to answer the questions, and you are here testifying as an expert.
3 Would you not consider it within your job duty to try to find a similar solar farm?
4
5 Pam Davis: I did. I went to White Cross Road.
6
7 Michael Fox: But it's not the same because it doesn't have any screening, does it?
8
9 Pam Davis: It doesn't have the same screening, but that doesn't prohibit me from forming an
10 opinion.
11
12 Michael Fox: Did you make any effort to find any other solar farms?
13
14 Pam Davis: I looked at the one at Maple View on Dairyland Road.
15
16 Michael Fox: Okay, and does that have screening?
17
18 Pam Davis: No.
19
20 Michael Fox: Okay. Did you make any effort to find any solar farms that were completely
21 screened and buffered from the adjoining properties?
22
23 Pam Davis: Did I make any effort. I looked at what Orange County solar farms were. That's
24 the extent, so no.
25
26 Michael Fox: You are well aware that the best method for determining whether or not there is
27 any impact on a particular property is to find an identical situation and measure the impact,
28 correct?
29
30 Pam Davis: Yes.
31
32 Michael Fox: Did you attempt to do that?
33
34 Pam Davis: Yes. But as I stated, since solar farms are new, Chapel Hill —this area doesn't
35 have that data, and what happens in Zebulon and Goldsboro is not necessarily the same.
36
37 Michael Fox: Even if it's the only comparable that you can look at?
38
39 Pam Davis: Well I think a more relevant issue is looking at some other adverse effect on value.
40
41 Michael Fox: Would you not consider your appraisal incomplete if it didn't at least consider
42 sales beside an existing solar farm that was similar to the one that is being planned here?
43 Pam Davis: If I had those, I would.
44
45 Michael Fox: So, knowing what you know now, you feel like you appraisal is incomplete.
46
47 Pam Davis: No.
48
49 Michael Fox: I thought that's what you just said, that if you had those, you would have looked
50 at them.
51
25
1 Pam Davis: They don't exist in Orange County.
2
3 Michael Fox: No, you didn't say— My question was if you knew about those now, would you
4 consider them in your appraisal.
5
6 Pam Davis: If they were in Orange County, and they were relevant, yes.
7
8 Michael Fox: So if there was one in Chatham County you would consider that like it was on the
9 moon.
10
11 Pam Davis: No, I would consider the data and what it could show me.
12
13 Michael Fox: So are you aware now that there are numerous residential single family
14 properties that are located adjacent to existing solar farms that could have been analyzed to see
15 whether or not there was any negative impact on property?
16
17 Pam Davis: If you are talking statewide and nationwide, yes. If you are talking, Orange
18 County...
19
20 Michael Fox: But it's your opinion, you don't feel like it was necessary to look at those to come
21 to your opinion?
22
23 Pam Davis: No
24
25 Michael Fox: Are you aware that there is a large nationwide study of the impact of these wind
26 turbines and the impact on property values on homes within their view shed.
27
28 Pam Davis: I saw what was included in the preliminary submission about a wind farm study
29 that talked about values within a ten mile radius.
30
31 Michael Fox: Did you examine that study?
32
33 Pam Davis: I did, but that would be like saying does this solar farm impact the value in
34 Carrboro. Its ten miles away.
35
36 Michael Fox: So you think— it's your professional opinion that the only relevant comps are the
37 ones in the neighborhood.
38
39 Pam Davis: No, not the only relevant comps. But, a wind farm isn't a solar farm, and we don't
40 have wind farms. And a study with a ten mile radius can show anything.
41
42 Michael Fox: Well what you are assuming in your conclusion is that the solar farm is going to
43 be an adverse condition, a negative view, correct?
44
45 Pam Davis: Yes.
46
47 Michael Fox: Did you test that assumption at all on any other known solar farms and sales
48 next to it, or is that just an assumption on your part?
49
50 Pam Davis: It's an assumption on my part.
51
26
1 Michael Fox: I don't have any further questions.
2
3 David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, the assumption Mr. Fox says that you made, is that an assumption
4 based on your years of experience and knowledge of appraising in Orange County, North
5 Carolina.
6
7 Pam Davis: Yes.
8
9 David Rooks: That's all I have.
10
11 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting, but I feel it necessary that I correct
12 some statements that have been made here this evening in error.
13
14 Pete Hallenbeck: Please do so.
15
16 Michael Harvey: The first is that the White Cross solar facility that keeps being referenced is
17 actually required to have a buffer. And as I reported to the Board a week and a half ago, based
18 on a question asked by Chairman Jacobs, they have been served with a notice of deficiency of
19 the required buffer, which is actually supposed to be 70 feet, to the same standard has not been
20 installed properly. They have not received final approval from the department, and they are
21 required to install more landscaping.
22
23 Mr. Nutter's facility on Dairyland Road was installed prior to there being any County
24 regulations with respect to the development of a solar facility and was approved as part of not
25 only his existing farm operation —which as you all know, we do not regulate farm activities — but
26 was also approved as part of a special use permit, previously issued by the department—
27 excuse me, by the board of adjustment to allow the operation of a camp retreat center on the
28 property, offering insight into how agricultural operations can not only be run, but adaptive re-
29 use for agricultural properties. And in that context, the solar panels were allowed to be erected.
30
31 Pete Hallenbeck: Thank you.
32
33 David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at this point we call Mr. Bill Stafford. I'm going to ask - Mr.
34 Stafford is also an appraiser, and I'm going to ask him to briefly summarize his education,
35 training and experience in appraising.
36
37 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, Mr. Stafford, have you been sworn?
38
39 Bill Stafford: Good evening. I have been sworn in. My name is William C. Stafford. Again, I
40 do not live in this area. I have lived in this area, but I live in New Bern, North Carolina. I am a
41 licensed general appraiser in the state of North Carolina and have been licensed since the
42 board was founded in 1991. I have been an appraiser for 37 years. I have done all sorts of
43 commercial, as well as some residential jobs in my earlier years. For the past essential six years
44 I have only done commercial work. And during this six year period, the bulk of my practice is in
45 two forms. One of those forms is that I am a professional review appraiser. I work for a
46 company out of Georgia, have worked for as many as two out of Georgia, and I do commercial
47 review work all over the United States. I do mainly— I am licensed in North Carolina, as well as
48 Tennessee and Georgia, and during this process of commercial review I have done as —
49 typically if you take out 48, 52 weeks a year, and you've got 2 weeks of holidays and 2 weeks of
50 vacation otherwise - I do somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 subdivision analysis reviews a
51 week. So you can do the math on that, and you're going to get just under a hundred a year. So
27
1 I've seen a lot of different projects, and basically my role as the review appraiser is to protect
2 the client— clients being financial institutions. The other part of my practice has been a litigation
3 practice, basically being called in to handle situations like this and condemnation cases and any
4 type of a case that might involve or necessitate some type of litigation. I do some fee work,
5 straight up appraising for banks, but probably no more than one case a month on average of
6 that type. So I've been at this for 37 years and feel very qualified to render an opinion.
7
8 David Rooks: Mr. Stafford, you arrived on the scene in this case, relatively late in the day. Is
9 that not correct?
10
11 Bill Stafford: Yes sir.
12
13 David Rooks: As in today.
14
15 Bill Stafford: This morning.
16
17 David Rooks: And if you would explain to the Board what it is you have done on you busy day.
18
19 Bill Stafford: Well first off, I was out of town over the weekend but received contact from one
20 of the homeowners. Spoke with her on Saturday morning. She gave me Mr. Rooks' number. I
21 spoke with him yesterday afternoon, somewhere around 3:30 and I was deluged with a various
22 amount of information. And so, concerning this project, the first thing I did today was to go by
23 Kinston, North Carolina, having grown up in Kinston, I was very familiar with that solar field
24 that's there.
25
26 David Rooks: Goldsboro.
27
28 Bill Stafford: Went by Kinston first. Then I went to Goldsboro second and spent a good
29 amount of time there. I have a friend that lives in that subdivision, real good friend, Mrs. Pam
30 Hammond. And so we spent— I spent some time in that subdivision today and then drove up to
31 meet with the property owners association, or concerned group and spent some time with them
32 while they toured me around the four contiguous properties and looked at those. So that's what
33 I have done today as far a physically taking a look at things.
34
35 David Rooks: If you would explain to the Board what you observed when you visited the
36 Kinston and particularly the Goldsboro sites.
37
38 Bill Stafford: Well the Kinston site that there is location of—to my knowledge hasn't— in a
39 report that I had been seen advantage of, didn't disclose any sales that came about afterwards.
40 But, I'm very familiar with that property. I know there's a lot of other issues that are around that
41 property, as well as manufactured home parks and other issues as well as the solar field that's
42 in that neighborhood. But I think —you know I was given a copy of—tonight, a little while ago,
43 and I don't see any mention of that; but that's one of the jobs that I did today was take a look at
44 that.
45
46 Then I went to Goldsboro. Getting to Goldsboro, I visited every lot that touched that
47 property. On none of those lots, and I took pictures but with time being on short I am not in a
48 position to produce those. I can produce them tomorrow. But I saw no pictures on those lots
49 that showed that farm. I'm going to say it again. I saw no pictures from those properties that
50 depicted seeing that solar farm. When I went around on the front side of it, over around which
51 would be the south and east side, it looked to be a very industrial makeup that bordered that
28
1 property on those areas. I haven't had time to check the zoning on that. I don't know if Mr.
2 Rooks has, but I have not.
3
4 Then today, again visiting the site, I was able to basically support the same pictures that
5 you are seeing there, and I won't expound on that.
6
7 David Rooks: So did you visit every lot in the subdivision adjacent to the solar farm in
8 Goldsboro that was the subject matter of the applicant's appraiser's testimony.
9
10 Bill Stafford: Yes sir, I did.
11
12 David Rooks: And from each of those lots that you visit, did you look out to see if you could
13 observe the solar field?
14
15 Bill Stafford: Yes sir, I did.
16
17 David Rooks: And were you able to see the solar field from any of the lots you visited today?
18
19 Bill Stafford: No, I was not.
20
21 David Rooks: Now based on your knowledge and experience as an appraiser, do you have an
22 opinion as to whether the solar farm, as proposed and if built, would maintain or enhance the
23 value of the contiguous properties on Cascade Drive.
24
25 Bill Stafford: In my opinion it goes into the discussion, which you have heard mainly a lot
26 about, of the external obsolescence factors that affect value which are outside the subject
27 property line, the subject being what we are really appraising or talking about. And I am of the
28 opinion that it would have a negative impact.
29
30 David Rooks: So is it your opinion that the solar farm, if approved according to the plans,
31 would not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous properties?
32
33 Bill Stafford: It would not maintain or enhance the contiguous properties.
34
35 David Rooks: Are you prepared to prepare a written report if given the opportunity to do so?
36
37 Bill Stafford: Yes sir.
38
39 David Rooks: I tender him for cross.
40
41 Michael Fox: Mr. Stafford, my name is Mike Fox. We've got two microphones here, so we've
42 got a little space. I understand that you indicated you were only retained or I assumed you were
43 hired by a neighbor. Is that correct?
44
45 Bill Stafford: I was hired by the association, homeowners association, correct.
46
47 Michael Fox: Okay, and that just occurred today, so you've had limited time to delve into this.
48
49 Bill Stafford: That is correct.
50
29
1 Michael Fox: So you haven't had the opportunity to look at any actual sales beside an existing
2 solar farm to determine whether or not they have an impact.
3
4 Bill Stafford: I looked at the information that was provided to me, which had —which was
5 reflective of two sales at that time. The report that has been delivered tonight I believe has five
6 sales. I looked at those two sales, and then I still reviewed as part of my inspection every lot on
7 that road that was a residential lot that had a house on it going along that property line.
8
9 Michael Fox: Well do you disagree with the numbers that were in the report?
10
11 Bill Stafford: No sir, I don't disagree with the numbers.
12
13 Michael Fox: And those numbers indicate that there was no decrease in values.
14
15 Bill Stafford: Yes, but that report—that report that's being delivered depicts a different view
16 from what I heard in the testimony that I'm reporting.
17
18 Michael Fox: Well let me get you to look at a photo on page 8 of the report. Do you see that?
19
20 Bill Stafford: I do.
21
22 Michael Fox: And let me get you to look at the bottom picture, and for the Board's information
23 this is behind tab 6 in the appraisal, page 8 of the appraisal. Can you see the solar panels
24 through the trees there?
25
26 Bill Stafford: I could not depict that that is a solar panel at all. Keep in mind as well; today I'm
27 looking at it as of today's date. That's when I went was today.
28
29 Michael Fox: Okay.
30
31 Bill Stafford: So this is a situation here where the trees are with the leaves off.
32
33 Michael Fox: Correct, and the leaves are on today, correct?
34
35 Bill Stafford: Is it your opinion that if you can't see the solar farm, it has no impact?
36
37 Michael Fox: I think that is —that would be my opinion, that if you could not see it, it would not
38 have an impact.
39
40 Michael Fox: Okay. Alright, I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
41
42 David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at the fact that he—On short notice we had to find Mr. Stafford,
43 and he is not able to have a report for you tonight, sort of begs the question as do we have an
44 opportunity at some point in the future to tender a report to you.
45
46 Pete Hallenbeck: I believe the answer to that is yes. We have a planning board meeting
47 coming up in June and we can — I believe we can take written testimony and comments at that
48 time. Is that correct?
49
30
1 James Bryan: If you are going to accept anything at a future date, you are going to have to
2 allow the opposing side to cross examine anything that is submitted. Anything like this should
3 be submitted with the actual appraiser there to testify about it.
4
5 David Rooks: Okay. At this point we will call mister—We want to try and deal with that
6 question at some point this evening.
7
8 James Bryan: We can deal with it...
9
10 David Rooks: I guess my question is this, I think we need another hearing, to do what I want
11 to do, which is to have him present his report, and to allow the applicant the opportunity to cross
12 examine. My judgment of what the law allows is there should be no further submissions after
13 tonight unless you continue and re-open the hearing for the purpose of receiving additional
14 submissions.
15
16 Pete Hallenbeck: I'd rather not get into a discussion with the attorneys; but I think my advice
17 stands that you can continue this if you want, but if you give an opportunity for one side to
18 present evidence, you have to allow the other side.
19
20 James Bryan: I think if the Commissioners agree, I think we should continue to get
21 information. You should continue to get that in writing, and it will be the decision of the Board of
22 County Commissioners as to whether or not to continue the hearing, and I'm sure that decision
23 will be based on what they have seen and heard tonight.
24
25 David Rooks: Alright. Thank you, sir. At this point, we call Mr. Bob Thomas.
26
27 Bob Thomas: Hello, I am Robert Thomas. I was sworn earlier today and I am a certified
28 residential real estate appraiser. I have been one for well over a decade. I was a training
29 appraiser for years before that and have lived in this area for about two decades. I have
30 appraised many homes in the Chapel Hill area. I have appraised many homes in the subject
31 subdivision, all kinds of homes. I am very familiar with it. I have friends who live there and I am
32 — I know the subdivision very well. The thing is that the point that's been made again is about
33 external obsolescence. What is something —there could be something that is aside from the
34 property, outside the boundaries of the property that have a negative impact. And in looking at
35 that question, which is the question here, you have to consider the particular thing you are
36 looking at. It is not— It's a truism in real estate that the three most important things in real
37 estate is location, location, location. And you can't just look at the general proposition, what's
38 the effect of a solar farm on any property. You have to look at the effect of a solar farm on a
39 particular property, and you can tell from looking out here that there are a lot of people who live
40 in this subdivision that don't like the idea. This is a well established subdivision. It was built
41 between the 1960s and the 1980s. It has all different kinds of properties. It has contemporaries.
42 It has ranches. It has colonials, but it also has 1 to 2 acre lots. It's very nicely located with
43 respect to Duke, with respect to UNC. It's right between the two of them. You can jump over to
44 Hillsborough. It has a very bucolic appearance, and that is what attracts these people to it—
45 bucolic appearance, convenience of location, and the fact that it has a kind of a community to it.
46 And it's this, this bucolic feel of the community that makes it as valuable as it is. It's um —
47 Anything that would detract from that would definitely negatively impact value. Now I have not
48 looked at the particular question of how a solar farm would impact value; but it is my opinion, as
49 well as the other two appraisers who are representing the homeowners, that it would have a
50 negative impact. I have addressed the questions many times in my career of something that is
51 antithetical to a house, to a particular property. I have dealt with properties that have been
31
1 large, built beside very small homes and what kind of effect does that have. What kind of effect
2 does it have when you are on a busy road versus a quiet road within the same neighborhood?
3 Sometimes it is as much as a 25 percent hit in value. Houses that have— houses that have
4 power lines, high tension power lines through the front yard - and that again depends on which
5 neighborhood you are talking about. You talk about say, Green Street over in Durham. It's in
6 Trinity Park. This is an older established neighborhood with vintage homes. People like living
7 there. But if you live on Green Street where the high tension wires go through the front yards of
8 people, you are talking about a 25 percent hit in value, as opposed to any place else in Trinity
9 Park except if you're on Gregson or Duke Street. It matters. If you took the same high tension
10 wires and you were putting them in a neighborhood that is not quite as desirable, it would be a 5
11 to 10 percent hit. It matters where you are. And in this neighborhood, which is - I can only think
12 of bucolic— if you are talking about something that is visible, then you are talking about
13 something that is going to matter. It's going to take a hit. It's going to be a big hit because it's
14 going to be against the character of the neighborhood.
15 Do you have any questions for me?
16
17 Michael Fox: Just briefly, Mr. Thomas, do I understand that you live in the neighborhood?
18
19 Bob Thomas: I live in Durham.
20
21 Michael Fox: Oh, okay. Were you hired to do an appraisal?
22
23 Bob Thomas: No, I was not hired to do an appraisal at this time. I have appraised maybe ten
24 properties in the subject subdivision over the years.
25
26 Michael Fox: Were you asked to be here by someone tonight, or did you just come on your
27 own?
28
29 Bob Thomas: I was contacted on Saturday by one of the homeowners.
30
31 Michael Fox: Okay, to come and speak against this?
32
33 Bob Thomas: I was to come and give my opinion as to the effect of what the solar farm would
34 be.
35
36 Michael Fox: And did you do a formal appraisal.
37
38 Bob Thomas: No.
39
40 Michael Fox: Why not?
41
42 Bob Thomas: I said that I didn't have any experience with solar farms, that in the time that was
43 allotted, that I would not be able to do that. It wouldn't make any sense, but, that I would
44 consider it in my opinion as an appraiser with decades of experience in the field, almost two
45 decades I should say. That it would be similar to other things that you see that are sort of
46 unusual, but that experience tells you will have a negative impact.
47
48 Michael Fox: So you didn't look at any comps beside actual solar farms.
49
50 Bob Thomas: No
51
32
1 Michael Fox: So you have an opinion, but you didn't test it.
2
3 Bob Thomas: The only thing that I could think of to test it against would be with solar farms
4 that would be in similar subdivisions, and I don't know of any of those.
5
6 Michael Fox: Did you look for any of those?
7
8 Bob Thomas: No, I did not.
9
10 Michael Fox: I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
11
12 David Rooks: At this time, we would call Mr. John Petranka.
13
14 John Petranka referred to the following items, as submitted to the clerk, in his testimony:
15
16 May 27, 2014
17
18 To the Planning Board and County Commissioners:
19
20 My name is John Petranka and my wife is Sally Gewalt. We have lived in the Falls of New
21 Hope Neighborhood on the corner of Falls Drive and Cascade Drive since 1991. We chose to
22 live in this neighborhood intentionally and specifically because it is located within the Rural
23 Buffer where we believed that thoughtful zoning regulations would work to preserve the rural
24 qualities of Orange County.
25
26 We are writing to express our strongest opposition to granting a Class A Special Use Permit for
27 the solar power development proposed to be built directly across the street from our home at
28 2531 Falls Drive. We think that a development of this size (ca. 20 acres of panels) is not in
29 harmony with the existing neighborhood and its surroundings. The fact that it is sited directly
30 adjacent to the gateway to our long-established neighborhood will cause us (and our neighbors)
31 to unjustly bear a large penalty in terms of noise, visual blight and reduced property values.
32
33 My general objections to the proposed development are:
34
35 1. A development of this size and industrial nature is inappropriate within the Rural Buffer, and
36 does not serve to promote the values for which the Buffer was established. In addition I question
37 whether this project is truly a public necessity, or whether it is more properly seen as an
38 investment opportunity for the developers to take advantage of before tax incentives expire.
39
40 2. Even if one argues that such a development could be appropriate within the Rural Buffer, the
41 siting of this proposed project is inappropriate, being directly adjacent to a long-established ca.
42 100 home neighborhood. More personally, it is within 75 feet or so from our property (and even
43 closer to some of our neighbors) and will almost certainly result in our and our neighbors'
44 property values decreasing.
45
46 3. The process thus far has been skewed heavily towards the applicants. From the date that the
47 certified letters from Orange County arrived on Saturday May 10, we have had only eleven
48 business days (Monday the 26th being Memorial Day) to digest the information in the
49 application, attempt to hire legal representation, and obtain appraisals and other credible
50 evidence with which to advocate against the project. Of course, this is in addition to trying to
51 balance work and family life. On the other hand, the applicants submitted the application in early
33
1 December, 2013 and have had ample opportunities to fine tune the application. They have had
2 an abundance of time as well as corporate-scale financial and human resources at their
3 disposal.
4
5 I respectfully request that you grant a continuance of the Public Hearing in order to give us a fair
6 and reasonable amount of time to gather credible opposing evidence. I urge you to give
7 particular consideration to the financial harm that will likely befall us and our neighbors if this
8 application as well as to the impacts of noise, visual blight/glare and general inappropriateness
9 of this proposed site. I also ask you to consider the two very important inadequacies in the
10 application that I discuss below.
11
12 In closing, I want to say that our objection is not necessarily to building solar plants in Orange
13 County. Appropriately sited solar plants can be an asset. However, the siting of this large-scale
14 development is not at all compatible with the area for which it is proposed.
15
16 Thank you very much for considering our concerns,
17
18 John Petranka and Sally Gewalt
19
20
21 Below I discuss two particular concerns about the proposed development. The first has to do
22 with whether the soil types and compaction study requirement of the UDO has been met for the
23 SUP submission, and the importance of requiring a geotechnical study before a possible SUP
24 approval. The second concerns what I believe is a seriously flawed noise impact projection
25 submitted by Binks, and my own assessment of the potential noise impact of the project.
26
27
28
29 I. Apparent Omission of Soils Report and Compaction Studies Required for an SUP
30 Application of This Nature.
31
32 In Section 5.9.6 C 1 of the Orange County UDO (page 5-79, of the UDO, revised
33 3/19/14), Submittal Requirements are listed for Solar Arrays — Public Utility Class A
34 Special Use Permit. There are four submittal requirements as stated here:
35
36
37 (C) Standards for Solar Array— Public Utility (Class A Special Use Permit)
38 . (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the
39 following shall be submitted as part of the application:
40 . (a) A site plan showing all existing structures on the property, any proposed buildings or
41 structures that are necessary to support the proposed array, existing and
42 proposed storage areas, parking and access areas, topography at a contour
43 interval of five feet, any officially designated floodplains or alluvial soils.
44 . (b) Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and arrays as well as descriptions of
45 the color and nature of all exterior materials.
46 . (c) Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing and proposed
47 trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscape material
48 . (d) A soils report denoting the types of soil on the property including detail on the
49 compaction necessary to support the proposed development.
50
51 Requirement (d) appears to state in plain language that a soils report and soil
34
1 compaction study are required as a part of the SUP Application. Although I have been
2 told by Planning Staff that a soils map was submitted, I can find no such soils report or
3 soil compaction study anywhere in the Binks Application materials included in the
4 Hearing Agenda. There is, however, a Geotechnical Note on the Site Plan that states:
5 "A geotechnical report will be produced following SUP approval. Report will be a
6 subsurface exploration utilizing soil test borings performed with a drilling rig in
7 accordance with ASTM D 1586 utilizing hollow stem auger drilling."
8 The following is an e-mail communication regarding the soil test requirement sent from
9 Mr. Mallett of the Planning Staff to Cascade Drive resident Robert Cantwell (who
10 forwarded to me Mr. Mallett's comments). Mr. Mallett stated:
11 "Yes, a reporting of the soils is a required component. This section is meant to
12 ensure that applicants are not proposing to build on alluvial soils and soil types
13 consistent with environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands). The submitted plan
14 has limited the request to upland areas and avoided the environmentally sensitive
15 streams. They have also mapped out the soil types and environmental features on
16 the properties. Staff feels this meets the requirement below, but is by no means the
17 end point. The Geotech notes refer to the fact that they will do additional borings
18 prior to construction. The common practice for this type of project would be to bore in
19 areas that would have a potential for weight load (e.g. the service road to ensure
20 soils will support vehicles) and avoiding major subsurface rock features. "
21
22 I have scoured the SUP Application in the Hearing Agenda for any document that
23 provides a soils report or the soils map that Mr. Mallett mentions, but have not found it.
24 My concerns are these:
25 The SUP Application Submittal Requirements are clearly stated, and requirement (d)
26 seems to plainly require a soils report and compaction study be submitted with the
27 Application (not after the SUP has been approved, as Binks proposes). I have found no
28 instance of any documentation related to soils in the Binks Application, nor have I come
29 across any provision in the UDO stating that the soils and compaction studies are an
30 optional component of the submission or that they are required conditionally, depending
31 on the nature of the site that is being developed. If I have overlooked anything in the
32 SUP Application or UDO contrary to what I have stated above I apologize, and I will
33 stand corrected.
34 A full geotechnical report should be required for this project for the following reasons.
35 This development calls for a large-scale 20 acre, 5 megawatt power installation requiring
36 the erection of 18,354 solar panels in 966 strings. Based on the site plan drawings, the
37 panels will be held up by relatively small supports along their length. The structures will
38 be subject to wind shear, soil-soaking rains and other stresses, so a full assessment of
39 soil properties is critical in order for planning staff to fully understand the site's suitability.
40 The report could well reveal soil compaction characteristics, subsurface rock features at
41 a shallow depth (as I do on my property about 125 feet away from the project boundary)
42 or other unknown but important features that would affect the Planning Staff's opinions
43 and recommendations, as well as State regulatory agency approvals. In addition, the
44 property owners affected by this project would then have an opportunity to review and
45 comment on the soil test data.
46 I therefore request that the applicants be required to submit a full soil
47 geotechnical report before the SUP is considered, and that the Commissioners
48 grant a continuance of this Hearing until after the full geotechnical report has
49 been conducted and planning staff, State regulatory agencies and adjacent
50 property owners have had a chance to review and comment on it.
51
35
1 II. Flaws in the Binks Application Regarding Inverter Types, Inverter/Transformer
2 Locations, and the Subsequent Projected Noise Levels.
3
4 Summary.
5 • The inverter locations and inverter/transformer configurations depicted in the Binks aerial
6 diagram (p.12 of Meeting Agenda) are completely different from the inverter/transformer
7 locations and configurations depicted in the Binks Site Plan.
8 • The applicants' assessment of the project's noise impact due to the inverter/transformers
9 is entirely based on these incorrect inverter/transformer locations and configurations, and is
10 therefore likely invalid.
11 • The applicants' incorrect representation of the inverter locations, inverter types and
12 noise levels serves to favor their application and to underestimate the projected impact of
13 the development's noise on neighboring properties. Furthermore, the applicants have not
14 included any information on the type, location, and noise characteristics of the step-up
15 transformer(s) at the site, which may themselves produce considerable additional noise.
16 • In my own analysis below I estimate that the likely noise levels at the nearest property
17 line would be much higher than the Bink's assessment (47.54 dB compared to an estimate
18 of less than 38 dB by Binks), and that noise levels could ultimately be even higher once
19 step-up transformer noise is factored in.
20 • A noise level of 47.54 dB is over three times the current perceived ambient sound, and
21 the noise impact could be even greater after transformer noise levels are factored in. This
22 constant inverter/transformer drone would be an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy and
23 reasonable expectation of peace and quiet in this long-established neighborhood within the
24 Rural Buffer.
25 • The applicants' noise impact assessment is faulty as a result of using false
26 assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the inverter/transformer
27 units. The applicants should be required to submit valid sound level testing data for
28 the actual inverter/transformer configurations that they have proposed to use and
29 then estimate noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan. We
30 therefore request that the Commissioners grant a continuance of this Hearing until
31 after a valid noise impact assessment has been conducted by the applicants and
32 Planning staff, and adjacent property owners have had a chance to review and
33 comment on it.
34
35 Details Regarding Binks' Faulty Noise Impact Assessment:
36
37 1. Supporting Documentation Submitted by the Applicants. In the "Binks Solar Project
38 Narrative" under the subheading "Noise" (p.11 of the Agenda document) the applicants state
39 that they will use Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverters to convert DC power to AC. These
40 are 500 kW devices and nine of them are depicted as being scattered across the site in the
41 aerial diagram on p.12 of the Hearing Agenda documents. The applicants have drawn yellow
42 circles around each inverter location purporting to show a boundary beyond which noise levels
43 will not exceed 38 dB (i.e. beyond a distance of ca. 105 feet from the inverter). Based on this
44 aerial diagram, the shortest distance from an inverter to any neighboring property along
45 Cascade Drive measures approximately 201 feet (distance to the Cantwell/Wegman property,
46 Nunn Acres Subdivision, Lot 3).
47
48 In Attachment B of the Application, the applicants submitted the results of laboratory noise tests
49 of the Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverter. In that report, the stated overall noise level for a
36
1 single Solaron 500 inverter is about 68 dB at 1 meter (= 3.28 feet). Importantly, no noise data
2 were submitted for the site's step-up transformer(s).
3
4 2. Why the Inverter Noise Data in the Application is Incorrect.
5 A. In contradiction to the aerial diagram showing nine inverter units scattered broadly across the
6 site, the Site Plan depicts three 1500 kW triple inverter "stations", each presumably consisting of
7 three 500 kW inverter units (and, also presumably, at least one step-up transformer). No noise
8 data were provided by the applicants for this type of triple inverter station configuration, and no
9 information was provided regarding noise from the step-up transformers that are associated with
10 them.
11
12 In the absence of information from Binks regarding the exact inverter/transformer configuration,
13 I made the assumption that each station comprises three Solaron 500 inverters (ignoring any
14 potential contribution of transformer noise) and estimated the combined noise produced by each
15 inverter station. The triple inverter station noise level can be estimated by summing the noise
16 from each inverter using the calculation shown in Appendix I. This calculation shows that almost
17 ten times as much sound pressure and twice as much perceived noise (77.54 dB vs. 68 dB at 1
18 meter) will be produced by a triple inverter station compared to a single inverter unit. 77.54 dB
19 may well be an underestimate of the total noise produced, since the applicants provided no data
20 on step-up transformer type, location or noise, which should be added to the inverter noise
21 figure.
22
23 B. The distance from the nearest triple inverter station to an adjacent property is much shorter
24 on the applicant's Site Plan versus what is depicted on their aerial diagram. The triple inverter
25 station closest to Cascade Drive on the Site Plan is approximately 104 feet from the
26 Petranka/Gewalt Property (#15 BI A Sec 1 Falls of New Hope Estates). This is in contrast to the
27 distances shown the aerial diagram, where the shortest distance from a single inverter to the
28 Cantwell/Wegman Property is ca. 201 feet. Since sound intensity increases exponentially with
29 decreasing distance to the source, these inaccuracies in distances in the Application are very
30 important.
31
32 3. What is the Combined Effect of Noisier Inverter Stations Being Sited Closer to
33 Adjacent Properties than is Depicted in the Binks Application?The closest triple inverter
34 station shown on the Site Plan is located across from the intersection of Falls Drive and
35 Cascade Drive. The distance from that inverter station to the closest property line
36 (Petranka/Gewalt) along Cascade Drive was estimated using the scale on the Site Plan. That
37 distance is approximately 104 feet. The following Table summarizes the noise levels expected
38 at the Petranka/Gewalt property line based on the revised noise calculations and triple inverter
39 distances contained in this document.
40
Distance (Feet) Distance (meters) Sound Level (dB)
3.28 1 77.54
6.56 2 71.54
13.12 4 65.54
26.25 8 59.54
52.49 16 53.54
104.99 32 47.54
209.97 64 41.54
419.95 128 35.54
839.90 256 29.54
37
1
2 Note that the noise level 104 feet from the inverter station at the Petranka/Gewalt property line
3 would be at least 47.54 dB. This is much higher than the figure that the applicants state in the
4 Binks Solar Project Narrative (p.11 of the Hearing Agenda): "The sound generated by the Binks
5 Solar project will be less than 38 dB(a) at any point along the property boundary...". Using the
6 site plan's actual triple inverter locations and the noise levels recalculated here, one would need
7 to be approximately 310 feet from a triple inverter station before reaching Binks' 38 dB threshold
8 (source: Estimating Sound levels With the Inverse Square Law; http://hyperphysics.phy-
9 astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/isprob2.html ). Again, the noise added by a step-up transformer
10 was not included in the Binks analysis; including transformer noise would cause overall noise
11 levels to be even higher at nearby properties.
12
13 4. What are Current Noise levels at the Nearest Property Line? Sound levels at the
14 Petranka/Gewalt property line were estimated using the Sound Meter application on a Nexus 7
15 tablet on Monday May 26, at approximately 2:30 PM. Although we were not able to obtain a
16 calibrated sound meter on short notice, this tool should provide a reasonable estimate of
17 background sound levels. Readings were taken on the Petranka/Gewalt property line near the
18 corner of Cascade Drive and Falls Drive at a point nearest the proposed location of the
19 Cascade Drive inverter station. A photo of the location at which the measurements were made
20 and a close-up of the Sound Meter application reading are shown in Appendix II. The current
21 ambient sound readings were around 32 dB, with occasional spikes of up to ca. 40 dB that
22 correlated with nearby birdsong.
23
24 5. What Would the Perceived Noise Levels be at the Projected 47.5 dB versus the Current
25 32 dB Ambient Level? Noise levels at the Petranka/Gewalt property line would be
26 approximately 15.5 dB louder than the current rural background sounds. This equates to a
27 perceived tripling of sound levels (psycho-acoustic studies have determined that people
28 perceive a doubling in sound levels with each 10 dB increase in sound, so an additional 15 dB
29 would cause a tripling; Reference: Perceptual attributes of acoustic waves — Loudness,
30 http://acousticslab.orq/psychoacoustics/ ).
31
32 • Conclusion: The applicants' noise level data incorrectly states the locations, types and
33 combined noise levels of inverter/transformers at the Binks site. At the Petranka/Gewalt
34 property boundary there will be a continuous 47.5 dB or greater inverter drone during sunny
35 days that will be perceived as being at least three times louder than the current ambient
36 rural sounds. Since the applicants did not base their laboratory noise analysis on triple
37 inverter units and apparently did not factor in transformer noise, the noise levels could be
38 even higher at property lines bordering this development.
39 • The applicants' noise impact assessment is faulty as a result of using false
40 assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the inverter/transformer
41 units. The applicants should be required to submit sound level testing data for the
42 actual inverter/transformer configurations that they have proposed to use and then
43 estimate noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan.
44
45
46 This noise impact will be a completely unacceptable intrusion on our privacy and our right to
47 peace and quiet in this long-established neighborhood. We urge the Planning Board and County
48 Commissioners to reject this project as being inappropriately sited, and also as inappropriate to
49 the ideals and policy goals for which the Rural Buffer was established.
50
51
38
1 Thank you very much for your consideration of this statement of some of the omissions,
2 inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in the Binks SUP application.
3
4
5 Respectfully Submitted,
6 May 27, 2014
7
8 John G. Petranka
9 2531 Falls Drive
10 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
11
12 919-383-7855
13 919-667-6112 (cell)
14 john.petranka(a7gmail.com
15
16 Appendix I
17
18 Calculation of Noise Produced by a Group of Three Inverters. Assuming that each 1500
19 kW inverter group consists of three Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverters, the noise level
20 generated by adding all three can be calculated as shown below (source: The Engineering
21 Toolbox: Adding Decibels. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/adding-decibel-d 63.html )
22
23 The resulting sound pressure level when adding equal sound pressures is calculated by the
24 formula:
25 Lpt = Lps + 20 log (n), where:
26 Lpt = total sound pressure level (dB)
27 Lps = sound pressure level from each single source (= 68 dB at a distance of one meter for
28 each inverter in the group of three)
29 n = number of sources (= three 500 kW units per 1500 kW station)
30
31 Substituting: Lpt= 68 dB + 20 x log (3)
32 Lpt= 68 dB + 20 x (.47712) = 68dB + 9.54 dB
33
34
35 So, Lpt = 77.54 dB at 1 meter
36
37
38 Appendix II: Sound Level Measurements
39
40 Background Sound Averaging ca. 32 dB. Periodic increases are attributable to songs of
41 nearby birds.
42
43 Location of Sound Measurement. Corner of Cascade Dr. (to Sally's right) and Falls Dr.
44 (intersecting on the left). Proposed 20 acre development is property along Cascade Dr.
45 behind zoning sign.
46
47
48 John Petranka— My name is John Petranka, and I have been duly sworn. My wife and I have
49 lived in the Falls of New Hope Neighborhood for almost 23 years. We live at 2531 Falls Drive,
50 which is right on the corner of Falls and Cascade and directly across the street from the
51 proposed development. We chose to live in our neighborhood intentionally. We specifically
39
1 chose this area because it was located within the rural buffer, and we believed that the
2 thoughtful zoning regulations in the rural buffer would work to preserve the rural character of
3 Orange County. Tonight I want to express our strong opposition to a granting of a special use
4 permit for the proposed project. I have outlined our general reasoning for opposing the project
5 in a written statement that I submitted to staff earlier today; and since that statement overlaps
6 with much of what previous speakers have already said, I won't cover that ground again. I
7 would however like to address two specific deficiencies that I found in the applicant's submittal
8 that I believe are very important.
9
10 The first of these has to do with whether the soil types and compaction study
11 requirements of the UDO have been met for the SUP submission. In section 5.9.6 C 1 of the
12 UDO there are specific submittal requirements for solar arrays of this scale, that is utility scale
13 solar arrays. Part C 1 states that in addition to the information required by section 2.7 the
14 following shall be submitted as a part of the application. In submittal requirement D —there are
15 4 requirements listed — D reads as follows: "A soils report denoting the types of soil on the
16 property including detail on the compaction necessary to support the proposed development."
17 This language appears to be plain and straightforward that a soils report and a compaction
18 study are required for submittal. I have not been able to find any documents concerning soils in
19 the applicant submittal materials, although staff has told me—the planning staff has told me
20 there is a soil map of some sort. I don't know what detail that map contains because I haven't
21 see it. However, in the site plan for the development, the developers proposed to conduct a
22 geotechnical study after approval of the SUP. A full geotechnical report should be required prior
23 to consideration of approval of the SUP submission for the following reasons:
24
25 First, this development calls for a large-scale 20 acre, 5 megawatt power installation
26 requiring the erection of 18,354 solar panels in 966 strings. Based on the site plan drawings and
27 the information you saw tonight these are going to be held up by relatively small supports along
28 their length. The structures will be subject to wind shear, to soil-soaking rains and other
29 stresses, so a full assessment of soil properties is critical in order for planning staff to fully
30 understand the site's suitability. Such a report could well reveal soil compaction characteristics,
31 subsurface rock features at a shallow depth - and by the way, I have rock outcrops in my yard,
32 just a 100 or so feet away from the boundary - or other unknown but important features that
33 would affect the Planning Staff's opinions and recommendations, and also possibly the State
34 regulatory agency approvals. In addition, the property owners affected by this project would then
35 have an opportunity to review and comment on the soil report, which we have not had.
36
37 So I request, even though it may cost extra expense for the developers — may eat into
38 their profits ultimately a little bit— I request that the commission require submission of a full soil
39 test as required by the UDO before any decision is made on the SUP.
40
41 The second issue that I want to touch on has to do with the serious flaws in the Binks
42 noise impact assessment. I think these flaws invalidate this assessment. The applicants
43 initially based their impact assessment on two documents. Could I turn on the overhead? Does
44 someone know how to do that? So this is included in the application packet. In this view of the
45 site the applicants showed eight, 500 kilowatt inverters scattered across the site, none of which
46 are located particularly near to an adjacent property. The nearest one to a property along
47 Cascade Drive would be this on, which is 200 feet away. The applicants also submitted data
48 from an independent testing lab on the type of inverter that they propose to use —a Solaron —
49 anyway, it's a 500 kilowatt inverter from a particular company— In that testing, the lab said that
50 the noise produced by this inverter at 1 meter was 68 decibels. This is the data you heard
51 earlier tonight, I believe from Mr. Wallace. However, in the current— in the site plan the
40
1 locations are not scattered across the field as shown here, but rather are concentrated in 3
2 locations. So, this is the inverter transformer nearest to Cascade Drive, and there are 2 others
3 located here and here. I want to note that this is not a single inverter. This is a station
4 consisting —excuse me a 15 kilowatt station —wait let me think about that— 1500 kilowatt
5 station rather than a 500 kilowatt station. So it's 3 of these 68 decibel producing units together.
6 In addition, there is apparently a transformer associated with this, and transformers in
7 themselves produce noise. So it's really very difficult to determine the total noise that's going to
8 be produced from this unit, since we don't exactly know what the unit is comprised of. However,
9 I attempted to calculate the noise from 3 separate 68 decibel sources, which is apparently what
10 this includes without considering the additional noise that could be produced by a transformer.
11 So I found the formula to do this on the web, and there is actually a place where you can plug in
12 the numbers. I double checked the numbers by hand to make sure that they were correct, and
13 instead of 68 decibels for this unit, it produces 77.54 decibels. That does not include any
14 transformer noise. How much louder is 77.54 decibels? Well it's not a linear scale, so it's
15 roughly 10 times, a little less than 10 times the sound pressure and twice the perceived
16 loudness of 68 decibels. I then used the same methodology that the applicants used in their
17 proposal here, in which they estimated the noise at different distances from the source. And
18 you can see if you do it in meters it's a little bit easier because it's whole numbers, but a meter
19 is about 3.3 feet. That with each doubling of distance from the source, the sound level drops by
20 6 decibels, and you can see this goes down by 6 decibels with every doubling of distance from
21 the source. I then measured the distance from the inverter on Cascade Drive to my property
22 line and got a different figure from Mr. Wallace. Using the scale on the site plan, I determined
23 that the distance from the inverter on Cascade Drive to my property line was 104 feet
24 approximately, as best as I could determine using that method. At that distance the sound level
25 at my property line would be 47.54 decibels. So how loud is 47.54 decibels compared to the
26 ambient sound on my property? I didn't have time to get a calibrated sound meter, but I did
27 download an app that most people agree, at least online, is a fairly good and fairly accurate tool.
28 We went out to our side yard at the property line near the development. The development
29 would be on this side. This is Cascade Drive here. This is Falls coming in. That's my wife
30 holding the meter, and that's the sign for the hearing. And this is what I saw. I did this a couple
31 of times at different times of the day. We have about a 32 decibel background. I just want to
32 point out that these little blips that you see is birdsong. So how much difference is 32 decibels
33 from 47 decibels? Well it's 15 decibels and the perceived difference in sound levels is different
34 from the decibel number, but for every 10 decibels there is roughly a doubling in perceived
35 sound —the psycho acoustic sort of thing. So this means that the sound in my property
36 boundary will apparently go up by about 3 fold at the property line. So, what I submit to you
37 then is that the applicant's noise level data incorrectly states the locations and the types and the
38 combined noise levels of the inverter transformers at the Binks site. It also emits the contribution
39 of the step up transformer on the Cascade side; so we don't really know how much noise this
40 thing is going to produce.
41
42 At our property boundary there will be a continuous 47.5 decibel or greater inverter
43 drone during the sunny days that will be perceived as being at least 3 times louder than the
44 current ambient rural sounds. And since the applicants didn't base their laboratory noise
45 analysis on triple inverter units and apparently did not factor in transformer noise, the noise
46 levels could be even higher. I submit to you that the applicants' noise impact assessment is
47 faulty as a result of using false assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the
48 inverter/transformer units; and that the applicants should be required to submit sound level
49 testing data for the actual that they are going to install at the site and have proposed to use and
50 then estimate the noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan. Thank
51 you.
41
1
2 David Rooks: I tender the witness.
3
4 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would like to object to the portion
5 of his testimony related to the sound testing that he did. I didn't hear any evidence that he was
6 an expert or had any sort of experience in this. And as this Board knows, all the evidence that
7 you consider has to be competent testimony, and if you have an expert opinion it must be
8 rendered by someone who has been qualified as an expert.
9
10 David Rooks: At this point we call Jim Spainhour.
11
12 Jim Spainhour: My name is Jim Spainhour. I have been sworn in.
13
14 I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. I moved to Chapel Hill in 1969 and
15 have lived in Orange County for 35 of the last 45 years. For the last 14 years, I have lived at
16 5502 Cascade Drive with my wife, Anne Oliver. Our home is on lot 1, which if you were to look
17 up here at this map and see where Cascade Drive starts to take a turn to the right and you get
18 the staggered part of the boundary on the —where the solar panels are —We have the first lot
19 there. We are bordered by 250 feet of meadow with those panels, despite the fact that we only
20 have a half an acre lot. Yes, thank you. That's our location there.
21
22 I'd like to echo the sentiments that others have regarding the Special Use General
23 Standard that stipulates maintenance or enhancement of the value of contiguous properties. In
24 his appraisal report, Ms. Massey suggests the derived external depreciation of this particular
25 external obsolescence might be overcome by shielding it from view. Also, in their application,
26 Sunlight Partners endorsed Mr. Massey's conclusions by quoting him. Quote, "My professional
27 and expert opinion is that solar farms that will not be visible, will have no impact on the market
28 values of the surrounding properties. The solar farms with landscaping and natural buffers will
29 not create a negative externality for the surrounding properties as they will not be visible."
30
31 I have noted our property has 250 feet of frontage on 2 different sides of the meadow.
32 There is actually a sort of an entranceway to the meadow that's been used for years, right there
33 that's next to our property, so it actually swings around. I think we have the only situation that's
34 like that. Our house is also only about 50 feet from the property line. So it's very close. It's
35 only a half an acre. It's less than a half an acre lot. The orientations of views from the ground
36 floor are east from our kitchen and dining area and south from our living room. From our ground
37 floor, we currently enjoy expansive views of the meadow through large casement windows and
38 sliding glass doors. From our ground floor, even with best intentions, a densely planted, mature
39 green screen along an 8' chain-link-fence, because of the uphill slope—we have a slope also
40 that goes up the other side of the slope that Lydia and Bob have problems with — and we are
41 pretty sure we are going to be able to see the backsides of the panels from our side.
42
43 On the second floor of our home is our master bedroom. This is one of those unique
44 times, and I won't say this often to many people, but I'd love to have all 200 of you come to my
45 master bedroom. This window here is actually a sliding glass door. Can everyone hear me? It's
46 a sliding glass door. We have literally a 6 feet by 7 foot window from a 15 to 16 foot vantage
47 point out over this entire back side of the meadow—from here all the way back. We can see all
48 the way to the Kirkland Farm in the winter time. For 5 months out of the year, we would see
49 approximately 75 percent of all of those solar panels —8 feet— 15 feet—We'd be looking right
50 over it.
42
1 I also have a letter here from a person. I was having email exchanges with a gentleman
2 who was interested in buying my house. This started before I knew about the solar field
3 proposal, and it comes from Dr. Christopher Carr, who is a professor at Arizona State University
4 and is very interested in moving to Chapel Hill —wanted to move to Falls of New Hope. He
5 emailed several people in the neighborhood —wanted to know about our houses. He gave us
6 certain things that he needed. I emailed him back, and literally 6 hours after I emailed him back
7 was when the letter came in announcing. So the next day I said, Hey look, in the interest of full
8 disclosure, there is a solar farm that might be going in behind us. It is not written in stone at this
9 point in time, but it might go in behind us. And that was pretty much the end of our discussion
10 when he found out how large it was going to be. He submitted a letter actually, to the Orange
11 County planning department, not because I asked him to do this by the way. But, he seemed to
12 be concerned enough because that's the neighborhood he wants to move in, whether it's my
13 house or someone else's house. And I can read this for you if you would like, or I can skip to
14 this second paragraph: "To be direct, I will withdraw my efforts to purchase either of the two
15 homes or any other in Falls of New Hope Neighborhood if Orange County permits any part of
16 the meadow to be converted into a solar panel farm."
17
18 My wife and I are very much in favor of green energy. We really are, but we don't think
19 that you need to have windmill turbines right off of— right off of Wrightsville Beach. We don't
20 think that you need to have biodiesel fuel installations next to daycare centers and we don't
21 think that this solar installation needs to go in Falls of the New Hope. Thank you.
22
23 David Rooks: Any cross examination?
24
25 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would object to the hearsay
26 testimony about the letter. As the Board knows in these types of hearings, you are only allowed
27 to consider sworn testimony under oath, and obviously the submission of a letter from someone
28 who wasn't here is hearsay and should be stricken.
29
30 David Rooks: And I would point out, it's hearsay only when it is asserted for the fact of the
31 matter, not when it'd being offered just to prove that it was stated.
32
33 Michael Fox: Well I think you are offering it to prove that—
34
35 David Rooks: That it was stated.
36
37 Michael Fox: We can argue about that one later.
38
39 David Rooks: And at this point we call Mr. Daniel Mattingly.
40
41 Daniel Mattingly: My name is Daniel Mattingly, and I have been sworn in. And, the clerk is in
42 the process of distributing copies of my statement that includes four photographs that I'll be
43 referring to.
44
45 Again, good evening, I am Daniel Mattingly. My wife, Mary Sue Cherney and I live at
46 5420 Cascade Drive, which is a contiguous property to the proposed solar array and public
47 utility station. I would like to speak to two concerns that we have about the project. One is in —
48 I'm going to need to address it in some detail and it's a little technical, and so that's why I
49 wanted you to have copies. There are about 9—or 7 points, and I'll get to that in just a second.
50
43
1 Before I launch into that, I just want to make it clear that we are very strong supporters of
2 alternative energy sources and green energy technologies. Our house is passive solar design. I
3 drive a Prius that gets 54 miles per gallon. We subscribe to the Duke Power manager, so they
4 turn off our air conditioner in times of high demand to save energy. And we belong to several
5 organizations that strive to support—to reduce greenhouse gases and other threats to the
6 environment. While we very strongly support solar energy as an energy source when they are
7 appropriately sited, we are very disturbed about this project because it would be built quite
8 literally on top of our property and our neighborhood. So,just basically, the first point is the
9 more technical one. The second one is —will be very brief.
10
11 So the first point is the issue of potential flooding on our lot. Because of the topography-
12 Is there a pointer? So, because of the topography—this is our lot here— lot number 2, and the
13 fence will be located less than 50 feet—well I'll give it, since it may not be exactly to scale—so
14 the minimum border of 50 feet from our property line. So if you look at the gradient lines on a
15 clearer copy of this map, which I assume everybody has, what you see is that there is a 9 foot
16 drop in elevation from the center of the field to our house, and so we get flooding. When it rains
17 very heavily we get some flooding on our property. After we moved in, the first time it happened
18 we actually had water in our crawl space and damage to the house and had to do a repair. We
19 also put in some drainage and barriers and so forth to control that, and since then, so far we still
20 get about 2 to 6 inches of standing water, but it doesn't cause any problems.
21
22 The problem that I'm concerned about with the field and the way that the array is laid out
23 — so if you look at those 7 points, first of all, the ground beneath each solar panel is not going to
24 get the same rainfall as the ground in between the panels. So it will be a relatively dry area.
25 The ground in between panels is going to get direct rainfall and the runoff from each panel, so
26 that will be a relatively wetter area. On a level surface that water would tend to seep in from the
27 wetter to the dryer areas and probably equalize. However, you'll notice that the panels are
28 going to be lined up facing so that the water in between the panels will tend to run downhill, and
29 so the slope of the field will cause the water in the wetter areas between the panels, instead of
30 seeping to the dryer areas, it is going to begin to flow downhill. And so we are going to get
31 increased water, and any increased water on our property is going to be a problem.
32
33 And so, the— also right now, as is pointed out in my written statement, the field is a
34 hayfield, and it is an excellent— it's like a sponge when it rains. So it absorbs a lot of water that
35 protects us from flooding. So, if the vegetation between the panels is not as effective at
36 absorbing the water, that's going to aggravate the problem, so we have a major concern. We
37 have been unable to find any data on this, presumably because solar arrays, as has been
38 pointed out, are not located in areas like this, on top of a residential neighborhood that has been
39 established, as has been pointed out, for over 50 years. So, I'm not going to—You can read it
40 in the statement there. Because of the concern about the flooding on our particular property, we
41 feel that it is certainly not going to meet any of the criteria in the UDO for a special use permit.
42 And the likelihood of flooding and damage to our property and home is not addressed in the
43 application, thus the applicant has failed to meet the requirements of the UDO. For this reason,
44 my wife and I urge you to deny the application. However, in the event that the application is not
45 denied, we— continuance of this process that would allow us to get an assessment from a storm
46 water management expert and to be able to estimate the risk, the degree of risk, the potential
47 for damage, the likelihood of that, and whatever may be involved in addressing that. And so
48 because we had 17 days notice, including 2 weekends and a holiday, we haven't had time to be
49 able to get this matter addressed.
50
44
1 And so, I do have a couple of questions for the Board members. One is who is going to
2 pay for this assessment. Two - Who would pay for whatever prevention measures would be
3 necessary for us to protect our property? Three - Who would pay for damages, should the
4 flooding occur? Whether you believe in climate change or not, it looks like storms are getting
5 worse, and even without that fact, the history of this area is Hurricane Fran. You know it is not a
6 maybe, it's an eventuality. And also, who would be responsible for paying for other unforeseen
7 damage and problems that might result from this project.
8
9 So that's my first point. The second point is— oh and also I just want to refer to the
10 photos. The first two photos that you have show the back of our house from the field, facing our
11 house, and if you look over to the right at the air conditioner—Oh, thank you. So, over here,
12 this is the area where the flooding occurs, and then the second photo is a closer shot of that
13 area. So you can see this here is where the flooding occurs. Over here is a drain that I put in
14 and some barriers to prevent the water from running into the crawl space. And this is where we
15 get the 2 to 6 inches of standing water.
16
17 So the second point that I want to make is about property value decline. And no I am
18 not an expert, so I am not an appraiser. But I do— I am a property owner, and I have some
19 common sense. At least I think I do. And so, according to the scale drawings on the
20 application, the chain link fence topped with barbed wire or razor wire that hasn't been
21 mentioned, but if you look at installations, they all have that, is going to be less than 50 feet from
22 our property boundary; and the nearest solar panel here would be 70 feet from our property line.
23 In his testimony as an expert witness regarding the impact of solar farms on adjacent property
24 values, which is attachment c of the application, Mr. David Massey states that the solar farms
25 with the proposed landscaping buffers and natural buffers will not create a negative externality
26 for the surrounding properties. And I —well - It's clear from the other two photos. The third
27 photo is the view from our house. Now Mr. Fox keeps repeating and asking questions to make
28 the point that, well, when these trees grow to 30 feet, are you going to be able to see the solar
29 array." Well if they grow to 30 feet, maybe not. However, I am 64 years old. I really seriously
30 question whether I am still going to be walking around on the planet when trees grow from 8 to
31 30 feet. In the meantime, this would all be solar panels, and the fence would be right here.
32 That's about 50 feet, and so you put an eight foot fence and eight foot trees, or evergreen trees
33 - That by the way if you notice on the drawing, they're spaced apart. So they are not grown
34 together, and then the second row of trees —The point being that from our house, on the
35 second story, which is what this view is, you will see over that fence, and you will see over those
36 trees until they grow to 30 feet. And so, until that time it is obviously an externality that has a
37 negative impact. I can't imagine what this is going to look like when it is covered with solar
38 panels. Even the prettiest views that the applicant showed today of all the shiny blue and green
39 grass and all that, compared to this; if that's what was out there when we looked at this
40 neighborhood 25 years ago, I wouldn't have bought this house.
41
42 So that's the view from the house. This is the view from the yard. You can see - if it's
43 not easy to see on this, it's a little easier on the photos you've got—that there is a porch swing
44 right here facing this. So, because you are at ground level now, what is going to dominate this
45 view right now is not so much the solar panels, but the 8 foot high chain link fence topped with
46 razor wire. Again, those 8 foot trees are going to be spaced far enough apart that we may not
47 see over them, but we are going to see between them. And again, until that vegetation grows
48 up to the level of the fence and the thickness to totally block the fence, we are going to see that
49 stuff, and it ain't going to be pretty.
45
1 I just want to conclude by saying thank you for the opportunity to address you on these
2 issues. And I also would like to respectfully plead with you to deny this special use permit. This
3 project does not belong in this neighborhood.
4
5 David Rooks: Mr. Fox
6
7 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
8
9 David Rooks: Call Carol Boggs.
10
11 Carol Boggs: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Carol Boggs, and I am speaking for
12 myself and in the role of substitute for the president of the Falls of New Hope Association. I am
13 the vice president. I have been duly sworn in, and I have been designated as the person to
14 deliver the statement from the Falls of New Hope.
15
16 The Falls of New Hope Association opposes the proposed solar energy project to be
17 located on Cascade Drive. We do not believe this proposal meets the condition for approval of
18 a Special Use Permit as delineated in Section 5.3.2 (A)(2).
19
20 Residents of Falls of New Hope, whether located next to the proposed power plan or
21 away from it, have numerous questions about the impact on our environment and safety,
22 questions that are not answered by the applicant's proposal. For that reason, we do not believe
23 the project will "maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare."
24
25 You are being given the statement, and you will see attached to it, a map of the
26 subdivision, and if you imagine that map, it is adjacent to what you see on the screen at the
27 front of the room.
28
29 Falls of New Hope resident also question whether, if it approved this application, the
30 County Board would meet the condition that the use will "maintain or enhance the value of
31 contiguous property." An appraisal being presented to you tonight indicates a negative impact
32 on property values for one homeowner in our neighborhood. Additional appraisals have been
33 arranged for by at least ten additional homeowners in the neighborhood, but were not able to be
34 completed due to the short notice given for this meeting. We do note that, based on the tax
35 assessments done by Orange County, land values for properties in our neighborhood are 10 to
36 140 percent higher than those in Hideaway Estates and Trinkus Manor, two similar
37 neighborhoods less than one mile away. The fact that Orange County has recognized that
38 people in our neighborhood have paid a premium for their property relative to that in very similar
39 nearby neighborhoods demands a close consideration of impacts of an industrial project like this
40 one. The location and character of this proposal are not in harmony with the area in which it is
41 to be located. The location is not surrounded by open, agricultural or natural land, nor is it
42 located in an industrial or commercial area. Instead, it is not just next to, but sited directly in one
43 of the most scenic rural residential neighborhoods in Orange County. This project will be the
44 closest structure to at least two of our neighbor's homes, closer than the houses are to one
45 another. All access to the project occurs through our neighborhood. Construction traffic,
46 consisting of the movement of heavy equipment for clearing land, and semi trailer trucks
47 delivering thousands of solar panels will occur on the road that every person in our
48 neighborhood must use to enter and leave the neighborhood. A road used not just for vehicular
49 traffic, but by bike riders and pedestrians who have moved to our neighborhood to enjoy its
50 surroundings and access to the Triangle Land Conservancy lands across the street. The quiet
46
1 natural environment is part of why we have all moved here and paid a premium for our property
2 and homes to do so.
3
4 We realize that you will not be voting on this proposal tonight, but hope that when you do
5 vote, you will reject it. There is a clear consensus in our neighborhood that this proposal should
6 not be implemented.
7
8 That is the first of my comments. My personal comments —The Falls of New Hope
9 subdivision has existed for nearly 50 years. We first came upon it in 1971 when seeking rural
10 Orange County property to build a home. Driving toward the New Hope Creek on Mount Sinai
11 Road, I spotted Joe's (Joseph F. Matthews, Jr.) sign. Later that day my husband and I met him
12 there and chiefly because he emphasized his intention to maintain the rural character of the
13 community and the individuality of the homes as they were contracted and built, we bought land
14 on the creek. Joe explained plans for the 9 acre "Gardens of the Falls" lying along a bend in the
15 creek just above a natural dam and cascade. Joe wouldn't have called himself a naturalist, but
16 he loved the creek and the quiet rural spaces and the trees and plants that grew there. He
17 expressed that when naming the streets in the community, for example; Falls and Cascade
18 Drives; as well as Caprea Court (goat willow or pussy willow Cedronella (Cedronella
19 canariensis), Celastrus (Celastrus paniculatus) and Charlock, the wild field mustard that grows
20 gold in the meadow along Cascade.
21
22 As long as he lived, he worked to maintain and expand our park, creating paths
23 bordered by azaleas, camellias, and day lilies. He placed a swing and picnic tables beside the
24 creek for community meetings there. In the beginning, he employed the youngsters in the
25 community to help create winding trails and plant bushes. Years ago our sons worked with him
26 on Saturdays to build those paths and plantings, and both boys grew to love the place as much
27 as we do.
28
29 We plan to live here until they carry us away, and our estate planning includes the boys
30 living in our house again if they want to. We are not the only retirees planning to remain here
31 forever, relying on the neighborhood to maintain its unique character far into the future. It's
32 important for both personal and economic reasons.
33
34 Today the nine acre park is still owned and enjoyed by the association members, as
35 designated in Joe's will. He had no wish to commercialize the park area and specified that if we
36 failed to maintain it we would lose it. He strongly emphasized that the rural nature of the
37 neighborhood be respected, and today's residents continue to participate in workdays and
38 association business meetings in the spring and the fall to follow his plans.
39
40 So when I learned of plans for a solar power plan for the meadow beside Cascade Drive,
41 I referred to Google images, entering solar farm and solar array and similar terms. As I scrolled
42 through them, the first one hundred, then two hundred and more images, it became glaringly
43 apparent that none of them - not one - was in a residential community. There must be a reason
44 for that.
45
46 I've learned that European countries place solar collectors on every roof or flat surface,
47 using available structures to preserve the green spaces. Friends visiting Germany confirm that.
48
49 While being first can be a good thing, however, being the first residential community in
50 the County to suffer a solar power plant intruding among its homes is definitely not one of those
47
1 things. Let's put solar collectors atop the shopping centers, the parking lots, businesses,
2 hospitals, big box stores and factories where they fit best. If Germany can do it, we can too.
3
4 An article in the "News of Orange" on Friday, December 13, 2013 included comments by
5 some of the County Commissioners in support of enhancing open land in the rural buffer to
6 make agricultural land more profitable for farmers, using examples such as an ice cream store
7 placed in the middle of a dairy farm, and a saw mill, a small family thing, but both farther than 40
8 feet from homes. Perhaps this meadow is right for something more suitable for a mixed
9 residential agricultural setting. A power plant occupying 20 acres is neither small nor supportive
10 of the land or the residents it intrudes upon.
11
12 Finally, my conclusion must be that despite any potential value of solar energy, this is
13 simply not the place for a power plant.
14
15 David Rooks: Mr. Fox, any questions?
16
17 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for Mrs. Boggs.
18
19 David Rooks: Carol Blackmore.
20
21 Carol Blackmore: I have been duly sworn in. I am a resident of the Falls of New Hope
22 Neighborhood. I am opposed to the special use permit under consideration today.
23
24 In regard to this Special Use Permit, I am concerned that the Orange County Planning
25 Department does not follow its own comprehensive plan objective AE-15 recommendations
26 which aim to "foster participation and incentives for solar generation in residential or commercial
27 construction." This goal is not met by this application and should not be cited as a reason to
28 accept it.
29
30 This proposal is for an industrial scale for profit commercial utility that does not belong in
31 an agricultural field in a rural buffer zone along the perimeter of an established residential
32 neighborhood. The applicants own attachment A, Clean Energy Results/Ground Mounted
33 Solar Photovoltaic Systems, published by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources,
34 Environmental Protection and Clean Energy Center "encourages designating solar installation
35 locations in industrial and commercial districts or on disturbed land." The Massachusetts DOER
36 also strongly discourages designating locations that require significant tree cutting, because of
37 the important water management, cooling, and climate benefits trees have. This project would
38 cut five acres of trees. Please follow these guidelines and deny this application.
39
40 Orange County Planning Department review of this application also cites "compliance"
41 with a comprehensive plan objective of"sustainable use of a non-polluting renewable energy
42 resource." However, this project has nothing to do with how the energy produced would be
43 used and should not be described as if it did.
44
45 The cited DOER report states that it works to "ensure that solar PC and other clean
46 energy technologies are sited in a way that minimizes impacts on scenic, natural, and historic
47 areas." A memo from Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
48 Recreation dated February 10, 2013 to the Orange County Planning Department says "The site
49 plan as now presented appears to locate the majority of the solar panels and the north end of
50 the property, thereby preserving the open fields and rural character visible from Mount Sinai
51 Road. The project appears to be consistent with the historic preservation goals in the Orange
48
1 County Comprehensive Plan Goal, which is preservation of historical, cultural, architectural, and
2 archeological resources and their associated landscapes." However, this proposed project does
3 not even abut Mount Sinai Road. It is almost a half a mile from Mount Sinai Road. Instead, this
4 project devastates the eastern side of Cascade Drive, which is also a public road. There is no
5 mention of this effect on Cascade Drive anywhere in this memo or anywhere in the planning
6 department assessment.
7
8 For all of the above stated reasons, I respectfully request that this application be denied.
9
10 David Rooks: Any questions, Mr. Fox?
11
12 Michael Fox: No questions for this witness.
13
14 David Rooks: I'm going to call Ann Oliver.
15
16 Ann Oliver provided a disk with the information mentioned below, and it is included in public
17 record by reference.
18
19 Ann Oliver: Hello, my name is Ann Oliver, and I have been sworn. I am Ann Oliver, and I live
20 with my husband, Jim Spainhour at 5502 Cascade Drive, and I have been asked by my
21 neighbors to provide to you some studies, reports and other documents I believe are relevant
22 and will assist in your consideration of the permit application for a solar power plant that will be
23 proposed for our backyard. And I could read to you this list. I think you are all gonna get it.
24 Maybe save some time— I'll just sort of go through what they are. I had noticed — and this was
25 all I could find online about this project, and I noticed that they used some kind of
26 Massachusetts study and a lot of links to some reports. And I decided I might do my own
27 research and find some reports that might help you all. And these sort of cover some of our
28 concerns.
29
30 There is a report about heat island effects from some scientists from Columbia
31 University. There is a report that just came out recently in April of this year by the National Fish
32 and Wildlife forensics laboratory about avian mortality at solar plant farms. Two of the things I
33 have included are some tax records from Clay County where they reduced the property taxes of
34 properties that adjoin solar plants by as much as 20 to 40 percent. I have also included the
35 Clay County solar farm ordinance, which in the ordinance itself it says they recognize that these
36 things reduce the value of properties that abut them, and they also recognize that there are
37 health issues. I have also included a study by Dr. Tolley from the University of Colorado, and it
38 has to do with property values, land use and revenues for similar types of facilities, and this one
39 I found really important because it sort of— He talks about the fact that when you put a facility
40 like this in a community when it's not consistent with what's already there, it just starts bringing it
41 down. It becomes like a sort of blight on the neighborhood. It sort of- people lose the incentive
42 to keep their property up and the whole thing becomes a downward spiral. So, I really
43 recommend that you look at that.
44
45 One of the things that I am most concerned about, I think Jim talked about it already,
46 that we live on lot 1 right here. And actually this little dot is slightly bigger than our own home,
47 but I did that for the purpose that you all could see. It's a Google map that it appears that they
48 use. But one thing that I noticed — I just—when I think about how many of those little dots I
49 could fit into this whole area, it just sort of put it into perspective how big this facility is gonna be.
50 And then the other thing that I'm really concerned about— I want to get back to this thing — is
51 that the orientation of these solar panels, from what I've understood and what I can tell, is that
49
1 the east west orientation could present a very serious glare problem for us. And we are facing
2 due east. The sun will rise every day directly across from our bedroom window. I don't care
3 how many trees and plants they are gonna put here. I don't think I'll be living there long enough
4 for them to block that view, and I don't know how tall they would have to get. We're pretty high
5 up, and I just— I'm concerned that we're gonna have a glare issue from the time the sun rises till
6 the time the sun sets.
7
8 I've included some glare studies. I know that the ones that are in here have to do with
9 glare at airports for pilots, but we're on the ground. So, I've included some studies about the
10 risk for people that are on the ground and looking at these panels. I've also included a report
11 from Adam Lovelady from the UNC School of Government that's called Planning and Zoning for
12 Solar in North Carolina, and it's a great report. I recommend that you all take a look at that. It
13 covers a lot of the issues that we've brought up tonight and how to address them. There is
14 another report about glare. Let's see, I found another report. This is very interesting. It's a law
15 review article from Boston College, and it's The Environmental Implications of Emerging Energy
16 Technology's Photovoltaic Solar Cells in a Study of Toxic Aspects. This is a fairly old report, but
17 it's very telling about what could happen if you install one of these. And then the last is World
18 Health Organization Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise.
19
20 Any questions? No, I'm not an expert.
21
22 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would object to all the portions of
23 her testimony except for her personal testimony about what she will see from her home on the
24 basis that all of this is —all the documents that you've been handed presumably, the links on the
25 disks are hearsay, and there is no one here to testify about them, and also as to their relevance
26 for some of them.
27
28 David Rooks: Barry Katz
29
30 Barry Katz: It's a very cold room. I've been shivering over there for the last God knows how
31 long. I'll try to heat this up a little bit.
32
33 Okay, my name is Barry Katz and I am here to talk about whether the proposal before
34 you would be in harmony with the land and adjacent properties. As part of my education, I
35 receive a Masters degree in Botany in 1974, and a Doctoral degree in Botany in 1979, both from
36 UNC Chapel Hill. As you might expect, I received a great deal of training on plants and what is
37 called plant community ecology. The research and my professional career were focused on a
38 specialized are in plant community ecology and had me working on plant communities in North
39 Carolina and around the world. Furthermore, I have slaved away at gardening in Orange
40 County for most of the last 44 years, and I am sure many of you can relate to that.
41
42 The site of the proposed solar array is a working farm field and appears as rolling
43 meadowland. It is surrounded by Hickory, Oak, Maple, and Tulip poplar trees of respectable
44 age, that to most of you would be characterized as beautiful and serene.
45
46 The proposal before you would introduce approximately 18,000 solar panels over
47 approximately 20 acres and surround it with an 8 foot high chain link security fence topped with
48 barbed wire. They are all topped with barbed wire and/or razor wire.
49
50 So, how does the applicant propose to mitigate this industrial ugliness? The applicant
51 proposes vegetation screening around the facility. So this 8 foot chain link fence is only going to
50
1 mask a fraction, a small fraction of the solar array from any southward aspect of this proposed
2 project. The primary purpose of the vegetation plan that has been suggested is to hide the ugly
3 security fence, which if left unprotected would clearly not be in harmony with the existing setting.
4
5 Their vegetation screening plan consists of three rows of evergreen nursery plants
6 evenly spaced in row of progressive height. Now if I were driving past an industrial park I would
7 expect to see such an arrangement of plants, which is so linear and tedious that I would not
8 spend a millisecond looking at it. So picture these rows of identical trees, shrubs and
9 groundcover going on repetitively for hundreds of feet with solar panels peeking out above,
10 surrounded by rolling meadow and mature hardwood trees. Does this meet the criterion of
11 harmony with surrounding land?
12
13 Now for a reality check. That industrial park, which would have this kind of screening
14 vegetation, works very hard to maintain those evergreen trees and shrubs hiding their security
15 fence. They have an irrigation system to keep the plants alive and a grounds crew to do
16 moving, week and pest control and prune to keep up appearances. That's what it takes to
17 maintain even an unnatural industrial façade.
18
19 When we spoke on the phone to Keith Colson, who is head of the operations for
20 Sunlight, and the boss of these people, I asked him what they were going to do for the plants
21 around the security fence. I asked if they planned to water the newly planted trees and shrubs.
22 No. They have no capacity at all to water in even the freshly planted shrubs and trees. They
23 have no maintenance crew to regularly mow and control weeds and pests. All they have is a
24 site plan with a diagram of screening plants, and they are relying on your imagination to fill in
25 the glorious and lush vegetation you would hope would block the vast industrial ugliness that will
26 occur without the considerable work and expense to maintain even an industrial planting.
27
28 I expect these professional developers will reassure you that they have a plan in place
29 and ask you to trust them. But actually it's the rosy suggestion of healthy plants that will
30 someday grow to 30 feet which is the most speculative part of everything you heard tonight.
31
32 Mr. Colson indicated that Sunlight's previous work was in California, presumably in
33 desert and chaparral habitats where screening in non residential settings would be impossible
34 and unnecessary. What do they know about growing plants in North Carolina? Do they know
35 that typically three out every five years Orange County experiences a drought during some of
36 the growing season? Have they factored in the effort and expense of maintaining even an
37 industrial façade? Is such a plan in their presentation? Where is the essential irrigation
38 system? Do you think they have demonstrated a weight of consideration about the actual
39 appearance of this project except as it might affect their projected bottom line? Mr. Colson
40 acknowledged they don't even own a hose.
41
42 When Mimi Cherney and Daniel Mattingly, whose house is 25 feet from the field, look
43 out from their house they see a field and a backdrop of tall trees. If the project is built, they will
44 see shabby plants, dead plants, honeysuckle, poison ivy and a security fence. Commissioners,
45 please look Daniel and Mimi in the eye and tell them that the harmony they now experience will
46 not change. Tell them their property values will not suffer from this ugliness.
47
48 When it comes to whether this project meets the harmony standard, take a sober look at
49 what is offered. This proposal utterly fails your standard. If, as the applicant has asserted,
50 there are really no actual comparables regarding the economic effect of this project on proximal
51 residences, why would you want to let a neighborhood of approximately 90 homes with a
51
1 composite value in excess of 30 million dollars be the guinea pigs and risk it gaining the
2 reputation as that neighborhood next to this massive piece of ugliness under consideration
3 tonight. I urge you to reject this project.
4
5 Do you have any questions for me?
6
7 Michael Fox: I didn't, and I have actually decided I do. Are you aware that the ordinance here
8 in Orange County requires the landscaping buffer to be maintained?
9
10 Barry Katz: I do. I understand that, but if you put in plants and you don't water them around
11 here, they die.
12
13 Michael Fox: Are you aware that the planning department can enforce the maintenance of the
14 buffer?
15
16 Barry Katz: Maintaining a buffer requires irrigation. If you have absolutely no evidence that
17 you intend to put in any kind of watering system to maintain these plants, these plants will die,
18 and you will be re-planting plants that will never get higher than 8 feet tall. There are no 30 foot
19 trees in this.
20
21 Michael Fox: That's all the questions I have.
22
23 David Rooks: Belinda Novik
24
25 Belinda Novik: I appreciate the opportunity for this hearing, and thank you to the
26 Commissioners and planning board members, citizens and guests.
27
28 My name is Belinda Novik. I have been sworn in. I live at 5801 Cascade Drive, directly
29 on the blind curve of the street. I can point to it, or blind myself, take your choice. Anyway, I
30 live on the blind curve of the street. I also walk for two hours a day in our neighborhood and I
31 know our streets and our neighbors extremely well. The uniform development ordinance
32 speaks to the necessity of the health, safety and general welfare of citizens for any proposed
33 project requiring a special use permit. There are significant dangers inherent in this proposal
34 which have not been addressed and that I would like to clarify.
35
36 My qualifications for speaking about health and safety include an MD, a PhD in
37 psychology and a post-doctoral master's degree in clinical psychopharmacology. I've served
38 more than 35 years as a clinician and educator. I currently train educators at Duke University
39 Medical School, and since my clinical retirement, also volunteer at Lincoln Community Center in
40 Durham. Health care is my field of expertise.
41 I believe there are three important points that the application fails to address, and that
42 the planning staff and the applicant may have failed to consider. The first one is the health
43 impact of heavy construction traffic on Cascade Drive. Thankfully, we do not have a long
44 document of accident reports on our small street. We all share the road for driving, walking,
45 biking. There are no sidewalks. We walk on the road because the grassy shoulders are risky,
46 home to copperheads, ticks and poison ivy. Cascade Drive is a narrow, rural residential road.
47 The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour, which is too fast. Cascade Drive, between Mount
48 Sinai Road and Falls Drive has a blind curve. You can see the road curving there on the left
49 side of the map. Each lane of the road is 8 feet 4 inches wide. From my driveway on that blind
50 curve, to see a vehicle approaching from the top, one has less than 2.65 seconds to get out of
51 the way. This is assuming that the oncoming vehicle driver sees you, is not distracted, and can
52
1 slow or stop if necessary. If the oncoming vehicle is going faster or carrying a heavy load that's
2 hard to slow or stop, or is otherwise preoccupied, this neighborhood road becomes a potential
3 death trap. Now one might argue that school buses and delivery trucks safely use the road, and
4 that's true. But a school bus routinely carries children in and out of residential neighborhoods
5 once a day at predictable times. One busload of children a day, or a delivery truck making its
6 rounds is orders of magnitude different than 3 months of near constant heavy construction traffic
7 with their loads on a road which also serves as our sidewalk.
8
9 The proposed use of Cascade Drive as a construction access point is also dangerous for
10 other reasons. Our neighbors on streets connecting to Cascade have raised concerns about
11 construction vehicles causing road blocks. Remembering that there is no other ingress or
12 egress to the neighborhood, heavy construction vehicles pose dangers to those who might need
13 to enter or exit in a timely fashion. Within the last year, a trailer with one resident's heavy load
14 got stuck on my driveway on that blind curve blocking the road. A handicap neighbor needing
15 dialysis had to be carried by a good Samaritan from one vehicle on one side of the blockage to
16 a waiting vehicle on the other. If there were a house fire, or a lightning strike, or a fire in the
17 solar array, and the egress was blocked, the entire neighborhood could be endangered. If there
18 were an emergency again and construction vehicles were causing delay or blocking the road,
19 there is simply no other way out.
20
21 Falls of New Hope is a residential neighborhood, and logic would dictate that it remain
22 so. Everyone on the eastern side of the New Hope Creek in Falls of New Hop must use
23 Cascade Drive for all of our activities. There is no other way for us. But there are other, safer
24 roads for construction vehicles to access which cause less disruption and eliminate the very
25 dangerous conditions for cars and the constant stream of pedestrians that depend on Cascade
26 Drive for their physical and emotional health.
27
28 This brings me to the second health issue, which is more hidden but no less important.
29 Besides the danger inherent in any construction project, especially one of this size, there are
30 important health issues to consider. As a medical psychologist, I have to speak up for those
31 whose voices go unheard. Our homeowners have sought solace in a quiet part of the country
32 amongst fields, trees and the New Hope Creek. We are veterans and firemen, teachers,
33 scholars, public servants, doctors, nurses and PA's. We are business owners, parents, and
34 retirees. Due to confidentiality and respect for the privacy of personal medical information told
35 to me, I won't reveal names, but I do have permission to use the following data with identities
36 protected.
37
38 In just two weeks, since this notice of this hearing was posted, symptoms of dangerous
39 levels of stress are in evidence. Homeowners have reported to me problems with insomnia,
40 anxiety, and PTSD, which are normal reactions to a perceived threat. There are two residents
41 who have confided in me that for the first time in their lives, they have asked for help from their
42 doctors to manage the symptoms of this stress with prescribed medications. Additionally, there
43 are reports of increased irritability, marital tension, muscle aches, fatigue and distractibility.
44 There are problems with appetite and high blood pressure made worse by this stress.
45 Depressive symptoms of hopelessness and helplessness have been reported to me. This is
46 understandable when one considers the invasion of privacy, prolonged and constant
47 construction noise, the mess and commotion, and many unwanted strangers in view all day
48 long during the months of construction. Homeowners have also told me about their fears of the
49 unknown, specifically the impact of another hurricane on this site, or a tornado. Falls of New
50 Hope was hit hard by Hurricane Fran, and our residents have concerns about panels of glass
53
1 and metal objects becoming dangerous projectiles. These are sensible concerns, and function
2 as significant stressors already causing harm to our citizens.
3
4 Aside from my own reports, we have letters from the resident's doctors documenting the
5 harm that could come from these stressors and urge you to consider how this proposal violates
6 the standards of health and safety when considering these less visible, but no less important
7 mental health and emotional factors.
8
9 My third point involves the proposed large fences which have ironic and contradictory
10 purposes. They are supposed to act as a pleasant screen with plantings, and also as a
11 formidable security barrier with posted signs saying KEEP OUT, DANGER, HIGH VOLTAGE.
12
13 Most of the community has been here for many years. Over 35 years, I've built two
14 houses in the Falls of New Hope as my family expanded. This project will change the nature of
15 the main intersection at Cascade and Falls Drive from rural residential to industrial utility. We
16 will be greeted by a locked security gate and prominent warning signs. The applicant might
17 argue that these signs and fence are there to protect us and their facility. However, the security
18 fences communicate that we are unwelcome intruders in our own neighborhood. I ask you,
19 should residents of their own established community have to feel like intruders in their own
20 homes and streets? The 8 foot high security fence connotes a prison camp, not a
21 neighborhood.
22
23 It's my professional opinion that the County will be harming its citizens if it allows this
24 array in this residential neighborhood. Falls of New Hope was hit hard by Hurricane Fran. No
25 one voted for that disaster. Unlike Hurricane Fran, this is a disaster that you can stop.
26
27 Thank you for your attention.
28
29 David Rupp: Questions?
30
31 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
32
33 David Rupp: Thank you. Sharon Ryan.
34
35 Sharon Ryan: Commissioner Jacobs, Orange County Commissioners, Mr. Hallenbeck, Orange
36 County Planning Board, thank you for allowing me to address you this evening.
37
38 My name is Sharon Ryan. I live at 5701 Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope. I would
39 like to give a brief introduction, address two points, and make my conclusion.
40
41 I have lived in Durham and Chapel Hill since 1970. I have rented or bought eight
42 different houses during that period of time. Falls of New Hope is by far my favorite area that I
43 have lived.
44
45 In the spirit of full disclosure, I grew up on a farm in Connecticut, I have been interested
46 in environmental issues for more than twenty years, and I was the first Chapel Hill
47 representative for the solar company called Citizenre.
48
49 According to the online research I performed and from speaking with local planning
50 departments, there are seven existing solar utilities in Orange, Durham, Wake and Chatham
51 Counties, six built by Strata Solar in Chapel Hill and one built by FLS Energy based in Asheville.
54
1 There are two solar utilities in Orange, two in Durham, one in Wake and two in Chatham. And I
2 have material that displays this.
3
4 All seven of these commercial solar utilities are located in rural areas. None of them are
5 adjoining a subdivision, pre-existing or newly constructed, and in fact none of them are even
6 adjoining individual houses. I am submitting aerial photographs of these seven solar utilities for
7 your review.
8
9 The only other solar utility that Sunlight Partners, who is requesting this special use
10 permit today, is proposing in the Triangle is in a rural area off Red Mill Road in Northern Durham
11 County near Falls Lake. There are no houses nearby.
12
13 The second point I would like to address is 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) the section of the Orange
14 County unified development ordinance that relates to the granting of special use permits: "The
15 location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in
16 harmony with the area in which it is to be located."
17
18 I would like to examine that standard. From the evidence I presented a few moments
19 ago, it is clear that siting a commercial solar utility directly adjoining a 50 year old subdivision
20 will be a first for Triangle jurisdictions. Given that fact, I would hope that the Orange County
21 Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board will proceed slowly and cautiously in
22 this matter with due reflection.
23
24 Common wisdom holds that a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe that no
25 number of photographs could adequately convey the character of Falls of New Hope, a fifty year
26 old subdivision that backs up to New Hope Creek and is located across the street from the
27 Triangle land Conservancy's Johnston Mill Preserve. I would suggest that the County
28 Commissioners and the Planning Board cannot make a fully informed decision in this matter
29 without first visiting Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope. I would posit that "the character of the
30 area in question" cannot be correctly ascertained without first visiting Cascade Drive in Falls of
31 New Hope and that therefore the Board and the Commissioners cannot intelligently determine
32 whether or not the proposed solar utility will be in harmony with the surrounding area without
33 first visiting the area.
34
35 I would further suggest that the Board and the County Commissioners should also visit the
36 existing solar utility at White Cross off of Highway 54 in Chapel Hill to see what a commercial
37 solar utility looks like up close and that perhaps they should visit that solar utility before they visit
38 Falls of New Hope.
39
40 Finally, given the fact that this solar utility, if approved, will be the first commercial solar
41 utility located adjacent to any existing subdivision in the Triangle, I would suggest that the
42 Orange County Commissioners and the Orange Planning Board must, in order to do due
43 diligence and carry out the obligation and trust of their positions, visit the solar farm at White
44 Cross and Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope.
45
46 This will be a first. None of us, I am certain, including Sunlight Partners, want it to be the
47 last. As to the specifics of the site visits, whether the Commissioners and the planning board
48 visit singly in small groups or a quorum with or without a stenographer present and with or
49 without communication with residents of Cascade Drive while they are there, I leave that
50 decision to the Commissioners, the Chair of the commission, the planning board, the Chair of
51 the Board and the County attorney. During the past week I have heard from certain County
55
1 officials directly and indirectly that it would be inappropriate for Board members and County
2 Commissioners to visit Falls of New Hope. I maintain in this case, and for the aforementioned
3 reasons, it would be irresponsible for them not to visit Falls of New Hope.
4
5 In closing, I would like to quote from an article by John Downey, senior staff writer in the
6 March 29, 2013 edition of the Charlotte Business Journal, which I submitted to you now for your
7 consideration and also for the record: "Arizona based Sunlight Partners is in a rush to get into
8 North Carolina's solar market. In the last two months it has applied for 19 proposed solar
9 projects, all 5 megawatts or smaller. Added to half a dozen or so projects the company had
10 already proposed in the state, it shows how ready Sunlight is to jump in with both feet. Keith
11 Colson, Sunlight's Director of Development for the eastern United States, admits it's a
12 scattergun strategy. `We will lose quite a few of those,' he says The deals are pretty
13 speculative, but we want to move fast into the state.- End of quote, and end of the first half of
14 the article.
15
16 Commissioner Jacobs, Orange County Commissioners, Mr. Hallenbeck, Orange County
17 Planning Board, Orange County has been making wise planning decisions for decades,
18 decisions that make Orange County the kind of place it is, a place we all treasure. If you
19 approve this special use permit, and Sunlight Partners builds a commercial solar utility adjoining
20 the Falls of New Hope subdivision, it will not only be the first commercial solar utility adjoining a
21 subdivision in the Triangle, it will be the first commercial solar utility Sunlight Partners builds in
22 North Carolina. Please don't move fast without due consideration of this matter. Please don't let
23 Sunlight Partners speculate with one of Orange County's most unique subdivisions. Please
24 don't let Orange County and Falls of New Hope be the ones who lose.
25
26 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
27
28 David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, one last witness, Kathy Bolte.
29
30 Kathy Bolte: My name is Kathy Bolte, and I was sworn in. I live at 5505 Cascade Drive, and I
31 do have a few questions to pose.
32
33 First of all, if you approve this, will you guarantee that this proposed power plant will not
34 adversely affect our property values, health and overall well being? When it does, what
35 measures will you take to compensate all of us, for a decision you clearly made for us against
36 our will? As elected officials, we expect you to make decisions that protect the citizens of this
37 County. Allowing a company to operate a business in the middle of our neighborhood does not
38 meet the expectations that we have. Are you willing to vote yes for this?
39
40 Second, will you guarantee that Sunlight Partners will maintain the property in the
41 manner in which this community is accustomed to living? In my household, we eat organic
42 food, recycle, and don't use harsh chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. We choose to live in
43 such a manner that we do no harm to our environment or ourselves. Our home is situated
44 where we receive the runoff from the land in question, and that runoff flows into New Hope
45 Creek, which is in our backyard. Who is willing to guarantee us that no chemicals, pesticides
46 and herbicides will flow through our yard, seep into our groundwater, contaminate the creek and
47 our wells. When it does, what recourse will we have, and who will be accountable for it.
48
49 Third, in the limited amount of time that we have had to research this company, we have
50 found no evidence of previous projects that Sunlight Partners has completed. Why is a
51 company from Arizona being considered to do a project in the middle of our neighborhood?
56
1 What proof do you have that guarantees they will do exactly what they say they will do? I have
2 commercial property in Guilford County that I do lease to a cell tower company, Crown Castle.
3 Guilford County requires a buffer similar to what Orange County does, a natural buffer. When
4 Crown Castle was required to do the plants, and the plants did not meet the screening
5 standards, the gentlemen in charge of zoning in Guilford County had full authority to
6 immediately turn the power off to the cell tower and shut it down until Crown Castle complied.
7 When these plants and shrubs die due to inadequate care, who will be accountable for
8 enforcing Orange County requirements? How long will we have to suffer to see this monstrosity
9 in our neighborhood, and what recourse and what compensation will we have when this
10 happens?
11
12 These sites have not been around long enough to know the damage they can and will
13 cause on humans and animals living in such close proximity to an electrical field of this size. I
14 realize that sensitivity to this field will vary between individuals. I happen to live with someone
15 that is highly sensitive to these frequencies. We have neighbors that are also sensitive to these
16 frequencies. In our home, we keep appliances unplugged. We don't watch television. We take
17 every precaution we can to ensure the wellbeing of everyone in our home. If you approve this,
18 who will take responsibility for taking our well being from us?
19
20 The bottom line is, are you willing to vote yes on something that is already causing harm
21 to citizens of this community? Orange County is one of the best places to live in in North
22 Carolina. Everyone here chose to live here, except for the company that is proposing to build a
23 power plant in our neighborhood. Would they like to buy all of our homes on Cascade Drive and
24 live beside what they are proposing to build? Would you?
25
26 David Rooks: Mr. Fox.
27
28 Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
29
30 David Rooks: Those are all of our witnesses Mr. Chairman. At this point I will make a brief
31 closing statement. I'll focus really on two findings, two of the three findings you have to make.
32 The first one being that the proposed use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
33 properties. You've heard evidence on that.
34
35 I submit to you that when it comes time to make a decision, you need to ask yourself
36 whether in your own mind if you were going to buy the property owned by Bob Cantwell and
37 Lydia Wegman, which is right there—that first property in the right coming in —would you
38 discount it because there is a solar array behind it that is visible to you? If the answer to that is
39 yes, then you have to answer no to the second finding. You have to say the property—the use
40 will not maintain or enhance contiguous property values.
41
42 The third finding is actually a little more interesting because we have competing valuable
43 interests here. Obviously everybody values single family residential use and home ownership.
44 Everybody values energy efficiency and solar power. In your ordinance, you have said both can
45 exist in the rural buffer. However, you have decided that a solar utility has to be a class a
46 special use permit, and it has to come to you, and you have to make the findings that let it be
47 there. And one of those findings is that it be in harmony. When you decide whether that use is
48 in harmony with the uses in the area, you have to figure out a way how to resolve conflicts
49 between those two uses. I would look, quite frankly, to the law of uses where you have
50 competing, valid, lawful uses that conflict with each other. The law says —gives you a road map
57
1 for resolving those conflicts, and the law is; you give precedence to the first use, and that's
2 exactly what you should do here.
3
4 You have a residential neighborhood that's been here for 50 years. You should honor
5 that. And then you should resolve the conflict between these otherwise valuable uses, and
6 favor the neighborhood.
7
8 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you very much. Just so everybody knows, here is what's
9 going to happen next. We will allow the Board of Commissioners to ask any questions. We will
10 then ask the planning board if they have any questions. We still have some people who have
11 signed up to speak. We will ask if they still wish to put any comments on the record with the
12 three minute limit. So with that, I'll turn it over to the— or ask if there are any Commissioners
13 that have questions for the applicants. Commissioner Gordon.
14
15 Commissioner Gordon: Just a couple of things, one, I just want to make sure that we
16 understand where the chain link fence is vis a vis the buffer and the panels. I believe the
17 applicant has stated that; first there are the solar panels; then there is the fence; and then there
18 is the landscaping. But, in our handout it says the eight foot high chain link security fence shall
19 surround the perimeter of the array field outside of proposed land use buffer. Would someone
20 clarify that for me?
21
22 Pete Hallenbeck: Mike, you want to come up?
23
24 Mike Wallace: Your statement first was correct. The fence will be located after the solar
25 panels. Then the buffer comes after that. So the purpose of the buffer is for the residents to not
26 see the fence or the solar panels.
27
28 Commissioner Gordon: And the second question is; in this property, what of the total acreage
29 —what number of acres will have trees cut down?
30
31 Mike Wallace: On the site plan, we define the total land disturbance—that includes trees, or
32 when we put in the gravel road as well - we would consider that as 8.7 acres. So if you do the
33 math on the 50 acre site, that's roughly 17 percent.
34
35 Commissioner Gordon: The 8.47 acres is the total disturbance?
36
37 Mike Wallace: Yes. Yes ma'am.
38
39 Commissioner Gordon: Do you have any idea what percentage, what amount—the number
40 of acres though? It was asserted by someone who came to the podium that it was five. Is that
41 correct?
42
43 Mike Wallace: That's what was asserted. I would have to double check that. I do not know
44 that offhand.
45
46 Commissioner Gordon: I would be interested in knowing how many acres of trees are cut
47 down, thank you.
48
49 Michael Fox: If-With the Commissioners' permission we can determine the amount of trees
50 that would be removed and submit that to the planning board. I mean, I'm sorry, the planning
51 department.
58
1
2 Commissioner Gordon: That would be helpful.
3
4 Michael Fox: Yes.
5
6 Commissioner Gordon: Because it was asserted, and I think it's important that we know.
7
8 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright. Commissioner Price.
9
10 Commissioner Price: Yes, I had a question about water. I was trying to find it in the— in my
11 packet, but I couldn't find it. You were mentioning — I don't recall seeing anything about drilling
12 a well or water on the property, but then you mentioned —well I'm think of in case there is an
13 emergency, or just the fact that you said you had to clean these panels twice a year with water.
14 But, are you going to be drilling a well.
15
16 Michael Fox: Mike, you want to address that?
17
18 Mike Wallace: No ma'am, no well. So the use of water only is to protect the environment, and
19 that will be done with a water truck or a local company to come in and complete that with a
20 squeegee or a rag apparatus that would do that.
21
22 Commissioner Price: Okay, and then just following up on what one of the people in the
23 audience has said; what about—you might as well stay up there—watering the plants and
24 making sure that this buffer doesn't die when it becomes a hundred degrees here.
25
26 Mike Wallace: Yeah, that's a great question. We do have a plan for that. So, our plan is
27 again, to hire a local landscaping company that would be located here in the County, in the
28 area, that would be responsible for not only planting the trees but making sure of the wellbeing
29 of the trees and that they take, as well as any care of the property during the 20 to 25 year life of
30 the facility.
31
32 Commissioner Price: Okay, and one more follow up. Storm water; what is the risk of the
33 runoff, I mean if there is a slope?
34
35 Mike Wallace: So what we would do typically in these installations is we would install a silt
36 fence to protect any areas such as the creek and the property, to ensure that no runoff made it
37 into any area that was of concern.
38
39 Michael Fox: And if I might add to that, as the commission is probably well aware, you know
40 state law prohibits a developer from putting any more runoff on a neighbor's property than
41 already exists. So, those types of actions would be enforceable by numerous water quality
42 agencies and would have to go through the jurisdiction of your planning department as well to
43 be able to enforce that, along with the landscape buffer requirements. Your planning
44 department would have the authority to issue a - you know basically - an N.O.V., a notice of
45 violation for failure to comply with the requirements of your ordinance, which the company would
46 have to address; hence, their plan to contract with a local company to ensure that the buffer is
47 maintained.
48
49 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Rich.
50
59
1 Commissioner Rich: I have two questions, one for Mr. Harvey. You talked about White Cross
2 and that it does have a buffer plan in place. Clearly something went awry there. In your
3 opinion, was the buffer planted and then not maintained and died? Is that what happened there,
4 or was the buffer never planted?
5
6 Michael Harvey: It would be best if I said that the buffer was partially planted. Some of it died,
7 and we have issued a notice of correction in accordance with the approved special use permit.
8 And let me expand on that answer by stating the following; they have not been issued a final
9 certificate of occupancy by the planning department yet, meaning occupying using the site.
10 They have to plant additional trees and replace the dead landscaping. If this project is
11 approved, or even using the White Cross example, we have the authority under the permit that's
12 been issued by this Board to revoke the special use permit and force them to shut down
13 immediately. And as this Board already knows from past individuals coming to speak before
14 you, the planning department has no qualms about exercising that option.
15
16 And let me also just make another comment. If this project is approved, there are notes
17 on the site plan indicating that there will be quarterly inspections completed on the landscaping.
18 We obviously require that all landscaping that is required be maintained in perpetuity for the life
19 of the project. The applicant is holding themselves to these standards, because the site plan
20 becomes part of the special use permit approval. Any violation of the special use permit, any
21 violation of the ordinance, or any violation of the site plan gives the County the authority to
22 revoke the special use permit.
23
24 Commissioner Rich: Thank you. And my second question is to Mr. Kirkland. So we just got
25 this tonight, so I didn't have a good chance to examine it. But, my question is; when you are
26 talking about value of homes, and people moving into homes that are near these solar farms,
27 most to the people that I see here, and correct me if I'm wrong —that you're giving values of
28 homes —the solar farm existed first and then the subdivision came second. Is that correct?
29
30 Rich Kirkland: Yeah. I try to clarify each category, so yeah, that top set there shows adjoining
31 sales after the solar farm was announced, and then I have a couple more after that, after the
32 solar farm was built.
33
34 Commissioner Rich: So people clearly knew when they were buying these homes that they
35 were moving next to a solar farm.
36
37 Rich Kirkland: Yes. And when I talked to some of the homeowners, there was one homeowner
38 who told me that she did not know. But, she actually didn't care after the fact anyway.
39
40 Commissioner Rich: Okay, that's fine. That's for her to decide. I'm just wondering have you
41 — Is there anything in here that would represent a similar situation that we're talking about
42 tonight? Is anything in your evidence here? Are any neighborhoods that represent something
43 that we're doing here?
44
45 Rich Kirkland: Again, I think this —Again, it is a similar— It is—These are homeowners.
46 These are owner occupants. These are not rental units. The price range in Spring Gardens is
47 240 to 260 range. The MLS shows that for this neighborhood, the average price, well the price
48 since 2010 —that's as far back as I looked —they range from 160 thousand to 550, averaging
49 around 320. So, again it's a slightly higher price point at this location, but within a reasonable
50 range I'd say, as far as looking at impacts for what a homeowner is looking at. Even at different
60
1 price points, a homeowner, someone who is going to live there as opposed to a rental, they are
2 going to be motivated by the same factors.
3
4 Commissioner Rich: Okay, except for the fact that they are moving into a subdivision that they
5 know that the farm is there. And this, the property owners here lived there for 25 years, and
6 they didn't choose to have the farm there. So they didn't have the option of whether or not they
7 were going to buy their house next to the farm.
8
9 Rich Kirkland: And then there's the next two categories down in my chart, where it shows you
10 before that solar farm was announced, what sales were doing in that neighborhood at that time
11 too. So that would have been before any awareness of the solar farm. So you can see that's
12 still consistent.
13
14 Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
15
16 Chair Jacobs: I more had comments, but I will ask one request, I guess for Mr. Harvey. I
17 would like to see in the materials that go forward a subdivision plat that shows the affected area
18 along Cascade Drive, with the names of the owners. Using this map is pretty useless for me,
19 and when people are referring to it I would actually like to see how it lays on the ground. And I
20 think I could, referring to people's comments, have a better understanding of what it is they are
21 referring to than this map.
22
23 And for Mr. Fox, whether we consider the person who spoke a competent authority, why
24 would I not want to request that you do a noise study. There was sufficient question raised in
25 my mind about whether in fact there was no —there was going to be no noise generated. Are
26 you wedded to the assertion that there will be noise offsite of a measurable amount? How do
27 you regard that?
28
29 Michael Fox: It's our position as Mr. Wallace testified that the noise, any noise that would be
30 offsite would be well within your County ordinance for noise limits. For both — and obviously
31 there would be—you have a different daylight and nighttime limit, and these fans, you know
32 generally the noise is being generated by the cooling fans in the inverters, and those would
33 typically not be operating at night when the sun is not shining, generating electricity. So there
34 would be no noise at night, and then the noise of the fans operating would be, you know, well
35 within your County noise ordinance during the day at maximum, whatever sound they were.
36
37 Commissioner McKee: I guess my question would be for Mr. Wallace, I believe. And then I
38 have another question. I'm not exactly sure who to address it to. Did I understand that you said
39 it would be mowed twice a year?
40
41 Mike Wallace: That's the initial plan, yes sir.
42
43 Commissioner McKee: Then how do you intend to maintain a good appearance on the
44 property when some weeds, such as Johnson grass, pigweed will grow 6 to 8 feet tall in a
45 matter of about 30 to 45 days.
46
47 Mike Wallace: So we would evaluate that based on what we saw as the site was laid out and
48 set up. So if we noticed that that effort needed to be more than twice a year, like once a month,
49 then we would do that accordingly.
50
61
1 Commissioner McKee: Okay. Also, on the buffers that mention the trees. Do you have a
2 timeline before these 8 foot trees will become 15 foot trees, 20, 30 foot. Because in my mind it's
3 a radical difference between waiting a year, or 3 years, or 30 years to get these, this buffer in
4 place.
5
6 Mike Wallace: I understand. That is not my area of expertise. That is something that.
7
8 Commissioner McKee: I didn't know if there was a study or if you all have figures on that.
9
10 Michael Fox: If the Commissioner would like, I know that the landscaping plan and the
11 company that they hire can provide projections on average of what a typical tree species will
12 grow over a certain period year. It's not exact for a particular tree in a site, but we can provide
13 that along with the other information that we were going to provide to Mrs. Gordon. We can
14 provide that to the planning director or the planning staff for the Commissioners' consideration.
15
16 Commissioner McKee: And then one more question, I guess to you since you're the attorney.
17
18 Michael Fox: Yes sir.
19
20 Commissioner McKee: It was mentioned that if at the end of the lease or end of the lifespan
21 the equipment could be disassembled and removed from the meadow, and it would revert to a
22 meadow. Who would do that, and what would happen in a case of this company either folding
23 or dissolving, or for some reason this facility not being used? Is there a plan in place as to the
24 end of the life, the end of the lease, or the disruption of the company, the removal of this —of all
25 of this equipment. And who does that, and who pays?
26
27 Michael Fox: Yes sir. I'd like to address one part of that question and then I'll ask Mr.
28 Cleveland to come up and address a second part of the answer. To answer your first part of the
29 question of who's responsible; it's the company. Sunlight is responsible in the event that the
30 lease terminates. They have a short period of time to come in and remove essentially
31 everything. And the only thing that would be troublesome at all to remove would be you know
32 the pads on which the inverters sit. They are about the size of a pickup truck bed of concrete,
33 and those are the only things that are really semi-permanent, but they could be removed as
34 well. In the event— now that's the contractual obligation — and in the event that let's say some
35 disaster befell Sunlight and no one wanted to step in and own this project, which is unlikely. It is
36 generating energy for Duke Energy and that's who the contract is with to sell the energy to. So
37 there are a lot of folks who would be interested in a site like this. But let's just say worst case
38 scenario, nobody out there wants it. There has been a study out there, which Mr. Cleveland can
39 discuss, which indicates that the salvage value even using average salvage prices of the
40 materials in a solar farm for exceed the cost of the salvage. So the bottom line is that it wouldn't
41 be difficult to get someone to come in and take it all out, essentially for free. So it's not
42 something that's gonna be—that's not gonna be left there— an eyesore for the neighborhood.
43
44 Mr. Cleveland, could you talk a little bit about that study and who did it.
45
46 Tommy Cleveland: I can tell you a little bit about that study. That was done by a developer
47 with significant experience developing and building very similar 5 megawatt sites in North
48 Carolina. And they went to a general contractor and said; what would you charge us today with
49 your going labor rates to come and remove all this equipment from the site. And they got that
50 number and then they went and looked at salvage markets for steel, copper, aluminum and
51 used solar panels at something like two cents on the dollar of the current price for the panels,
62
1 and the salvage value of all that equipment was roughly double the cost of hiring a general
2 contractor to come and remove the equipment.
3
4 Pete Hallenbeck: Did you have a comment, Mr. Harvey.
5
6 Michael Harvey: Yes, actually I do. I'd like to remind the Board, and the applicant has a
7 statement on the site plan, section 5.9.6 (c) (3) deals with decommissioning. The applicant has
8 a responsibility according to sub-section e. I apologize. "The owner shall provide financial
9 security in form and amount acceptable to the County to secure the expense of dismantling and
10 removing said structures." So the County ordinance has a plan in place that if Sunlight folds,
11 they still have to provide us a financial bond that would cover the cost of removal if necessary.
12
13 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. We'll continue with the questions.
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin: So I want to follow up on I think Commissioner Jacob's question, and
16 I think this would be for— I can't remember your name, but—
17
18 Mike Wallace: Mr. Wallace
19
20 Commissioner Dorosin: Mr. Wallace, yeah. I wonder if you could specifically answer the
21 question posed by Mr. Petranka about the noise. So the, in the image that's in the application
22 that show the circles kind of scattered across the site on the slide that's titled Binks Solar Noise.
23 There was testimony from Mr. Petranka that actually these noise producing units are going to be
24 concentrated in one area of the site. So I want to know is that accurate, and if so, what is the
25 significance of that for having these concentrations of converters or trans — I can't remember
26 now -?
27
28 Mike Wallace: Yeah, inverters.
29
30 Commissioner Dorosin: - of having three of them concentrated on the western edge of the
31 property, I guess?
32
33 Mike Wallace: Yeah, so what took place in that particular case; initially the project was slated
34 to have 500 kilowatt inverters scattered throughout the solar array. What ended up happening
35 was we were able to get units that were 1500 kilowatt inverters, which are essentially just larger
36 units, to replace those. Which from a cost standpoint, was more —was a benefit to us. So
37 that's what was done there. So our studies are based off those units from the companies on
38 studies that they have done, and what they are telling us. And that's where that information
39 comes from. So the initial study that was given was before that change had been made.
40
41 Commissioner Dorosin: And so are you going to provide some revised study that more
42 accurately reflects what the noise is going to look like.
43
44 Mike Wallace: So, we absolutely can. And it—yeah it doesn't multiply from 68 to 77. That
45 study was done on the unit itself, so it doesn't quite work like that, but yes, we absolutely can
46 provide you with the necessary information from the manufacturer.
47
48 Commissioner Dorosin: Is the 1500 one noisier than the 500 one?
49
50 Mike Wallace: We've been told it's at 68 decibels. That's what we've been given for a number.
51
63
1 Commissioner Dorosin: I have a question for Mr. Harvey, also based on Mr. Petranka's
2 testimony about the soil report. And, is what he said accurate, that a soil report is not being
3 required at this time?
4
5 Michael Harvey: As I had indicated during my original presentation, the applicant, as part of
6 their environmental assessment application, which is actually contained in attachment 1, and it
7 begins on page 69, provided topographical, hydrological and slope maps, and indicated not only
8 in their presentation this evening, but indicated to staff that the Georgeville soil, which we have
9 verified through the Orange County soil report, will handle the project. What the applicant has
10 requested that they don't want to do geotechnical date, which is the actual engineering data
11 showing compaction, until they have the special use permit, because of the cost involved.
12 That's consistent with other similar projects we've done in the past. We believe that they have
13 met their obligation to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating that this project can fit
14 and work on this property. The condition we've recommended is that the full geotech report be
15 done once the special use permit is issued.
16
17 What I will remind the Board is the ordinance only calls for a soils report. It does not
18 require a geotechnical report. It requires compaction data, and again the applicant's request is
19 that they not be required to submit that until they do the formal geotechnical report.
20
21 Commissioner Dorosin: Just to clarify, the—this site that says the submittal requirements
22 includes "a soil report, including detail of compaction necessary." Are you saying that's been
23 provided to the planning department's satisfaction, or are you saying that that requirement is
24 actually going to be put off until after the decision is made.
25
26 Michael Harvey: I am saying that they have submitted sufficient documentation that the staff
27 believes that this site can support the project. What they've asked is to provide the detailed
28 engineering data, and we have agreed to the imposition of the condition at the appropriate time,
29 if this project is approved, that the geotechnical report that they have already agreed to submit
30 will contain additional data.
31
32 Commissioner Dorosin: I am not sure I understand that answer exactly. I just—so, I just
33 want— so it says, "a soil report denoting the types of soil on the property including detail on the
34 compaction necessary to support the proposed development." Are you saying that you —that
35 has —you've got that to your satisfaction?
36
37 Michael Harvey: I've gotten an update, and to my satisfaction I believe they've met the
38 requirement, yes sir.
39
40 Commissioner Dorosin: Is Mrs. Davis still here? Alright, well I had a question for Mrs. Davis,
41 but I guess I'll — It will go unanswered. It really is cold in here. Mr. Katz was right on with that.
42 It's freezing in here.
43
44 David Rooks: I can relay it to Mrs. Davis if you wish.
45
46 Commissioner Dorosin: Well, unless her answer is going to be given under oath, I'm not sure
47 that it's — I mean I appreciate that, but I want to ask a question about her assessment, her
48 report.
49
64
1 And I have another question for the applicant, and I am not sure who should answer this.
2 But, the design of the fence being, having being chain link and having barbed wire or razor wire
3 on the top of it; is that at your initiative, or is that what is required by the County ordinance?
4
5 Michael Wallace: It is required by the ordinance to have an 8 foot fence, which is what we are
6 proposing. There is no barbed wire or razor wire on our proposal or on the site plan.
7
8 Commissioner Dorosin: That is all I have for right now.
9
10 Commissioner Pelissier: I have a couple of additional questions. On the site view, I still don't
11 understand, and I'd like it explained. So, before trees can grow, given the slope of the land,
12 what will people see? How much above whatever bushes and the fence? What will they
13 actually see, and how much above will the solar panels show?
14
15 And related to that is, could you address the issue of glare? If people are going to see
16 the panels - and I understand I guess that some of the panels can have materials there to
17 prevent glare. So could you address those two things? I guess that's probably for Mr. Wallace,
18 or.
19
20 Michael Fox: Correct, and I'll give an introduction and then get Mr. Wallace and then Mr.
21 Cleveland up here. To some degree, and I'm gonna ask Mr. Wallace to come up and tell you to
22 the best of his knowledge, but to some degree what you see will depend on where you are and
23 — and how far back you are. So, for a particular piece of property it might not be the same.
24 With that, I'll let Mr. Wallace talk about the landscaping buffer, and in general the topography of
25 the site. And then Mr. Cleveland can talk about the glare issue.
26
27 Commissioner Pelissier: And let me just clarify; I guess my question is really related to the
28 folks who testified and said they live right near and just sort of downhill and their concern about
29 the view going uphill. So, I realize that it's going to be different from a lot of different properties,
30 but-
31
32 Michael Fox: Thank you, that's helpful to understand which one you're asking about.
33
34 Commissioner Pelissier: Sure, I should have said that initially. Thank you for prompting me.
35
36 Mike Wallace: Yes ma'am you are correct that the site does slope from roughly at 470 at the
37 bottom. It goes to 500 feet in the top right hand corner. So, it is the intent of that buffer to
38 shade completely so that they can't see it. As Mr. Fox stated, it will depend on where you are.
39 It will depend on the age of the trees, the growth pattern of those trees for that site to happen,
40 but it is the full intent of our plan to shade that so that you cannot see into the solar panel.
41
42 Commissioner Pelissier: But if you don't mind, I guess I don't' feel like my question is
43 answered. It's like, what are you going to see initially, before any trees grow I guess is what I
44 want to know? Like from some of those adjacent properties.
45
46 Mike Wallace: Right, right. The - To comply with the ordinance is the reason that we use the
47 8 foot trees for upper canopy, lower canopy and then the shrubs. So, I can't tell you, again,
48 unless I'm standing at a particular point on the property, or somebody's concern on what exactly
49 they are going to see. But, that is in there to shade them from being able to see. So, it depends
50 on where I would be standing to be able to answer that question, or at what point in the field
51 they may be looking at.
65
1 So, one of the things that we've discussed too, depending on the view and the vantage
2 point that you're at, we could provide a 10 foot or a 12 foot tree to help shade some of those
3 areas more if it ended up being an issue that we did not know at the time. We would deal with
4 the situation as we got to it if there was a problem and we didn't know.
5
6 Michael Fox: And obviously they work with your planning staff in terms of compliance with the
7 buffering impact. And I think one of the things you struggle with, with any landscape buffering,
8 no matter whether it's a residential subdivision or an industrial use is there is a - to some degree
9 - a maturity period where plants need to take root, and they need to grow. And so what Sunlight
10 is willing to do is, obviously they are starting out with a minimum of an 8 foot all the way around.
11 But if there is a spot on the particular piece of property where 8 foot is insufficient, they will work
12 with the planning staff to try to get the trees as large as possible to provide a buffer as soon as
13 possible.
14
15 Mike Wallace: Tommy do you want to talk about the lack of glare.
16
17 Tommy Cleveland: Yeah, the solar panels are designed and built to absorb as much sunlight
18 as possible. So when that sunlight is hitting them, they absorb 98 percent of the sunlight.
19 They've got an anti-reflective coating on the top of that glass, so they do a great job of
20 absorbing the sunlight, which means there is very little sunlight left to bounce off and cause any
21 glare trouble. The one exception is when the sunlight hits it at a very low angle, like might
22 happen right at sunrise or sunset, and then you can have some glare, but at that point it's no
23 more reflective than water and at an angle that's less inducive to glare than like water. Like a
24 pond - a pond would generally have more glare in that condition than a solar array.
25
26 Commissioner Pelissier: I have another condition related to storm water, and maybe this is
27 for our planning staff, or actually, maybe it is for Mr. Wallace. What percent of—wherever the
28 panels are, what percent of the land is considered impervious with the panels there? I mean the
29 cover. Because obviously you are saying that lot of the rain can be absorbed in between the
30 panels, and I guess - what is really considered the impervious surface?
31
32 Michael Harvey: Well let me try to answer that question the following way. Our ordinance
33 requires the applicant to provide the level of detail and to count everything covered by a panel
34 as impervious. In fact our ordinance mandates that specifically. This particular parcel of
35 property is not located in a protected or critical watershed, so there is no impervious surface
36 limit. Having said that, it's already been testified to, but I'll reiterate; this project will have to go
37 through a storm water review process with the Orange County Erosion Control division. They
38 are not going to be allowed to have any more water generated off site than is currently being
39 generated off site now under the current conditions of the property. That will require storm
40 water features to re-direct water to ensure that it is not flowing off site any more than it currently
41 is. Now that may not address everybody's concerns, and I understand that; but I am going to at
42 least provide you the answer of what the ordinance states and what state law gives us the
43 authority to do.
44
45 So if there is an inch - and this is just an example - then if there is an inch currently
46 falling off this property, after this development there can only be an inch falling off the property.
47
48 Commissioner Pelissier: Thank you.
49
50 Michael Fox: If I could, as a point of personal order. I know it's late, and thus far, until about a
51 half an hour ago, the decorum was excellent, and it was easy to hear everyone, and there were
66
1 no distractions. But, in the last 30 minutes or so, it's become more difficult to hear your
2 questions, and for us to answer when there is noise from the audience. So, I would ask the
3 Chair if you could just remind the audience of your rules of decorum, please.
4
5 Pete Hallenbeck: I believe you did that, and I agree. Even though it's late, we should all try to
6 be civil and do our best to help everybody communicate. Do we have other questions?
7
8 Commissioner Gordon: I just have a procedural question for the attorney. So, you mentioned
9 that if we wanted to have sworn testimony we could continue the hearing. What would be your
10 recommendation in terms of if we wanted to do that? To what date certain would we continue
11 it? How would we go about that?
12
13 James Bryan: If you wanted to have more sworn testimony, you will want to allow both
14 attorneys there to cross examine them. You will want to continue this with both boards,
15 because this is a joint hearing. So, you would continue to the next quarterly public hearing
16 would be my recommendation.
17
18 Commissioner Gordon: Because I was just making kind of a list of all the things that we said
19 we wanted, and some of it would require getting sworn testimony and then giving a person the
20 chance to then cross examine, if we really wanted that. So I think that that would mean we
21 would then continue the public hearing. The date certain would be the next quarterly public
22 hearing, which is in September.
23
24 James Bryan: I believe so.
25
26 Commissioner Gordon: Okay. Well I would suggest that we consider that, because we've got
27 — I've just got a list of a number of things here that we said we wanted and I can't see how we'd
28 get it reliably unless we had sworn testimony and a chance to cross examine.
29
30 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Jacobs. Oh, sorry.
31
32 Commissioner Jacobs: I'll go after Commissioner Rich.
33
34 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Rich.
35
36 Commissioner Rich: So, I'm going to actually follow up with Alice. I think that we should also
37 continue the hearing. I don't' think that we should end it. I think there is too much information
38 out there that we don't have.
39
40 But I have another procedural question, and that is - I don't quite understand — I mean
41 there were a couple of statements tonight that were that the applicant had been involved with
42 this process for quite some time, yet the neighbors have only been involved with it for about 2
43 weeks or 10 days. And I'm just wondering if— I'm just wondering if that's fair. I'm wondering if
44 it's a way that we move forward with all of our procedures, and if—with these hearings— and if it
45 is, I would down the road petition the Board to change it. Because I don't think that making
46 people, our citizens of Orange County, who have lived here and paid taxes for 25, 30 years to
47 only have 2 weeks to gather themselves together, while the applicant has months to talk to you
48 and use your knowledge of the UDO and everything else. I just don't know that that's fair and
49 balanced.
50
67
1 Michael Harvey: My only response, Commissioner is going to be that that is the process as
2 embodied in the unified development ordinance, and that is the process that has been in place
3 during my tenure with Orange County. There's only two exceptions to that; when you have a
4 telecommunications tower, reviewed either as a Class B or a Class A special use permit, the
5 applicant is required to notify everybody of a balloon test, which is typically conducted 14 weeks
6 or so prior to the public hearing. There are also major subdivisions where we are required to
7 hold a neighborhood information meeting. And in those instances where a major subdivision
8 qualifies as a Class A special use permit, being more than 20 lots of proposed development, we
9 hold a neighborhood information meeting. But, those are the only two exceptions to the rule.
10 So class A special use permits, from schools, to solar facilities, to quarry operation, would follow
11 the same procedure.
12
13 Commissioner Rich: And how does one go about petitioning the Board to change that
14 procedure?
15
16 Michael Harvey: Well the current Board policy is, obviously you can petition the Board during a
17 work session to study, particularly request or ask the Chair/Vice Chair to respond to a particular
18 petition. I would, at risk of maybe annoying one of my colleagues, suggest that your next item
19 this evening is discussing the revision to the quarterly public hearing process, and while I don't
20 think this falls into that category, it conceivably would be a point of discussion during that item
21 as well.
22
23 Commissioner Rich: I daresay, with the number of people still to speak and the hour, we are
24 not going to be considering the public hearing item tonight. The next public hearing's date is
25 September 8th, just for information. And also, for information, we found in the siting of satellite
26 facilities for fire departments, that there was no public notification process, and we changed the
27 UDO to require a public information meeting. So, it would certainly be consistent with even
28 what this Board has done within the last year to do no less for items like this.
29
30 My question is for our attorney though. A point was made when the second appraiser
31 for the neighborhood spoke, that he had — he was only making verbal comments, and he had
32 not submitted anything in writing. What is the—We're getting a lot of material. I understand
33 people are submitting writing —writings. What is the effect of testifying without having a written
34 report? Does that make it lesser testimony, not admissible testimony, equivalent testimony?
35 What's that about?
36
37 James Bryan: Oh, I could go on for so long. This is great. So the shortest answer, I think, is
38 nothing. That what you want is the oral testimony. The written is just for ease of looking at it
39 afterward. The only thing that truly matters is what they are saying and what they are testifying
40 to. And there is going to be—when they give something written, they may refer you to it. So,
41 you have an appraiser that says "look at this chart." So they don't have to read every numeral
42 out there. But that's what matters. Written statements, if they've got an affidavit, if somebody
43 has to leave, that's not competent evidence. It has to be competent material and substantial
44 evidence. Competent evidence is somebody here testifying before you, that the opposition gets
45 to cross examine. Pieces of paper offer very little for that.
46
47 Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions for the Commissioners? Okay, next are planning board
48 questions. Indulgence to my colleagues, I have a few questions. I'll read them, and then we'll
49 see if we have any more.
50
68
1 For Mr. Wallace, you mentioned the sound levels that are put out by the inverters, and I
2 believe the figure was on the order of by the time it hit the house it was 45 db. Two questions
3 on that; one, do you have any information on the spectral characteristics of the noise that comes
4 out of the inverters? There is a huge difference between a 45 db sound level at 60 hertz and at
5 480. It's a subjective way to figure out, is this a 45 db that is going to keep you up at night, or
6 can you ignore it. The second thing is; do you know the weighting algorithm that was used to
7 come up with that 45 db figure, so that if it wishes to be verified later, or citizens wish to make
8 measurements, they will know how set their noise meters?
9
10 Mike Wallace: The answer to the second question; I do not. That would have to come from
11 the manufacturers of the inverters. The answer to the first question is; there is that out there
12 published. We do have some of it, and I can get that for you, so you can see what frequencies
13 these db's are coming at.
14
15 Pete Hallenbeck: That would be great. The planning board meets the first Wednesday of the
16 next month. And for Mr. Cleveland; are these panels gonna—are they amorphous silicon, or it
17 is pure crystalline silicon? Do you know.
18
19 Tommy Cleveland: No, they are not amorphous. I'm not sure if they are poly-crystalline or
20 mono-crystalline, but they are—those two are very similar, and amorphous is somewhat
21 different. They are not amorphous.
22
23 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, I'm just curious if you could find out. It's always interesting to see with
24 the trade-offs people are making on panel costs versus the area of the farm. And as I'm sure
25 you know, the poly-silicone crystal —well mono-crystal: smallest, best efficiency; poly: higher;
26 amorphous: higher still. So, I was just curious to see what that trade-off was.
27
28 Tommy Cleveland: Amorphous silicon is significantly less efficient, and there is very little
29 amorphous —sorry, as far as area. I thought you were referring to efficiency, and you said size.
30 So, you were correct.
31
32 Pete Hallenbeck: If you can find out exactly what kind of panel it is, that would be interesting.
33 The second thing is, with regard to the glare, do you know what the Brewster angle is on the
34 cover glass, because that would pretty much determine the glare the residents would see, who
35 are due west of the site?
36
37 Tommy Cleveland: I don't know that, but I could reference you to Sandia National Labs and an
38 FAA glare calculator built specifically for airports and solar sited at airports. They've got a
39 calculator where you can put in, on a Google earth map, the location of the panels and a
40 location of interest and determine if there is glare any hours of the year.
41 I don't like the Brewster angle for those -
42
43 Pete Hallenbeck: I'd still like to see that Brewster angle. I have panels at home. From
44 mowing around during different times of the day, I have some idea of what the glare is. But the
45 situation that we're talking about here is one that comes very close to the equinox. The sun is
46 rising. It's going to hit the panels, and it doesn't matter what the coatings are. As soon as that
47 angle is under the Brewster angle for the glass, it's going to bounce off, and that will be the
48 glare. So, that would be an interesting number that would let us be able to figure out how many
49 days per year there will be glare during the morning.
50
69
1 Tommy Cleveland: And that is included in the Sandia model, so you can consider exactly the
2 tilt of the panels.
3
4 Pete Hallenbeck: Is that something you can get for us?
5
6 Tommy Cleveland: Yes.
7
8 Pete Hallenbeck: That would be great. Thank you. Yes, Michael.
9
10 Michael Harvey: Just a point of clarification. There is obviously some potential with this to be
11 delayed till the September quarterly public hearing. If that is the motion, this will not go to your
12 June planning board meeting. It will go to the September quarterly public hearing.
13
14 Pete Hallenbeck: Is the height of the inverters less than 6 feet? Is it less than the height of the
15 panel, or will the structures with the inverters be taller than the panels?
16
17 Mike Wallace: Yeah, I'm going to have to get that to you. I think it's a 6 foot inverter, but I don't
18 want to state that clearly until I look at the drawing from the manufacturer.
19
20 Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, that would be great to clarify. And then, Commissioner Jacobs asked
21 about getting a, the big picture of both the solar farm area and the surrounding houses, and I
22 would add to that; it would be great if we had a topo map and elevation for that. Because it
23 seems to me that a lot of assessing the visual impact and just how high the trees have to go is
24 going to come down to figuring out how much that panel is going to go up, how much it is going
25 to go down in relation to the houses, and the only thing in this report just shows the topo map for
26 around the field, so it's hard to make that assessment.
27
28 And finally, I'll just echo Commissioner McKee's concern. I wish I had the luxury at my
29 house of being able to just declare that I would mow every certain amount of time, but you tend
30 to mow when the grass gets tall. So, I wondered if there is some way in the application to say, if
31 it's taller than this much, it gets mowed. Food for thought.
32
33 Mike Wallace: Yeah, again, it just was an evaluation based off the site on what we needed.
34 So, if we notice that that needed to be done more than once a month, once every couple of
35 months, we would do that.
36
37 Chair Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, may I? We are going to have to leave the building by 12. I
38 would suggest that we entertain comment from people who signed up to speak till quarter of 12,
39 and then the Board will decide. The Board of Commissioners can decide whether or not to
40 continue the public hearing or refer this to the planning board. And hopefully we can do that in
41 enough time to leave the building in 15 minutes.
42
43 Pete Hallenbeck: That sounds good to me. Those were all my questions. Did the other
44 planning board members have any questions?
45
46 Lisa Stuckey: I have two quick questions. Lisa Stuckey, planning board member. But I wasn't
47 sworn, but I think I'm not required, right? Okay.
48
49 I shared Bernadette's question. If you have like a 30 to 35 foot rise, I wonder if a
50 landscape architect or landscape engineer might be more helpful in determining the size of
70
1 trees and so forth than us just sitting around guessing. It seemed to me maybe that would be
2 an appropriate endeavor.
3
4 And my second question is for Michael. Michael, what kind of uses,just in general, can
5 be made on land that's zoned rural buffer/RB?
6
7 Michael Harvey: From a permitted use standpoint obviously you have single family residential
8 land uses. There are several uses allowed through the issuance of a special use permit. We
9 are talking about one obviously. Schools. Per the code you can have a Class 2 kennel with the
10 issuance of a Class B special use permit. You can have a church, developed as a permitted use
11 of property, going through administrative site plan review and approval. You can have any
12 myriad of government uses as permitted uses of property. And you can have a farm operation,
13 which is not regulated by local zoning, because state law says we can't regulate them. So,
14 there are myriad of different uses.
15
16 Lisa Stuckey: And some of those uses might disrupt the view?
17
18 Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am.
19
20 Andrea Rohrbacher: I'm Andrea Rohrbacher, a planning board member, and I don't know who
21 this question would go to. But, the current meadow as it exists now; what is the maintenance
22 that is provided for that meadow in the way of mowing and upkeep?
23
24 Bob Thomas: The hay has been taken off of that field for all of the years that we have lived
25 here.
26
27 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, so the answer to the question of how is the field is currently mowed is;
28 the field is in hay that is harvested.
29
30 Bob Thomas: Currently, in the last year or two years. It's been —the hay has been taken off
31 all of the years we have lived there. This last year, except— last year or two years? Right now
32 it's growing up. It hasn't been hayed this year.
33
34 Barry Katz: You all know Bob Strayhorn. Bob Strayhorn uses that field - that hay off of that - to
35 feed his bulls. Now Bob has been sick, so he's had friends of his getting together and mowing
36 that field when they can. It's been Strayhorn's hay for many years, but before that it was corn
37 and it was real agricultural crop.
38
39 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, so the field has been in hay. Little disruption, but people are cutting it.
40
41 Barry Katz: Oh yes.
42
43 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, thank you . Alright, we have some people who have signed in to
44 make a comment for three minutes. I'll read out the names that I have signed down here, and if
45 you wish to comment, come on up. If you are happy with what you've heard and don't want to
46 comment, that's okay too. First name I have on the list is Chris Chinchar.
47
48 Pete Hallenbeck: Does she need to be sworn in, or if it's public -
49
50 Chris Chinchar: I was sworn in. Hi, my name is Chris Chinchar, and I have been sworn in.
51 Thank you for being here tonight and especially so late. My partner Pam Lindroos and I bought
71
1 our land on Cascade Drive in the fall of 2004. We fell in love with the neighborhood and its
2 proximity to New Hope Creek and the common land surrounding it. This was exactly where we
3 sought to create a home. It was close to everything, yet so perfectly in the country, bordered by
4 New Hope Creek and a beautiful farm in the other side of Cascade. This was paradise to us.
5
6 Since purchasing our land, we have declined purchase offers for the much desired
7 property, knowing that we were soon going to build. Recently, we have revisited our plans, our
8 ideas, and our timeline for building.
9
10 On Tuesday, May 13, we returned home after visiting family, to a notice that a certified
11 letter was waiting for us at the post office. This letter stated that there would be a hearing two
12 weeks later, on May 27th, tonight, the day after Memorial Day. Plans for a solar array were
13 being considered for the beautiful farm on the other side of Cascade Drive, and these plan
14 indicated that the access road for the solar farm and the inversion station were to be directly
15 across the street from our property.
16
17 We kept our minds open. We read and re-read the letter and studied the included map.
18 We drew up a list of questions, studied the GIS. We googled solar arrays in North Carolina and
19 Sunlight Partners, LLC, the company proposing to lease the site. We found out that Sunlight
20 Partners is a firm in Arizona that has approached a myriad of farms in North Carolina over the
21 past few years.
22
23 I was surprised to see the scale of these farms, the visual density— a seemingly endless
24 sea of panels propped on disturbed soils, and fences warning of high voltage. It was very
25 industrial. This is when the reality set in, that a solar farm is actually a power utility - more
26 attractive in theory and not adjacent to an established neighborhood.
27
28 Do I want to live across from a public utility? The entrance to the 20 foot access road
29 will not allow for screening vegetation there. So, I am sure we will have an unobstructed view of
30 the rising field of solar panels. Am I just mourning the open fenceless fields of golden hay, or
31 frightened by the unknown and unanswerable questions? Is it safe?Will it hum or make noise?
32 Will it be lit up at night, or too reflective or hot during the day? What sort of vegetation or fence
33 will there be, and what will it actually end up looking like? What about the rules regarding
34 impervious surface? Everything drains through our property to the New Hope Creek watershed.
35 What about the wildlife? Do we really want to build a house and live here? And if we don't,
36 who will?
37
38 I wonder if there are more appropriate sites for a public utility— areas where established
39 neighborhood are not affected. I wonder if the best possible practices are being considered. I
40 wonder what this fight will be to keep our neighborhood unaffected and what this is going to cost
41 us.
42 It seems unfortunate that while the utilities profit, undue burden is placed on the
43 neighboring citizens. It seems unfair and disappointing. I sincerely hope that our voices are
44 heard. Thank you.
45
46 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. The next person I have on the list that did not give
47 testimony. Keith Kirkland.
48
49 Keith Kirkland: Good evening. My name is Keith Kirkland and I've been living in Orange
50 County all my life. My family has been in Orange County due to a land grant from the King of
51 England, right up here. They've been here a long time. My concern is mostly the devaluation of
72
1 the property and land surrounding it. And over the years we have always tried to be
2 harmonious with the community and try to keep the property in farm use. I struggle with it every
3 day. I own the horse farm or the farm right across the pasture that most people can see from
4 across Cascade Drive. It's been really difficult to keep it. I was approached by this company
5 too. We got some letters in the mail here not too long ago. I read about it and looked it up
6 online and decided that I was firmly against taking my farm and putting it into a commercial
7 operation, especially when I knew that we were in the buffer zone. And I just can't- it seems
8 kind of contradictory about what we're trying to do in the County. And some of us have
9 struggled for so many years to try to keep family farms and things like this from going on and on
10 and on and on. I know how difficult it is, and I know how fast Johnson grass grows and how
11 much you've got to keep it mowed. So, I'm already there on board with that.
12
13 The maintenance— I also know what kind of maintenance is going to go into taking care
14 of bushes and trees. Now we have felled some trees about 30 years ago back there on the
15 back side of our property. Replanted some pines, and now it's been a little over 30 years now,
16 and those pines are just probably in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 feet and about ready to be
17 trimmed. So, it's been 30 years, and the pine is one of the fastest growing trees that we can
18 have — pines and black gum, unfortunately, and cottonwood. It takes many years to get a tree
19 high enough to cover up these so called —these fence lines they are going to have, especially
20 with the rise and the fall of the land.
21
22 Now in a few years when I get ready to maybe retire and maybe build a little house that
23 would maybe be a little bit more easily maintained —the house I live in was built around in 1851.
24 It's been there a long time. It's difficult for me to maintain when I may be 65 or 70 years old. I
25 had a place picked out. This place would be above a rise, and I would definitely see all of the
26 field of panels. I do not have any pictures to show, but I would be glad to invite everybody here
27 at any time to come by my place. And you are welcome to come by and walk around and take a
28 look. Thank you.
29
30 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. Next on our list, Judith Kramer.
31
32 Judith Kramer: Hello, I am sworn in. My name is Judith Kramer. I put my name on the list
33 because of the short time frame. I wasn't able to attend a meeting of the neighbors in the Falls
34 of New Hope area. I am a resident of the Falls of New Hope Community, although my street
35 does not directly abut the field. But, I certainly defer to what all of the residents have testified
36 about tonight, and the veracity of what was stated very eloquently by them. I would only like to
37 add a couple of points. Personally, as a very strong supporter of renewable energy, I found this
38 a tremendous conflict, and this hearing this evening very disappointing, not in terms of how
39 you've conducted the hearing, but the reality that we don't have a balanced situation where we
40 are balancing community good and the interests of the individuals affected.
41
42 I'd like to point out something that hasn't been pointed out. It's been skirted around.
43 People have talked about how long it would take for the trees to grow, but one of the realities
44 around that is many of the members of our community have been there awhile. As you know,
45 it's been there 50 years, and many of us are retiring. And when you retire and your paycheck
46 stops, you start thinking about what is going to support you in your retirement. And the value of
47 your home is not just a theoretical value to entertain profit, but it could be the source of your
48 income and your ability to move on, if you need additional care, to a different alternative living
49 situation. So, please consider this, and hopefully if you stand by the ordinance or the rule that
50 says you need to maintain property value, it won't be the issue. But, I'm very concerned after
51 listening to the testimony tonight.
73
1 Also, very disappointed to hear the confusing — I'd like to articulate a summary of this
2 testimony on the owner and the confusing partnerships and relationships and the lack of
3 reliability potential in the future that the promises on the application would be maintained. And
4 that's all I'd have to add that's any different than what's been said.
5
6 And I would say that the fact that Mr. Petranka was able to calculate what he did as non-
7 expert— it's very disappointing that the applicant couldn't adjust their plan to the fact that they
8 chose a different array for their inverter that would be cheaper for them; but that they didn't
9 reassess the sound, even to the extent to the extent that Mr. Petranka as a non- expert did.
10
11 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you very much. Next on the list, Melanie Maupin.
12
13 Melanie Maupin: Hi everybody. My name is Melanie Maupin, and thank you so much for
14 being here so late. I'm not happy to be here this late either. It's past my bedtime.
15
16 I think the main thing I want to impress upon you all is the short amount of time that
17 we've had and the incredible amount of work that my friends and neighbors have done to
18 present what has been presented tonight. I feel that our studies are, as much as we've done, is
19 still inadequate. I haven't had time to have my house appraised. Though I have contacted
20 appraisers, there hasn't been time to do that. I live at 5609 Cascade Drive, and if you look at
21 what the materials that were sent out to us, that exact address was given as the approximate
22 address for the site—their office. So you can imagine the shock and dismay when I received
23 this certified letter in the mail, and my address was given as the site for your office. I began to
24 shake. It's terrifying to me what could happen to all of us, and I just want to — I can't speak as
25 eloquently to the issues as most of my friends have. But, I'm grateful for what they've done and
26 how they've supported me and my wellbeing in terms of being able to stay in my house. If this
27 were to be a reality, I would have to move, because I wouldn't be able to— My bedroom literally
28 overlooks the field. My house is directly across from where the driveway would be. I have
29 significant health problems and issues around the noise and the electromagnetic field. I would
30 have to sell my house and move. Thank you.
31
32 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. Carol Blackmore.
33
34 Carol Blackmore: I previously spoke.
35
36 Pete Hallenbeck: Oh, okay. I missed that. I'm sorry.
37 Pete Hallenbeck called the names of several residents who had signed up, but were no longer
38 present. Tom McQuiston.
39
40 Tom McQuiston: I won't keep you long. I don't have a lot to add, but I do live in this
41 neighborhood. I have a degree in metallurgical engineering and material science and studied
42 semi-conductors long time ago. I am a industrial hygienist and I know about noise levels and
43 the issues that need to be addressed that have not, from what I've heard, adequately been
44 addressed, both in terms of what the noise levels will be when the installation occurs, but what
45 the noise levels will be after it has been running for some time. And they will certainly be higher
46 than when the machinery comes out of the box. That's, that's a fact.
47
48 I also know that it will be possible to calculate site views and what neighbors will have to
49 look at, and I recommend that there be a map drawn that clearly indicates, not"it will be as good
50 as we can make it" or "we'll do our best" or "we're meeting our site plan," but what will be the
74
1 reality for the neighbors from various points of view. These are all things that could be
2 calculated and known and not spoken of in terms of generalities and double talk.
3
4 Our neighborhood has demonstrated tonight what being in harmony means. And I
5 suggest that this proposal would only seem to be in harmony with our community and
6 neighborhood if someone were tone deaf. We have spoken with a unified voice, with a
7 harmonious voice. We are strong supporters of the idea of progressive good energy for our
8 community, our nation, and the globe. It is urgent that we do that, but we have not heard here
9 tonight a good argument for doing it in this way. And, so please hear our voices clearly, and
10 think about the issue of the harmony of our community and our County and how we should
11 approach these issues.
12
13 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. We'll have one more opportunity here if the
14 Commissioners have any questions for the applicants. If not, the planning board portion of this
15 meeting is done.
16
17 Chair Jacobs: Well then we at this point could, as I mentioned previously, consider whether or
18 not we want to continue the public hearing or refer the item to the planning board. If we are
19 going to continue the public hearing, then the question is, do we want to identify particular items
20 of information that we request be provided on September 8th, should we continue it to the next
21 quarterly public hearing. So that, that's the issue before us at the moment.
22
23 Commissioner Gordon: Well I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing until
24 September 8th
25
26 Commissioner Rich: Second.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
29 continue to the public hearing to the September 8th Quarterly Public hearing.
30
31 Chair Jacobs: Do we want to articulate. I know there were some things like the storm water
32 issue and the bonding issue that can just be referred to in the ordinance just for reference
33 purposes since they have come up as part of an amalgamation of the items that have been
34 raised this evening. But there are other issues that were raised that would require additional
35 work.
36
37 And I don't know if you've been keeping a list. I'm sure Commissioner Gordon has been
38 keeping a list. I have kept a partial list.
39
40 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. The direct answer to your question is the planning staff has been
41 keeping a list. We also will have the benefit of hopefully having the minutes and the tape to
42 review. My suggestion to you is going to be what we typically do with all of these types of
43 projects, where we summarize questions, concerns, and comments; provide them to the
44 applicant, as well as to Mr. Rooks in this case, the opposing counsel; and indicate which
45 questions we believe staff is best suited to answer, specifically questions on the unified
46 development ordinance and what not; and obviously ask them to respond to your concerns
47 comments and questions in preparation for the September 8th meeting.
48
49 Chair Jacobs: And so some of those information requests might require the applicant to do
50 additional work on specific topics.
51
75
1 Michael Harvey: Yes sir.
2
3 Chair Jacobs: Okay.
4
5 Commissioner Gordon: I just thought of something. We also ought to enter into the record, all
6 of the things that Mr. Harvey asked us to enter into the record, plus all of the things that people
7 have submitted to us. Because he asked us at the beginning to do that, and we never did. So, I
8 suppose I should put that into my motion, or somebody should.
9
10 Michael Harvey: I think it might be appropriate for you at this juncture to reiterate not only
11 entering everything that I asked to be entered in to the record; including the abstract, which
12 contains the application, attachment 1, the vicinity map, staff comments, neighborhood
13 information meeting notices; as well as the copies of the unified development ordinance, the
14 comprehensive plan, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, and the Orange County soil survey; as
15 well as the attachments that I provided you this evening from emails. But, I would also urge the
16 motion include that all evidence submitted from both the applicant and adjacent property owners
17 be entered into the evidence; so all documentation submitted to the clerk be so entered.
18
19 Chair Jacobs: That was part of your motion, wasn't it?
20
21 Commissioner Gordon: Actually, I said it in abbreviated form. I said all of the things that he
22 submitted and all the things that were submitted to us, but that's a better way of saying it.
23
24 Chair Jacobs: Seconder agrees. Is there a discussion of this motion?
25
26 Commissioner Dorosin: Well I'd like to— So there is going to be another, or a continuation of
27 this public hearing. So, I would like to request that the applicant and Mr. Rooks make sure all of
28 the witnesses who testified today are here. So, I would like to ask some follow up questions to
29 some of the folks and so,just for some clarification based on some of the testimony. I know we
30 went a long time and people left. But, if those folks that you brought, Mr. Rooks, and all the
31 folks that you brought would be back again, even if they don't plan on presenting new testimony,
32 so we can ask questions that we didn't get to tonight.
33
34 Chair Jacobs: And to be clear, it will not be in this room. It will be in the Whitted Building,
35 downtown, in our new meeting room, which will be not as cold hopefully, and more
36 commodious. Any other questions or comments before we vote?
37
38 Commissioner McKee: It may have already been asked, but I would also be interested in — it's
39 been mentioned on the storm water— I would be interested in knowing, particularly in looking at
40 this site plan with the elevations, where this water is going, because it's obvious that not all of it
41 is going to the development. There is a fairly, evidently a fairly steep draw that goes in one
42 direction. I'd be interested in knowing where this water is going and in what percentages the
43 water is running off, and in what direction.
44
45 Commissioner Pelissier: Yeah, that was part of my question.
46
47 Chair Jacobs: Okay we have a motion that's been seconded to continue this item.
48
49 James Bryan: Mr. Chair, may I interject just a reminder about ex-parte evidence, that this, as
50 a quasi-judicial hearing, and this is good information for the many witnesses, that the only
51 evidence that this Board can hear is the evidence presented during the actual hearing. So, if
76
1 you see them in the grocery store, please do not mention this. Don't send them emails. Don't
2 call them, anything like that. Everything must be done in the hearing.
3
4 Chair Jacobs: And I must say, although I understand through staff that we were invited to
5 come out to the community to discuss this, that's the reason that staff recommended that we not
6 do that. It's not that we are not interested in what the community has to say. And I think
7 testimony that we're all still here is at least partial evidence that we are interested, but we are
8 trying to follow the rules to the best of our ability. And especially as the state legislature works
9 to constrict what we do, it's even more important for us to follow the rules that we have, so we
10 don't give them more ammunition to attack our authority even more.
11
12 So we have a motion that's been seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed. Motion
13 carries unanimously.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Chair Jacobs: Mr. Benedict has a comment before we adjourn.
18
19 Craig Benedict: Good evening. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections
20 Director. I've heard a lot of comments tonight about procedure, public hearing procedure. As
21 you know, we did have another item tonight to talk about how we could provide more
22 information and opportunities.
23
24 So, even the Commissioners tonight spoke of how much notice people get before
25 specific items. Well, presently the unified development ordinance lists certain uses and the time
26 frames involved. I think now that this, you've decided to delay this to the September 8th
27 meeting, staff could begin working on kind of an adjunct process to what Perdita Holtz will be
28 working on - about how to re-do our public hearing process.
29
30 So, we'll try to get to the Commissioners in June, kind of what we heard you talking
31 about tonight, about having more opportunity timeframe for residents to be involved in what
32 happens in their community. And that might be an idea for uses such as this or other uses that
33 we may identify, how the Commissioners can review and how the public can be involved with a
34 neighborhood information meeting. As was mentioned by Commissioner Jacobs, with public
35 uses such as even a fire station, the Commissioners recognized that that was something that
36 the community might be interested in, positive or negative.
37
38 So this can be an opportunity that we can bring back in September, if that's a time frame
39 that my staff can develop. It would be an item that occurs after, you know, the adjudication of
40 this specific item. But, if the Board would like planning staff, through the manager's office and
41 the attorney's office to pursue this, we'll see what we can come up with in the next few weeks.
42
43 Chair Jacobs: I think the Board would like you to do that, and we appreciate your offering that
44 improvement.
45
46 So, with that, if there is no further item — Mr. Manager, you have anything? Mr.
47 Attorney? I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
48
49 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
50 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing process for
51 Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
77
1
2 DEFERRED
3
4 A. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, second by Commissioner Price to
7 adjourn the meeting at 11:43 pm.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 Barry Jacobs, Chair
12
13
14 David Hunt
15 Deputy Clerk
16
1
1 Attachment 6
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 JUNE 3, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June
10 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
24
25 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
26 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following list of items at the Commissioner's places:
27 - PowerPoint for Item 5a — Draft Orange County Parks and Recreation
28 Master Plan 2030
29 - White Sheets — Substitute for item 6i - Memorandum of Agreement with Town of
30 Hillsborough to Protect Archaeological Resources on Town and County Properties
31 within the Town Limits
32 - PowerPoint for Item 7b— Orange County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation Construction
33 Bid Award
34 - PowerPoint for Items 7c- Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments
35 — Revisions to Existing Language Ensuring Agricultural Activities are Allowed
36 Throughout the Rural Buffer as well as Density and Minimum Lot Size Clarification
37 - PowerPoint for Item 7d_Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments —
38 Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification
39 - White sheets —Staff Responses to Commissioner Gordon's concerns regarding Items
40 7c and 7d — Joint Planning Land use Plan and Agreement Amendments
41 - White sheets - Staff Responses to Commissioner Gordon's concerns regarding Items
42 5a- Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030, and 6j — Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for
43 Solid Waste.
44 - White Sheets - Chair/Vice Chair Petition Response letter from the May 20th petitions
45
46 Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner McKee will be late.
47
48 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
49
50 2. Public Comments
2
1 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
2 Nettie Lassiter lives in Hillsborough. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners
3 for all of their hard work. She expressed her concerns about the noise impact to her
4 neighborhood as a result of the chiller situation at the Whitted Building. She said the noise
5 from the current machine is like a train that never stops, and it goes 24 hours a day. She said
6 she understands this is supposed to be temporary, but 6 weeks is still a long time for her
7 neighborhood to be subjected to that noise.
8 Jenn Weaver lives in the Town of Hillsborough. She is a Town Board member, but she
9 is here tonight as a citizen. She said the chiller is incredibly loud, and 6 weeks is a very long
10 time. She said the neighborhood would appreciate it if something could be done.
11 Chair Jacobs said he forwarded Jenn Weaver's email to Jeff Thompson and Michael
12 Talbert. He said it has already been 2 weeks, and there are only 4 weeks left. He said staff will
13 work with the contractor to see if sound baffles can be put up for the remaining month.
14
15 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
16 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
17 below.)
18
19 3. Petitions by Board Members
20 Commissioner Gordon noted that when agendas are posted online you have to
21 download the whole agenda for one item. She has noticed that the planning department
22 numbers all of their agenda pages to allow individual pages to be looked at, printed or
23 downloaded. She would petition that the Commissioners do something similar to this, where
24 pages are numbered, and also individual items can be selected for viewing without downloading
25 the whole agenda.
26 Commissioner Pelissier said this is a re-petition to her request on March 6 that a follow
27 up letter be sent to Chapel Hill and to the Mayor in reference to affordable housing near transit
28 stops. She said there needs to be a process to ensure follow up.
29 Chair Jacobs said a letter was sent, and there has been no response.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board members did not get a copy of this.
31 Chair Jacobs said the letter would be sent again, and a copy will be sent to the
32 Commissioners.
33 Donna Baker said she is happy to send the original letter to Mayor Kleinschmidt and
34 Manager Stancil, with a copy to the Board.
35 Chair Jacobs said he was at the NCACC agricultural committee meeting last week. He
36 said there was considerable discussion about solar installations and what a headache these are
37 for a number of jurisdictions. He said there was discussion that these should not be called solar
38 farms, as they have nothing to do with agriculture. He asked staff to do some investigating over
39 the summer regarding other governments' ordinances and the problems that have been seen.
40 He noted that nothing has any effect on projects currently before the Board, but subsequent to
41 those projects this information may provide different ways of viewing the installations.
42
43 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
44 a. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation — Multiple Farms —
45 Poole, Redding, T.W. Parker, McKee, Johnson, Soehner, R. Parker,
46 Williams/Wilson, and Walker
47 The Board considered applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying
48 farmland within the Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Schley/Eno, Cane Creek/Buckhorn, and White
49 Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary
50 Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs.
3
1 Gail Hughes presented the following PowerPoint slides:
2 Orange County
3 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
4 Agricultural Program
5 • June 3, 2014
6
7 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program
8 Benefits of Agricultural Districts
9 ➢ Voluntary Agricultural District is a 10 year commitment but the landowner can be
10 withdrawn from the VAD at any time, for any reason, with a 30 day notification.
11 ➢ Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District is an irrevocable 10 year commitment, therefore
12 the "enhanced" qualifies farm for 90% cost share rates and a priority for grants funds.
13
14 Benefits include:
15 ➢ Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of
16 the county;
17 ➢ Recorded notice of agricultural district is recorded at County Land Records office;
18 ➢ Land search on all properties within a 1/2 mile radius is notified of the agricultural status;
19 therefore, the landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits.
20 ➢ Public hearings for proposed condemnation of VAD land and utility assessments may be
21 suspended or waived on EVAD land if not connected to the utility.
22 ➢ Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still
23 maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only)
24
25 Dwight Poole
26 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
27 Farm includes pasture, vegetable crops, livestock and managed woodland/forestry.
28 EVAD = 19.87 acres
29 VAD = 18.33 acres
30
31
32 Cecelia Redding
33 Caldwell Agricultural District
34 Farm includes vegetable, fruit, small grain, and hay crops; shiitake mushrooms, and
35 managed forestry/woodland.
36 EVAD =151.06 acres
37
38 Parker Farm
39 T. Watson, Penny, Thomas Parker
40 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
41 Farm includes a poultry operation, beef cattle, hay crops, and managed
42 forestry/woodland.
43 VAD = 82.22 acres
44
45 David and Vickie McKee
46 Caldwell (21.15 ac.) and
47 Buckhorn/Cane Creek (147.64 ac.)
48 Agricultural Districts
49 Farm includes beef cattle operation, pasture, corn, grain, soybeans, hay crops, and
50 managed forestry/woodland
4
1 EVAD = 95.55 acres
2 VAD = 73.24 acres
3
4 Ben Johnson
5 (originally Bacon Farm)
6 Schley/Eno Agricultural District
7 -revise ownership-
8 Farm includes pasture, hay, corn, pumpkins, and vegetable crops.
9 VAD= 71.02 acres
10 Has applied for the Century Farm designation
11
12 John and Cindy Soehner
13 White Cross Agricultural District
14 Farm includes vegetable crops and shiitake mushrooms, and woodland.
15 VAD= 22.31 acres
16
17 Parker Family Farm
18 Randall Parker
19 (jointly owned parcels: J. Scott Parker, Bonnie P. Tate)
20 Caldwell Agricultural District
21 Farm includes pastured pork and poultry operation, produce/vegetable, tobacco, and
22 small grain crops.
23 VAD =94.17 acres
24
25 Edwards Place LLC
26 Jane D. Williams & Carolyn Wilson
27 White Cross Agricultural District
28 Farm includes managed woodland and forestry acres for timber and wildlife
29 VAD= 137 acres
30
31 Norman Walker
32 Caldwell Agricultural District
33 Farm includes managed woodland/forestry acres for timber and wildlife, and pasture
34 and farmstead
35 VAD= 15.55 acres*
36
37 Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept six (8) farms into the program and
38 an ownership revision for one (1) farm.
39 • 516 acres in the VAD
40 • 265 acres in the EVAD.
41 • If approved, total of acres in both programs:
42 VAD = 6046 acres; EVAD= 877 acres
43 • Total Acres in Program = 6923 acres
44 • Overview Map
45 June 2014
46 • VAD = 6046 acres
47 • EVAD = 877 acres
48 Total Acres = 6923*
49 * = rounded acres
50
5
1 Gail Hughes noted that the slide for the Parker Farm should reflect the inclusion of 30 to
2 40 acres of woodland tracts.
3 Chair Jacobs thanked the families present for their attendance at the meeting.
4 Commissioner Price noted a discrepancy in the numbers.
5 Gail Hughes said this is likely just a result of rounding. She will get this clarified.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
8 the Board to certify the nine (9) farm properties noted above totaling 514.52 acres (VAD) and
9 266.48 acres (EVAD) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland, and
10 designate them as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farm within the Cedar
11 Grove, Caldwell, Schley/Eno, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the
12 lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary
13 Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. With approval of these additional acres, the Orange
14 County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 47 farms, totaling 6,046 acres
15 in the VAD and 877 acres in the EVAD for a total of 6,923 acres (rounded).
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Chair Jacobs expressed his appreciation for the agricultural community and their
20 participation in this program.
21 Gail Hughes said she had double checked her numbers and there were some acres on
22 revisions that had been double counted. She said the approved acres are correct.
23
24 b. Resolution Recognizing Judd Edeburn for his Work with Duke Forest
25 The Board considered a resolution recognizing Judson "Judd" Edeburn for his work with
26 Duke Forest, especially portions within Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
27
28 Chair Jacobs read the resolution as follows:
29
30 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
31
32 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JUDD EDEBURN FOR HIS WORK WITH DUKE FOREST
33
34 WHEREAS, Judson "Judd" Edeburn started working as the Resource Manager for Duke Forest
35 in 1978, and Duke Forest is located in portions of Durham, Orange and Alamance
36 counties; and,
37
38 WHEREAS, Duke University is the largest property owner in Orange County due to the
39 presence of Duke Forest; and,
40
41 WHEREAS, Duke Forest anchors the Rural Buffer, a land use creation that protects open
42 space and sensitive natural resources in southern Orange County; and,
43
44 WHEREAS, Duke Forest has evolved to a teaching and research laboratory, has grown to over
45 7,000 acres with sections registered as a North Carolina Natural Heritage Site,
46 and has hosted an estimated 164,000 visitors in a single year; and,
47
48 WHEREAS, Edeburn's commitment to land conservation helped to facilitate Orange County's
49 purchase of portions of Duke Forest no longer needed by the University including
6
1 the McGowan Creek Preserve near the Eno River and Efland and at New Hope
2 Preserve on Erwin Road; and,
3
4 WHEREAS, under Edeburn's stewardship, Duke Forest has managed to maintain its research
5 mission while facilitating the use of significant portions of the acreage for
6 recreation by Orange County residents; and,
7
8 WHEREAS, in a spirit of collaboration, Edeburn worked with Orange County to designate a
9 portion of Duke Forest to serve as the required buffer for the construction and
10 demolition landfill north of Eubanks Road; and,
11
12 WHEREAS, Edeburn's low-key but determined advocacy for Duke Forest has enabled it to
13 withstand repeated efforts by University leadership to convert these key lands to
14 development uses that would forever change their character and that of the
15 communities that abut them; and,
16
17 WHEREAS, Judd Edeburn has led the growth of Duke Forest for over 35 years —growth of
18 both the ecosystem and of research projects;
19
20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
21 hereby recognize Judd Edeburn for his progress in environmental research and
22 commitment to the preservation of natural resources globally, including Orange
23 County, and we do hereby wish him well in his retirement and future endeavors.
24
25 This the third day of June 2014.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon for the
28 Board to approve and to authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution recognizing Judd
29 Edeburn for over 35 years of service managing Duke Forest and preserving local natural
30 resources for the people of Orange County.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 Judd Edeburn expressed his thanks to the Board.
35
36 5. Public Hearings
37 a. Public Hearing - Draft Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
38 The Board provided an opportunity for public comment on the draft Orange County
39 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030.
40 Dave Stancil said parks are important places to commune with nature, exercise, relax,
41 recreate, and play sports. He said recreation programs play a critical role in personal
42 development, encouraging social interaction, fighting health concerns, and teaching art and life
43 skills. He finds it useful when looking at the future of parks and recreation in Orange County, to
44 pause and ask why we do these things.
45
46 Dave Stancil presented the following PowerPoint slides:
47
48 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
49 Public Hearing Draft—June 3, 2014
50
7
1 A Brief History
2 • Rec Programs Since 1960's
3 • 1990's Reports 4 1997 & 2001 Bonds
4 • 1988 Master Plan - Opened 1st park 1998
5
6 Overview of System - 2014
7 • 9 Facilities and Locations
8 • 5 Parks
9 • One Soccer Center
10 • 2 Recreation/ Community Centers
11 • One Greenway
12
13 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:35 p.m.
14
15 Planned Future Facilities
16 4 Future Parks (land-banked sites)
17 • 2 Nature Preserves with trails and access areas
18 • 1 New Community Center
19
20 Recreation Programs/Services
21 • Programs offered for youth and adults
22 • Total program enrollment up 41% since 2009
23 • Wide range of programs — sports, arts, life skills
24 • Special Events (Egg Hunt, Fishing Rodeo, etc)
25 • All senior programs through Department on Aging
26
27 Population —Current Snapshot
28 • County population = 138,000 (2012)
29 • Around 60,000 in traditional "service area"
30 • 20% of County under 18
31
32 Population — Future Trends?
33 • Top 10 Nationally in Education Level
34 • Above-average median income masks 17% below poverty
35 • By 2030, County could have 173,000 persons
36 • Expect 70-80,000 in service area?
37
38 Community Needs Assessments
39 • Perhaps most important component of master plan
40 • How does public view current facilities/programs and future needs?
41 • Several components (youth, statistical random-sample, online, targeted groups)
42 • Statistical survey administered by UNC-G profs
43 • Total of 835 surveys received
44
45 Summary of Survey Results
46 Facility Usage and Experience
47 • Most used facilities:
48 o Sportsplex
49 o Central Rec Center
8
1 o Little River Park
2 o Eurosport Soccer Center
3
4 • Safety, maintenance and operations of parks get high marks (89-96% approval)
5 • 93% agreed parks and programs enhance economic health.
6 • 96% agreed parks and programs enhance physical and mental well-being
7
8 Summary of Survey Results
9 Most Popular Programs/Events
10 PROGRAMS
11 Youth Soccer
12 Youth Basketball
13 Open Gymnasium
14 Volleyball
15 EVENTS
16 Little River Trail Run
17 Annual Egg Hunt
18 Halloween Event
19 Fishing Rodeo
20 Earth Day Fair
21
22 Summary of Survey Results
23 Most Desired New Programs/Facilities
24 PROGRAMS
25 Hiking
26 Swimming
27 Walking
28 Yoga, Biking, Camps
29 FACILITIES
30 Walking/hiking Trails
31 Nature Trails
32 Swimming Pool
33 Greenways
34 Sprayground, amphitheatre
35
36 Other Responses
37 • Expand outdoor recreation (82% agree)
38 • Expand low-impact recreation (79%)
39 • Trail system linking various areas of county (89%)
40 • Indoor athletic complex? (64%)
41 • Parks help reduce crime? (81%)
42
43
44 Funding Strategy Responses
45 • Donations and Grants (95/94% agree)
46 • Use Existing Local Taxes (73% agree)
47 • Voter-approved Bonds (70% agree)
48 • Existing Property Taxes (70% agree)
49 • User Fees (68% agree)
9
1 • Increase New Local Taxes (34% agree)
2
3 Focus Groups and Open Houses
4 7 Focus Groups Held:
5 Soccer Facilities
6 Trails and Connectivity
7 Public Health and Parks
8 Park Facility Needs
9 Recreation Programs
10 Nature/Env. Programs
11 County/Town Coordination
12
13
14 6 Open Houses, etc
15 Main Themes Heard:
16 More biking and hiking trails
17 Artificial Turf fields
18 When will new parks open? (Blackwood Farm)
19 More soccer fields/centers
20
21
22 Important Themes and Topics
23 • Linking to the Goals/Objectives in Comp Plan
24 • Synchronizing and coordinating with Town plans
25 • State parks, OWASA, Schools, Others
26 • Economic benefits of parks, rec and open space
27 • Important linkages to public health, opportunities
28 • Parks and conserving our natural resources
29
30 Standards and Findings
31 A number of changed conditions since 1988
32 Park Classifications:
33 School Park
34 Community Park (usually 40-75 acres)
35 District Park (usually 75-125 acres)
36 Regional Park (usually 150 acres +)
37 Nature Preserve Access Areas
38 Standards: Best Approach - use community needs
39
40 Standards and Findings
41 • Proposed Guiding Principles for Park Standards
42 • Continue to Use Population-Based as Benchmark
43 • Service Areas Defined Existing plans and policies
44 o 4 Districts
45 • Overall — Set of 20 Findings Identified (pg 9-13)
46
47 Goals and Objectives
48 • Previously-created in Comprehensive Plan
49 • 5 Goals with objectives for each
50 • Plan strategies attempt to address these
10
1
2 Recommendations
3 • Weighing All the Data and Findings
4 • Basis of Park Planning in Place (districts, 1988 plan, CIP)
5 • Proactive Acquiring of Sites = Few "new" Parks Needed
6
7 Recommendations
8 1. Protect Investment in Parks and Open Space
9 a. Multi-Million $ Investment
10 b. Facility Renovation and Repairs
11 c. Operating and Maintenance
12 2. Build Planned Future Parks (pg 10-12)
13 a. CIP and Lands Legacy Have "Set the Table"
14 b. 4 New Parks
15 c. 5 Future Phases at Existing Parks
16 d. 2 (3) Nature Preserves with Publicly-Accessible Areas
17
18 Recommendations
19 3. Complete Nature Preserves, Provide Access
20 4. Structure for Multi-Partner Capital Facilities
21 5. Master Plan for Orange County MST Segment
22 6. Build More Trails, Connections
23
24 Recommendations
25 7. Improve Access, Promote Healthy Lifestyles
26 8. Recreation Program Needs, Partnerships
27 9. Examine Role of Community Centers
28 a. Types of programs, offerings
29 b. Hours and usage expectations
30 c. Facilities and amenities
31
32 Issues for Further Study
33 • System Level of Service
34 • Review Land Dedication, P-i-L
35 • Coordination of County, SportsPlex Programs
36 • Need for Public Pool?
37 • Plan Updates (5/10)
38 • Artificial Turf Playing Fields?
39
40 Dave Stancil said one thing that has changed since 1998 is that the formulaic
41 mathematical approach to determining park needs has given way to a more community needs
42 based approach.
43 Dave Stancil reviewed the Parks map.
44 He said the proposal moving forward is that the County conduct new needs
45 assessments every 5 years and schedule a formal update of the plan in 10 years.
46 He referenced a video of a fox at the Little River Park that gained high viewership on
47 YouTube.
48 Commissioner Gordon said the information did not show the townships' populations
49 separated out. She provided a hand out with this information.
50
11
1 The following is included for the record:
2
3 Questions/ comments —from Commissioner Gordon via email for June 3, 2014 BOCC meeting
4
5 A. Draft Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2040
6
7 Page 9-Attachment 2 - Planned Schedule of Park Construction (as per CIP)
8 Twin Creeks District Park, Phase II and III
9
10 This park is scheduled for> FY19-20. Given that there is a master plan for this park which was
11 approved years ago, and given that at least one member of the public spoke in favor of moving
12 forward with this park (in a hearing last year, I believe), why is this park so low on the priority
13 list? All that has been built there is a trail, and that was constructed utilizing federal ARRA
14 funds.
15 What is the cost of Phase II and Phase III? Could we at least move Phase II forward to an
16 earlier time period? Please give an update on the status of this park.
17
18 Staff notes the following regarding Twin Creeks:
19
20 a) It is expected that the County will need to help fund the construction of the east-west
21 road shared by Ballentine subdivision (MI Homes) and the County along the southern
22 boundary of Twin Creeks, but it is not known when this road would be built. MI Homes
23 and Carrboro are not in agreement on whether a bond should be provided for a possible
24 future stream crossing (perhaps an additional$750,000).
25 b) The road and stream crossing question is pending analysis by the Town of Carrboro on
26 storm water and transportation patterns in the area. It is County staff's understanding this
27 work is underway by Town staff, but County staff does not know the status.
28 c) Cost estimates to build the drive, parking, two soccer fields and associated
29 infrastructure (storm water, sidewalks, etc.) exceeded available funds in 2007 when last
30 examined. It is expected that the total cost to build the paved drive, parking and two
31 soccer fields will exceed$2 million. This does not include the share of the east-west
32 road mentioned in "a)"which is $600,000-$750,000. Because of the high "start-up"
33 costs, funding the remaining phases has been shown in Years 6-10. There is $600,000
34 funding for the share of the road previously-appropriated. Approximately$429,000
35 remains from the original park funds.
36
37 PUBLIC COMMENT:
38 Allen Green is a member of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and he relayed an
39 experience from a recent trip to Western Australia. He said he and his son hiked 600 miles,
40 and the key was the connectivity and the network of trails between the towns and camping
41 spaces. He said this gave him a vision for what Orange County could be like. He said there is
42 a lot to see in this area, and he could see the greenways and Mountains to Sea Trail being
43 used in this way. He said more connectivity will mean a healthier population.
44
45 Commissioner Rich said survey data showed that the public wanted more walking and
46 hiking trails. She said a similar survey with the Town of Chapel Hill showed this same need.
47 Dave Stancil agreed that this is a shared interest.
48 Commissioner Price said as this plan continues, the community centers need to be open
49 and accessible more often. She said staff is getting there with the notion of partnering and
50 working with non-profits and schools in the area.
12
1 Commissioner Price said she has some concerns with costs associated with use of the
2 facilities. She referenced the $25 fee for use of the basketball court and asked if these costs
3 are for groups.
4 Dave Stancil said this is to reserve the court for personal use. He said anyone can do
5 pick up play for free.
6 Commissioner Dorosin said this plan is comprehensive; but the view is very general, and
7 it would be more useful for him and residents to see a more micro view of what will happen over
8 the next 5 years. He said for example, it would be useful to have a supplement that outlines
9 specific programs planned for each park, and the timeline for these programs. He said this is a
10 way of highlighting the work that is being done. He said this plan gives good detail of the
11 administrative work that has been done, and this is good; however the community wants to
12 know when things are going to be put in place and ready to use. He said turning from abstract
13 to practical is critical.
14 Dave Stancil said this is a logical next step, and staff will try to have these answers at
15 the next presentation of this item.
16 Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. He said if there is going to be a bond
17 in 2016, staff needs to provide information on items to be funded. He said there are no pre-
18 approved plans for either the Julia Blackwood Farm or the Kirby property. He said there has
19 been discussion with Chapel Hill about having soccer fields at Julia Blackwood farm, and he
20 feels it is important to work with the municipalities to provide services. He thinks it would be
21 timely to see plans for the short term. He noted that extension of Orange Grove Road will wipe
22 out the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association (HYAA) ball fields. He said this extension is a
23 high priority project for the Town of Chapel Hill, but there needs to be conversation with
24 Hillsborough about how to partner and possibly re-visit the plan for Fairview Park or the Collins
25 property.
26 He said the Greene Tract has also not been addressed. He said the County made a
27 commitment to protect this acreage, and this has not been put into the plans. He would like to
28 see all of these things come back in the short term in preparation for the bond in 2016.
29 Chair Jacobs referred to Allen Green's comments and said there was vision for a trail
30 system from the southern part of the County all the way to Eno River State Park and Chapel Hill
31 is dedicating a greenway on Saturday morning. He said the bond package in 2001 had money
32 allocated to that purpose. He said staff might want to re-visit the thinking about connectivity.
33 Dave Stancil said he agrees with these comments. He said staff was talking with
34 Hillsborough today about following up with Fairview, and this conversation will provide an
35 opportunity to talk about ball fields. He said this plan shows what staff thinks is on the horizon
36 in terms of next steps for master plans and projects, but when this comes back it will include an
37 action plan as well.
38 Commissioner Gordon asked if staff could somehow move up the Twins Park plan
39 (phases 2 and 3). She said this has been an approved plan since 2005, and this is ready to go.
40 She said an approved plan is already in place and she would like to see something happen a
41 little sooner than it is listed.
42 She said she is very happy to see a parks master plan.
43 Commissioner Price asked for clarification of what is meant by "most parks" on page 10.
44 She said more specificity is needed here.
45
46 PUBLIC COMMENT:
47 Reverend Robert Campbell asked how the Julia Blackwood Farm could be tied into the
48 Rogers Road community and the schools in the area through the use of recreation trails. He
49 asked if this is part of the concept. He said these trails would be highly used by their
50 community. He said this would provide exercise opportunities.
13
1 Chair Jacobs said this has been discussed in the past, and there are some unofficial
2 trails already there.
3 Dave Stancil said the recommendation on trail connectivity was a priority on their
4 surveys. He would anticipate that this would be part of the conversation.
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich close the
6 public hearing.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price for
11 the Board to refer the Master Plan to the Board of Health, Economic Development Commission,
12 Planning Board, Orange United Transportation Board, Commission for the Environment, Board
13 on Aging, and Historic Preservation Commission for review and comment (and any other
14 advisory boards as deemed warranted), and that all such comments be forwarded by August
15 31, 2014 to the Parks and Recreation Council for use in developing a recommendation to the
16 Board of Commissioners, as noted above.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 6. Consent Agenda
21 Chair Jacobs noted a substitution for item 6i.
22
23 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
24 Commissioner Gordon removed item 6j — Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste.
25
26 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
28 approve the remaining items on the agenda.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
33 j. Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste
34 The Board considered awarding a bid to Freightliner of Austin, 1701 Smith Road, Austin,
35 TX for a Hook Lift Truck at a delivered cost of$193,225 for the Sanitation Division of the Solid
36 Waste Management Department.
37
38 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on why this truck should be purchased at
39 this time and how the purchase will affect the general fund.
40
41 The following email from Commissioner Gordon regarding questions/concerns on this
42 item is included for the record:
43
44 Item 6-j - Bid Award - Hook-Lift Truck for Solid Waste
45 According to the agenda abstract, this truck was originally scheduled for replacement in 2014-
46 15 but the Solid Waste Fund has available funds in the current fiscal year operating budget.
47
48 Please explain why this truck purchase should be made this fiscal year.
49
50 STAFF RESPONSE:
14
1 The Hook-Lift Truck has been scheduled to be purchased in FY 2014/15.
2
3 Staff has a desire to minimize the General Fund contribution to the Solid
4 Waste/Sanitation budget. Staff also attempts to maintain ongoing judicious oversight of
5 expenditures, which has resulted in a Department FY 13/14 under-expenditure sufficient
6 to fund the $193,225 truck purchase. Based upon discussion by the Finance Director,
7 County Manager and Solid Waste Director of the projected under-expenditure sufficient
8 enough to purchase the truck, and at the recommendation of the Director(with the
9 objective of limiting general fund contributions to the solid waste budget by not adding
10 the $193,225 to the already requested $1,856,543), a general consensus was reached that
11 advancing the purchase of the truck presented a financial opportunity and was a prudent
12 financial decision, given that the advance purchase period was only about 2-3 months
13 prior to the FY 2014/15 scheduled purchase.
14
15 Sanitation's Hook-Lift trucks are seeing significantly increased mileage hauling to the
16 Durham Transfer Station and prompt replacement is necessary to maintain reliable
17 collection and disposal schedules.
18
19 Gayle Wilson said the hook lift truck was scheduled to be purchased in the 2014-2015
20 budget; however it is a sanitation truck. He said that was included in the general fund
21 contribution. He said if this had been continued and purchased, it would have been bid on in
22 July and approved in September. He said at the end of the year it was projected that there
23 would be sufficient unspent funds in the sanitation budget to purchase the truck. He said the
24 decision was made to purchase it out of unspent funds instead of adding this to the general
25 fund. He said this would reduce the recommended general fund contribution to sanitation and
26 allow purchase of the truck 3 months earlier than otherwise planned.
27 Commissioner Gordon asked if this is just a matter of which year the general fund
28 contribution will be reduced.
29 Gayle Wilson said this will reduce the general fund contribution next year. He said
30 staff's recommendation does not include that truck, as it is proposed to be purchased this year.
31 Clarence Grier said the truck will be purchased with solid waste funds that are available
32 in the solid waste budget for this current 2013-2014 fiscal year. He said this will not increase
33 the general funds contribution for sanitation for this year or next fiscal year.
34 Commissioner Gordon said she wants to make sure that the general fund contribution is
35 less for next year if this was purchased this year.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
38 award a bid to Freightliner of Austin, 1701 Smith Road, Austin, TX for a Hook Lift Truck at a
39 delivered cost of$193,225 for the Sanitation Division of the Solid Waste Management
40 Department.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 a. Minutes
45 The Board approved the minutes from April 15 and March 11, 2014 as submitted by the Clerk to
46 the Board.
47 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
48 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
49 property tax values for seventeen (17) taxpayers with a total of eighteen (18) bills that will result
50 in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
15
1 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
2 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
3 values for two (2) taxpayers with a total of four (4) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue
4 in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
5 d. FY 2014-15 Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Funding Plan
6 The Board approved the recommended Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) for
7 Older Adults Funding Plan for FY 2014-15 and authorized the Chair to sign.
8 e. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy
9 The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board's adoption
10 and continued use of Orange County's travel policy.
11 f. Commemorative Plaque Proof for Recently Commissioned Facilities
12 The Board approved a general commemorative plaque proof in order that the commemorative
13 plaques can be manufactured and installed for recently commissioned County facilities.
14 g. Potential Funding Assistance for Fairview Community Watch through Orange
15 Tennis Club
16 The Board approved a request for $2,000 in matching funds for Fairview Community Watch
17 Summer Monitoring Program at the County's Fairview Park.
18 h. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2014
19 The Board approved the following changes to the County Commissioners' regular meeting
20 calendar for 2014: Changing the remaining 2014 BOCC meetings, starting in September,
21 originally scheduled for the Link Government Services Center and Hillsborough Commons
22 (DSS Meeting Room) TO the newly renovated Whitted Building Meeting Room at 300 West
23 Tryon St., Hillsborough, N.C.
24 i. Memorandum of Agreement with Town of Hillsborough to Protect Archaeological
25 Resources on Town and County Properties within the Town Limits
26 The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign the revised memorandum of
27 agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and the County for the preservation of cultural
28 and archaeological resources.
29
30 7. Regular Agenda
31
32 a. Improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood (8:10-8:30)
33 The Board considered authorizing the Chair to execute an Interlocal Agreement with
34 OWASA for preliminary engineering services for waste water system Improvements
35 (Attachment 5) to serve the Rogers Road Area, and an Agreement with the Jackson Center (to
36 be drafted by the County Attorney) to work in partnership with the Rogers Eubanks
37 Neighborhood Association (RENA) to undertake the community outreach initiative in the Rogers
38 Road Community. A separate reimbursement agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney
39 with both the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to reimburse the County for their share of the
40 project, and will be presented to the Board at the September 4, 2014 regular meeting.
41 Michael Talbert reviewed the history of this item as outlined in the abstract. He noted
42 that there are several resolutions included from the towns, indicating their willingness to move
43 these items forward. He said OWASA met on May 8th and approved the interlocal agreement
44 and the scope of services for preliminary engineering. He said the next step is to move this
45 forward for the neighborhood, and Orange County will become the contracting agent. He said
46 this will come back at a later date with request for approval of a cost share agreement of 43
47 percent for the County, 43 percent for Chapel Hill, and 14 percent for Carrboro. He said the
48 total cost is $180,000, and the County has already approved a budget amendment of$77,400,
49 which equates to 43 percent. He said the two towns should approve their amounts in the fall,
50 and the town managers have assured staff that this money is in next year's budget.
16
1 Michael Talbert said the recommendation is to authorize the Chair to approve the
2 interlocal agreement with OWASA, and the Jackson Center, based on the attached scope of
3 services. He said a separate agreement will come to the Board in the fall, which will also be
4 approved by both towns to reimburse the County for their share of the project.
5 Commissioner Rich said Carrboro was at one point not in favor with the amount
6 presented for outreach. She asked if Carrboro had changed their mind about this.
7 Michael Talbert said Carrboro approved two different resolutions, and the final one
8 directed staff to move forward after some minor changes were made to the scope of services.
9 He said Carrboro was very interested in keeping the scope limited to the 86 parcels that were
10 identified by the task force.
11 Commissioner Price asked if the Jackson Center scope of services was authored by the
12 Jackson Center staff. She asked if the scope of services will be reformatted into the form of a
13 contract.
14 Michael Talbert said the scope of services will be the basis for a contract. He said this
15 was originally drafted by the Jackson Center, and it has gone through several revisions with
16 input from all of the entities. He said this final document has been approved by the Jackson
17 Center and RENA.
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the status of the time table and what the community
19 can expect moving forward.
20 Michael Talbert said the interlocal agreement with OWASA is done, and they have
21 received the proposals, but their board has not awarded the contract. He said once the
22 contract is awarded it will take about 6 months for the work to be completed. He said this
23 means the information will likely be coming back around January for the Board and towns to
24 see. He said the work done by the Jackson Center is a shorter time frame and is noted to be
25 about three and a half months.
26 Commissioner Dorosin asked how the contracted work is different from the plans and
27 costs that the task force spent months looking at.
28 Michael Talbert said the original work was done concept wise by OWASA staff and this
29 is the next step, which allows firm pricing. He said there were 8 lines that comprise the area.
30 He said this will lay those out in terms of what is really feasible, and it will include the
31 preliminary engineering. He said this will give a more defined route for the lines and a better
32 cost estimate.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the drawings that the task force looked at were
34 preliminary engineering drawings.
35 Michael Talbert said these were preliminary drawings, but they were not certified by an
36 engineer. He said these were just a best guess by OWASA staff based on broad based
37 estimates.
38 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the contract for the outreach will be exclusively for the
39 Jackson Center
40 Michael Talbert said yes. He said this will be paid directly to the Jackson Center, and
41 then the Center will sub-contract with RENA.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT:
44 Robert Campbell said he is a representative of the Rogers Road Neighborhood
45 Association (RENA). He said RENA had been in collaboration with the Jackson Center about
46 the work to be done. He said the goal was to put together a package that could be used by all
47 of the municipalities for any other type of project to be complete in and around the Rogers Road
48 neighborhood. He said surveys have been done in the past, but things have changed, including
49 the layout of the neighborhood. He said the parcel being looked at here, has not changed. He
50 said the data that has been gathered over the past 40 years is scattered; but with the mapping
17
1 expertise of the Jackson Center is helping to consolidate this in order to move forward with this
2 project.
3 Elizabeth McCain is from the Jackson Center. She thanked the Board for their time and
4 investment in this plan.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
7 Board to authorize the Chair to execute an Interlocal Agreement with OWASA for preliminary
8 engineering services for waste water system Improvements (Attachment 5) to serve the Rogers
9 Road Area, and an Agreement with the Jackson Center (to be drafted by the County Attorney)
10 to work in partnership with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to
11 undertake the community outreach initiative in the Rogers Road Community. A separate
12 reimbursement agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney with both the Towns of Chapel
13 Hill and Carrboro to reimburse the County for their share of the project, and will be presented to
14 the Board at the September 4, 2014 regular meeting.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 b. Orange County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation Construction Bid Award
19 The Board considered awarding a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North
20 Carolina in the amount of$429,550 for the construction of the Orange County SportsPlex
21 Lobby Renovation; authorizing the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of
22 the County Attorney; and authorizing the County Manager to execute change orders for the
23 project up to the project budget.
24 Jeff Thompson reviewed the recommendation and then showed the construction slide of
25 the space to be renovated at the Sportsplex. He said the purpose of renovation is to increase
26 revenue generating, programmable space. He said this will be done in two phases: 1) Move the
27 pro shop area to the front of the shop; and 2) Create significant addition to the programmable
28 revenue generating space in the center of the lobby.
29
30 John Stock reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
31 Sportsplex Lobby Renovation
32 Bid Award
33 • Consider approving a bid award
34 — Riggs-Harrod Builders, Durham, NC
35 — Not to Exceed $429,550
36 • Authorize Chair to execute construction agreement upon County Attorney review
37 • Authorize County Manager to execute change orders up to the project budget
38
39 Supports Significant Revenue Growth
40 • Add 1,834 Revenue Generating Square Feet
41 • Supports Increased Fitness Membership Growth
42 — High Intensity Training, Zumba, Step
43 — Yoga/Pilates
44 — Specialty Strength/Body Weight Training ("Boot Camp")
45 • Kidsplex Flexibility
46 — After-School and Pre-School Programs
47 — Specialized Kids Programs
48 • Supports Senior Programs and Silver Sneakers
49 • Birthday Party Revenue
50
18
1 Major Facelift for
2 Facility's First Impression
3 • First Major Entrance Area Renovation Since Facility Opening 20 years ago
4 • Estimated to Add $250,000 Annually in Revenue
5
6 Jeff Thompson reviewed the following slide:
7 Sportsplex Lobby Renovation
8 Bid Award
9 • Consider approving a bid award
10 — Riggs-Harrod Builders, Durham, NC
11 — Not to Exceed $429,550
12 • Authorize Chair to execute construction agreement upon County Attorney review
13 • Authorize County Manager to execute change orders up to the project budget
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the originally approved amount was $440,000.
16 Jeff Thompson said yes.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the time table.
18 Jeff Thompson said this project has already gone through two phases of regulatory
19 review and if approved, the project will go right to contract and should be finished up by end of
20 summer. He said this renovation will be done while the center is still operating.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Price for the
23 Board to:
24 1) Award a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North Carolina not to exceed the
25 amount of$429,550 for the construction of the Orange County SportsPlex Lobby
26 Renovation;
27 2) Authorize the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of the County
28 Attorney; and
29 3) Authorize the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project
30 budget.
31
32 Commissioner Rich said residents in Chapel Hill are asking when this facility can be
33 duplicated in the southern part of the county.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said the Sportsplex is in the center of the County, and it is
35 equidistance from all points.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 c. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments — Revisions to
40 Existing Language Ensuring Agricultural Activities are Allowed Throughout
41 the Rural Buffer as well as Density and Minimum Lot Size Clarification(s)
42 The Board considered amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and
43 Agreement modifying language to ensure agricultural activities are allowed throughout the Rural
44 Buffer and to clarify required densities and minimum lot sizes within, and outside of, the
45 University Lake Watershed Area.
46 Chair Jacobs noted that there are answers to some of the Board questions included in
47 the documents at the Commissioners' places.
48 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract documents and presented the following
49 PowerPoint slides:
50
19
1 JUNE 3, 2014
2 AGENDA ITEM: 7-C
3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND
4 AGREEMENT
5
6 BACKGROUND:
7 • Presented at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing.
8 • Town of Chapel Hill Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of proposal.
9 — Town of Chapel Hill Town Council will review at its June 9, 2014 regular meeting.
10 • Town of Carrboro Planning Board, as well as other local advisory boards, have reviewed
11 and recommended approval.
12 — Town of Carrboro Board of Alderman is reviewing this item at its June 3, 2014
13 regular meeting.
14
15 ISSUES/CONCERNS:
16 • Agricultural Areas land use category is not depicted on maps contained within the Plan.
17 No properties appear to be designated within this category.
18 — NOTE: Current language could be misconstrued as establishing limits with
19 respect to allowable locations for agricultural operations, which is inconsistent
20 with State Law. This needs to be corrected.
21 • Rural Residential land use category does not specify a density limit (minimum lot size
22 only).
23 — NOTE: County staff has interpreted there to be a `defacto' density limit in the
24 areas of the Plan not located within the University Lake Watershed Area of 1
25 dwelling unit for every 2 acres.
26 • Clustering of lots is not viable within Rural Residential land use category as the Plan is
27 currently written.
28 — NOTE(s): Under County regulations, Cluster Subdivisions allows for the
29 reduction of required lot sizes, not below 1 acre in area, so long as 33% of a
30 parcel is preserved in open space and established density limits are observed.
31 — Technique is utilized throughout the county, including the University Lake
32 Watershed Area.
33 • Plan indicates minimum required lot size within the University Lake Watershed Area is 5
34 acres. This is inconsistent with language within Joint Planning Agreement and County
35 regulations indicating minimum lot size is 2 acres.
36
37 PROPOSAL SUMMARY:
38 • Combine Rural Residential and Agricultural land use categories, add language
39 indicating agricultural activities are permitted throughout the area covered by the Plan.
40 • Establish density of 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres of property located within the Rural
41 Residential land use category.
42 • Allow cluster subdivisions within the Rural Residential category so long as proposed
43 density requirements (i.e. 1 unit for every 2 acres) are adhered to.
44 • Change language within the Plan denoting required minimum lot size for parcels in the
45 University Lake Watershed Area is 2 acres consistent with the adopted JPA and existing
46 County regulations.
47
48 MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
49 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use
50 Plan and Agreement,
20
1 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 which
2 approves the amendments to the Plan and JPA.
3
4 Commissioner Gordon's questions and concerns and staff responses (via email) are
5 noted for the record as follows:
6
7 From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice(a7gmail.com]
8 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 6:23 PM
9 To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; Earl McKee; Alice Gordon; Alice Gordon; Mark Dorosin;
10 Penny Rich; Renee Price; Donna Baker; Michael Talbert; Greg Wilder; Cheryl Young; Clarence
11 Grier; John Roberts
12 Cc: Craig Benedict
13 Subject: Additional questions/comments - June 3, 2014 agenda
14
15 Additional questions/comments - June 3, 2014 agenda - from Alice Gordon
16 Item 7c and 7d - JPA Land Use Plan and Amendment Agreements
17
18 In the proposed revisions to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and JPA agreement,
19 there are a number of places where the Rural Residential and Agricultural land use plan
20 categories are combined into a new Rural Residential and Agricultural land use category.
21
22 (A) Reasons for combining the two land use categories
23
24 In reviewing the agenda materials, I have developed an understanding of the reason for
25 combining these categories.
26
27 My understanding is that this combination into one category is not something that is mandated
28 by state statute.
29 Staff r°espnsem Cor°r°eet.
30 What is mandated by the statute is that the county cannot prohibit agricultural uses in the
31 county's jurisdiction, including in the Rural Buffer.
32 Staff Response: Cor°r°eet.
33 Therefore it is my understanding that the main reason to combine Rural Residential and
34 Agricultural is related to planning issues, rather than legal issues.
35 Staff Resp nsem Cor°r°eet. n agreement N rill be strengthened b clearly demonstrating
36 the intent of the par°tl s. HoL to e t/r the original languag e and pr°aft ai a end rents
37 likeF a legalF sufficient to en n e f the intent of the par°tl s.
38
39 (B) Description/definition of the Agricultural category in the original Joint Planning Area Land
40 Use Plan
41
42 My understanding of how the Agricultural category was described in the original JPA Land Use
43 Plan tracks with the statement on page 60-a of the JPA land use plan (on page 10 of agenda
44 item 7c) as follows:
45
46 Agricultural Areas include land areas currently in use for farming and forestry operations and
47 which qualify for, or are listed for, use value taxation purposes.
48 Staff response: Cor°r°ect. The e' like/ di some discrepancy between the definitions as not
49 all fa ma a F pual/f F f r°the present-use value p which has fur°tests (owner°s/r/p,
21
1 'ize, iliC InWe and 'n and®NManage®NWent), While the r"e ms'ed/ang age rapt e ' ®NW "e
e aW ti n '9 the s'� fill 2 fa;W�"""®N'WdW'W(/ /�.. ".. the m he p "aWCtdcaWlF f the cW®N'y'e.
3
4 My understanding further tracks with the two paragraphs concerning "Agricultural Areas" on
5 page 83 of the JPA land use plan (page 16 of agenda item 7c).
6
7 There is a map in the original JPA land use plan which has symbols indicating where farms are
8 located.
9
10 In agenda item 7-d, in Attachment 4, is a map of parcels in use value. My understanding is that
11 this map would be the modern equivalent of the older map.
12 Staff response: Ccr°r"ect, Attach, tent 4 H I Id he a ®NW de "n eq i ;lent f inf r"°, iatmcnal
13 p rp n 'e and d es' nct appea t "eplace cr"hecc®aWe part cf the JPA,
14 After reviewing that map in our agenda materials (on page 19 of agenda item 7d), it is my
15 understanding that the parcels in use tax value in the Rural Buffer would be the Agricultural
16 areas and the other parcels would be the Rural Residential areas.
17
18 Staff response: 7"""'he par"cel identified cn that Hap and L fithin the R a/ B ff r" H I Id he
19 cn n ide ed "Aq °icnItnr'al Area '” ncH I and "Hnr"al
mclentma,Wl and Ag °mcWlt 'al ea"if the
20 JPA Nrle e a: tended aW p ion 1"""'he "H W 'al /°'esidential and Ag ic It W 'al A ea" L I Id
21 be thcse par"cell, plus fa cntside the pr"es'ent-ns'e a/ne p (ifs n ) and the
22 e m m m e m the the ,1 le f in the H W "a:W/ B
�"°�s'mcl�ntma,Wl WS'�s'. h��""� Id 'till h� the cth��"°s'm�^ ci�t�c
23 (Re 'n W re P "ctecti n A "eaW P hlic-P a to Open Space A "eaW Retail 1""" "a de A "eaW9
24 El^t "a;Wcti e L/se, and the (lni e "sit f Lake Wa to —tied A ea) Nrthich aW en t depicted in the
25 tnialx
26
27 I would appreciate it if the planning staff and the county attorney would comment on my
28 understanding of(A) and (B) above. Some of my understanding of these issues comes from
29 my having helped develop the JPA plan and agreement when I served as chair of the Orange
30 County Planning Board, but most of it comes from a recent review of relevant information.
31
32 End of first email.
33
34 Continued Staff Responses:
35 Commissioner Gordon is correct that staff's proposal to combine the existing `Rural
36 Residential' and `Agricultural' land use categories, as detailed in the Joint Planning Land
37 Use Plan, is not mandated by State statute. Having said that existing language within
38 the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, which we are proposing to delete, is no longer
39 consistent with State law with respect to `defining' how a property owner `demonstrates'
40 he/she operates a farming operation. From that standpoint we are, through this process,
41 addressing the Plan's inconsistency with State law with respect on `how' someone
42 demonstrates their property is or is not a farm.
43
44 I am referring to the following language (again which we are recommending be deleted):
45
46 Dur/rk. the c, 4) if back:f, infirmati, ), a Lana use sureH°ey cm�rwa
47 the J, 4rit Plannirk i ^area, The surndey"in 'acate these land areas currently in use fir
48 aur/cultural purp, ses This inftrmati af
further er/feea thr, lk�b the Orark�e L;:", linty
49 T Office ''etertnine these farms -°hich ere a ualif/e ana liste fir use Halite
50 t ry atimn purp,.ses,
22
1
2 State law, specifically NCGS 153A-340 (b) (2) now provides 5 different options with
3 respect to how a property owner `demonstrates' the property is a farm, specifically:
4 a. A farm sales tax exemption certificate issued by the Department
5 of Revenue.
6 b. A copy of the property tax listing showing that the property is
7 eligible for participation in the present use value program
8 pursuant to G.S. 105-277.3.
9 c. A copy of the farm owner's or operator's Schedule F from the
10 owner's or operator's most recent federal income tax return.
11 d. A forest management plan.
12 e. A Farm Identification Number issued by the United States
13 Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency.
14
15 A parcel of property no longer has to be listed, or qualify for, the present use value
16 program to be considered a farm for our purposes.
17
18 As previously indicated the chief reasons staff is proposing to combine the 2 land use
19 categories into one is:
20
21 1. By State law farms are allowed anywhere. Staff does not believe we can have
22 language within the Plan which could be interpreted as limiting their location in
23 only 1 land use category. This is why such language is being eliminated.
24 2. By combining the 2 land use categories we are ensuring there is universal
25 understanding that a farm is allowed through the area covered by the Plan.
26 3. The current Joint Planning Land Use Map shows there are no properties within
27 the `Agricultural' land use category. The map provided as part of Item 7-d
28 (attachment 4) was created at the request of the Carrboro Board of Alderman and
29 is being provided for the BOCC's edification. All this map shows are the various
30 farms throughout the Rural Buffer that are part of the present use value program.
31 It is not a definitive list/map of all farm properties. It should in no way be
32 construed as a `modern' equivalent of the older map (assuming Commissioner
33 Gordon is referring to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan Map). The Joint Planning
34 Land Use Map, as previously indicated, does not specifically delineate any
35 parcels of property as being located within the `Agricultural' land use category.
36
37
38 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the proposal summary slide. He asked about the
39 proposed change to the University Lake watershed. He asked if a current property owner with
40 one house on 5 acres in the University watershed would be able to construct another dwelling,
41 or divide that parcel.
42 Michael Harvey said the ordinance establishes that any lot that legally existed prior to
43 1989, when the University Lake watershed density standards were adopted, receives a density
44 bonus, where you can have up to 5 lots at a 2 acre density. He said, in the scenario presented
45 by Commissioner Dorosin, if the lot was created in 1980 at 5 acres, the owner could create one
46 additional lot at a 2 acre minimum lot size. He said if the lot was created in 2014, the owner will
47 limited to one 5 acre lot.
48 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the defacto density limit and asked for clarification on
49 this.
23
1 Michael Harvey said staff has interpreted the joint land use plan as establishing a
2 defacto density because the language says that lots must be two acres or higher. He
3 discussed the example of the Dunhill subdivision on Mount Sinai Road, which was not allowed
4 to have a cluster model under the current plan, but would have been allowed as a cluster
5 subdivision if these amendments were adopted.
6 Commissioner Gordon referred to her email question regarding the combination of
7 agricultural and rural residential categories. She wanted to understand the reason why these
8 were combined. She said it has been established that there were planning reasons, not legal
9 reasons to do this. . She said the reason for the amendments is to keep farmers farming. She
10 referred to the Joint Planning Area (JPA) strategy map on page 73 and said it shows farms,
11 although it does not show all of the farms. She said the Board just got a map of the use value
12 farms in their packet, which shows where the use value parcels are. She said neither
13 agricultural nor residential are categories on the map for the Joint Planning Area Land Use
14 Plan. She said the category was Rural Buffer. She said the Joint Planning Area strategy map
15 on page 73 shows farms, and the most recent map in the agenda materials shows use value
16 parcels.
17 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to know which parcels have farms, which is
18 about 27 percent of the parcels. She is not sure that the intent was to make everything
19 agricultural, and her understanding of the intent was to keep the farmers farming and give them
20 more ways to make a living.
21 Commissioner Gordon said the other point she wanted to make is that Carrboro is
22 discussing this tonight, and Chapel Hill is discussing this on June 9. She questioned why
23 Orange County is approving this tonight without waiting to hear from their partners. She said it
24 would be more collegial to wait for feedback from the towns.
25 Michael Talbert said staff is running out of time to move this forward. He said the towns
26 will receive this as a unanimous recommendation from the planning board, and there is no
27 reason to think that the towns would have any objections. He said if the towns make any major
28 material changes to the document, the Board would have to start over anyway.
29 Commissioner Gordon said it would depend on the changes made to the document.
30 She said the deadline is a self imposed deadline, and there will be no money lost. She said
31 agricultural support enterprises are not being discussed until the fall. She would like to hear
32 what the towns say, and she is concerned about approving this tonight and then having to start
33 all over again.
34 Michael Harvey said if one of the towns makes a word or language change, this would
35 have to be re-reviewed by the planning board and the Board, as well as the town. He said it is
36 the position of staff that there will be no language change with either of these two items.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board should go ahead and vote.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
40 the Board to:
41
42 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use
43 Plan and Agreement; and
44 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 which
45 approves the amendments to the Plan and JPA.
46
47 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Gordon)
48
49 d. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments —Agricultural
50 Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification
24
1
2 The Board considered amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and
3 Agreement to allow for the possibility of locating appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises
4 within the Rural Buffer land use classification.
5
6 Michael Harvey noted that the Agricultural Support Enterprises conditional zoning and
7 the construct for the Rural Buffer are slated to come back to the Board in September. He said
8 the approval of this item would merely allow that discussion to continue, but this Board will
9 ultimately have the final say in what the program will look like.
10 Michael Talbert reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
11
12 Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to Allow for the
13 Possibility of Locating Appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural
14 Buffer Land Use Classification
15 Item 7.d
16
17 Purpose of Amendment
18 • Amend Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to allow for the potential of
19 locating appropriate agricultural support enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use
20 classification
21
22 Proposed Amendment
23 * Add text to two pages of Joint Planning Land Use Plan and to one page of Agreement
24 * Added text is shown in blue in Attachment 1 of agenda materials
25
26 What are Appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises?
27 * Agricultural support-related uses to be added to County's Unified Development
28 Ordinance (UDO) as permissible in the Rural Buffer zoning district and/or part of a new
29 conditional zoning district that could be applied in the Rural Buffer
30 * UDO amendments pertaining to the Rural Buffer can be adopted only if the three
31 governing boards amend the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement
32
33 Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
34 * The UDO amendment is not the subject of this text amendment.
35 * UDO amendment package included as an informational attachment
th
36 * Red, blue, and green text was adopted on May 20
37 * Orange colored text pertains to the Rural Buffer and is not yet adopted
38 * Proposed UDO amendments were heard at the County's February 24 quarterly public
39 hearing
40 * Adjourned to September 4, 2014 BOCC meeting for decision to allow time for
41 decisions of Joint Planning documents
42
43 Tonight's Amendment Topic
44 • Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement
45 ➢ Proposed amendments heard at March 27 joint public hearing (Orange County,
46 Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro)
47 ➢ County and Town Planning Boards have recommended approval to their
48 respective governing boards
49 ➢ Town of Carrboro considering tonight
25
1 ➢ Town of Chapel Hill considering Monday, June 9
2
3 Recommendation for Tonight
4 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use
5 Plan and Agreement
6 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 1 which
7 approves the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement
8
9 Commissioner Gordon noted that the Commissioners have an email at their places with
10 her suggestion and staff responses. She is concerned about high intensity uses in the Rural
11 Buffer.
12 Commissioner Gordon said she suggested the addition of language to the JPA. She
13 said the attorney said it was fine to add clarification, and planning staff said this was workable;
14 however, this would have to go before the boards.
15 Commissioner Gordon said this would only be a change to page 9 of the packet, in the
16 blue sentence that is right before item C. She suggested adding language that refers to the
17 agricultural support uses as "those allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted through the
18 ASE-CZ."
19 Michael Harvey said staff has provided a response. He said the joint planning land use
20 plan is just a plan. He said the document spelling out allowable or unpermitted uses is the
21 UDO, and the existing language achieves what Commissioner Gordon is looking for. He said
22 the agricultural support enterprises conditional zoning district is a floating district, and it is only
23 applied when someone makes application for it. He said there is a specific set of allowed uses,
24 and if it not listed as permitted, then it is not noted as permitted in that particular district.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to modify the language to include "or
27 those agricultural support uses allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted" to the end of
28 the blue text on page 9 of the abstract.
29
30 No second. Motion fails.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
33 the Board to:
34 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use
35 Plan and Agreement,
36 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 1 which approves
37 the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement.
38
39 Chair Jacobs referred to page 9, where the Rural Buffer is essentially defined. He said
40 he is opposed to the definition of Rural Buffer as a "low-density area consisting of single-family
41 homes." He said there are other uses that are specified, such as farms, resource conservation
42 areas and natural areas. He feels the listed definition is oversimplified and inaccurate.
43 Michael Harvey referred to page 57, which breaks the Rural Buffer into individual land
44 use categories. He said the Rural Buffer is a generic term that refers to an area of the County
45 that is composed of 7 or 8 individual land use categories that further define the Rural Buffer.
46 He said the Rural Buffer is just a term, and it actually incorporates the University Lake
47 Watershed area, the resource protection areas, and public/private open space areas.
48 Chair Jacobs said the simple way to put it is that the Rural Buffer is the set, and those
49 are all of the subsets.
26
1 Michael Harvey said that is correct, and he referred to the map and said the specificity is
2 spelled out on pages 57 through the land use plan.
3 Chair Jacobs asked if this is only discussing that one land use.
4 Michael Harvey said this is not really discussing any land use; this text amendment adds
5 the agricultural support enterprises as being allowed in the rural buffer category.
6 Chair Jacobs said he does not understand why the rural buffer is defined as single
7 family residential at the top of page 6.
8 Commissioner Pelissier said the issue is the first sentence, and she noted that the
9 second sentence further defines the rural buffer.
10 Michael Harvey said the rural buffer is the composition of many independent sub-
11 categories that provide specificity.
12 Chair Jacobs said he would be more satisfied if this said the rural buffer is in part
13 defined, but he can live with Commissioner Pelissier's point.
14 Chair Jacobs referred to page 95 and the definition of a commercial stable, which is
15 prohibited in a lot of areas. He said there are no real numbers to define when stable becomes
16 defined as commercial. He asked if there is a number for this.
17 Michael Harvey said there is a riding stable land use that is permitted by right or by class
18 b special use permitting. He said the goal was to provide a distinction from boarding horses on
19 your property and someone who wants to board a large number of horses and what is
20 acceptable in terms of capacity.
21 Chair Jacobs said it would be nice to have clarification on the difference to make this
22 self apparent.
23 Michael Harvey said this can be defined in advance of the September 4th hearing.
24
25 VOTE: 6 -1 (Commissioner Gordon)
26
27
28 e. Proposal to Create a Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG)
29 The Board considered creating a multijurisdictional task force of one year's duration to
30 articulate, investigate, and propose collaborative solutions for solid waste issues confronting
31 Orange County; the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough; and the University of
32 North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
33 Chair Jacobs said this was based on the Board's conversation at their work session. He
34 said this lists some parameters as to what a group might discuss. He said there has been
35 discussion of having the Commissioners volunteer at the next meeting to be on this group. He
36 said the clerk would advertise for public positions if this is approved, and the elected officials
37 and UNC participants would choose among the applicants.
38 Chair Jacobs said he took this to the managers' breakfast on Friday, and two of the
39 three said there was no problem with getting people appointed in June. He said the mayors
40 were comfortable with moving forward. He said the purpose of this item was to consider things
41 in context and with input from partners, moving expeditiously and having interconnected and
42 well articulated short and long term goals.
43 Commissioner Price asked about the number of representatives and whether this was
44 weighted voting.
45 Donna Baker said this was just the way the positions were listed and numbered, but
46 there is no weighted voting.
47 Commissioner Rich asked if Hillsborough and UNC had representatives on the original
48 SWAB.
27
1 Chair Jacobs said SWAB had a UNC position, but the university never appointed
2 anyone and sent a staff person instead, so they were never officially a member. He does not
3 remember if Hillsborough had one or not.
4 Commissioner Rich said she attended some meetings years ago, and she did not
5 remember any one from Hillsborough being there. She asked if Chair Jacobs has spoken with
6 any at UNC about this.
7 Chair Jacobs said no. He said he and Commissioner McKee were waiting for the new
8 manager to set up a meeting with the new Chancellor. He said there has been discussion of
9 taking the Chancellor on a tour of the County in the fall, to some of the places where there are
10 joint projects and interests. He said this item was one of the topics planned for that meeting.
11 Commissioner McKee noted, in response the Commissioner Price's question, that slot
12 10 and slot 12 are open.
13 Dorosin proposed the addition of three more residents to the listing, to make it an even
14 15, with 5 Orange County residents. He feels the current proposal is weighted too heavily
15 toward government representatives. He said the diverse interest and needs of the people
16 around the County makes it reasonable to go up to 15.
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENT:
19 Bonnie Hauser thanked the Board for considering this work group. She loves the idea,
20 but is confused by the purpose and scope. She thought the goal was to have a one year effort
21 to clarify the current services and funding equity and to form the basis for a new interlocal
22 agreement with the towns and an updated service and fee model. She said topics such as
23 landfills, alternative technologies and handling bio solids are much more strategic and belong in
24 a different group. She said these issues will take years to resolve and require specific skills and
25 partnerships. She hoped this workgroup would work on services, costs, and funding for existing
26 services, such as recycling, waste reduction, convenience centers, and possibly the siting of a
27 local transfer station. She thought the goal was for a committed interlocal agreement with the
28 towns and better service and equitable funding for the unincorporated parts of the County. She
29 said recent testimony from residents revealed that services in the unincorporated area are
30 broken. She said the County needs to clarify the needs of curbside users versus convenience
31 center users. She said this suggests the need for at least 2 citizen participants from the
32 unincorporated area to represent both types of users. She agrees with Commissioner
33 Dorosin's comment regarding the inclusion of 5 citizens. She said residents remain concerned
34 about the cost of service, transparency and equitable funding. She hopes the workgroup will be
35 asked to benchmark services and costs versus other counties. She asked for a limited focus
36 for the workgroup, to include a 5 year plan for current services.
37
38 Commissioner Pelissier said she is not clear, looking at this list, what this group would
39 actually accomplish. She said the Board has been asking the towns for years to be in this
40 together. She would like to see a small group of elected officials come up with an interlocal
41 agreement to define the process by which these issues are worked out. She suggested the
42 inclusion of a focus on some of the immediate needs. She said the issue of how to pay for
43 recycling has been deferred two times. She is afraid that a long list and a large group will
44 prevent anything concrete from being accomplished by next budget cycle.
45 Chair Jacobs clarified that this group is charged to come back to the Assembly of
46 Governments (AOG) meeting in November, after sorting through these issues and prioritizing
47 them into short and long term needs. He said the thinking was to allow the group to determine
48 and define what was important in the short and long term plan. He said obviously the majority
49 of these will not be resolved in a six month period, but it would be up to the group to make the
28
1 decisions. He said there would be short stage and longer stage items, and these can be the
2 same or different groups.
3 Commissioner Pelissier said she is not sure that this can be done in the time frame of
4 the AOG meeting.
5 Commissioner McKee said he has the same concerns as Commissioner Pelissier. He
6 said it is admirable to try and look at all of this, but it is overreaching to ask the group to do this
7 on a short time basis. He said a group does need to be formed and the issues put into their
8 hands, but this needs to be limited to the items that are really on the table— recycling, transfer
9 station siting, and an interlocal agreement between the County and towns. He said the rest of
10 this is good, but he would suggest that the Board pare this down to the priority issues. He said
11 the County is the lead on most solid waste items and should act as the lead. He is open to the
12 suggestion of having more than two residents, but he would suggest that the Board of County
13 Commissioners appoint the residents, not the solid waste board itself.
14 Commissioner Dorosin said he will not support any group that does not involve
15 residents. He feels this is shortsighted and a mistake. He said the list of bullet points contains
16 some items that are high priority, but he also thinks it would be a mistake to exclude some of
17 the long term items. He said these options keep getting put off. He said there seems to be
18 some consensus on having a broad strategy with different priority levels. He said the idea of a
19 transfer station has been mentioned as a high priority, but treatment of communities impacted
20 by the siting of facilities has not been listed as a high priority. He said these two priorities are
21 linked. He said there are some immediate needs with virtually unanimous agreement; but the
22 recognition of the need for a broader scope seems logical to him. He appreciates the concern
23 with a broad list, but he thinks this group will be required to prioritize based on the timetable and
24 the issues that are pressing.
25 Commissioner Rich asked if one of the Commissioners would be the Chair of this group.
26 Chair Jacobs said this is undefined as of yet.
27 Commissioner Rich said she would like one of the Board of County Commissioners to
28 be the Chair. She said she also agrees that there should be a larger representation of
29 residents. She can see the benefits of both arguments being presented tonight. She said there
30 needs to be a solid waste plan moving into the future. She thinks everything should be on the
31 table, and the group should be allowed to decide on the pressing issues to be brought back.
32 Commissioner Gordon said she agrees with the concerns expressed by Commissioner
33 McKee and Commissioner Pelissier. She thinks there should perhaps be a short term task
34 force. She said there need to be focused goals to include: recycling, interlocal agreement, and
35 the transfer station site. She thinks that the Board of County Commissioners should make the
36 resident appointments, and one of the Board of County Commissioners should be the Chair.
37 She noted that the County will have the budgetary responsibility for this, so it is important to
38 have financial constraint on the charge. She said she worked on a lot of agreements, and this
39 list would take a long time to get through. She said an overall plan is needed, but there should
40 be reasonable phasing with high priority items.
41 Commissioner Pelissier said she would rather there be a work group to come up with a
42 plan to proceed, including plans for what kind of the advisory board is needed to move forward.
43 She would like to see the County work with the municipalities to create an interlocal agreement
44 before doing a solid waste advisory group. She said perhaps this could include some of the
45 immediate short term issues related to recycling.
46 Commissioner McKee asked if Commissioner Pelissier is suggesting that they work on
47 an interlocal agreement first.
48 Commissioner Pelissier said yes. She said this would define the role of an advisory
49 group, as well as short and long term goals.
29
1 Chair Jacobs said the interlocal agreement was difficult to come up with at the staff level
2 because some of these short term issues are not resolved. He said that is why this proposal
3 was brought forward in the first place.
4 Commissioner Price said this issue keeps coming up, and she likes the idea of coming
5 up with an advisory group that begins to look at the entire picture. She agrees that there needs
6 to be more citizen representation, and if there was a limit to the total number she would rather
7 there be fewer government representatives to allow more citizen involvement.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
10 Board to: 1)consider creating a multijurisdictional task force of at least one year's duration to
11 articulate, investigate, and propose collaborative solutions for solid waste issues confronting
12 Orange County; the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough; and the University of
13 North Carolina at Chapel Hill;
14 2) plan to make BOCC appointments to the task force at the Board's June 17, 2014 regular
15 meeting; and
16 3) solicit other representatives from the other jurisdictions, the University and the public (5 at
17 large positions) as soon as possible; and
18 4) this task force will prioritize the proposed issues listed in this agenda item (listed below for
19 information purposes) for its consideration for analysis.
20
21 The charge to the group at the outset is to define the nature, scope, and timing of the
22 solid waste issues to be considered, including but not limited to:
23
24 * an interlocal agreement on solid waste;
25 * reducing solid waste that is not recycled;
26 * recycling opportunities and services;
27 * siting a transfer station or landfill within the county;
28 * supporting public education on solid waste issues;
29 * construction and demolition waste;
30 * assuring long-term partnership of the entities involved through an interlocal agreement
31 on waste handling and disposal;
32 * addressing equitable funding and mechanisms for establishing fees and making future
33 joint decisions;
34 * future use of closed landfill sites;
35 * investigation of partnership possibilities involving neighboring jurisdictions;
36 * feasibility of innovative and cost-effective, environmentally-sound methods of disposal
37 of solid waste beyond burial;
38 * potential inclusion of biosolids in long-range disposal plans;
39 * emergency storm debris planning
40 * treatment of communities impacted by siting of any facilities either within Orange
41 County or beyond its borders to receive shipments of our waste.
42
43 Commissioner Pelissier asked if it should be designated that one of the Commissioners
44 will be the Chair; and she asked if any other issues can be added to this list.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks the committee should select its own Chair.
46 Commissioner Price agreed.
47 Commissioner Rich said she has a problem with that. She agrees with Commissioner
48 Gordon that this is something that the Board is financially responsible for, and one of the
49 Commissioners should chair the meetings.
50
30
1 Commissioner Rich moved a substitute motion, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 include everything in the original motion, with a designation that that member of the Board of
3 County Commissioners should be the Chair of this committee.
4
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts, if the substitute motion fails and then the
6 original motion fails, whether either motion can be raised again.
7 John Roberts said an identical motion cannot be made again at the same meeting. He
8 offered to verify this.
9 John Roberts said rule 20 of the Board's rules of procedure states that a defeated
10 motion may not be renewed at the same meeting. He said it can be brought back at a second
11 meeting, on the 17th
12
13 Commissioner Dorosin suggested that Commissioner Rich withdraw the substitute
14 motion to allow a vote on the original motion first.
15 Chair Jacobs said there could be discussion about the designation of the Chair at the
16 first committee meeting.
17 Commissioner Rich questioned what will happen if one of the citizens wants to Chair the
18 committee but has no experience. She said someone who is actively involved in meetings and
19 has experience should be the Chair.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said he puts his confidence in the group that is selected to
21 choose a competent Chair.
22 Commissioner McKee said Orange County is the lead agency and the responsible
23 government unit proposing to set up this group. As such, he feels that the Board should accept
24 the responsibility of having a Commissioner as the Chair.
25 Commissioner Rich withdrew her substitute motion, and Commissioner McKee withdrew
26 his second.
27
28 VOTE (Original Motion): Ayes, 4 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner
29 Rich, and Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Gordon, and
30 Commissioner McKee)
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee that
33 one of the two Orange County Commissioners will be the Chair of the newly formed committee.
34
35 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee,
36 Commissioner Price, and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and
37 Commissioner Dorosin)
38
39 Donna Baker clarified that these positions will be advertised and will be at-large
40 residents.
41 Chair Jacobs said yes.
42
43 Michael Talbert asked if the Board wants to see a draft agreement prior to this work
44 group approving an agreement first. He said his understanding is that this group will start with
45 a draft and then come back with something.
46 Commissioner Gordon questioned whether there needs to be some type of agreement
47 with the towns. She said there is a draft that has not been passed, and it clarifies the contract
48 with the towns for urban curbside recycling.
31
1 Michael Talbert said this is beings worked on, and staff is prepared to bring a draft as a
2 starting point for the meeting on the l7 . He asked if this is a starting point that the Board
3 wants to hand to the task force group to work on.
4 Chair Jacobs said his understanding was that the Board wanted the managers to keep
5 going, and if there was a draft proposal, it would be a good starting point to have some
6 agreement to talk about.
7 Michael Talbert said this can be brought forward on the 17th
8 Commissioner Gordon asked how the agreement with the towns will be handled.
9 Michael Talbert said the next agenda item will determine that. He said the towns are
10 currently planning to pay for urban curbside by levying a fee of$59 per resident that the County
11 will collect. He said the County will administer the program, but the town has to levy the fee.
12 Commissioner Gordon asked if an agreement or contract is needed for this.
13 Michael Talbert said this program has operated without an agreement this past year,
14 and all that is changing is the addition of a fee. He said ideally there would be an agreement,
15 but there is not one. He said the County either moves forward with the assumption of going
16 with this or other options can be considered in item 7f.
17 Chair Jacobs noted that the County chose to invest in the roll carts without an
18 agreement, but with an understanding that things were moving toward an interlocal agreement,
19 and there was general support from the managers of the other governments.
20 John Roberts said the old solid waste agreement is technically still effective for
21 recycling. He said recycling was not detailed in the agreement, and the only part of the old
22 agreement that is no longer effective is dealing with the landfill and municipal solid waste
23 issues. He said there hasn't been any kind of detailed agreement between the County and
24 towns regarding recycling for the length of time that the prior agreement has been in place.
25 Commissioner Gordon asked that staff be directed to research this issue and provide
26 some advice at the meeting on the 17th regarding what would be necessary to do the subset.
27
28 f. Funding for Orange County's Rural Curbside Recycling Programs
29 The Board considered approving a funding source for Orange County's Rural Curbside
30 Recycling Program.
31 Michael Talbert said this was last discussed on May 14, and direction was provided to
32 staff to come back with 3 options. He said the Board confirmed their desire to continue the
33 recycling in the rural curbside program for the existing 13,700 customers for the next year. He
34 said the Chair/Vice chair wanted to add another option, which is listed as option 2 in the
35 abstract. He reviewed the following 4 options as outlined in the abstract:
36
37 1. Fund Rural Curbside Recycling Program for Fiscal 2014/2015 with Landfill
38 Reserves.
39 To fund $728,260 from Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630
40 as of June 30, 2013.
41
42 2. Fund Rural and Urban Curbside Recycling Programs for Fiscal 2014/2015 with
43 Landfill Reserves.
44 To fund $2,090,526 from Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630
45 as of June 30, 2013.
46
47 3. Eliminate all Recycling and Convenience Center fees and raise the County's
48 property tax rate.
49 To replace all revenues from fees would equal $6,049,228 and require a property tax
32
1 increase of 3.77 cents.
2
3 4. Increase the Solid Waste Convenience Center fees to cover all or part of the
4 $1,856,543 transfer from the General Fund to Solid Waste to fund Convenience
5 Center Operations.
6 (See fee table in abstract)
7
8 Michael Talbert said there are $18 million in funds available in solid waste. He said
9 much of this money is reserved for specific purposes, but there is $3,082,630 of unrestricted
10 reserve fund balance.
11 He said option 2 would fund both rural and urban programs and would take 2/3 of the
12 unrestricted reserves. He said this was in response to an equity issue with the towns, so there
13 would be no fee for either one.
14 Michael Talbert referred to the table of convenience center fees. He said the current
15 fees are: $40 for rural; $20 for urban; $4 for multi-family. He said there are four scenarios that
16 raise this from 33 percent of the $1.8 million to 50 percent, to 2/3, and up to 100 percent of the
17 $1.8 million. He said if all of the fees were done in one year to raise the full amount of$1.8
18 million the rural fee would go from $40 to $102; the urban would go from $20 to $51; and the
19 multi-family would go from $4 to $10.
20 Michael Talbert said the manager's recommendation is option 1 as a way to move
21 forward with minimal damage to the unrestricted reserves, while giving the proposed workgroup
22 one year to work on this.
23 Commissioner Gordon said the $728,260 amount for recycling used to be $630,000.
24 She asked what caused it to go up.
25 Gayle Wilson said about a year ago the budget number was estimated. He said the
26 costs were then gathered for the roll carts and recycling trucks prior to the budget being
27 prepared after the first of the year. He said these firm cost figures caused the number to evolve
28 from $630,000 to the current number. He said the debt service annual payment also increased
29 when the term was reduced from 10 to 5 years. He said the County started running a small
30 deficit in the rural program about 3 years ago that was not resolved prior to the 3-R program
31 ending. He said the new budget number came to light during the public hearing and discussion
32 process, and staff did not want to switch the number in the midst of that discussion. He said
33 the $728,000 is a firm budget number.
34 Commissioner Gordon asked how many customers and roll carts are included in this
35 budget number.
36 Gayle Wilson said this number includes the 7000 roll carts and the ability to service the
37 expanded service area. He said the cost to serve the 13,700 is the same as the expanded
38 service because it uses the same staffing and equipment.
39 Commissioner Gordon said she thought there was going to be a survey prior to the
40 purchase of the roll carts.
41 Gayle Wilson said once the urban program is implemented and if the Board approves
42 the roll carts, staff will do outreach in the service area to determine who wants to use bins and
43 who wants to use roll carts.
44 Commissioner Gordon clarified that roll carts will not be purchased until this number is
45 determined.
46 Gayle Wilson said roll carts will not be purchased until there is a good idea of how many
47 are needed.
48 Commissioner Gordon asked if the $728,000 is an upper number.
49 Gayle Wilson said this number includes the 7000 roll carts and the ability to service the
50 expanded 1,500 households.
33
1 Commissioner Gordon asked if staff will bring back an item for the Board to approve the
2 number of roll carts that are really needed.
3 Gayle Wilson said yes.
4 Commissioner Gordon said there was a plan at one time to increase the amount being
5 charged at the Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC), as the current fees only cover 25
6 percent of expenses. She said some of the expenses are paid for by the $1.8 million transfer
7 from the general fund. She thought there was a plan independent of the recycling program to
8 increase those fees until eventually there was no dependence on the general fund. She asked
9 what happened to that plan.
10 Gayle Wilson said in the 4 years that the fee has existed the Board has increased it 3
11 times. He said there was never a hard and fast schedule or even if this would get to 100
12 percent. He said there was a plan to increase the fee over an ill defined period of time, but the
13 percentage was never firmly decided.
14 Commissioner Gordon said it occurs to her that this is not an either or situation. She
15 said with other departments fees are charged to cover the service. She said it makes sense to
16 recoup more money for the services rendered at the convenience centers. She said there may
17 be two separate issues.
18 Gayle Wilson said that is a policy decision the Board can make.
19 Commissioner Gordon said there are options within this to recoup expenses by charging
20 fees that more proportionately cover the services provided.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said option 3 lists replacement of all recycling charges and
22 convenience center fees with a tax increase. He asked about the possibility of eliminating only
23 the convenience center fees and paying for all of these costs out of the general fund.
24 Michael Talbert said it would be 1.15 or 1.2 cents to raise the $1.8 million.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if that would offset somewhat by eliminating the fees that
26 people pay.
27 Michael Talbert said yes. He said you would dedicate whatever level of tax to the solid
28 waste fund to pay for the convenience centers and eliminate the fees.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this option could be added to the mix as option 3b - to
30 fund recycling out of the solid waste reserves and fund the SWCC through the general fund.
31 Michael Talbert said the current fee raises $1.2 million, so you will be raising $3 million
32 to do away with this fee and raise the additional $1.8 million that is needed to come from the
33 general fund. He said this equates to not quite 2 cents on the tax rate.
34 Commissioner Gordon asked Commissioner Dorosin if he is suggesting the Board raise
35 taxes 2 cents.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not interested in raising fees for the convenience
37 center. He feels the Board should move toward funding all of it out of the general fund, as he
38 feels this is the most equitable way of doing it.
39 Commissioner Gordon asked if the proposal is to raise taxes by two cents.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said his proposal is to add an option 5 to eliminate convenience
41 center fees and raise the County property tax rate.
42 Commissioner Price asked if the recycling funding would be for the entire County or just
43 the arbitrary district that has been drawn.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said either of these options can be discussed. He said option 1
45 and option 2 make a distinction between funding rural curbside and funding all recycling with
46 reserves.
47 Commissioner Price said the current rural recycling district does not include all of the
48 rural areas. She asked if Commissioner Dorosin is suggesting that everyone would be eligible
49 for the curbside recycling.
34
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he is describing it as it is listed in option 1 or 2, to fund
2 either the current or the expanded district.
3 Michael Talbert clarified that Board agreed at their last meeting to continue the existing
4 rural program as it is in place now, with no additional services or expansion.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this current discussion is envisioning what will happen
6 on July 1 of 2014-15.
7 Michael Talbert said that is correct.
8
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
10 Bonnie Hauser read from a letter the Board received from the Orange County Voice.
11 Dear Commissioners:
12
13 We are writing to voice our strong, shared support for full funding of schools and setting
14 Orange County on a path to fiscal sustainability. Immediate priorities for teachers, schools and
15 social safety nets will require more funding due to state budget cuts. Plus our aging schools
16 are in disrepair, and will require increased funds and access to debt capacity for the next 5-10
17 years. The good news is the county's reserves are well funded which will help with short term
18 funding needs.
19
20 We believe that better planning, coordination with towns and schools, and improved
21 transparency over spending and the county's reserves will help meet the county's short term
22 funding needs, and prepare us for the future. Below are specific actions for you to consider in
23 the current budget cycle and as you consider options for funding solid waste services.
24
25- Eliminate the general fund subsidy ($1.86 million) to Solid Waste and re-allocate these
26 funds to schools and social safety nets. You are considering this idea with an offsetting
27 increase in convenience center fees to fill the gap. After reading your agenda package for June
28 3rd, we believe that a better option is to cut solid waste spending and use solid waste reserves
29 to fill any remaining gap. Cost saving ideas include:
30 • Defer capital spending for rural curbside recycling trucks and roll carts, and for the
31 Eubanks Convenience center (total $3.3 million) until there's a solid waste plan and a
32 committed inter-local agreement with the towns. Consider co-locating the Eubanks
33 Convenience Center with the Chapel Hill Transfer station.
34 • Substantially cut the budget ($728,000) for rural curbside recycling by limiting service to
35 existing users. As an alternative, consider outsourcing all or part of the program by
36 inviting Waste Industries to extend their service area beyond town limits, and provide
37 weekly service on a subscription basis.
38 • Invite the department to further reduce costs without impacting service.
39 • Use solid waste reserves ($3 million) to fill remaining funding shortfalls.
40 For the long term, we could support eliminating solid waste fees and funding solid waste
41 services out of the general fund if there were effective controls
42 over spending and more transparency around costs. Public hearings would be needed as part
43 of the decision-making process.
44
45- Place a hard moratorium on capital projects for county offices until there is a committed
46 plan for all facilities, including consolidating offices and leasing or selling unused space.
47
48- Defer spending on new county parks in order to free up funds for schools, and align
49 park planning with towns, OWASA and community resources. Orange County has an
50 abundance of delightful parks and recreational facilities that are enjoyed by residents of all
35
1 ages. However many of these assets are underutilized and better options may be available if
2 the county:
3
4o Aligns its $50 million master plan with Chapel Hill's $50 million plan and park plans for
5 Hillsborough and Carrboro.
6
7o Complements community-based assets such as Cane Creek Reservoir and White Cross
8 Recreation as an alternative to building redundant county facilities (such as a standalone
9 Bingham park).
10
110 Works with both school systems to co-locate future county parks with schools.
12
13- Use county reserves to meet short term school funding requirements that cannot be
14 met through cost savings. For the long term, better policies are needed to provide
15 transparency and to clarify priorities and controls over all reserves (general fund, school district
16 reserves, solid waste enterprise fund, etc.). This will assure that priorities are adequately
17 funded and that all operating agencies, including schools, have adequate reserves. Policies
18 should address legal reserve requirements, and disclosure of reserve balances and changes.
19
20 We encourage you to ask staff to find other opportunities to delay non-essential projects or
21 spending in order to free up funding for schools in the short term.
22
23 We believe that these actions and others will provide the funds needed to fully fund school
24 requests and to help keep our community affordable. In the long term, we encourage you to
25 invite educators and county professionals to work together to modernize policies for capital and
26 per student funding, and to assure everyone that schools are funded adequately and that
27 taxpayer monies are deployed to essential priorities.
28
29 Thank you for your service to our community and for considering our view on this important
30 topic.
31
32 Terri Buckner encouraged the Board to adopt the manager's proposal to fund the rural
33 curbside through the unreserved funds exclusively. She said a committee has just been
34 appointed to look at these issues long term, so the Board should let them do their work.
35 Commissioner McKee said he would support funding through option 1 or option 2. He
36 said one of the items given to the new task force is to address equitable funding and
37 mechanisms for establishing fees. He said fees could be interpreted as taxes. He supports
38 option 1 or 2 as a stopgap measure to allow time for the workgroup to bring forward a
39 comprehensive plan that makes sense in the future.
40 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner McKee and said she is not in favor of a
41 tax right now without this being fully vetted. She also has a problem with raising taxes, as
42 people in the urban areas will pay more, and they do not use the convenience centers. She
43 said she will move to support option 1.
44 Commissioner Pelissier said she likes option 1, but with a caveat. She struggles with
45 option 4, as it is not really a way to fund recycling. She said this is an issue of equity in the
46 sense that urban residents do not use the convenience centers, as these are a rural service for
47 recycling and solid waste. She would like to see the Board continue with the earlier goal of not
48 having convenience centers funded from the general fund. She said this will mean less money
49 to do option 1, but these are separate. She wants to do option 1, but she also wants to do
50 option 4, though for a very different reason.
36
1 Chair Jacobs gave some history on the current convenience center fee system, which
2 was set up by recommendation from a past solid waste working group. He said the idea was
3 that it was reasonable for urban residents to pay for these centers because they could use
4 them, and it allowed for the potential of a pay-as-you-throw option in the future. He said the
5 more options offered at the convenience centers, the more people who will use them.
6 Chair Jacobs said there needs to be a discussion at their retreat about taxes.
7 Commissioner Gordon said there are two issues here. She said the Board could first
8 decide how to fund recycling and then as part of the budget, whether to raise the SWCC fees.
9 She said this second part could be part of a budget session, and it does not have to be decided
10 tonight.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said he is happy to support option 1 tonight on the landfill
12 reserves, but he feels it is a bad idea to talk about funding services based on who uses them.
13 He said this undermines the idea of community and what is important collectively, and he feels
14 it is not economically or socially progressive.
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
16 Board to fund the Rural Curbside Recycling Program by using $728,260 of Solid Waste
17 Unrestricted Reserves for Fiscal 2014/2015 (Option 1-- Fund Rural Curbside Recycling
18 Program for Fiscal 2014/2015 with Landfill Reserves. To fund$728,260 from Solid Waste
19 Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630 as of June 30, 2013.)
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 g Orange County's Reprioritization of Transportation Projects for the Durham-
24 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Triangle
25 Area Rural Planning Organization (9:45-10:00)
26 The Board considered two (2) resolutions (Attachments 1 and 4) reconfiguring two (2)
27 priority lists of transportation projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
28 Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
29 (TARPO) planning areas for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2022 Statewide
30 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
31 Bret Martin said at the BOCC's November 19, 2013 meeting, the BOCC considered and
32 approved two lists of priority transportation projects incorporating all modes to submit to TARPO
33 and the DCHC MPO for the portion of Orange County within those organizations' respective
34 planning areas. He said these lists were subsequently submitted to each transportation
35 planning organization for submission to the State for scoring. It was determined at the
36 November 19, 2013 meeting by the BOCC that the transportation priority lists for TARPO and
37 the DCHC MPO should be revisited upon receipt of the State scores for each project to
38 evaluate whether the projects should be reprioritized with the benefit of knowing their respective
39 scores. He said these lists were meant for scoring by the State to be included in the STIP.
40 Bret Martin said since the BOCC's approval of the priority lists in November 2013, both
41 TARPO and DCHC MPO have developed and approved project ranking methodologies that
42 prescribe how each organization's local input points will be assigned to projects. He said the
43 DCHC MPO's project ranking policy is data-driven, but leaves open the possibility for the MPO
44 board to make changes based on factors such as geographic equity, knowledge of local
45 jurisdictional needs, public input, coordination with division engineers, and maximization of
46 the MPO's opportunities for receiving funding. He said that the only thing that can change the
47 output of the MPO scoring is if the MPO board acts on those considerations. He said there is a
48 value in doing this, because it institutionalizes the County's project priorities moving forward.
49 Bret Martin said the only DCHC MPO project that appears likely to be funded is the
50 Orange Grove Road extension project from South Churton Street to US 70 Business. He said
37
1 some other projects scored relatively well, but the funding constraints in their tier means there is
2 not enough money to fund the entire project. He said the policy for TARPO was to submit the
3 projects across all modes, and rank them in order, regardless of mode, and assign points
4 based on how each jurisdiction ranks their projects. He said there aren't really any promising
5 projects after receiving the state scores. He said it is possible that the NC54 widening project
6 between Orange Grove Road and Old Fayetteville Road may receive some attention. He said it
7 is eligible for funding at the regional tier, and it is also the highest scoring project using
8 TARPO's scoring methodology; however it did not score well compared to other regional tier
9 projects.
10 Chair Jacobs said the Board had been encouraged to re-prioritize projects based on
11 what was likely to be funded. He said part of this discussion involved moving Orange Grove
12 Road ahead of South Churton Street.
13 John Roberts agreed that this is a good idea, given the cost of the project and the
14 availability of money in the division tier.
15 Commissioner Pelissier said she is an alternate on the MPO and this has been the
16 strategy recommended by all of the MPOs, as there is so little money available. She said this
17 process is new and no one knows what the outcome will be.
18 Commissioner Gordon agreed that this has been the strategy, and the list also
19 reprioritizes by mode and is a much better list. She would enthusiastically support the new
20 prioritization.
21 Commissioner Price said she has served on TARPO, and this process is very difficult.
22 She said the process seems to favor projects that link major economic districts to other major
23 economic districts. She said this is about highways and less about connectivity within city or
24 county. She said it would be good to get the 54 widening, but it is going to be difficult.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
27 approve the resolutions (Attachments 1 and 4) as written, except to reconfigure the lists of
28 priority transportation projects submitted to the TARPO and DCHC MPO, to prioritize Orange
29 Grove extension as #1, and South Churton Street as #2.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to also
34 approve the related Attachments 2, 3, 5, and 6.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 8. Reports-NONE
39
40 9. County Manager's Report
41 Michael Talbert reminded the Board of the Morinaga groundbreaking event on June 5th
42
43 10. County Attorney's Report
44
45 NONE
46
47 11. Appointments
48 a. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointment
49 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors
50 Bureau.
38
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
3 appoint Dr. Aaron Bachenheimer to a partial term (Position #4) UNC Chapel Hill with an ending
4 term of 12/31/2015. He will be completing the term for Laura Hayes Morgan who recently
5 resigned.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 b. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment—Appointment
10 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
13 appoint Mr. Dave Remington to a first full term expiring 06/30/2017 for position # 3 - ETJ
14 County.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment
19 The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
22 appoint Ms. Grace White to a first full term (Position #4) At-Large with a term ending on
23 03/31/2017.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 d. Human Relations Commission —Appointments
28 The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations Commission.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
31 appoint Ms. Vanessa Soleil to a first partial term (Position #3) as an At-Large Representative
32 with a term ending 09/30/2015.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
37 appoint Ms. Andrea Jones to a first full term (Position #18) as a Town of Carrboro Special
38 Representative with a term expiring 06/30/2017.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 e. Orange County Parks & Recreation Council —Appointments
43 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Parks & Recreation
44 Council.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
47 appoint Mr. Neal Bench to a second term (Position # 7) Chapel Hill Township, with a term
48 expiring 03/31/2017
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
3 appoint Mr. Joel Bulkley to a second term in Position #4- Chapel Hill Township, with a term
4 expiring of 03/31/2017.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
9 appoint Mr. Allan Green to a second term in Position # 9-Bingham Township with an ending
10 term of 03/31/2017.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
15 appoint Rob English to Position #5- At Large.
16
17 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Price and Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 5 (Chair
18 Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner
19 Pelissier)
20
21 There was discussion regarding the need to clarify past service for applicants in the
22 database. Donna Baker said this can be discussed with staff over the summer.
23
24 Commissioner Gordon noted that the reason for her vote on Rob English is that this was
25 brought up at the last minute.
26 Commissioner McKee said he does not question Rob English's qualifications, but he
27 questions making last minute appointments.
28 Commissioner Dorosin questioned what the alternative is to the last minute appointment
29 if any appointment not recommended by the advisory board is last minute unless a two stage
30 process is proposed.
31 Commissioner McKee said he would not mind nominating now and voting at the next
32 meeting. He said his other concern was the amount of time the applicant has already served.
33 He feels most comfortable having time to look at an applicant.
34 Commissioner Price said she does not understand why the Board members think this is
35 last minute since the packet has been available for days.
36 Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price, but he
37 respects Commissioner McKee's comments. He suggested making nominations, and if
38 seconded these will be placed on the consent agenda for the next meeting. He said this will be
39 the policy moving forward, and it can be listed on the next consent agenda as an adaptation to
40 the Board's existing policies.
41 Commissioner Gordon said she would like to have the option to vote on these changes
42 after the Board has further discussed the process.
43 Chair Jacobs said the spirit of this is to broaden the pool of applicants, while not
44 delaying too long before making a decision. He said if it doesn't work, it can be re-visited.
45
46 12. Board Comments
47 Commissioner Pelissier said that two regional routes were approved at the last TTA
48 board meeting as part of the half cent sales tax. She said service will start soon, and these
49 routes are between Chapel Hill and Duke/downtown, and the other goes from Chapel Hill to
50 Southpoint. She said the Hillsborough/Mebane/Duke Route has not been approved yet. She
40
1 expects that when Chapel Hill Transit comes up with its local services out of the sales tax, the
2 Board will get to know about it.
3 Commissioner Gordon said the next DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee
4 meeting will be held on June 11, and work will be continued on project prioritization and
5 assigning of points. She said the Durham/Chapel Hill Work Group will be meeting on that same
6 day.
7 Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the routes she mentioned above already exist, but
8 Saturday night and Sunday service is being added.
9 Commissioner Price said she attended assembly day for NCACC, and one of the major
10 thrusts is the funding for schools.
11 She referred to the earlier discussion about appointments and said she feels it is the
12 responsibility of the Commissioners to keep these boards full and to look at diversity on the
13 boards.
14 Chair Jacobs noted the employee appreciation luncheon being held on Friday.
15 He said Preservation Chapel Hill, The Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, and the Orange
16 County Historic Preservation Commission, with the assistance of the Visitors Bureau, hosted a
17 symposium for two days about local history. He said it was a success and was well attended.
18 He congratulated the Board for getting through a tough agenda tonight.
19
20 13. Information Items
21
22 • May 20, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
23 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
24 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
25 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases and Refunds Under $100
26 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from May 8, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
27 • Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Status Report
28 • Regional Partnership Workforce Development Board Annual Report—2012-2013
29
30 14. Closed Session
31
32 15. Adjournment
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
34 adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 Barry Jacobs, Chair
39
40
41 Donna Baker
42 Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 7
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 June 17, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June
10 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
24
25 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
27 add a Resolution Recognizing Michael Talbert for Service to Orange County to the agenda as
28 Item 4-b.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places:
33 - Yellow sheets — Proposal for Item 4-b - Resolution to Recognize Michael Talbert for Service
34 to Orange County
35 - Buff sheet— Revised Attachment 1 for Item 6-m- Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public
36 Hearing
37 - Blue sheet—Agreement page 4 of 7 for Item 6-p—Partnership Agreement - Renewal Sports
38 Endeavors
39 - White Sheet - Information requested for school districts for Item 7-a —Approval of Fiscal
40 Year 2014-15 Budget Ordinance, County Grant Projects, and County Fee Schedule
41 - PowerPoint for Item 7-d —Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service
42 Expansion Concepts — Orange Public Transportation and Triangle Transit
43 - Lime green Sheet for item 7-e— Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application —Triple Creek
44 Farms
45 - PowerPoint for item 7-e - Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application —Triple Creek
46 Farms
47 - Pink sheet— Revised face sheet for Item 11e — OWASA appointment (term ending date
48 revised)
49
50 PUBLIC CHARGE
2
1 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2
3 2. Public Comments
4 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
5 James Strowd is the Executive Director of the Center for Home Ownership, and he is
6 here on behalf of the proposed Orange County Clearinghouse project, which he presented
7 many months ago. He said the program would be a centralized hub of resources, which would
8 include all housing opportunities in Orange County. He said many housing advocates and
9 providers have expressed the need for this, and time is of the essence, particularly as it relates
10 to the 33 residents in Orange County who currently hold section 8 vouchers. He said these
11 residents will be displaced as early as October. He said the clearinghouse would act as a
12 resource for those individuals, as well as housing providers and advocates. He asked for
13 emergency funding for the Orange County Clearinghouse project and the pilot program. He
14 asked the Board to consider this request.
15 Arthur Sprinzeles sits on the affordable housing board. He said he is concerned about
16 affordable housing in Orange County. He said he has 6 children of his own, and all of them
17 have good jobs, but they still cannot afford to live in Orange County. He said there are many
18 low wage earners who don't stand a chance of having decent, safe and affordable housing in
19 Orange County. He understands that many families will be displaced later in the year, and the
20 County needs to get this clearinghouse up and running before residents and tax dollars are lost
21 to other areas.
22 Ginezella Bailey Pridam is a section 8 voucher recipient. She said she is also the vice
23 chair of the AHAB. She said she became one of Orange County's homeless in late November
24 of 2006 related to health issues, lack of healthcare, and loss of income. She said it took her 3
25 months to find affordable housing with a section 8 voucher after becoming homeless. She said
26 she was displaced a second time due to fire and was without an address, phone, transportation
27 or job. She said the overwhelming frustrations of being displaced included: fear for safety;
28 meeting alone with people you don't know, while trying to locate affordable housing; and relying
29 on the maybes of word of mouth and blind effort. She said there are not enough landlords that
30 will take section 8 vouchers. She said crisis situations can quickly arise for displaced tenants
31 when one resorts to the present method of locating affordable housing in our County. She said
32 the County is in dire need of affordable housing and a more efficient means of locating it. She
33 said a clearinghouse will accomplish this, and will provide education for individuals and existing
34 landlords in hopes of creating advocates that can change the public's perception of section 8
35 recipients.
36 Tish Galu is a representative of the affordable housing coalition. She said the Center
37 for Home Ownership is one of the coalition's members. She said her organization has been
38 dealing with the residents that have been displaced, and there are 33 families that will be
39 displaced by October. She said this is a crisis situation, and timing is the real issue. She said
40 this database has the ability to help the non-profits learn where there are vacancies and where
41 people can go. She strongly urged the Board to find a way to provide emergency funding for
42 this project.
43
44 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
45
46 3. Petitions by Board Members
47 Commissioner Dorosin wanted to check up on his previous petition about the gun buy-
48 back program.
49 Chair Jacobs said this was discussed in agenda review, and staff was directed to
50 pursue information on potential program models, logistics and costs for consideration.
3
1 Commissioner Rich petitioned that the Board request that all County departments use
2 the new logo.
3 Commissioner Gordon read her petitions as follows:
4 A. Revised petition- Posting of BOCC Agendas/Electronic Agendas
5 It would be helpful if Orange County residents, including those with older or less
6 powerful computers, could access items for the BOCC meetings in a more convenient
7 and effective manner than they can now.
8
9 1. Suggested improvements to make the agendas more user friendly include:
10 a. On the agenda face sheet, or somewhere equally convenient, allow the users
11 to click on an individual agenda item or attachment that they wish to review,
12 so that make they can jump directly to that item.
13 b. Number the pages of the agenda packet consecutively, from 1 through N,
14 where N equals the total number of pages for all of the agenda items in the
15 agenda packet.
16
17 It appeared that the Planning Board agendas had these features, but perhaps they do not.
18 However, the Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro, and DCHC-MPO do have a feature that
19 allowed the user to jump to a particular agenda item, and that is very helpful.
20
21 A. Petition — Joint Planning Agreement (JPA)
22
23 According to the terms of the JPA for Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County, certain items
24 are to be referred to the other jurisdictions for review, and comment or action, before the
25 originating jurisdiction will act. Sometimes there is a specified time limit for when a response is
26 to be sent back to the originating jurisdiction.
27
28 Whenever a JPA item is referred to Orange County, and received by Orange County staff, then
29 that item, along with all supporting materials, shall immediately (or at least within 3-5 business
30 days) be provided to all of the Commissioners for their information. It shall also be considered
31 at the earliest possible meeting of the agenda review committee, to ascertain whether it should
32 be placed on a Commissioners' agenda for review, comment or action.
33
34 Commissioner Gordon said these items vary from minor to major amendments and
35 changes. She said it would be helpful to get these for informational purposes and potential
36 action.
37
38 Commissioner Price said when the Board makes petitions to honor a person or place,
39 and that person or place is over 100 years or older she would like to petition that a resolution be
40 presented instead of a letter.
41
42 Chair Jacobs said he is following up on a previous request for an analysis of the
43 lending practices of the banks that the County deals with. He would like this information to be
44 brought back in the fall for the Board to review and make decisions on whether or not to
45 continue investing with them.
46 Chair Jacobs asked the Human Resources Director to survey other jurisdictions to find
47 out whether they require senior staff to live within their County of employment.
48 Chair Jacobs said he would like a report on fracking and what can be regulated in
49 Orange County. He asked for information on the process for permitting a fracking operation,
50 especially in watershed areas. He would like to know if the Board has any purview in this area.
4
1
2 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
3 a. Proclamation Recognizing Chapel Hill High School Women's Soccer Team
4 Winning the 2014 State Championship
5 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the Chapel Hill High School Women's
6 Soccer Team and Coach Ron Benson for winning the 2014 State Championship and
7 authorizing the Chair to sign.
8 Head Coach Ron Benson introduced himself.
9
10 Commissioner Gordon read the proclamation:
11
12 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
13
14 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON
15 CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM AND COACH RON BENSON
16 WINNING THE 2014 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
17
18
19 WHEREAS, on May 31, 2014, Chapel Hill High School Women's Soccer Team captured the
20 North Carolina High School Athletic Association's (NCHSAA) 3A State
21 Women's Soccer Championship; and,
22
23 WHEREAS, under the guidance of Coach Ron Benson, the Chapel Hill High School Women's
24 Soccer Team earned its first NCHSAA State title, completing the season with a
25 23-1 record; and,
26
27 WHEREAS, Coach Ron Benson, after 34 years of leading the Tigers, has announced his
28 retirement; and,
29
30 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Lady Tigers
31 brought honor upon themselves, Chapel Hill High School, the Chapel Hill /
32 Carrboro City Schools District and Orange County;
33
34 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
35 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the Chapel Hill High School
36 Women's Soccer Team and Coach Benson for the Tigers' outstanding
37 achievement, and their inspiration to youth across North Carolina through their
38 dedication, teamwork, and athletic prowess.
39
40 This, the 17th day of June 2014.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
43 approve the proclamation recognizing the Chapel Hill High School Women's Soccer Team for
44 winning the 2014 State Championship and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation on
45 behalf of the Board.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
5
1 Ron Benson recognized the soccer players and his assistant for their achievements. He
2 expressed thanks to the Board.
3
4 b. Addition of Resolution Recognizing Michael Talbert for Service to Orange County
5
6 Commissioner McKee read the following resolution:
7
8 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
9 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MICHAEL TALBERT FOR SERVICE TO ORANGE COUNTY
10
11 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert has served in multiple positions since joining Orange County
12 Government in December 2009; and
13
14 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert continually stepped forward to fill gaps at increasingly
15 challenging positions; and
16
17 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert advanced from a temporary position with Financial Services,
18 took on the role of Deputy Financial Services Director in September 2010,
19 moved to Assistant County Manager in November 2011 and served as Interim
20 County Manager starting in September 2013; and
21
22 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert worked to promote policies and practices with a strong eye
23 toward financial implications to improve the well-being of Orange County; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert coordinated extremely challenging projects including the
26 Emergency Services Workgroup, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task
27 Force, an overhaul of the Capital Improvement Plan reporting structure and
28 moving the County forward on multiple aspects of solid waste and recycling; and
29
30 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert's demeanor, intelligence, poise and collaborative spirit
31 consistently promoted relationships and attitudes that facilitated healthy
32 partnerships; and
33
34 WHEREAS, Michael Talbert's public service reflects a level of dedication, responsiveness,
35 training, receptivity and hard work that is to be admired and saluted;
36
37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the
38 County staff, and the residents of Orange County do hereby express our
39 appreciation and respect for Michael Talbert for his service and leadership, and
40 wish him well as he retires and moves on to other endeavors.
41
42 This the 17th day of June 2014.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
45 adopt the resolution Recognizing Michael Talbert for Service to Orange County.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Michael Talbert thanked the Board. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity
50 to work with talented people and said this has been a fun and challenging experience. He said
6
1 he hopes he has made a difference and he will attempt to pass on his knowledge to the new
2 manager.
3
4 5. Public Hearings - NONE
5
6 6. Consent Agenda
7 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
8
9 Commissioner Price removed item 6-q from the consent agenda for discussion.
10
11 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Rich to
13 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
18
19 q. Intent to Consider a Resolution for the Renaming of the "Northern Human
20 Services Center" to the "Cedar Grove Community Center"
21 The Board received a report from the Manager and provided notice of the Board's intent
22 to consider and approve a resolution to officially rename the "Northern Human Services Center"
23 to the "Cedar Grove Community Center" consistent with the County Property Naming Policy.
24
25 Commissioner Price said she has no problem with re-naming it. She asked that the
26 Board consider naming a room or a field after the Bensons, who gave the land for the school
27 originally.
28 Chair Jacobs said that could be part of the process.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if there was a naming policy.
30 Chair Jacobs said yes, and this policy is attached.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
33 approve a resolution to officially rename the "Northern Human Services Center" to the "Cedar
34 Grove Community Center" consistent with the County Property Naming Policy.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 Commissioner Gordon called the Board's attention to item 6-h and noted that the
39 County is saving over $800,000 in debt service cost over 4 years. She thanked staff.
40
41 a. Minutes
42 The Board approved the minutes from May 8, 2014 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
43 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
44 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor
45 vehicle property tax values for seventeen (17) taxpayers with a total of twenty (20) bills that
46 will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with the NCGS.
47 c. Proclamation —Women's Equality Day
48 The Board approved a proclamation recognizing August 26, 2014 as Women's Equality Day
49 and authorized the Chair to sign.
50 d. Authorization to Transfer Certain Property to Another Public Entity
7
1 The Board approved transfer of ownership of withdrawn library books from the collections to
2 the Friends of Orange County Public Libraries, a local non-profit.
3 e. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#9
4 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal
5 year 2013-14 for: The Department on Aging; Department of the Environment, Agriculture,
6 Parks and Recreation; Department of Social Services; Miscellaneous (Health Insurance
7 increase); New Hope Preserve/Hollow Rock Access Capital Project; Vehicle Replacement
8 Fund; and BOCC Contingency.
9 f. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
10 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment# 9-A Related
11 to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
12 The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to
13 release funds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2013-14 debt service
14 payments for Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools, and to approve Budget Amendment#9-A
15 (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the State's approval of the
16 application and authorized the Chair to sign.
17 g. Approval of Public Safety 9-1-1 Center Improvements and Budget Amendment#9-B
18 The Board approved Budget Amendment#9-B to utilize funds from the Emergency
19 Telephone Fund to upgrade equipment; provide Computer Aided Dispatch licenses for
20 response stakeholders; implement a preventive maintenance program; and implement a
21 robust sanitation program to minimize the spread of communicable disease within the 9-1-1
22 Center and authorized the Manager to sign.
23 h. Authorization and Issuance of Up to $15,500,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds
24 The Board approved a resolution and bond order authorizing the issuance of general
25 obligation refunding bonds in the maximum amount of$15,500,000 to refinance existing
26 County bonds.
27 i. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for Jason and Rebecca Davis and
28 Approval of Budget Amendment #9-C
29 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve the
30 acceptance by Orange County of a conservation easement to protect a portion of a property
31 owned by Jason and Rebecca Davis; and to approve Budget Amendment#9-C and
32 authorized the Chair to sign, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney.
33 j. Resolution of Approval —Amendment to the Volpe Conservation Easement
34 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve an
35 amendment to a conservation easement held by Orange County for property owned by
36 Mark and Lori Volpe and authorized the Chair to sign.
37 k. Resolution of Approval —Amendment to the Shy Conservation Easement
38 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve an
39 amendment to a conservation easement held by Orange County for property owned by Carl
40 and Eve Shy and authorized the Chair to sign.
41 I. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Outline and Schedule for
42 Upcoming Item — UDO Text Amendment Related to Neighborhood Information
43 Meetings for Special Use Permit Applications
44 The Board approved the process components and schedule for a Planning Director initiated
45 item for amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance recommended for hearing at
46 the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
47 m. Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing —September 8, 2014
48 The Board approved the (amended) legal advertisement for items to be presented at the
49 joint Board of County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled
50 for September 8, 2014.
8
1 n. Bid Award — Morinaga Area Water and Sewer Infrastructure and Approval of Budget
2 Amendment #9-D
3 The Board approved Budget Amendment#9-D for the acceptance of the Community
4 Development Block Grant (CDBG) of$750,000, and the use of the required match of
5 $250,000 and a $75,000 construction contingency from Article 46 Sales Tax proceeds;
6 awarding the bid and approving a construction contract to J.F. Wilkerson Contracting Co.,
7 Inc. of Morrisville, NC, in the amount of$747,840 for the construction of the Morinaga Area
8 Water and Sewer Infrastructure; authorized the Manager to sign the contract and other
9 documents necessary to begin project on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
10 subject to final review by the County Attorney; and authorized the Manager to execute
11 individual change orders within the limit of Manager's authority ($250,000) up to the extent
12 of the project budget.
13 o. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments — Revisions to Existing
14 Language to Incorporate Changes Made by the Town of Carrboro
15 The Board approved changes made by the Town of Carrboro which modified language to
16 the version of the amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement previously approved by the
17 BOCC. These changes involved adding the language "agricultural uses exempt from
18 zoning regulations" to the proposed JPA amendments. The purposes of the JPA
19 amendments were ensuring agricultural activities are allowed throughout the Rural
20 Buffer and clarifying required densities and minimum lot sizes within, and outside of,
21 the University Lake Watershed Area.
22 p. Partnership Agreement Renewal — Sports Endeavors, Inc.
23 The Board renewed an agreement with Sports Endeavors, Inc. for a partnership with
24 Orange County regarding the naming rights of the Eurosport Soccer Center and authorized
25 the Chair to sign.
26
27 r. Desktop / Laptop Replacements and Upgrades
28 The Board authorized the Manager to sign a contract with XenTegra in the amount of
29 $101,400 to convert 150 existing desktop computers into virtual desktop computers.
30 s. JCPC Certification FY 2014-2015
31 The Board approved the Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Certification for
32 FY 2014-15 and authorized the Chair to sign.
33 t. County Attorney and Clerk to the Board Employment Agreement Amendments
34 The Board approved amending the Employment Agreements governing the terms and
35 conditions of the County Attorney's and Clerk to the Board's employment.
36 u. Approval of Senior Lunch Caterer Contract with Nantucket Grill, Inc.
37 The Board approved the food service caterer contract with Nantucket Grill, Inc. to provide
38 noon meals for the Home and Community Care Block Grant-funded Senior Lunch Program
39 at the Seymour and Central Orange Senior Centers for the period July 1, 2014 to June 30,
40 2015 with an optional one year extension and authorized the Chair to sign.
41 v. Lease Release for Carrboro Greenway at Chapel Hill High School
42 The Board released a portion of the property at Chapel Hill High School from the current
43 lease with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education to the Town of Carrboro in order for
44 the Town to use State Grant funds to construct a greenway and authorized the Chair to
45 sign.
46 w. Jordan Lake Partnership Renewal
47 The Board approved Addendum No. 1 to the Jordan Lake Partnership Memorandum of
48 Understanding, renewing the County's agreement to participate until June 30, 2019 and
49 authorized the Manager to sign.
50
9
1 7. Regular Agenda
2
3 a. Approval of Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Ordinance, County Grant Projects, and
4 County Fee Schedule (7:40-7:55)
5 The Board considered approving the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Ordinance, County
6 Grant Projects, and County Fee Schedule.
7 Clarence Grier reviewed the attachments and presented the following budget resolution:
8
9 Resolution of Intent to Adopt the 2014-15
10 Orange County Budget
11
12 The items outlined below summarize decisions that the Board acted upon June 12, 2014 in
13 approving the FY2014-15 Orange County Annual Operating Budget.
14
15 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has considered the Orange County
16 2014-15 Manager's Recommended Budget; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the Commissioners have agreed on certain modifications to the Manager's
19 Recommended Budget as presented in the 2014-15 County Manager's Recommended Budget
20 on May 20, 2014;
21
22 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
23 expresses its intent to adopt the 2014-15 Orange County Budget Ordinance on Tuesday, June
24 17, 2014, based on the following stipulations:
25
26 1) Property Tax Rates
27
28 a) The ad valorem property tax rate shall be set at 87.8 cents per $100 of assessed
29 valuation.
30
31 b) The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax shall be set at 20.84 cents per
32 $100 of assessed valuation.
33
34 c) The Fire District and Fire Service District tax rates shall be set at the following rates
35 (all rates are based on cents per $100 of assessed valuation):
36
37
• Cedar Grove 7.36
• Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District 15.00
• Damascus 8.80
• Efland 7.00
• Eno 7.99
• Little River 4.06
• New Hope 9.95
• Orange Grove 6.00
• Orange Rural 7.36
10
• South Orange Fire Service District 10.00
• Southern Triangle Fire Service District 8.80
• White Cross 11.00
1
2 Clarence Grier noted that the ad valorem property tax rate of 87.8 cents was an
3 increase of 2 cents from the previous year. He noted that the fire district tax rates included
4 increases for the New Hope and White Cross districts.
5
6 2) County Employee Pay and Benefits Plan
7
8 Provide a County employee pay and benefits plan that includes:
9
10 a. Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of 1.5% for all permanent employees hired on or
11 before June 30, 2014, effective July 1, 2014.
12 b. Increase the salary range maximums by 1.5% to allow those employees at or exceeding
13 the range to receive the 1.5% COLA.
14 c. An Employee Performance Award in the amount of$500 (proficient performance) or
15 $1,000 (exceptional performance), effective with WPPR review dates from July 1, 2014
16 to June 30, 2015.
17 d. Continue the $27.50 per pay period County contribution to non-law enforcement
18 employees' supplemental retirement accounts; increase the County match up to $1500
19 per year ($62.50 semi-monthly) based on employee contribution; continue the mandated
20 Law Enforcement Officer contribution of 5.0% of salary; and increase the County's
21 required contribution to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System
22 (LGERS) for all law enforcement officers (LEOS).
23 e. Funding to address an employee health insurance increase up to 14.35% over current
24 premiums, effective January 1, 2015.
25 f. Increase the living wage from $10.97 to $12.76 per hour.
26 g. Extending the six-month hiring delay and the voluntary furlough program.
27 h. Addressing increased costs for Retiree Health Benefits.
28
29
30 3) Modifications to County Manager's FY 2014-15 Recommended Annual Operating
31 Budget
32
33 The following modifications to the County Manager's Recommended Budget are made:
11
1
Adjustments to the Manager's Recommended FY2014-15 Budget
On June 12, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners approved the following changes to the Manager's
Recommended annual operating budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year. The information below summarizes changes
made by the Board.
Revenues Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Revenue Budget $195,638,505
Elimination of Visitors Bureau Rent ($48,000)
Increase of General Property Tax by 2 cent/$100 valuation $3,276,482
Additional Appropriated Fund Balance $1,561,124
Total Revenue Changes $4,837,606 ($48,000)
Revised Revenue Budget 200,428,111
Expenditures Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Expenditure Budget $195,638,505
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Chapel Hill/Carrboro Meals on $6,000
Wheels
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for EmPOWERment $5,000
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Compass Center for Women $5,000
and Families
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Rogers Road-Eubanks $4,000
Neighborhood Association
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Marian Cheek Jackson Center $1,500
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Voices Together $2,000
Outside Agencies: Additional Funding for Orange Congregations in $1,000
Mission (OCIM)
Outside Agencies: Partially Fund Ligo Dojo of Budo Karate $2,000
Outside Agencies: Partially Fund The Exchange Club Child Abuse
$2,000
Prevention Center
Board of County Commissioners: Additional Funding for webstreaming all
$9,200
meetings
Economic Development: Personnel and Operations funding for Business $87 063
Retention Specialist position (1.0 FTE)
Additional Funding to increase temporary employees to $12.76/hour $62,650
Department of Social Services: Additional Funding for Childcare $64,587
Social Justice Fund: Additional Funding $350,000
Education: Additional Funding $4,187,606
Total Expenditure Changes $4,789,606 $0
2 Revised Expenditure Budget $200,428,111
3
4
12
1 4) Changes in Funding to Improve Service Delivery (Increase in FTE Approved)
2
General Fund
One-lime Offsetting
Dept/Division Position Effective Date FTE Annual Salary and Operating Start-Up Revenue or Net County
Change Salary Benefits Costs Cost Total
Costs Cost Savings
W
Animal Services-Animal Shelter Veterinary Health Care Technician July 1,2014 1.0 $29,286 $42,289 $127 $0 ($10,250) $32,166
P
Elections Assistant-Voter
Board of Elections Outreach July 1,2014 1.0 $30,768 $43,994 $0 $0 $0 $43,994
DEAPR-Parks Parks Conservation Tech II November 1,2014 0.75 $17,842 $26,256 $1,425 $0 ($797) $26,884
Economic Development Business Retention Specialist July 1,2014 1.0 $67,553 $86,283 $780 $0 $0 $87,063
P
Emergency Services-
Administration EM Planner July 1,2014 1.0 $39,387 $53,914 $604 $4,116 $0 $58,634
r
Health-Dental Health Dental Office Assistant July 1,2014 0.5 $13,939 $24,626 $0 $0 $0 $24,626
Health-Dental Health Dental Hygienist July 1,2014 0.2 $11,881 $12,240 $0 $0 $0 $12,240
Health-Health Promotion& Senior Public Health Educator-
Education Poverty July 1,2014 1.0 $41,381 $56,209 $14,101 $570 $0 $70,880
Library-Main Communications Specialist January 1,2015 1.0 $18,742 $25,861 $0 $1,775 ($5,460) $22,176
P
Library-Carrboro Librarian I July 1,2014 0.25 $11,200 $12,914 $0 $0 $0 $12,914
Planning-OPT Office Assistant II July 1,2014 1.0 $29,286 $42,288 $1,170 $3,633 ($47,091) $0
Planning-OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2014 1.0 $29,286 $42,288 $1,220 $0 ($43,508) $0
r
Sheriff Deputy Sheriff-Transport July 1,2014 2.0 $71,366 $101,682 $0 $0 $0 $101,682
Tax Administration- Office Assistant I I-extension of
Collector/Revenue Tme-limited July 1,2014 1.0 $29,872 $42,962 $0 $0 $0 $42,962
TOTALS 12.7 $441,788 $613,806 $19,427 $10,094 ($107,106) $536,221
Grant Fund
One-lime Offsetting
Dept/Division Position Effective Date FTE Annual Salary and Operating Start-Up Revenue or Net County
Change Salary Benefits Costs Cost Total
Costs Cost Savings
Senior Public Health Educator-
Health-Triple P Initiative(30 fund) Program Coordinator July 1,2014 1.0 $41,381 $56,209 $0 $8,000 ($64,209) $0
TOTALS 1.0 $41,381 $56,209 $0 $8,000 ($64,209) $0
Visitors Bureau Fund
FTE Annual Salary and Operating One-lime Offsetting Net Visitors
Dept/Division Position Effective Date Change Salary Benefits Costs Start-Up Revenue or Bureau Fund
Costs Cost Savings Cost Total
Economic Development-Visitors
Bureau Sales Manager July 1,2014 1.0 $50,000 $66,129 $4,380 $1,827 ($14,194) $58,142
3 TOTALS 1.0 $50,000 $66,129 $4,380 $1,827 ($14,194) $58,142
4
5 Clarence Grier said the total amount for all of the approved FTE's is $542,035.
6
7 5) General Fund Appropriations for Local School Districts
8
9 The following FY 2014-15 General Fund Appropriations for Chapel Hill Carrboro City
10 Schools and Orange County Schools are approved:
11
12 a) Current Expense appropriation for local school districts totals $72,147,134 and equates
13 to a per pupil allocation of$3,571.
13
1
2 1) The Current Expense appropriation to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools is
3 $44,066,106.
4
5 2) The Current Expense appropriation to the Orange County Schools is
6 $28,081,028.
7
8 b) Recurring Capital appropriation for local school districts totals $3,000,000
9
10 1) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
11 totals $1,832,400.
12
13 2) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Orange County Schools totals
14 $1,167,600.
15
16 c) Long Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation for local school districts totals
17 $3,724,849.
18
19 1) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill
20 Carrboro City Schools totals $2,275,138.
21
22 2) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Orange County
23 Schools totals $1,449,711.
24
25 d) School Related Debt Service for local school districts totals $16,608,984.
26
27 e) Fair Funding appropriation for local school districts totals $988,000. This
28 appropriation is to be split 50/50 between Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and
29 Orange County Schools.
30
31 f) Additional County funding for local school districts totals $1,253,804.
32
33 (1) School Health Nurses —Total appropriation of$697,380 with $460,684
34 allocated for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and $236,696 allocated for
35 Orange County Schools.
36
37 (2) School Resource Officers —Total appropriation of$556,424 allocated in the
38 Sheriff's Department to provide School Resource Officers to Orange County
39 Schools.
40
41 Clarence Grier said there was an error on Thursday night that resulted in a $135
42 difference in the General Funds for School Districts. He noted the attachment with highlighted
43 yellow sheets. He said the per-pupil allocation is actually $3,571.29.
44
45 6) County Fee Schedule
46
47 To adopt the County Fee Schedule to include changes included in the FY 2014-15
48 Manager's Recommended Annual Operating Budget.
49
50
14
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 approve the resolution of Intent.
3
4 VOTE UNANIMOUS
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT
7 Chair Coffey thanked the Board for making tough decisions. She said the school
8 system is grateful for the additional funding. She said some outside observers may not
9 understand what fully funding the school's request means. She said this is not a windfall. She
10 said the state budgets do not fund the daily membership increases, and these must be met on
11 the local side. She said there is still uncertainty in Raleigh, and the state budget is still not
12 certain. She feels there will be more cuts and less funding. She said the most impactful cut is
13 in the reduction of teacher assistants, and the proposed house bill would result in a reduction in
14 excess of$300,000 for teacher assistants. She said the Senate reduction would be $1.1 million
15 in teacher assistant funding. She said there are tough decisions to make in the budget and the
16 Board has helped the school make those difficult decisions. She expressed appreciation for the
17 support and said without this support the cuts from Raleigh would have a much tougher impact.
18
19 Chair Bedford echoed Chair Coffey's words. She expressed appreciation for this
20 budget. She recognized that the increased taxes will be a sacrifice for many residents, and she
21 pledged that the board will do their best to fund the programs and close the achievement gap
22 within their district. She said the increase in taxes really will help schools teach in a
23 heterogeneous setting versus the old tracking method, which will benefit all children.
24
25 Chair Jacobs said there have been more than $42 million in cuts to education in the two
26 school systems.
27
28 Clarence Grier reviewed the following information:
29
30 Fiscal Year 2014-15
31 Budget Ordinance
32 Orange County, North Carolina
33
34 Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
35
36 Section I. Budget Adoption
37
38 There is hereby adopted the following operating budget for Orange County for this fiscal year
39 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, the same being adopted by fund and activity,
40 within each fund, according to the following summary:
41
Current Interfund Fund Total
Fund Balance
Revenue Transfer Appropriated Appropriation
_189,307,1 g___
General Fund 8 $1,052,600 $10,068,343 $200,428,111
Emergency Telephone Fund $562,338 $0 $294,703 $857,041
Fire Districts Fund $4,853,888 MMMMM $0 $0 $4,853,888
Section 8 (Housing) Fund $192,932 _$_0 $4,569,529_______
15
Community Development
Fund $484,298 $227,368 $0 $711,666
Efland Sewer Operating Fund $143,750MM $0 $374,480
Bureau Fund __$1,311,101 $0 ___--$192,000 $1,503,101'_._._._._._.
School Construction Impact
Fees Fund $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000
Solid Waste/Landfill
Operations Enterprise Fund $8,057,428 $0 $4,965,622 $13,023,050
Sportsplex Enterprise Fund $3,029,810 $376,450 $202,926 $3,609,186
Community Spay/Neuter Fund $52,250 $0 $14,100 $66,350
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,772,980 $0 $0 $2,772,980
1
2
3 Section II. Appropriations
4 That for said fiscal year, there is hereby appropriated out the following:
5
MMFunction opr
Appriation
General Fund__ po r
Governing and Management $17,550,722
MMGeneral Services __$9,451,951____
MMCommunity and Environment $7,548,601____
Human Services __$32,242,706_
Public Safety_,_,_,_,_ $22,382,107_
MMCulture andRecreation __$2,696,035M__
Education __$76,847,41.4_
Debt Service 26,529,306_
Transfers to Other Funds_____ $5,179,269
Total General Fund __$200,428,111
__.Emergency Telephone System Fund___
Public Safety_,_,_,_,_ $857,041_._._._._._._
Total Emergency Telephone System Fund $857,041
MMFire Districts
Cedar Grove_____ __$207,37g______
Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District__ __$272,374______
__.DamascusM________ __$83,089._._._._._._._._
__.Efland __$478,248
Eno
$478,246______
Little River __$173,540._._._._._._
New Hope_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_ __$566,639._._._._._._
Orange Grove $456,232______
Orange Rural $947,020'_._._._._._
South Orange Fire Service District __$516,460______
Southern Triangle Fire Service District __$172,285______
White Cross 406,876______
Total Fire Districts Fund __$4,853,888_,_,_
MMSection 8 (Housing) Fund
Human Services __$4,569,529M__
16
Total Section 8 Fund
Community Development Fund (Urgent Repair_______
Program)
Human Services_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_, $129,185______
Total Community Development Fund(Urgent RepairMMMmm
Program) $129,185______
Community Development Fund (HOME Program)
Human Services �476,204______
Total Community Development Fund(HOME
Program) $476,204______
Community Development Fund (Homelessness
Partnership Program)
Human Services $106,277_,_,_,_,_,_
Total Community Development Fund(Homelessness
Program) $106,277______
Total Community Development Fund Programs $711,666
__.Efland Sewer Operating Fund
Community and Environment $374,480______
Total Efland Sewer Operating Fund_____ $374,480______
Visitors Bureau Fund
Community and Environment $1,503,101____
Total Visitors Bureau Fund $1,503,101M__
MMSchool Construction Impact Fees
Transfers to Other Funds $1,040,000___
Total School Construction Impact Fees Fund MMMMMmm $1,040,000MMM
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations______ $13,023,050
Total Solid Waste/Landfill Operations MMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMM MMMMMmm $13,023,050 MMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMM
SportsPlex Enterprise Fund
Culture and Recreation $3,609,186
Total Sportsplex Enterprise Fund $3,609,186
Community Spay/Neuter Fund
Governing and Management $66,350
Total Community Spay/Neuter Fund $66,350
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund
Governing and Management $2,772,980
Total Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,772,980
1
2 Section III. Revenues
3 The following fund revenues are estimated to be available during the fiscal year beginning July
4 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, to meet the foregoing appropriations:Appropriation
MM
op
Function General Fund
po a
Property Tax_____ $145,714,650
MMSales Tax __$19,001,962_,_
17
Licenses & Permits $313,000
Intergovernmental $13,575,486
Charges for Services $9,799,005
Investment Earnings $105,000
Miscellaneous $798,065
Transfers from Other Funds $1,052,600
Appropriated Fund Balance $10,068,343
Total General Fund $200,428,111
Emergency Telephone System Fund
Charges for Services $562,338
Appropriated Fund Balance $294,703
Total Emergency Telephone System Fund $857,041
Fire Districts
Property Tax $4,853,234
Investment Earnings $654
Appropriated Fund Balance $0
Total Fire Districts Fund $4,853,888
Section 8 (Housing) Fund
Intergovernmental $4,376,597
From General Fund $192,932
Total Section 8 Fund $4,569,529
Community Development Fund (Urgent Repair Program)
From General Fund $129,185
Total Community Development Fund(Urgent Repair
Program) $129,185
Community Development Fund (HOME Program)
Intergovernmental $419,469
From General Fund $56,735
Total Community Development Fund(HOME Program) $476,204
Community Development Fund(Homelessness
Partnership Program)
Intergovernmental $64,829
From General Fund $41,448
Total Community Development Fund(Homelessness
Partnership Program) $106,277
Total Community Development Fund Programs $711,666
Efland Sewer Operating Fund
Charges for Services $230,730
From General Fund $143,750
Total Efland Sewer Operating Fund $374,480
1
Visitors Bureau Fund
Occupancy Tax $1,079,400
Sales & Fees $500
Intergovernmental $230,951
Investment Earnings $250
Appropriated Fund Balance $192,000
Total Visitors Bureau Fund $1,503,101
18
School Construction Impact Fees Fund
Impact Fees $1,040,000____
Total School Construction Impact Fees Fund $1,040,000
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations
MMSales & Fees $5,264,960____
Intergovernmental______ $495,425_______
Miscellaneous $308,500
Licenses & Permits_,_,_,_, $106,500_______
Interest on Investments_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_ $25,500_________
General Fund Contribution for Sanitation Operations $1,856,543
Appropriated Reserves $4,965,622
Total Solid Waste/Landfill Operations $13,023,050
Sportsplex Enterprise Fund
Charges for Services $3,029,810
From General Fund $376,450
Appropriated Fund Balance $202,926
Total Sportsplex Enterprise Fund $3,609,186
Community Spay/Neuter Fund
Animal Tax $31,000
Intergovernmental $15,000
Miscellaneous $6,250
Appropriated Fund Balance $14,100
Total Community Spay/Neuter Fund $66,350
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund
Sales Tax Proceeds $2,772,980
Total Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,772,980
1
2 Section IV. Tax Rate Levy
3 There is hereby levied for the fiscal year 2014-15 a general county-wide tax rate of 87.8 cents
4 per $100 of assessed valuation. This rate shall be levied in the General Fund. Special district
5 tax rates are levied as follows:
6
Cedar Grove 7.36
Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District 15.00
Damascus 8.80
Efland 7.00
Eno 7.99
Little River 4.06
New Hope 9.95
Orange Grove 6.00
Orange Rural 7.36
South Orange Fire Service District 10.00
Southern Triangle Fire Service District 8.80
White Cross 11.00
Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District 20.84
19
1 Section V. General Fund Appropriations for Local School Districts
2 The following FY 2014-15 General Fund Appropriations for Chapel Hill-Carrboro
3 City Schools and Orange County Schools are approved:
4
5 a) Current Expense appropriation for local school districts totals $72,147,134, and equates
6 to a per pupil allocation of$3,571.
7 1) The Current Expense appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is
8 $44,066,106
9 2) The Current Expense appropriation to the Orange County Schools is
10 $28,081,028.
11 b) Recurring Capital appropriation for local school districts totals $3,000,000
12 1) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
13 totals $1,832,400.
14 2) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Orange County Schools totals
15 $1,167,600.
16 c) Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation for local school districts totals
17 $3,724,849
18 1) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill-
19 Carrboro City Schools totals $2,275,138.
20 2) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Orange County
21 Schools totals $ 1,449,711.
22 d) School Related Debt Service for local school districts totals $16,608,984.
23 e) Fair Funding appropriation for local school districts totals $988,000. This appropriation is
24 to be split 50/50 between Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County
25 Schools.
26 f) Additional County funding for local school districts totals $1,253,804
27
28 1) School Health Nurses - Total appropriation of$697,380 with $460,684 allocated
29 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and $236,696 allocated for Orange County
30 Schools
31 2) School Resource Officers - Total appropriation of$556,424 allocated in the
32 Sheriff's Department to provide School Resource Officers to Orange County
33 Schools
34
35
36 Section VI. Schedule B License
37
38 In accordance with Schedule B of the Revenue Act, Article 2, Chapter 105 of the North Carolina
39 State Statutes, and any other section of the General Statutes so permitting, there are hereby
40 levied privilege license taxes in the maximum amount permitted on businesses, trades,
41 occupations or professions which the County is entitled to tax.
42
43 Section VII. Animal Licenses
44
45 A license costing $10 for sterilized dogs and sterilized cats is hereby levied. A license for un-
46 sterilized dogs and a license for un-sterilized cats is $30 per animal.
47
48
49 Section VIII. Board of Commissioners' Compensation
50
20
1 The Board of County Commissioners authorizes that:
2 • Salaries of County Commissioners will be adjusted by any cost of living increase, any in-
3 range salary increase and/or any other general increase granted to permanent County
4 employees. For fiscal year 2014-15, the approved budget includes a 1.5% cost of living
5 increase, effective July 1, 2014.
6 • Annual compensation for County Commissioners will include the County contribution for
7 health insurance, dental insurance and life insurance that is provided for permanent
8 County employees, provided the Commissioners are eligible for this coverage under the
9 insurance contracts and other contracts affecting these benefits.
10 • County Commissioners' compensation includes eligibility to continue to participate in the
11 County health insurance at term end as provided below:
12
13 o If the County Commissioner has served less than two full terms in office (less
14 than eight years), the Commissioner may participate by paying the full cost of
15 such coverage. (If the Commissioner is age 65 or older, Medicare becomes the
16 primary insurer and group health insurance ends.)
17
18 o If the County Commissioner has served two or more full terms in office (eight
19 years or more), the County makes the same contribution for health insurance
20 coverage that it makes for an employee who retires from Orange County after 20
21 years of consecutive County service as a permanent employee. If the
22 Commissioner is age 65 or older, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and
23 group health insurance ends. The County makes the same contribution for
24 Medicare Supplement coverage that it makes for a retired County employee with
25 20 years of service.
26
27 o Annual compensation for Commissioners will include a County contribution for
28 each Commissioner to the Deferred Compensation (457) Supplemental
29 Retirement Plan that is the same as the County contribution for non-law
30 enforcement County employees in the State 401 (k) plan. For fiscal year 2014-
31 15, the approved budget continues the County contribution of$27.50 per pay
32 period and implements a County contribution match of up to $62.50 semi-
33 monthly.
34
35 Section IX. Budget Control
36
37 General Statutes of the State of North Carolina provide for budgetary control measures
38 to exist between a county and public school system. The statute provides:
39
40 Per General Statute 115C-429:
41 (c) The Board of County Commissioners shall have full authority to call for, and the Board of
42 Education shall have the duty to make available to the Board of County Commissioners, upon
43 request, all books, records, audit reports, and other information bearing on the financial
44 operation of the local school administrative unit.
45
46 The Board of Commissioners hereby directs the following measures for budget administration
47 and review:
48 That upon adoption, each Board of Education will supply to the Board of County
49 Commissioners a detailed report of the budget showing all appropriations by function and
50 purpose, specifically to include funding increases and new program funding. The Board of
21
1 Education will provide to the Board of County Commissioners a copy of the annual audit,
2 monthly financial reports, copies of all budget amendments showing disbursements and use of
3 local moneys granted to the Board of Education by the Board of Commissioners.
4
5 Section X. Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance Fund
6
7 The Dental Insurance Fund accounts for the receipt of premium payments from the County for
8 its employees and from the employees for their dependents, and the payment of employee
9 claims and administration expenses. Projected receipts from the County and employees for
10 2014-15 are $505,324 and projected expense for claims and administration for 2014-15 is
11 $505,324.
12
13 Section XI. Internal Service Fund -Vehicle Replacement Fund
14 The Vehicle Replacement Fund will centralize and account for the purchase and replacement of
15 County vehicles purchased with revenues and funding provided by the Governmental Funds of
16 Orange County (General Fund, Special Revenue and Grants Funds). Projected sources of
17 revenues and funds will be $775,119 of short-term installment financing and internal reserves,
18 and the projected expenses for the purchase of vehicles will be $775,119.
19
20 Section XII. Agency Funds
21
22 These funds account for assets held by the County as an agent for other government units, and
23 by State Statutes, these funds are not subject to appropriation by the Board of County
24 Commissioners, and not included in this ordinance.
25
26 Section XIII. Encumbrances
27
28 Operating funds encumbered by the County as of June 30, 2014 are hereby reappropriated to
29 this budget.
30
31 Section XIV. Capital Projects & Grants Fund
32
33 The County Capital Improvements Fund, Schools Capital Improvements Fund, Community
34 Development Fund and the Grant Projects Fund are hereby authorized. Appropriations made
35 for the specific projects or grants in these funds are hereby appropriated until the project or
36 grant is complete.
37
38 The County Capital Projects Fund FY 2014-15 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
39 $6,150,636, and project expenditures of$6,150,636, is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
40 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014, and ending June 30, 2015,
41 and the same is adopted by project.
42
43 The School Capital Projects Fund FY 2014-15 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
44 $5,061,129, and project expenditures of$5,061,129, is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
45 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014, and ending June 30, 2015,
46 and the same is adopted by project.
47
48 The County Grant Projects Fund FY 2014-15 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
49 $824,783, and project expenditures of$824,783, is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
22
1 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014, and ending June 30, 2015,
2 and the same is adopted by project.
3
4 Any capital project or grant budget previously adopted, the balance of any anticipated, but not
5 yet received, revenues and any unexpended appropriations remaining on June 30, 2014, shall
6 be reauthorized in the 2014-15 budget.
7
8 Section XV. Contractual Obligations
9
10 The County Manager is hereby authorized to execute contractual documents under the
11 following conditions:
12
13 1. The Manager may execute contracts for construction or repair projects that do not
14 require formal competitive bid procedures, and which are within budgeted departmental
15 appropriations, for which the amount to be expended does not exceed $250,000.
16 2. The Manager may execute contracts for general and/or professional services which are
17 within budgeted departmental appropriations, for purchases of apparatus supplies and
18 materials or equipment which are within the budgeted departmental appropriations, and
19 for leases of personal property for a duration of one year or less and within budgeted
20 departmental appropriations for which the amount to be expended does not exceed
21 $89,999.
22
23 3. Contracts executed by the Manager shall be pre-audited by the Financial Services
24 Director and reviewed by the County Attorney to ensure compliance in form and
25 sufficiency with North Carolina law.
26
27 4. The Manager may sign intergovernmental service agreements in amounts under
28 $90,000.
29
30 5. The Manager may sign intergovernmental grant agreements regardless of amount as
31 long as no expenditure of County matching funds, not previously budgeted and
32 approved by the Board, is required. Subsequent budget amendments will be brought to
33 the Board of County Commissioners for revenue generating grant agreements not
34 requiring County matching funds as required for reporting and auditing purposes.
35
36 6. The Manager and Attorney will provide a quarterly report to the County Commissioners
37 showing the type and amount of each intergovernmental agreement signed by the
38 Manager.
39
40
41
42 This budget being duly adopted this 17th day of June 2014.
43
44
45
46 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board Barry Jacobs, Chair
47
48
49
50 Earl McKee, Vice-Chair Mark Dorosin
23
1
2
3 Alice Gordon Bernadette Pelissier
4
5
6
7 Renee Price Penny Rich
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
10 approve the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Ordinance.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 Clarence Grier noted that the County grant projects are listed in page 16 of the abstract,
15 and these projects total $824,783.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
18 approve the Fiscal Year 2014-15 County Approved Grant Projects.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 Clarence Grier noted that all County fees are listed in attachment 4 of the abstract.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
25 approve the Fiscal Year 2014-15 County Fee Schedule.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Clarence Grier recognized the budget staff for their hard work.
30 Chair Jacobs thanked Clarence Grier and all of the County staff for their work in keeping
31 the budget affordable, concise, and supportive of the things that the County considers
32 important.
33
34 b. Approval of the Five-Year Capital Investment Plan and Adoption of the County
35 Capital Projects of$6,150,636 and the School Capital Pay-As-You-Go Projects of
36 $3,724,849 for FY2014-15
37 The Board considered approving the FY2014-19 Orange County Five-Year Capital
38 Investment Plan, and adopting the County Capital Projects of$6,150,636 and the School
39 Capital Pay-As-You-Go Projects of$3,724,849 for FY2014-15.
40 Clarence Grier said attachment 1 is the summary for fiscal year 2014-15, and there is a
41 detailed listing of projects, funds and revenues by source. He said attachment 2 lists the actual
42 County capital approved projects, which total $6.2 million; and attachment 3 lists the school
43 capital approved projects.
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
45 the Board to approve the FY2014-19 Orange County Five-Year Capital Investment Plan, and
46 approve funding for FY2014-15, as stated in Year 1 in the Capital Investment Plan; and adopt
47 the FY2014-15County Capital projects as stated in Attachment 2 and FY 2014-15 School
48 Capital Pay-As-You-Go projects as stated in Attachment 3.
49
24
1 Michael Talbert thanked the Clarence Grier and the Board for their diligence through this
2 budget season.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 c. Proposal to Create an Orange County Child Poverty Council (OCCPC) (8:05-8:20)
7 The Board considered approving the structure, designating/confirming organizations to
8 be represented and appointing two Commissioners to the Orange County Child Poverty
9 Council.
10 Colleen Bridger introduced this item and asked the Board for approval of the council,
11 designation of organizations to participate, and selection of two Board of Commissioner
12 members to serve on this council.
13 Commissioner Price said she would like to include Orange Congregations in Mission
14 (OCIM), which is an organization that works with child poverty in northern Orange County.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see 1 or 2 representatives of the community
16 on this board. He said this would allow direct input from the community that is being served.
17 Colleen Bridger said this group will be selecting the neighborhoods where intervention
18 will occur. She said there is no way to know which communities will be chosen. She
19 anticipates that two neighborhoods will be chosen, and each of these will have a council to
20 communicate priorities and needs to the larger group. She said this is a planning group for
21 now, and as it transitions to an implementation group there will be neighborhood participation
22 and involvement.
23 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to be one of the Board of County
24 Commissioners on this council.
25 Commissioner Pelissier said she would also like to be on the council.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
28 the Board to approve the structure; confirm organizations to be represented (proposed list
29 above and in Attachment 1) with the addition of OCIM; and appoint Commissioner Dorosin and
30 Commissioner Pelissier to the Orange County Child Poverty Council.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 d. Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts —
35 Orange Public Transportation and Triangle Transit
36 The Board received a presentation of public outreach results and considered BOCC
37 endorsement of the proposed Triangle Transit and Orange Public Transportation bus service
38 expansion concepts in central and rural Orange County over the next five years.
39 Craig Benedict said staff was expecting a joint presentation from Triangle Transit and
40 OPT staff, but they have not arrived yet. He said tonight's focus will be on the bus program.
41 He said Triangle Transit will be looking for an endorsement by the Commission, and OPT will
42 be looking to proceed forward with the general concepts.
43 Bret Martin reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
44
45 BOCC ITEM 7d
46 Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Concepts
47 June 17, 2014
48
49 Structure of Presentation
50 • Triangle Transit— John Tallmadge, Director of Regional Services Development
25
1 o Brief Review of Orange-Durham Express (ODX) Service
2 o Public Outreach Results for Orange-Durham Express (ODX) Service
3 o Additional Proposed Triangle Transit and Chapel Hill Transit Service Expansion
4 in Orange County
5 • Orange County— Bret Martin, Transportation Planner
6 o Public Outreach Results for Proposed Orange Public Transportation Service
7 Expansion
8 o Review of Bus Service Expansion Program Options #1, #2 or combination
9 thereof
10 o BOCC Options for Next Steps
11
12 May—June 2014 Public Outreach
13 • Initial Public Involvement to Derive Concepts: Summer— Fall 2013
14 • Public Involvement/Comment Period — May 8 — June 4, 2014
15 o Website, Phone #, Email, Social Media, Newspaper Ads
16 o ODX Route and OPT Service Expansion Surveys Accessible on website and at
17 public meetings
18 • Outreach meetings in Hillsborough, Cedar Grove, Efland, Mebane and Durham
19 o 63 total attendees
20 • Surveys Completed/Comments Received
21 o 14 Total Comments Received for ODX Route
22 o 48 Total Comments Received for Proposed OPT Service Expansion
23 • Impact of Public Outreach on Service Recommendations
24 o ODX Route —Confirmed Proposed Service Plan
25 o OPT Service Expansion —Additional Option(s) for Consideration
26
27 Orange Durham Express (ODX) (Map)
28 *See notes below
29
30 ODX Route Public Outreach Results
31 • 11 of 14 respondents support proposed service
32 • Common Comment Themes:
33 o Service would save UNC and Duke employees money and allow for productive
34 use of time otherwise used for driving
35 o Eager to use the service to commute between Durham and Hillsborough (both
36 directions) so as not to have to drive back and forth
37
38 Other Proposed Services In Orange County (TTA and CHT)
39 • Triangle Transit ($422,000 available FY 2015):
40 o Introduce Saturday night and Sunday service for first time on routes serving and
41 connecting Chapel Hill to other Triangle Area destinations
42 • Starting August 2014
43 • 1,442 FY 2015 service hours in Orange County
44 o Additional frequency between Southpoint Mall and UNC
45 • Continuation of August 2013 implementation
46 • 1,228 annual service hours in Orange County
47 • Chapel Hill Transit ($1,125,300 available FY 2015):
48 o Additional peak trips on busiest routes
49 o Later service on two Saturday routes
50 o Continuation of evening service during former "reduced service periods"
26
1 • Introduced 2013
2 • 1,690 annual service hours
3 o Offsetting increased cost of existing service
4 o Financing new buses
5
6 OPT Expansion Public Outreach Results
7 • 31 of 35 survey respondents support proposed services
8 • 4 of 35 respondents do not support proposed services
9 o Proposed U.S. 70 midday service is inadequate; service needs to be increased.
10 o Need additional stops along Route 420 4 Eubanks park-and-ride, Hideaway
11 Estates
12 o Concern over existing low level of ridership and whether expansion is really
13 necessary.
14 o Mebane is too far away for people to live who work in Durham and Chapel Hill.
15 • Common Comment Themes from May/June Outreach:
16 o Support for increased service connection between Mebane and Hillsborough,
17 Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, and Cedar Grove and Hillsborough.
18 o Support for increased service providing access from low-income rural areas to
19 Hillsborough for jobs and social programs.
20 o Consider Bingham Township for service.
21 o Mixed responses to concept of fares; some support and some don't
22 • Common Themes From Prior Outreach:
23 o Access to employment
24 o Rural residents' access to social services
25 o More emphasis on elderly/senior transportation
26
27 Five —Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations Map — Option 1 (MAP)
28
29 Five —Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations Map — Option 2 (MAP)
30
31 Differences in Options #1 and #2 (CHART)
32
33 Mix-and-Match: Option #3? (CHART)
34
35 If Additional $$ is Made Available For Bus Service From:
36 Better sales tax/vehicle registration fee revenue projections than anticipated
37 OCBRIP updates are making adjustments to revenues and will come before BOCC later
38 this year
39 AND/OR
40 Federal and State Grants for Transit Operating Assistance
41 THEN
42 Unfunded Service Concepts Can Be Implemented in Priority Order Depending on Amount of
43 Additional Revenue
44
45 Ranked Unfunded Concepts —Options #1 and #2 (CHART)
46
47 Other OPT Expansion Program Notes
48 • Bus Capital Availability
49 o Program dependent on timing of bus acquisition and Federal grant source used
50 for purchase
27
1 o New buses requested not available until winter 2015
2 • Service Standards for Existing and Expanded Services
3 o Passengers per service hour
4 o No less than 1/2 below system's average for each type of service (i.e., fixed-route,
5 demand response)
6 o Evaluation after introductory period of 12 months
7 o Evaluation by OUTBoard/Transportation Advisory Board with recommendations
8 to BOCC
9 • Fares
10 o Fixed-route: Collect nominal fare if technology permits (compatibility with
11 Triangle Transit farecards) on all services except Hillsborough Circulator
12 o Demand Response: Collect nominal fare ($3) for expanded structured services;
13 keep higher fare for existing services
14 o Vouchers to those who qualify for other social services (Medicaid, Work First,
15 etc.)
16
17 BOCC Options for Next Steps
18 Manager's Recommendation:
19 Tonight:
20 Receive Presentation
21 Endorse the proposed Triangle Transit ODX service;
22
23 AND EITHER
24 Endorse a bus service expansion program option, or combination thereof, for OPT; OR
25 Delay endorsement of OPT expansion program given additional time to refine program
26 details; OR
27 Schedule Fall work session item if deemed appropriate.
28 September:
29 If endorse an OPT program option 4 Draft program document returns for BOCC
30 consideration
31 If BOCC does not endorse program option 4 Delay until September or later meeting
32 OR
33 Schedule Fall work session for refinement of recommended program
34
35 Bret Martin reviewed the map of the Orange Durham express. He said this service will
36 be operated between 6:00 and 9:00 am and 4:00 and 7:00 pm, and will involve 3 runs in the
37 peak direction and the off-peak direction. He said the peak direction run will start in Mebane,
38 head to Hillsborough, and then hit the Duke/VA hospital area and downtown Durham. He said
39 phase 1 of this service is anticipated to begin in August, and this will be from Hillsborough to
40 Durham, making use of a temporary park and ride at North Hills shopping center. He said
41 phase 2 service from Mebane is anticipated to begin in January. He said the off-peak service
42 will run from downtown Durham to the VA/Duke Hospital area, Hillsborough, Efland, and
43 Mebane.
44 Bret Martin referenced the chart titled Differences in Options #1 and#2. He said
45 Option1 includes the program concepts brought before the Board on May 8th and presented to
46 the public. He said option 2 makes some tweaks to this, and those tweaks are highlighted in
47 yellow. He said the north eastern and north western demand routes are increased from one
48 day a week to 2 days a week in option 2. He said option 2 also expands service to the southern
49 part of the County with this same 2 day a week concept. He said the other change is that
50 option 2 changes the Mebane-Efland-Hillsborough mid day service from a 2-hour headway to a
28
1 1 hour headway. He said option 2 also does away with the Efland-Hillsborough Commuter
2 Loop.
3 Bret Martin said there is also a 3rd option of mixing and matching to do what is important.
4 He said this option was added in order to be responsive to public comment and to highlight the
5 fact that adding one thing means taking away from something else. He noted that the program
6 is financially constrained.
7 John Tallmadge from Triangle Transit arrived. He said most public interest has been
8 around the OPT services. He said his board takes the item up on June 25, and if approved, it
9 will be implemented on August 18th
10 Commissioner Pelissier thanked staff for working on this. She reminded everyone that
11 the Orange Durham express route was in the plan, and everyone is very excited about this
12 route. She asked how this will be advertised to the public. She asked if Duke University will
13 help advertise, since many of those surveyed were Duke employees.
14 John Tallmadge said there will be a concerted effort with Duke to do some advertising.
15 He said Duke offers a go pass to their employees; so the fare would be free for the employees,
16 and Duke pays TTA per boarding. He said the service, the direct information from the
17 employer, and the subsidy will be the primary market. He said there is also a staff person who
18 works with major employers throughout the County to create program awareness.
19 Commissioner McKee asked about the timing of additional stops. He asked what the
20 process will be for adding stops after this route is up and running. He said he can think of two
21 other stops needed along the 70 corridor.
22 John Tallmadge said there are multiple sources to get information regarding the addition
23 of new stops. He said the considerations are whether the stop is along the current route and
24 whether there is time in the schedule to add another stop. He said if these two considerations
25 are met, then a professional judgment is made regarding whether or not there is there enough
26 demand to add the additional stop. He said stops are easier to add on the reverse commute
27 direction, as this does not delay the riders going in the time sensitive direction.
28 Commissioner McKee said this may be able to be addressed with the OPT service, but
29 he wants to make sure those residents along Highway 70 can utilize this service.
30 John Tallmadge said one other consideration is whether the stop is a safe location.
31 Commissioner Rich referred to Commissioner Pelissier's question regarding the
32 advertising of this service. She suggested staff follow through on some suggestions that were
33 given at their last Durham/Chapel Hill/ Orange Work Group meeting.
34 Commissioner Rich said she was one of the people who did not think OPT should be a
35 fare free service. She does not think this is sustainable. She said, to avoid problems down the
36 road, she would not want this to be a free bus service. She said she is primarily giving this
37 opinion to OPT. She agreed that it makes sense to have a monthly pass or something similar.
38 Commissioner Gordon said she expects this will come back for work sessions in the fall.
39 She asked for information on how the ODX and anything else proposed in the next five years
40 will fit into the bus and rail investment plan and the implementation agreement. She asked for a
41 big picture view of how this bus service fits into the broader plan. She asked for clarification on
42 how the costs and the revenues work out. She noted that OPT charges much less ($44 per
43 bus hour) than anyone else for bus service hours. She said she knows there are reasons why
44 TTA has to charge more. She asked what the amount is for TTA.
45 John Tallmadge said TTA is budgeting $114 per bus hour in the upcoming fiscal year.
46 Commissioner Gordon said this is a large difference, and she wants to make sure OPT
47 is capturing all of the costs. She said the difference also makes it difficult to determine how to
48 allocate money from the bus and rail investment plan. She would like to see the big picture of
49 how this all fits into the larger bus and rail investment plan as it relates to costs and revenues.
29
1 Commissioner Gordon said she would prefer a full map of Orange County for both
2 option 1 and option 2.
3 Commissioner Gordon asked what the southern county zoning route is.
4 Bret Martin said that is the same concept as what was put together for the north eastern
5 and north western, and it would be a dial a ride service with scheduled pick up.
6 Commissioner Price said she was hoping to have balance on these fares, since some
7 employers in Durham are giving out free fare passes, and there are free bus fares in Chapel
8 Hill. She would like to find a way to equalize this, as some people will have to take different
9 types of transportation. She said she wouldn't want to charge for some routes and not others.
10 She said bus fares in the past have not really paid for the bus service, but it is good to have
11 fares to show good stewardship. She wants to see balance and equity in the charges for all of
12 the different modes.
13 Chair Jacobs said there will be discussion of this at a future work session. He said he
14 would like to explore offering passes to Orange County employees who commute. He would
15 like to add this to the conversation in the fall.
16 Commissioner Pelissier referred to Commissioner Gordon's questions. She noted that
17 on page 17 of the plan adopted by Durham and Orange County, an express route between
18 Mebane, Hillsborough and Durham is listed. She said this route is implementation of that plan
19 that was adopted
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
22 Board to:
23
24 1. Endorse the proposed ODX service to be operated by TTA in central Orange County; and
25 2. Receive and consider any possible necessary discussion regarding the proposed
26 program Options #1 and #2 (Attachment 3) for OPT and potentially consider endorsement of
27 one of the options if deemed appropriate at this time.
28
29
30 Commissioner Gordon said she knows that the ODX route is on the plan. She said her
31 question was regarding other routes that will be brought up in the 5 year period and how the
32 OPT routes fold in.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 Commissioner McKee said he understands that this will be coming back in the fall. He
37 said the sooner the better for staff, and he suggested this be scheduled in September.
38 Bret Martin said this is currently scheduled for the September 11 work session, but that
39 was a tentative placeholder.
40 Commissioner Pelissier requested more information about existing services, especially
41 related to the zonal routes. She is not sure how these differ from the existing response demand
42 routes. She does not understand how the proposed additions fit into what is already being
43 done. She does not have a clear picture of whether or not we are saturated. She is aware that
44 some of the service is paid through Medicaid, but she would like to see a big picture of what is
45 being added.
46 Commissioner McKee said he would like clarification on whether these zonal routes
47 make more sense as a comprehensive approach compared to the route in Efland.
48 Bret Martin said he will work to pull all of this information together for the September
49 meeting.
30
1 Commissioner Gordon asked if the mid day route on 70 is considered a commuter
2 service.
3 Staff indicated no.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked what the Efland-Hillsborough commuter route is
5 considered to be.
6 Bret Martin said the Efland-Hillsborough commuter route is a service that would run
7 during peak periods to coincide with the ODX route to provide a peak direction service from
8 Efland to Hillsborough to tie into the ODX stop in Hillsborough. He said the service would offer
9 a pre-Hillsborough circulator service, hitting a number of stops on the north side of Hillsborough
10 in transit dependent areas before going through downtown and the south side of Hillsborough
11 where a lot of employment destinations are located.
12 Commissioner Gordon said the zonal routes are the demand response routes, and she
13 thinks the survey feedback showed a strong interest in this. She asked if this is correct.
14 Bret Martin said option 2 is nothing more than the result of the public comment.
15
16 e. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application —Triple Crown Farm (8:45-9:05)
17 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, reviewed, and made a
18 decision on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application proposing a 20 lot single-family
19 residential subdivision in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and Article 7
20 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance.
21 Michael Harvey introduced this item. He reminded the Board of a lime green sheet at
22 their places, representing comments from the Department of Environment, Agriculture,
23 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). He introduced the Board to new planning board staff
24 member Pat Mellot, who has been processing this information.
25
26 Pat Mellot reviewed the following PowerPoint slides and maps:
27
28 Triple Crown Farms
29 Preliminary Plat
30 Review and Action on a 20-lot Major Subdivision off of Dairy land Road
31 Orange County Planning Department
32
33 Vicinity Map - MAP
34 Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan - MAP
35 JPA Land Use Plan - MAP
36 Growth Management System - MAP
37 Preliminary Plat: - MAP
38 Site Analysis Map - MAP
39 Conventional-Cluster Design Options — GRAPH
40
41 Conservation Cluster - Flexible Design Attributes
42 • Average lot size— 3 acres (consistent with established density limits)
43 • 34% (36.69 acres) Open Space proposed
44 • 6,374 sq. ft. of POSA (Pedestrian Open Space Access)
45 • 22,932 sq. ft. in 30-foot wide Roadside Buffer along Dairyland Road
46 • 100 foot building setback from perimeter of entire subdivision
47
48 Site Photograph — 1
49 Site Photograph —2
50 Site Photograph - 3
31
1 Site Photograph —4
2 Site Photograph -5
3 Site Photograph — 6
4
5 Neighborhood Information Meeting:
6 - Held on October 3, 2013 at the West Campus Office Building.
7 - Approximately 16 people in attendance.
8 - Concerns were expressed over proposed density
9 Staff comment: The proposed density is consistent with the UDO (i.e. 1 unit for every 5
10 acres)
11 - Concerns were expressed over stream crossings and clearing of existing vegetation
12 Staff comment: Stream crossings will require permitting. They are consistent with UDO.
13 - Concerns were expressed over the possible disturbance of an existing beaver dam.
14 Staff comment: according to the applicant, the dame has been removed.
15 - Questions related to compliance with stormwater standards
16 Staff comment: project will have to comply with County stormwater regulations.
17
18 Planning Board Meeting
19 - Held on May 7, 2014 at the West Campus Office Building
20 - No residents were present to speak on the matter
21 - PB asked questions regarding adequate turn lanes from Dairyland Road, Orange County
22 Emergency Services Fire Water Collection, and School Assignments.
23
24 Staff Comments:
25 1. NCDOT will not require a turn lane on Dairyland Road.
26 2. 17 lots are located within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. The remaining 3 lots are within
27 Orange County Schools.
28 3. A wet pond and access drive to meet the fire protection needs has been provided.
29
30 Pat Mellot said this is a major subdivision of 20 lots proposed off Dairyland Road. He
31 reviewed the maps and photos. He said the site is designated rural buffer. He said the plat is
32 the same as the concept plan that was approved last year. He reviewed the recommendation
33 and introduced the applicant, Michael Neal.
34 Michael Neal said he is representing the owners of this project. He gave background on
35 the subdivision and how it came to be. He reviewed the topographical maps and said the
36 stream buffers and flood plains came out to be a total of 25 acres. He said the steep slopes
37 were also preserved. He said a recreation area was located next to the roundabout, as well as a
38 spring fed water source, as requested by the fire department. He said the flood plains, steep
39 slopes, recreation, and fire protection areas combined will leave 37 percent of the site
40 preserved.
41 He said the remaining useable land was then divided into lots. He said the result was a
42 conservation themed sub-division where the environmental areas were preserved. He said the
43 total project area is 104.5 acres, and the proposed open space is 38.5 acres, which exceeds
44 the required amount of open space by 4.2 acres. He said each lot has a viable septic area. He
45 said the two roads in the neighborhood will be built according to DOT specifications, and a pond
46 will be supplied to provide fire protection to the homes. He said there is a plan to petition the
47 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School (CHCCS) system to take the 3 Orange County School (OCS)
48 district properties, to avoid having two bus routes in the neighborhood.
49
32
1 Commissioner Gordon asked what kind of water feature would be used for fire
2 protection. She referred to page 101 and the emergency services condition.
3 Michael Neal said at this point the amount of water is not known yet, as the size of the
4 homes to be built has not been determined yet. He said the amount listed on page 101 in their
5 packet is the minimum amount of water that would be needed. He said the proposal is to base
6 the pond size on the largest structure that will be built in the subdivision. He said this will
7 equate to a certain volume of water necessary to fight a fire for 2 hours. He said the size of the
8 structure, as well as the materials used in building will determine the amount of water. He said
9 once there are builders lined up and the details of the structures are determined, the pond will
10 be built to accommodate. .
11 Commissioner Gordon asked how the maximum building size can be determined before
12 the houses are built. She does not see how you can restrict the size of the houses.
13 Michael Neal said the septic fields will determine the maximum size house that can be
14 built. He said once the builder or builders are selected there will be more information available.
15 He said there is also an option to build the largest size pond necessary to be in compliance.
16 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 15, Article 3, regarding membership and voting
17 rights. She asked for clarification on the 2 classes of voting membership.
18 Pat Mellot said these are the articles of membership for the proposed HOA. He said this
19 is a standard provision.
20 Commissioner Gordon asked why it was in the packet.
21 Michael Harvey said the ordinance requires the auxiliary document be presented and
22 provided.
23 John Roberts said the HOA document is there only for the Board to review, and it does
24 not require any action.
25 Commissioner McKee referred to the water requirement. He said there is an automatic
26 three department response to all structure fires. He said these responding departments, with
27 the exception of Chapel Hill, run tankers. He said there is water transport available in addition
28 to the pond on site.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if any of the homes would be part of an affordable housing
30 plan.
31 Michael Harvey said this property is in the water supply watershed and is not allowed to
32 participate in the density credit system.
33 Michael Harvey said Michael Neal proposed a pond for the worst case scenario, and this
34 may be reduced once the size of the homes being built is determined. He said the fire marshal
35 will continue to work with the neighborhood to make sure the conditions are met.
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the location of the 3 lots in the Orange
37 County school district.
38 Michael Harvey designated this on the map.
39 Chair Jacobs asked if there had been any communication from either of the school
40 districts.
41 Michael Harvey said both school districts have stated that issuing caps would not be a
42 problem at the appropriate time. He said the applicant has to make formal petitions to both
43 school districts to see if the transfer will be allowed.
44 Chair Jacobs said both school systems have to be involved. He noted that there are
45 issues with capacity.
46 Michael Harvey said Chapel Hill will need to decide if they want to assume responsibility
47 for three additional lots.
48 Commissioner Gordon said it was stated in the materials that staff feels it is unlikely that
49 CHCCS would accept the 3 additional lots.
33
1 Chair Jacobs noted that the restrictive covenants state that the neighborhood road is a
2 private road, but subsequent documents state that it is a public road.
3 Pat Mellott said that would be need corrected. He said this is a unique situation in that
4 the road has a private 50 foot right of way and a paved asphalt 20 foot section. He said it is
5 built to DOT standards, and it would remain a private road and would be maintained by a road
6 maintenance agreement.
7 Chair Jacobs said there are several Board members who are disappointed that the
8 covenants would not allow poultry in the sub-division. He noted that it is a trend in both towns
9 and especially suburban areas to allow people to have chickens.
10 Commissioner Price asked, in the event there are children in those three lots that will be
11 in the OCS system, how far they would have to ride on the bus to CHCCS.
12 Michael Neal said the bus would need to come in on Dairyland Road and exit the same way.
13 Commissioner Price asked what is to the west of this property.
14 Michael Neal said it is undeveloped land.
15 Chair Jacobs asked about the decision to propose cul de sacs, and whether there was
16 no possibility of connectivity.
17 Pat Mellott said cul de sacs were the best option for being as environmentally sensitive
18 as possible.
19 Michael Harvey noted that there are houses and farms in the area that might have been
20 disturbed by a connectivity plan.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
23 Board to:
24 1. Receive the Planning Board and Planning Director's recommendation on the
25 Preliminary Plat application for the Triple Crown Farm Subdivision;
26 2. Discuss the proposal as needed; and
27 3. Approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted and the Resolution of Approval contained in
28 Attachment 8.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32
33 f. McGowan Sewer Interceptor Additional Rock Allowance and Approval of Budget
34 Amendment #9-E
35 The Board considered approving Budget Amendment#9-E adding additional rock
36 contingency to the McGowan Sewer Interceptor capital project budget and authorizing the
37 Manager to sign.
38 Chair Jacobs said this is on the regular agenda mainly as an informational item due to
39 the costs.
40 Kevin Lindley reviewed the following project overview as included in the abstract:
41 This project has been underway since March 17, 2014. The overall project is approximately
42 85% complete and consists of 2,400 linear feet of 12" gravity sewer line and de-commissioning
43 of the McGowan Creek Sewer Pump Station. The installation of this gravity sewer line will allow
44 the County to take the 26 year-old McGowan Creek Pump Station off line, which reduced the
45 annual maintenance costs for the system and avoids costly reconstruction of the aging pump
46 station (see Attachment 1).
47 The original estimated rock quantity for the 12" sewer line was 2,000 cubic yards. However,
48 after constructing approximately 2,000 linear feet (83%) of this line, the Contractor has
49 excavated 4,665 cubic yards of rock. Because of the large quantity of rocky material, the
50 Contractor has been using a special back hoe designed to break up the blasted rock, which
34
1 allowed it to be placed back in the trench. This avoids having to haul the rock out by the
2 truckload for disposal and having to purchase and haul in select fill dirt to replace the rock that
3 was removed.
4 The County's engineering consultant, McGill Associates, is estimating that there could be an
5 additional 1,209 cubic yards of rock left to be excavated to finish this project. If the consultant's
6 estimate proves correct, the total rock excavated for this 12" sewer line would be 5,873 cubic
7 yards. When compared to the original estimate of 2,000 cubic yards, the difference is 3,873
8 cubic yards.
9
10 The rock excavation line item is paid at $120 per cubic yard of rock excavated, so adding an
11 additional rock excavation amount of 3,873 cubic yards will increase the construction costs by
12 $464,760. This estimate is based the best available data and is conservatively estimated to be
13 sufficient to cover all rock for the rest of this project. This project has a unit price contract so
14 that a contractor is paid per unit, in this case cubic yards, as the rock is excavated. The
15 contractor will only be paid for the amount of rock excavated, regardless of the amount
16 available in the budget for that particular line item.
17
18 The project is being funded by a State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan. The current available loan
19 amount is $774,904. The original construction contract was for $597,813, and the engineering
20 design and construction oversight was $94,200, leaving $82,891 to cover ancillary costs and
21 contingency. To date, there have been change order requests from the contractor and other
22 ancillary costs against this contingency in the net amount of approximately $40,000, leaving
23 approximately $42,891 to go towards the extra rock excavation cost.
24
25 Additionally, $57,814 was appropriated to cover costs of the project which cannot be
26 reimbursed through loan proceeds, such as the loan origination fee and easement costs. This
27 amount will still be sufficient to cover the costs for which it was budgeted.
28
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked how likely it is for staff to anticipate these kinds of
30 obstacles. He asked if this is unavoidable in these kinds of projects, or if something should
31 have been done.
32 Kevin Lindley said the rock is there, and the cost of the rock is going to be the same
33 regardless of the estimate in the beginning. He said it is just a matter of the timing of the
34 budgeting.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said he is just wondering if there is a way to better anticipate
36 things for future projects.
37 Kevin Lindley said this particular project is short in length; however, it parallels a
38 stream, so they were required to dig about 20 feet down and this exponentially increased the
39 amount of materials.
40 Doug Chapman from McGill Associates said in a situation like this, where rock is
41 anticipated, the best thing would be to do borings before bidding the project. .
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
44 the Board to:
45 1. Approve Budget Amendment#9-E adding $464,760 in rock contingency to the
46 McGowan Creek Outfall project construction contract and authorizing the request for an
47 additional $421,869 in SRF loan funding; and
48 2. Authorize the Manager to sign on behalf of the Board the change order for the additional
49 rock allowance and any documents related to the pursuit of additional SRF loan funding as
50 outlined in Item 1.
35
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 9_ Next Steps - Strategic Communications Plan (9:20-9:35)
5 The Board considered approving the establishment of a Communications Committee,
6 comprised of staff designated by the Manager and two Board of Commissioner members
7 appointed by the Board, for the development of a proposed Strategic Communications Plan for
8 Orange County; and authorizing the Manager to execute a contract with Rod Visser to work
9 with the Committee.
10 Cheryl Young presented this item. She said on January 31, 2014 the Board held a
11 Retreat and discussed the need for an Orange County Strategic Communications Plan. She
12 said the Board requested that the Manager provide a recommended strategy for a
13 Communications Plan. She said on February 27, 2014 a Manager-appointed Communications
14 Plan Committee met to discuss how the County could move forward with a Strategic
15 Communications Plan, and it was determined that all of the questions that were identified could
16 not be sufficiently addressed by staff, without meaningful participation from the Board of County
17 Commissioners.
18 She said the following three phase approach was recommended to move the process of
19 developing a Strategic Communications Plan toward a successful conclusion:
20
21 Three Phase Approach
22 Phase One
23 Identify and share with the Board individual department public information strategies
24 outlining the dedicated resources, communications tools, target audiences and how the
25 department interacts with the Public Affairs Office.
26 Phase Two
27 Rod Visser was engaged to gather internal information by interviewing the Board and
28 County staff and present a summary to the Board.
29 Phase Three
30 With the assistance of Rod Visser, draft a Strategic Communications Plan to be presented
31 to the Board in the fall of 2014.
32
33 She said the project is now in phase 3, and she reviewed the following information for
34 next steps, as outlined in the abstract:
35
36 A proposed Agreement with Mr. Visser is attached. As set forth therein under the Scope of
37 Work, the Contractor will, beginning during the summer break, convene and facilitate a series
38 of 6-8 anticipated meetings with the County's designated Communications Committee, to be
39 comprised of an Assistant County Manager, departmental representatives selected by the
40 County Manager, and two County Commissioners designated by the Board of County
41 Commissioners.
42
43 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of engaging Rod Visser to complete Phase Three is
44 not to exceed $20,000. A total of$12,800 will be provided from the FY 2013-14 Manager's
45 Miscellaneous budget and the remainder will be allocated from unexpended funds in the County
46 Manager's FY 2013-14 budget.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
49 Board to:
50 1) Establish a Communications Committee comprised of County department
36
1 representatives to be designated by the Manager and two Commissioners appointed by the
2 Board;
3 2) authorize the Manager to execute a contract, and any amendments thereto, with Rod Visser
4 to work with the Committee at a cost not to exceed $20,000.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Commissioner Price volunteered for the committee, and Commissioner Dorosin
9 suggested Commissioner Rich.
10 Commissioner Rich asked about the time of day when the 6-8 meetings would
11 be held.
12 Rod Visser said the timing would be up to the committee, and he is flexible.
13 Commissioner Rich said she would be happy to be on the committee...
14 Commissioner Gordon volunteered in place of Commissioner Price, who withdrew.
15
16 A motion was made to appoint Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Gordon to the
17 communications committee.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
21 Chair Jacobs requested that the agendas for all of the work groups be shared with all
22 members of the Board of County Commissioners in the interest of sharing information and
23 allowing participation of Commissioners who may be interested in attending the meetings.
24 Commissioner Gordon said she thinks this is a good idea, and it is good for the
25 Commissioners to notify the group of their intention to attend, so there will not be too many
26 Commissioners present.
27
28 h. Space Study Work Group Formation and Charge (9:35-9:50)
29 The Board considered the establishment of a Work Group and charge to provide
30 recommendations regarding on-going facilities planning and space utilization and if the Work
31 Group is established, appoint two members of the Board of Commissioners to serve on the
32 Work Group.
33 Wayne Fenton reviewed the following background information from the abstract:
34
35 The Board-adopted study framework is illustrated in Attachment 1 entitled "Board-Adopted
36 Framework for Iterative, Continuous Space Study". The framework is founded in the original
37 2001 framework and guiding principles as well as the major space study framework update in
38 2005 and further updated and adopted by the Board on June 18, 2013.
39 In keeping with the Board's intention and need for the space study to be "iterative and
40 continuous", and coordinated with the annual capital investment planning process, and
41 recognizing that site approval of the Southern campus property, anticipated in June, 2014, will
42 provide an additional need for space and facility planning for the next five to twenty five year
43 period, Asset Management Services (AMS) staff propose the establishment of a new Space
44 Study Work Group to include key County staff members and two Board members. Attachment
45 2, "Facilities Disposition and County Services Illustrative", was originally presented to the Board
46 on May 21, 2013 and represents this ongoing space discussion relative to constructed and
47 renovated County facilities, as well as a "going forward" point for discussion within this
48 proposed Work Group. The Work Group should also be tasked with considering a centralized,
49 County wide records and physical storage policy as discussed with the Board in the spring of
50 2013.
37
1
2 The proposed charge for the Work Group is to:
3 1) Work with County staff to provide recommendations to the Board on the utilization of
4 space within existing County facilities as well as the need for new or renovated space, to
5 include but not be limited to, approved master planned County campus sites, and;
6 2) Consider record retention regulations and recommend longer retention periods for select
7 records, if desired, and;
8 3) Develop a records retention policy to be managed by Asset Management Services as part of
9 an annual records destruction event, and;
10 4) Develop a comprehensive policy for storage of non-record items, and
11 5) Assess and recommend structural or procedural mechanisms in support of these goals.
12 Staff also proposes that the Work Group be directed to work with staff to present a draft plan
13 for consideration to the Board of County Commissioners by March 2015.
14 Staff recommends that the Space Study Work Group include two County Commissioners and
15 the following representatives:
16 • Asset Management Services —Wayne Fenton/Jeff Thompson
17 • Clerk to the Board — David Hunt
18 • Information Technology— Jim Northrup or designee
19 • Department on Aging — Janice Tyler or designee
20 • Health — Colleen Bridger or designee
21 • Social Services — Nancy Coston or designee
22 • Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation — Dave Stancil or
23 designee
24 • Manager's Office— Cheryl Young or designee
25 • Emergency Services — Jim Groves or Designee
26 • Court system — Judge Joe Buckner or designee
27
28 All County departments will be worked with to identify current and future space needs, and
29 participation from other departmental representatives will be requested based on study focus
30 throughout the process.
31
32 Chair Jacobs noted that the Board did a total revamp of the space study in 2006.
33 Commissioner Pelissier suggested inclusion of the Sheriff's department as part of the
34 work group. She noted that the new jail is being built, and the sheriff's office uses space, and
35 she feels they need to be included.
36 Chair Jacobs said there were discussions in the jail alternatives workgroup about what
37 will be done with the old jail, and that is certainly relevant to this discussion.
38 Commissioner Gordon said staff is proposing a draft plan be brought back March, 2015.
39 She would like to see a staff progress report in late October or early November.
40 Wayne Fenton said this can be done.
41 Chair Jacobs said he spoke to Peter Sandbeck, who is a cultural resources specialist for
42 the County. He said Peter Sandbeck takes a little different view about records retention. Chair
43 Jacobs said we can't destroy our present history fast enough, and we have almost no retention
44 of what is going on now. He would like to encourage the group to include Peter Sandbeck in
45 the records retention discussion.
46 Chair Jacobs referred to page 8, and said there were some expressed needs for
47 recreation space at the Whitted Campus. He said there is no work group emphasis on this in
48 their proposal. He suggested this be included.
49 Chair Jacobs said he does not understand why Economic Development is part of the
50 southern campus planning, but he is sure this will be explained at some point in the future.
38
1 Chair Jacobs said there has been a fair amount of discussion over the years about
2 whether or not the visitor's bureau is in the best location. He would like to see this discussed.
3 He compared this to the discussion of the Skill's Development Center, and it's effectiveness
4 since the relocation of Durham Tech. He would like for there to be some conversation about
5 this.
6 Chair Jacobs referred to the section on aging and noted the emphasis on Southern
7 Campus planning. He said he has heard there is just as much stress on the Central Orange
8 Senior Center as there is on the Seymour Center. He wants to make sure both of these are
9 considered.
10 Wayne Fenton said both locations will be included.
11 Commissioner Gordon asked about the needs addressed within the proposed FY 2014-
12 19 CIP for parks operation. She asked if this is related to the 5 year plan that includes the
13 Revere Road campus. She said all that remains are the recreation space needs in Whitted.
14 Wayne Fenton said the previous discussion on the Whitted facility was regarding the
15 fact that there will be unassigned space after the development of the Board's meeting rooms.
16 He said there was some discussion with the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
17 Recreation (DEAPR) staff about the opportunity of using some of that space. He said DEAPR
18 staff had proposed moving some of their office staff from the Central Recreation facility to free
19 up space at that facility, rather than having programming in both buildings.
20 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to make sure the dental was included in the
21 personal health and dental, and that the recent numbers requested by Chair Jacobs for the
22 dental service were considered.
23 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification regarding the reference to a potential Skills
24 Development Center.
25 Wayne Fenton said attachment 2 was intended to identify the current location of
26 departmental space and where departments have recently moved to and from. He said the
27 idea was to identify everywhere that each department has had a presence.
28 Commissioner Gordon said the Skills Development Center is located advantageously for
29 the census track that has the lowest income. She didn't know what it meant to consider it for
30 Southern Campus planning.
31 Wayne Fenton said the reference to Southern Campus was just related to whether or
32 not there may be any need to expand to this site in the future.
33 Michael Talbert said staff is planning for the next 25 years for the southern campus and
34 this is just one opportunity being explored.
35 Chair Jacobs said the Board appropriated $25,000 to look at the possibility of opening a
36 health center for County staff. He said presumably the space needs study could consider the
37 best site for that as well.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
40 approve the establishment of a Work Group and charge to provide recommendations regarding
41 on-going facilities planning and space utilization, and directed staff to give an interim report by
42 September/October 2014 and a draft plan by March 2015.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich to nominate Commissioner McKee to serve
47 on this work group and Commissioner Price volunteered.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
39
1 i. Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management
2 The Board considered referring a draft preliminary Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste
3 and Recycling to the recently created Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) with outstanding
4 issues/provisions to be resolved, with the Agreement subsequently being resubmitted to the
5 Towns and County for finalization and adoption.
6
7 Michael Talbert reviewed the following background information from the abstract:
8
9 At its May 13, 2014 work session, the BOCC discussed adopting a preliminary Agreement that
10 would be amended in the future once remaining outstanding issues or areas of potential
11 disagreement are resolved. The BOCC also discussed that a multi-jurisdictional advisory group
12 be established to address those outstanding issues and make recommendations to the parties
13 of the Agreement so that the Agreement can be amended and finalized. At its June 3 meeting
14 the BOCC formally established the SWAG and indicated that the draft
15 preliminary Interlocal Agreement (attached) will represent the base document from which their
16 discussions, revisions and recommendations would be made. A preliminary report from the
17 SWAG may be presented at the November 20, 2014 Assembly of Governments meeting. The
18 issues recommended to be addressed by the SWAG with regard to the preliminary Agreement
19 include, but are not limited to:
20
21 * an interlocal agreement on solid waste;
22 * reducing solid waste that is not recycled;
23 * recycling opportunities and services;
24 * siting a transfer station or landfill within the county;
25 * supporting public education on solid waste issues;
26 * construction and demolition waste;
27 * assuring long-term partnership of the entities involved through an interlocal agreement
28 on waste handling and disposal;
29 * addressing equitable funding and mechanisms for establishing fees and making future
30 joint decisions;
31 * future use of closed landfill sites;
32 * investigation of partnership possibilities involving neighboring jurisdictions;
33 * feasibility of innovative and cost-effective, environmentally-sound methods of disposal
34 of solid waste beyond burial;
35 * potential inclusion of biosolids in long-range disposal plans;
36 * emergency storm debris planning
37 * treatment of communities impacted by siting of any facilities either within Orange County or
38 beyond its borders to receive shipments of waste.
39
40 The Towns' and County staffs created a detailed outline from which the draft preliminary
41 Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste was produced. Due to time constraints and a need for
42 elected official level guidance, there are remaining unresolved operational issues and policy
43 decisions yet to be discussed and will be included in the recommendations from Solid Waste
44 Advisory Group. The known unresolved operational issues to be addressed by the SWAG are
45 listed below, but are not limited to:
46
47 • Creation of a permanent advisory committee/group to advise the parties to the
48 Agreement, including rules of procedure, mission, composition, etc.;
49 • More thorough definition of outstanding debt as it relates to termination or withdrawal;
50 • How to bring the University into substantive discussions with regard to becoming a party
40
1 to the Agreement;
2 • The degree of involvement and the role of the parties to approve proposed fee increases
3 versus County discretion;
4 • Degree of program/operational detail with regard to current recycling and waste reduction
5 programs and services that should be incorporated into the Agreement; and
6 • The level of flexibility, discretion, accountability and authority the County will maintain as
7 the lead agency with regard to ongoing operations, budget, facilities and policies versus the
8 elements requiring notification to or approval or consent from the parties.
9
10 Michael Talbert said the financial impact of this has not yet been determined. He said
11 the Board's purpose tonight is to consider this initial draft agreement as a starting point, and to
12 refer this agreement to the SWAG. He reviewed the manager's recommendation. He said
13 ideally a preliminary report would be done and be presented to the Assembly of Governments in
14 November; however this may be difficult since there is public representation on this board that
15 will not be appointed until September.
16 Commissioner McKee said he assumes the Board would appoint the two
17 Commissioners to the SWAG tonight, although he does not see that in the abstract.
18 Donna Baker said this will be done in item 11-e, under appointments.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said she wants to have an inter-local agreement, but she will
20 vote against this because she feels that it really should be a group of elected officials that come
21 up with the framework for how to proceed and what kind of advisory board to have.
22 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Pelissier and said inter-local agreements
23 happen between bodies of government, and she does not feel the public needs to be involved
24 at this stage.
25 Chair Jacobs said one possibility is to have the Board appoint elected officials, Chapel
26 Hill elect its representatives, and then this group could meet over the summer while advertising
27 is done for public positions in the larger group.
28 Commissioner Price asked if this means there would still be citizen participation, just not
29 as many, and not as early.
30 Chair Jacobs said it is a good point that the interlocal agreement is between the
31 governments, although he would argue that the University should also be included. He said
32 this does not necessarily require participation of residents who were anticipated to deal with the
33 more complex list of issues that the interlocal agreement covers.
34 Commissioner Gordon said the four groups of elected officials could meet as a phase 1
35 of this group, to define the charge and work on the interlocal agreement, and then phase 2
36 would allow for residents to participate. She said this is a big project, and phase 1, which would
37 be comprised of elected officials, would report back at a time to be determined, and then phase
38 2 would be the full group, who could work for at least a year.
39 Commissioner Pelissier made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rich to refer the
40 attached draft agreement to a work group of elected officials—two from each of the
41 municipalities and two from the County; and that the group complete their work in time to
42 present to the Assembly of Governments in November; and that part of that interlocal
43 agreement would outline the composition, scope and mission of the advisory board and its
44 purpose.
45
46 Chair Jacobs said the University should be included in this if possible, and they are not
47 elected officials. He said there may not be two elected officials from Chapel Hill immediately.
48 Chair Jacobs offered a friendly amendment to include the University if UNC is willing to
49 appoint representatives, and that there be no specific designation of the number of elected
50 officials.
41
1 Commissioner Pelissier rejected the friendly amendment. She said she agrees that the
2 University should be involved, but she is not sure if this is necessary for the interlocal
3 agreement. She will let her motion stand as-is.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said he will not vote for this motion because it has taken citizens
5 out of the process. He said the idea that there are decisions to be made without citizens and
6 decisions to be made with citizens is against participatory democracy and transparency.
7 Commissioner Price said she will vote against it for the same reasons.
8 Commissioner McKee said he agreed with the idea of citizen participation, but
9 governments should have the first shot at the interlocal agreement.
10
11 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee,
12 Commissioner Gordon), Nays, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin, and Commissioner
13 Price)
14
15 8. Reports NONE
16
17 9. County Manager's Report NONE
18
19 10. County Attorney's Report NONE
20
21
22 11. Appointments
23
24
25 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
26 The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
27 Advisory Committee.
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
29
30 • Appoint to a first full term (Position #8) At-Large for Ms. Joyce Teston ending
31 06/30/2016.
32 • Appoint to a first full term (Position #10) At-Large for Dr. Beverly Foster ending
33 06/30/2016.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 b. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment
38 The Board considered an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
41 appoint to a first full term for Mr. Vaughn Compton. Mr. Compton will be serving a first full term
42 expiring 06/30/2017 as an at-large representative (VAD Cedar Grove District— Position #2).
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 c. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board —Appointments
47 The Board considered making appointments to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
50 appoint Keith Bagby to position #3 ( At-Large) with an expiration date of 6/30/2017.
42
1
2 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner McKee)
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
5 appoint Nannie Richmond to position #4 (At-Large) with an expiration date of 6/30/2017.
6
7 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Price, and Commissioner Dorosin); Nays,
8 4 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, and
9 Commissioner Gordon)
10
11 Motion Fails.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
14 appoint Mike Lassiter to position #4 (At-Large) with an expiration date of 6/30/2017.
15
16 Commissioner McKee said Mike Lassiter is retired from the ABC board and he has
17 heard complaints about the lack of representation for employees on the board. He said he is
18 nominating Mike Lassiter for this reason.
19
20 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Gordon,
21 Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and
22 Commissioner Dorosin)
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
25 appoint Lisa Stuckey as Chair of the ABC Board for a term expiring June 30, 2015.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 d. Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board of Directors —Appointment
30 The Board considered an appointment to the Orange Water & Sewer Authority Board of
31 Directors.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
34 appoint Terri Buckner to a second full term, as the Natural Resources Special Representation,
35 with a term ending 06/30/2017.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks more effort needs to be made in outreach to
38 encourage more minority involvement on this and other boards.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 e. Solid Waste Advisory Group — BOCC Appointments
43 The Board considered making 2 BOCC appointments to the Solid Waste Advisory
44 Group and to appoint the Chair.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Chair Jacobs to appoint
47 Commissioner Rich to the Solid Waste Advisory Group.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
43
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 appoint Chair Jacobs to the Solid Waste Advisory Group.
3
4 Chair Jacobs noted that he will serve in this role, but he is not happy about the way this
5 board has been constituted, and he will try to change this.
6 Donna Baker asked if the Public Service Announcement that is prepared to go out for
7 residents should be held until the end of summer.
8 Chair Jacobs said yes.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 The Board decided not to appoint a Chair to the SWAG at this time.
13
14 12. Board Comments
15 Commissioner Price said she would like to encourage the schools to provide healthier
16 meals to students. She has heard a lot of comments from parents complaining about some of
17 the food that is provided in the schools. She would like to find a way to encourage better
18 nutrition education and work with vendors to provide better meals in the schools.
19 Chair Jacobs said this is a difficult issue, but it can be brought up at the next school
20 collaboration meeting.
21 Commissioner Gordon said the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
22 Organization (MPO) is prioritizing transportation projects for funding in years 2016-2025. She
23 said this prioritization included the input points used to score the transportation projects. She
24 said the Board is encouraging all citizens to review the draft MPO point assignment and provide
25 feedback. She said this information can be accessed at www.dchcmpo.orq. She said there will
26 be a public hearing on June 25 to provide feedback.
27 Commissioner Gordon said the Board had received information regarding state budget
28 reductions affecting Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools. She wants
29 to make sure it is clear that both school systems sustained reductions that were carried over
30 from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014. She said the 2013-2014 total discretionary reduction was
31 $3,096,139, which means the grand total of state reductions for that year was $3,742,918. She
32 said Orange County Schools had $3,823,691.
33 Commissioner Pelissier referred to Commissioner Gordon's comments about public
34 input on the prioritization of transit projects. She said the assigning of points is very
35 complicated, and the most important thing for the public to do is to give input regarding which
36 are the most important projects.
37 Commissioner McKee thanked Michael Talbert for helping them through this past year
38 and wished him an enjoyable retirement.
39 Commissioner Rich said at the Durham/Chapel Hill/Orange Work Group they learned
40 about an additional cost for water and sewer. She asked Craig Benedict to inform the Board of
41 County Commissioners about this increase.
42 Craig Benedict said he would send out an email. He said this related to the program for
43 the Eno Economic Development District.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said there was a guest editorial in Sunday's Chapel Hill News
45 about Chapel Hill's public housing policy, which is the most restrictive public housing policy in
46 the state. He said the policy bars admission to public housing in Chapel Hill for anyone with a
47 record of illegal drug activity for 15 years, and anyone with a criminal record involving physical
48 violence for 10 years. He said this is more than double almost every other public housing
49 authority. He said the Chapel Hill policy also doesn't distinguish between felonies and
50 misdemeanors. He said over 130 low income people have been denied access since 2010,
44
1 and he is hoping that the Chapel Hill Town Council will take this up. He encouraged the Board
2 to read the editorial, as this is the only public housing available in Orange County.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said there will be a program on July 2 at the Chapel Hill Public
4 Library about the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.
5 Chair Jacobs said the Burlington Graham MPO is having their public hearing in the latter
6 part of June regarding assignment of points for the different transportation projects to the west.
7 Chair Jacobs recognized the upcoming 25th anniversary of Habitat for Humanity.
8
9 13. Information Items
10
11 • June 3, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
12 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
13 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
14 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases and Refunds Under $100
15 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from May 20, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
16 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from June 3, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
17 • Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street Realignment Feasibility Study
18 • Memo Regarding County Water and Sewer Project Progress Update
19
20 14. Closed Session NONE
21
22 15. Adjournment
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
24 adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28
29 Barry Jacobs, Chair
30
31
32 Donna Baker
33 Clerk to the Board
34
35