The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 06-03-2014 APPROVED 9/4/2014 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda Chair Jacobs reviewed the following list of items at the Commissioner's places: - PowerPoint for Item 5a — Draft Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030 - White Sheets — Substitute for item 6i - Memorandum of Agreement with Town of Hillsborough to Protect Archaeological Resources on Town and County Properties within the Town Limits - PowerPoint for Item 7b — Orange County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation Construction Bid Award - PowerPoint for Items 7c - Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments — Revisions to Existing Language Ensuring Agricultural Activities are Allowed Throughout the Rural Buffer as well as Density and Minimum Lot Size Clarification - PowerPoint for Item 7d-_Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification - White sheets — Staff Responses to Commissioner Gordon's concerns regarding Items 7c and 7d — Joint Planning Land use Plan and Agreement Amendments - White sheets - Staff Responses to Commissioner Gordon's concerns regarding Items 5a- Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030, and 6j — Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste. - White Sheets - Chair/Vice Chair Petition Response letter from the May 20th petitions Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner McKee will be late. The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda Nettie Lassiter lives in Hillsborough. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners for all of their hard work. She expressed her concerns about the noise impact to her neighborhood as a result of the chiller situation at the Whitted Building. She said the noise from the current machine is like a train that never stops, and it goes 24 hours a day. She said she understands this is supposed to be temporary, but 6 weeks is still a long time for her neighborhood to be subjected to that noise. Jenn Weaver lives in the Town of Hillsborough. She is a Town Board member, but she is here tonight as a citizen. She said the chiller is incredibly loud, and 6 weeks is a very long time. She said the neighborhood would appreciate it if something could be done. Chair Jacobs said he forwarded Jenn Weaver's email to Jeff Thompson and Michael Talbert. He said it has already been 2 weeks, and there are only 4 weeks left. He said staff will work with the contractor to see if sound baffles can be put up for the remaining month. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Gordon noted that when agendas are posted online you have to download the whole agenda for one item. She has noticed that the planning department numbers all of their agenda pages to allow individual pages to be looked at, printed or downloaded. She would petition that the Commissioners do something similar to this, where pages are numbered, and also individual items can be selected for viewing without downloading the whole agenda. Commissioner Pelissier said this is a re-petition to her request on March 6 that a follow up letter be sent to Chapel Hill and to the Mayor in reference to affordable housing near transit stops. She said there needs to be a process to ensure follow up. Chair Jacobs said a letter was sent, and there has been no response. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board members did not get a copy of this. Chair Jacobs said the letter would be sent again, and a copy will be sent to the Commissioners. Donna Baker said she is happy to send the original letter to Mayor Kleinschmidt and Manager Stancil, with a copy to the Board. Chair Jacobs said he was at the NCACC agricultural committee meeting last week. He said there was considerable discussion about solar installations and what a headache these are for a number of jurisdictions. He said there was discussion that these should not be called solar farms, as they have nothing to do with agriculture. He asked staff to do some investigating over the summer regarding other governments' ordinances and the problems that have been seen. He noted that nothing has any effect on projects currently before the Board, but subsequent to those projects this information may provide different ways of viewing the installations. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Voluntary and Enhanced Aqricultural District Desiqnation — Multiple Farms — Poole, Reddinq, T.W. Parker, McKee, Johnson, Soehner, R. Parker, Williams/Wilson, and Walker The Board considered applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying farmland within the Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Schley/Eno, Cane Creek/Buckhorn, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. Gail Hughes presented the following PowerPoint slides: Orange County Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program • June 3, 2014 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program Benefits of Agricultural Districts ➢ Voluntary Agricultural District is a 10 year commitment but the landowner can be withdrawn from the VAD at any time, for any reason, with a 30 day notification. ➢ Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District is an irrevocable 10 year commitment, therefore the "enhanced" qualifies farm for 90% cost share rates and a priority for grants funds. Benefits include: ➢ Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of the county; ➢ Recorded notice of agricultural district is recorded at County Land Records office; ➢ Land search on all properties within a '/2 mile radius is notified of the agricultural status; therefore, the landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits. ➢ Public hearings for proposed condemnation of VAD land and utility assessments may be suspended or waived on EVAD land if not connected to the utility. ➢ Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only) Dwight Poole Cedar Grove Agricultural District Farm includes pasture, vegetable crops, livestock and managed woodland/forestry. EVAD = 19.87 acres VAD = 18.33 acres Cecelia Redding Caldwell Agricultural District Farm includes vegetable, fruit, small grain, and hay crops; shiitake mushrooms, and managed forestry/woodland. EVAD =151.06 acres Parker Farm T. Watson, Penny, Thomas Parker Cedar Grove Agricultural District Farm includes a poultry operation, beef cattle, hay crops, and managed forestry/woodland. VAD = 82.22 acres David and Vickie McKee Caldwell (21.15 ac.) and Buckhorn/Cane Creek (147.64 ac.) Agricultural Districts Farm includes beef cattle operation, pasture, corn, grain, soybeans, hay crops, and managed forestry/woodland EVAD = 95.55 acres VAD = 73.24 acres Ben Johnson (originally Bacon Farm) Schley/Eno Agricultural District -revise ownership- Farm includes pasture, hay, corn, pumpkins, and vegetable crops. VAD= 71.02 acres Has applied for the Century Farm designation John and Cindy Soehner White Cross Agricultural District Farm includes vegetable crops and shiitake mushrooms, and woodland. VAD= 22.31 acres Parker Family Farm Randall Parker (jointly owned parcels: J. Scott Parker, Bonnie P. Tate) Caldwell Agricultural District Farm includes pastured pork and poultry operation, produce/vegetable, tobacco, and small grain crops. VAD =94.17 acres Edwards Place LLC Jane D. Williams & Carolyn Wilson White Cross Agricultural District Farm includes managed woodland and forestry acres for timber and wildlife VAD= 137 acres Norman Walker Caldwell Agricultural District Farm includes managed woodland/forestry acres for timber and wildlife, and pasture and farmstead VAD= 15.55 acres* Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept six (8) farms into the program and an ownership revision for one (1) farm. • 516 acres in the VAD • 265 acres in the EVAD. • If approved, total of acres in both programs: VAD = 6046 acres; EVAD= 877 acres • Total Acres in Program = 6923 acres • Overview Map June 2014 • VAD = 6046 acres • EVAD = 877 acres Total Acres = 6923* * = rounded acres Gail Hughes noted that the slide for the Parker Farm should reflect the inclusion of 30 to 40 acres of woodland tracts. Chair Jacobs thanked the families present for their attendance at the meeting. Commissioner Price noted a discrepancy in the numbers. Gail Hughes said this is likely just a result of rounding. She will get this clarified. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to certify the nine (9) farm properties noted above totaling 514.52 acres (VAD) and 266.48 acres (EVAD) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland, and designate them as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farm within the Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Schley/Eno, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. With approval of these additional acres, the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 47 farms, totaling 6,046 acres in the VAD and 877 acres in the EVAD for a total of 6,923 acres (rounded). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs expressed his appreciation for the agricultural community and their participation in this program. Gail Hughes said she had double checked her numbers and there were some acres on revisions that had been double counted. She said the approved acres are correct. b. Resolution Recoqnizinq Judd Edeburn for his Work with Duke Forest The Board considered a resolution recognizing Judson "Judd" Edeburn for his work with Duke Forest, especially portions within Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair Jacobs read the resolution as follows: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JUDD EDEBURN FOR HIS WORK WITH DUKE FOREST WHEREAS, Judson "Judd" Edeburn started working as the Resource Manager for Duke Forest in 1978, and Duke Forest is located in portions of Durham, Orange and Alamance counties; and, WHEREAS, Duke University is the largest property owner in Orange County due to the presence of Duke Forest; and, WHEREAS, Duke Forest anchors the Rural Buffer, a land use creation that protects open space and sensitive natural resources in southern Orange County; and, WHEREAS, Duke Forest has evolved to a teaching and research laboratory, has grown to over 7,000 acres with sections registered as a North Carolina Natural Heritage Site, and has hosted an estimated 164,000 visitors in a single year; and, WHEREAS, Edeburn's commitment to land conservation helped to facilitate Orange County's purchase of portions of Duke Forest no longer needed by the University including the McGowan Creek Preserve near the Eno River and Efland and at New Hope Preserve on Erwin Road; and, WHEREAS, under Edeburn's stewardship, Duke Forest has managed to maintain its research mission while facilitating the use of significant portions of the acreage for recreation by Orange County residents; and, WHEREAS, in a spirit of collaboration, Edeburn worked with Orange County to designate a portion of Duke Forest to serve as the required buffer for the construction and demolition landfill north of Eubanks Road; and, WHEREAS, Edeburn's low-key but determined advocacy for Duke Forest has enabled it to withstand repeated efforts by University leadership to convert these key lands to development uses that would forever change their character and that of the communities that abut them; and, WHEREAS, Judd Edeburn has led the growth of Duke Forest for over 35 years — growth of both the ecosystem and of research projects; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby recognize Judd Edeburn for his progress in environmental research and commitment to the preservation of natural resources globally, including Orange County, and we do hereby wish him well in his retirement and future endeavors. This the third day of June 2014. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon for the Board to approve and to authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution recognizing Judd Edeburn for over 35 years of service managing Duke Forest and preserving local natural resources for the people of Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Judd Edeburn expressed his thanks to the Board. 5. Public Hearinqs a. Public Hearinq - Draft Oranqe County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030 The Board provided an opportunity for public comment on the draft Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030. Dave Stancil said parks are important places to commune with nature, exercise, relax, recreate, and play sports. He said recreation programs play a critical role in personal development, encouraging social interaction, fighting health concerns, and teaching art and life skills. He finds it useful when looking at the future of parks and recreation in Orange County, to pause and ask why we do these things. Dave Stancil presented the following PowerPoint slides: Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030 Public Hearing Draft—June 3, 2014 A Brief History • Rec Programs Since 1960's • 1990's Reports � 1997 & 2001 Bonds • 1988 Master Plan - Opened 1 st park 1998 Overview of System -2014 • 9 Facilities and Locations • 5 Parks • One Soccer Center • 2 Recreation/ Community Centers • One Greenway Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:35 p.m. Planned Future Facilities 4 Future Parks (land-banked sites) • 2 Nature Preserves with trails and access areas • 1 New Community Center Recreation Programs/Services • Programs offered for youth and adults • Total program enrollment up 41% since 2009 • Wide range of programs — sports, arts, life skills • Special Events (Egg Hunt, Fishing Rodeo, etc) • All senior programs through Department on Aging Population — Current Snapshot • County population = 138,000 (2012) • Around 60,000 in traditional "service area" • 20% of County under 18 Population — Future Trends? • Top 10 Nationally in Education Level • Above-average median income masks 17% below poverty • By 2030, County could have 173,000 persons • Expect 70-80,000 in service area? Community Needs Assessments • Perhaps most important component of master plan • How does public view current facilities/programs and future needs? • Several components (youth, statistical random-sample, online, targeted groups) • Statistical survey administered by UNC-G profs • Total of 835 surveys received Summary of Survey Results Facility Usage and Experience • Most used facilities: o Sportsplex o Central Rec Center o Little River Park o Eurosport Soccer Center • Safety, maintenance and operations of parks get high marks (89-96% approval) • 93% agreed parks and programs enhance economic health. • 96% agreed parks and programs enhance physical and mental well-being Summary of Survey Results Most Popular Programs/Events PROGRAMS Youth Soccer Youth Basketball Open Gymnasium Volleyball EVENTS Little River Trail Run Annual Egg Hunt Halloween Event Fishing Rodeo Earth Day Fair Summary of Survey Results Most Desired New Programs/Facilities PROGRAMS Hiking Swimming Walking Yoga, Biking, Camps FACILITIES Walking/hiking Trails Nature Trails Swimming Pool Greenways Sprayground, amphitheatre Other Responses • Expand outdoor recreation (82% agree) • Expand low-impact recreation (79%) • Trail system linking various areas of county (89%) • Indoor athletic complex? (64%) • Parks help reduce crime? (81%) Funding Strategy Responses • Donations and Grants (95/94% agree) • Use Existing Local Taxes (73% agree) • Voter-approved Bonds (70% agree) • Existing Property Taxes (70% agree) • User Fees (68% agree) • Increase New Local Taxes (34% agree) Focus Groups and Open Houses 7 Focus Groups Held: Soccer Facilities Trails and Connectivity Public Health and Parks Park Facility Needs Recreation Programs Nature/Env. Programs County/Town Coordination 6 Open Houses, etc Main Themes Heard: More biking and hiking trails Artificial Turf fields When will new parks open? (Blackwood Farm) More soccer fields/centers Important Themes and Topics • Linking to the Goals/Objectives in Comp Plan • Synchronizing and coordinating with Town plans • State parks, OWASA, Schools, Others • Economic benefits of parks, rec and open space • Important linkages to public health, opportunities • Parks and conserving our natural resources Standards and Findings A number of changed conditions since 1988 Park Classifications: School Park Community Park (usually 40-75 acres) District Park (usually 75-125 acres) Regional Park (usually 150 acres +) Nature Preserve Access Areas Standards: Best Approach - use community needs Standards and Findings • Proposed Guiding Principles for Park Standards • Continue to Use Population-Based as Benchmark • Service Areas Defined Existing plans and policies 0 4 Districts • Overall — Set of 20 Findings Identified (pg 9-13) Goals and Objectives • Previously-created in Comprehensive Plan • 5 Goals with objectives for each • Plan strategies attempt to address these Recommendations • Weighing All the Data and Findings • Basis of Park Planning in Place (districts, 1988 plan, CIP) • Proactive Acquiring of Sites = Few "new" Parks Needed Recommendations 1. Protect Investment in Parks and Open Space a. Multi-Million $ Investment b. Facility Renovation and Repairs c. Operating and Maintenance 2. Build Planned Future Parks (pg 10-12) a. CIP and Lands Legacy Have "Set the Table" b. 4 New Parks c. 5 Future Phases at Existing Parks d. 2 (3) Nature Preserves with Publicly-Accessible Areas Recommendations 3. Complete Nature Preserves, Provide Access 4. Structure for Multi-Partner Capital Facilities 5. Master Plan for Orange County MST Segment 6. Build More Trails, Connections Recommendations 7. Improve Access, Promote Healthy Lifestyles 8. Recreation Program Needs, Partnerships 9. Examine Ro/e of Community Centers a. Types of programs, offerings b. Hours and usage expectations c. Facilities and amenities Issues for Further Study • System Level of Service • Review Land Dedication, P-i-L • Coordination of County, SportsPlex Programs • Need for Public Pool? • Plan Updates (5/10) • Artificial Turf Playing Fields? Dave Stancil said one thing that has changed since 1998 is that the formulaic mathematical approach to determining park needs has given way to a more community needs based approach. Dave Stancil reviewed the Parks map. He said the proposal moving forward is that the County conduct new needs assessments every 5 years and schedule a formal update of the plan in 10 years. He referenced a video of a fox at the Little River Park that gained high viewership on YouTube. Commissioner Gordon said the information did not show the townships' populations separated out. She provided a hand out with this information. The following is included for the record: Questions/ comments —from Commissioner Gordon via email for June 3, 2014 BOCC meeting A. Draft Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2040 Page 9 -Attachment 2 - Planned Schedule of Park Construction (as per CIP) Twin Creeks District Park, Phase 11 and 111 This park is scheduled for> FY19-20. Given that there is a master plan for this park which was approved years ago, and given that at least one member of the public spoke in favor of moving forward with this park (in a hearing last year, 1 believe), why is this park so low on the priority list? All that has been built there is a trail, and that was constructed utilizing federal ARRA funds. What is the cost of Phase 11 and Phase 111? Could we at least move Phase 11 forward to an earlier time period? Please give an update on the status of this park. Staff notes the following regarding Twin Creeks: a) It is expected that the County will need to help fund the construction of the east-west road shared by Ballentine subdivision (MI Homes) and the County along the southern boundary of Twin Creeks, but it is not known when this road would be built. MI Homes and Carrboro are not in agreement on whether a bond should be provided for a possible future stream crossing (perhaps an additional$750,000). b) The road and stream crossing question is pending analysis by the Town of Carrboro on stormwater and transportation patterns in the area. It is County staff's understanding this work is underway by Town staff, but County staff does not know the status. c) Cost estimates to build the drive, parking, two soccer fields and associated infrastructure (stormwater, sidewalks, etc.) exceeded available funds in 2007 when last examined. It is expected that the total cost to build the paved drive, parking and two soccer fields will exceed$2 million. This does not include the share of the east-west road mentioned in "a)"which is $600,000-$750,000. Because of the high "start-up" costs, funding the remaining phases has been shown in Years 6-10. There is $600,000 funding for the share of the road previously-appropriated. Approximately$429,000 remains from the original park funds. PUBLIC COMMENT: Allen Green is a member of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and he relayed an experience from a recent trip to Western Australia. He said he and his son hiked 600 miles, and the key was the connectivity and the network of trails between the towns and camping spaces. He said this gave him a vision for what Orange County could be like. He said there is a lot to see in this area, and he could see the greenways and Mountains to Sea Trail being used in this way. He said more connectivity will mean a healthier population. Commissioner Rich said survey data showed that the public wanted more walking and hiking trails. She said a similar survey with the Town of Chapel Hill showed this same need. Dave Stancil agreed that this is a shared interest. Commissioner Price said as this plan continues, the community centers need to be open and accessible more often. She said staff is getting there with the notion of partnering and working with non-profits and schools in the area. Commissioner Price said she has some concerns with costs associated with use of the facilities. She referenced the $25 fee for use of the basketball court and asked if these costs are for groups. Dave Stancil said this is to reserve the court for personal use. He said anyone can do pick up play for free. Commissioner porosin said this plan is comprehensive; but the view is very general, and it would be more useful for him and residents to see a more micro view of what will happen over the next 5 years. He said for example, it would be useful to have a supplement that outlines specific programs planned for each park, and the timeline for these programs. He said this is a way of highlighting the work that is being done. He said this plan gives good detail of the administrative work that has been done, and this is good; however the community wants to know when things are going to be put in place and ready to use. He said turning from abstract to practical is critical. Dave Stancil said this is a logical next step, and staff will try to have these answers at the next presentation of this item. Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner porosin. He said if there is going to be a bond in 2016, staff needs to provide information on items to be funded. He said there are no pre- approved plans for either the Julia Blackwood Farm or the Kirby property. He said there has been discussion with Chapel Hill about having soccer fields at Julia Blackwood farm, and he feels it is important to work with the municipalities to provide services. He thinks it would be timely to see plans for the short term. He noted that extension of Orange Grove Road will wipe out the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association (HYAA) ball fields. He said this extension is a high priority project for the Town of Chapel Hill, but there needs to be conversation with Hillsborough about how to partner and possibly re-visit the plan for Fairview Park or the Collins property. He said the Greene Tract has also not been addressed. He said the County made a commitment to protect this acreage, and this has not been put into the plans. He would like to see all of these things come back in the short term in preparation for the bond in 2016. Chair Jacobs referred to Allen Green's comments and said there was vision for a trail system from the southern part of the County all the way to Eno River State Park and Chapel Hill is dedicating a greenway on Saturday morning. He said the bond package in 2001 had money allocated to that purpose. He said staff might want to re-visit the thinking about connectivity. Dave Stancil said he agrees with these comments. He said staff was talking with Hillsborough today about following up with Fairview, and this conversation will provide an opportunity to talk about ball fields. He said this plan shows what staff thinks is on the horizon in terms of next steps for master plans and projects, but when this comes back it will include an action plan as well. Commissioner Gordon asked if staff could somehow move up the Twins Park plan (phases 2 and 3). She said this has been an approved plan since 2005, and this is ready to go. She said an approved plan is already in place and she would like to see something happen a little sooner than it is listed. She said she is very happy to see a parks master plan. Commissioner Price asked for clarification of what is meant by "most parks" on page 10. She said more specificity is needed here. PUBLIC COMMENT: Reverend Robert Campbell asked how the Julia Blackwood Farm could be tied into the Rogers Road community and the schools in the area through the use of recreation trails. He asked if this is part of the concept. He said these trails would be highly used by their community. He said this would provide exercise opportunities. Chair Jacobs said this has been discussed in the past, and there are some unofficial trails already there. Dave Stancil said the recommendation on trail connectivity was a priority on their surveys. He would anticipate that this would be part of the conversation. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to refer the Master Plan to the Board of Health, Economic Development Commission, Planning Board, Orange United Transportation Board, Commission for the Environment, Board on Aging, and Historic Preservation Commission for review and comment (and any other advisory boards as deemed warranted), and that all such comments be forwarded by August 31, 2014 to the Parks and Recreation Council for use in developing a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, as noted above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Aqenda Chair Jacobs noted a substitution for item 6i. Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Commissioner Gordon removed item 6j — Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste. • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the remaining items on the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda j. Bid Award — Hook Lift Truck for Solid Waste The Board considered awarding a bid to Freightliner of Austin, 1701 Smith Road, Austin, TX for a Hook Lift Truck at a delivered cost of$193,225 for the Sanitation Division of the Solid Waste Management Department. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on why this truck should be purchased at this time and how the purchase will affect the general fund. The following email from Commissioner Gordon regarding questions/concerns on this item is included for the record: Item 6-j - Bid Award - Hook-Lift Truck for Solid Waste According to the agenda abstract, this truck was originally scheduled for replacement in 2014- 15 but the Solid Waste Fund has available funds in the current fiscal year operating budget. Please explain why this truck purchase should be made this fiscal year. STAFF RESPONSE: The Hook-Lift Truck has been scheduled to be purchased in FY 2014/15. Staff has a desire to minimize the General Fund contribution to the Solid Waste/Sanitation budget. Staff also attempts to maintain ongoing judicious oversight of expenditures, which has resulted in a Department FY 13/14 under-expenditure sufficient to fund the $193,225 truck purchase. Based upon discussion by the Finance Director, County Manager and Solid Waste Director of the projected under-expenditure sufficient enough to purchase the truck, and at the recommendation of the Director(with the objective of limiting general fund contributions to the solid waste budget by not adding the $193,225 to the already requested $1,856,543), a general consensus was reached that advancing the purchase of the truck presented a financial opportunity and was a prudent financial decision, given that the advance purchase period was only about 2-3 months prior to the FY 2014/15 scheduled purchase. Sanitation's Hook-Lift trucks are seeing significantly increased mileage hauling to the Durham Transfer Station and prompt replacement is necessary to maintain reliable collection and disposal schedules. Gayle Wilson said the hook lift truck was scheduled to be purchased in the 2014-2015 budget; however it is a sanitation truck. He said that was included in the general fund contribution. He said if this had been continued and purchased, it would have been bid on in July and approved in September. He said at the end of the year it was projected that there would be sufficient unspent funds in the sanitation budget to purchase the truck. He said the decision was made to purchase it out of unspent funds instead of adding this to the general fund. He said this would reduce the recommended general fund contribution to sanitation and allow purchase of the truck 3 months earlier than otherwise planned. Commissioner Gordon asked if this is just a matter of which year the general fund contribution will be reduced. Gayle Wilson said this will reduce the general fund contribution next year. He said staff's recommendation does not include that truck, as it is proposed to be purchased this year. Clarence Grier said the truck will be purchased with solid waste funds that are available in the solid waste budget for this current 2013-2014 fiscal year. He said this will not increase the general funds contribution for sanitation for this year or next fiscal year. Commissioner Gordon said she wants to make sure that the general fund contribution is less for next year if this was purchased this year. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to award a bid to Freightliner of Austin, 1701 Smith Road, Austin, TX for a Hook Lift Truck at a delivered cost of$193,225 for the Sanitation Division of the Solid Waste Management Department. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from April 15 and March 11, 2014 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for seventeen (17) taxpayers with a total of eighteen (18) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for two (2) taxpayers with a total of four (4) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. FY 2014-15 Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Fundinq Plan The Board approved the recommended Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) for Older Adults Funding Plan for FY 2014-15 and authorized the Chair to sign. e. Oranqe County ABC Board Travel Policy The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board's adoption and continued use of Orange County's travel policy. f. Commemorative Plaque Proof for Recently Commissioned Facilities The Board approved a general commemorative plaque proof in order that the commemorative plaques can be manufactured and installed for recently commissioned County facilities. g. Potential Fundinq Assistance for Fairview Community Watch throuqh Oranqe Tennis Club The Board approved a request for $2,000 in matching funds for Fairview Community Watch Summer Monitoring Program at the County's Fairview Park. h. Chanqes in BOCC Reqular Meetinq Schedule for 2014 The Board approved the following changes to the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2014: Changing the remaining 2014 BOCC meetings, starting in September, originally scheduled for the Link Government Services Center and Hillsborough Commons (DSS Meeting Room) TO the newly renovated Whitted Building Meeting Room at 300 West Tryon St., Hillsborough, N.C. i. Memorandum of Aqreement with Town of Hillsborouqh to Protect Archaeoloqical Resources on Town and County Properties within the Town Limits The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign the revised memorandum of agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and the County for the preservation of cultural and archaeological resources. 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Improvements in the Historic Roqers Road Neiqhborhood (8:10-8:30) The Board considered authorizing the Chair to execute an Interlocal Agreement with OWASA for preliminary engineering services for waste water system Improvements (Attachment 5) to serve the Rogers Road Area, and an Agreement with the Jackson Center (to be drafted by the County Attorney) to work in partnership with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to undertake the community outreach initiative in the Rogers Road Community. A separate reimbursement agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney with both the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to reimburse the County for their share of the project, and will be presented to the Board at the September 4, 2014 regular meeting. Michael Talbert reviewed the history of this item as outlined in the abstract. He noted that there are several resolutions included from the towns, indicating their willingness to move these items forward. He said OWASA met on May 8th and approved the interlocal agreement and the scope of services for preliminary engineering. He said the next step is to move this forward for the neighborhood, and Orange County will become the contracting agent. He said this will come back at a later date with request for approval of a cost share agreement of 43 percent for the County, 43 percent for Chapel Hill, and 14 percent for Carrboro. He said the total cost is $180,000, and the County has already approved a budget amendment of$77,400, which equates to 43 percent. He said the two towns should approve their amounts in the fall, and the town managers have assured staff that this money is in next year's budget. Michael Talbert said the recommendation is to authorize the Chair to approve the interlocal agreement with OWASA, and the Jackson Center, based on the attached scope of services. He said a separate agreement will come to the Board in the fall, which will also be approved by both towns to reimburse the County for their share of the project. Commissioner Rich said Carrboro was at one point not in favor with the amount presented for outreach. She asked if Carrboro had changed their mind about this. Michael Talbert said Carrboro approved two different resolutions, and the final one directed staff to move forward after some minor changes were made to the scope of services. He said Carrboro was very interested in keeping the scope limited to the 86 parcels that were identified by the task force. Commissioner Price asked if the Jackson Center scope of services was authored by the Jackson Center staff. She asked if the scope of services will be reformatted into the form of a contract. Michael Talbert said the scope of services will be the basis for a contract. He said this was originally drafted by the Jackson Center, and it has gone through several revisions with input from all of the entities. He said this final document has been approved by the Jackson Center and RENA. Commissioner porosin asked about the status of the time table and what the community can expect moving forward. Michael Talbert said the interlocal agreement with OWASA is done, and they have received the proposals, but their board has not awarded the contract. He said once the contract is awarded it will take about 6 months for the work to be completed. He said this means the information will likely be coming back around January for the Board and towns to see. He said the work done by the Jackson Center is a shorter time frame and is noted to be about three and a half months. Commissioner porosin asked how the contracted work is different from the plans and costs that the task force spent months looking at. Michael Talbert said the original work was done concept wise by OWASA staff and this is the next step, which allows firm pricing. He said there were 8 lines that comprise the area. He said this will lay those out in terms of what is really feasible, and it will include the preliminary engineering. He said this will give a more defined route for the lines and a better cost estimate. Commissioner porosin asked if the drawings that the task force looked at were preliminary engineering drawings. Michael Talbert said these were preliminary drawings, but they were not certified by an engineer. He said these were just a best guess by OWASA staff based on broad based estimates. Commissioner porosin asked if the contract for the outreach will be exclusively for the Jackson Center Michael Talbert said yes. He said this will be paid directly to the Jackson Center, and then the Center will sub-contract with RENA. PUBLIC COMMENT: Robert Campbell said he is a representative of the Rogers Road Neighborhood Association (RENA). He said RENA had been in collaboration with the Jackson Center about the work to be done. He said the goal was to put together a package that could be used by all of the municipalities for any other type of project to be complete in and around the Rogers Road neighborhood. He said surveys have been done in the past, but things have changed, including the layout of the neighborhood. He said the parcel being looked at here, has not changed. He said the data that has been gathered over the past 40 years is scattered; but with the mapping expertise of the Jackson Center is helping to consolidate this in order to move forward with this project. Elizabeth McCain is from the Jackson Center. She thanked the Board for their time and investment in this plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to authorize the Chair to execute an Interlocal Agreement with OWASA for preliminary engineering services for waste water system Improvements (Attachment 5) to serve the Rogers Road Area, and an Agreement with the Jackson Center (to be drafted by the County Attorney) to work in partnership with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to undertake the community outreach initiative in the Rogers Road Community. A separate reimbursement agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney with both the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to reimburse the County for their share of the project, and will be presented to the Board at the September 4, 2014 regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Oranqe County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation Construction Bid Award The Board considered awarding a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North Carolina in the amount of$429,550 for the construction of the Orange County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation; authorizing the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of the County Attorney; and authorizing the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project budget. Jeff Thompson reviewed the recommendation and then showed the construction slide of the space to be renovated at the Sportsplex. He said the purpose of renovation is to increase revenue generating, programmable space. He said this will be done in two phases: 1) Move the pro shop area to the front of the shop; and 2) Create significant addition to the programmable revenue generating space in the center of the lobby. John Stock reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Sportsplex Lobby Renovation Bid Award • Consider approving a bid award — Riggs-Harrod Builders, Durham, NC — Not to Exceed $429,550 • Authorize Chair to execute construction agreement upon County Attorney review • Authorize County Manager to execute change orders up to the project budget Supports Si_qnificant Revenue Growth • Add 1,834 Revenue Generating Square Feet • Supports Increased Fitness Membership Growth — High Intensity Training, Zumba, Step — Yoga/Pilates — Specialty Strength/Body Weight Training ("Boot Camp") • Kidsplex Flexibility — After-School and Pre-School Programs — Specialized Kids Programs • Supports Senior Programs and Silver Sneakers • Birthday Party Revenue Major Facelift for Facility's First Impression • First Major Entrance Area Renovation Since Facility Opening 20 years ago • Estimated to Add $250,000 Annually in Revenue Jeff Thompson reviewed the following slide: Sportsplex Lobby Renovation Bid Award • Consider approving a bid award — Riggs-Harrod Builders, Durham, NC — Not to Exceed $429,550 • Authorize Chair to execute construction agreement upon County Attorney review • Authorize County Manager to execute change orders up to the project budget Commissioner porosin asked if the originally approved amount was $440,000. Jeff Thompson said yes. Commissioner porosin asked about the time table. Jeff Thompson said this project has already gone through two phases of regulatory review and if approved, the project will go right to contract and should be finished up by end of summer. He said this renovation will be done while the center is still operating. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to: 1) Award a bid to Riggs-Harrod Builders, Inc. of Durham, North Carolina not to exceed the amount of$429,550 for the construction of the Orange County SportsPlex Lobby Renovation; 2) Authorize the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final approval of the County Attorney; and 3) Authorize the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project budget. Commissioner Rich said residents in Chapel Hill are asking when this facility can be duplicated in the southern part of the county. Commissioner porosin said the Sportsplex is in the center of the County, and it is equidistance from all points. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Joint Planninq Land Use Plan and Aqreement Amendments — Revisions to Existinq Lanquaqe Ensurinq Aqricultural Activities are Allowed Throuqhout the Rural Buffer as well as Density and Minimum Lot Size Clarification(s) The Board considered amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement modifying language to ensure agricultural activities are allowed throughout the Rural Buffer and to clarify required densities and minimum lot sizes within, and outside of, the University Lake Watershed Area. Chair Jacobs noted that there are answers to some of the Board questions included in the documents at the Commissioners' places. Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract documents and presented the following PowerPoint slides: JUNE 3, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 7-C PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND AGREEMENT BACKGROUND: • Presented at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing. • Town of Chapel Hill Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of proposal. — Town of Chapel Hill Town Council will review at its June 9, 2014 regular meeting. • Town of Carrboro Planning Board, as well as other local advisory boards, have reviewed and recommended approval. — Town of Carrboro Board of Alderman is reviewing this item at its June 3, 2014 regular meeting. ISSUES/CONCERNS: • Agricultural Areas land use category is not depicted on maps contained within the Plan. No properties appear to be designated within this category. — NOTE: Current language could be misconstrued as establishing limits with respect to allowable locations for agricultural operations, which is inconsistent with State Law. This needs to be corrected. • Rural Residential land use category does not specify a density limit (minimum lot size only). — NOTE: County staff has interpreted there to be a `defacto' density limit in the areas of the Plan not located within the University Lake Watershed Area of 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres. • Clustering of lots is not viable within Rural Residential land use category as the Plan is currently written. — NOTE(s): Under County regulations, Cluster Subdivisions allows for the reduction of required lot sizes, not below 1 acre in area, so long as 33% of a parcel is preserved in open space and established density limits are observed. — Technique is utilized throughout the county, including the University Lake Watershed Area. • Plan indicates minimum required lot size within the University Lake Watershed Area is 5 acres. This is inconsistent with language within Joint Planning Agreement and County regulations indicating minimum lot size is 2 acres. PROPOSAL SUMMARY: • Combine Rural Residential and Agricultural land use categories, add language indicating agricultural activities are permitted throughout the area covered by the Plan. • Establish density of 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres of property located within the Rural Residential land use category. • Allow cluster subdivisions within the Rural Residential category so long as proposed density requirements (i.e. 1 unit for every 2 acres) are adhered to. • Change language within the Plan denoting required minimum lot size for parcels in the University Lake Watershed Area is 2 acres consistent with the adopted JPA and existing County regulations. MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement, 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 which approves the amendments to the Plan and JPA. Commissioner Gordon's questions and concerns and staff responses (via email) are noted for the record as follows: From: Alice Gordon [mailto:qordon.alice(a�qmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 6:23 PM To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; Earl McKee; Alice Gordon; Alice Gordon; Mark Dorosin; Penny Rich; Renee Price; Donna Baker; Michael Talbert; Greg Wilder; Cheryl Young; Clarence Grier; John Roberts Cc: Craig Benedict Subject: Additional questions/comments - June 3, 2014 agenda Additional questions/comments - June 3, 2014 agenda - from Alice Gordon Item 7c and 7d - JPA Land Use Plan and Amendment Agreements In the proposed revisions to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and JPA agreement, there are a number of places where the Rural Residential and Agricultural land use plan categories are combined into a new Rural Residential and Agricultural land use category. (A) Reasons for combining the two land use categories In reviewing the agenda materials, I have developed an understanding of the reason for combining these categories. My understanding is that this combination into one category is not something that is mandated by state statute. ��`"��~��. ��~�~�� What is mandated by the statute is that the county cannot prohibit agricultural uses in the county's jurisdiction, including in the Rural Buffer. Staff Response: �a��~�~�� Therefore it is my understanding that the main reason to combine Rural Residential and Agricultural is related to planning issues, rather than legal issues. ��`"��. ��~�~��. ��r� �~��+�� ~�� °�� r��~��r�� °�� °��~��. ��+��, ��°� ��°�� ~� �� t�� r��~� �� r�� r��°�� °��~��. (B) Description/definition of the Agricultural category in the original Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan My understanding of how the Agricultural category was described in the original JPA Land Use Plan tracks with the statement on page 60-a of the JPA land use plan (on page 10 of agenda item 7c) as follows: Agricultural Areas include land areas currently in use for farming and forestry operations and which qualify for, or are listed for, use value taxation purposes. St�ff res��nsee �a��~�~��. ��°��~�"� ��r�a�� ~��r��w�+�� °�� a�� a�� °�� °��°� �°�� °�� , �� . �°�� °�� ~�� ~�� ~� ��~�� , ��°�� w�+�� r��°�� . My understanding further tracks with the two paragraphs concerning "Agricultural Areas" on page 83 of the JPA land use plan (page 16 of agenda item 7c). There is a map in the original JPA land use plan which has symbols indicating where farms are located. In agenda item 7-d, in Attachment 4, is a map of parcels in use value. My understanding is that this map would be the modern equivalent of the older map. St�ff res��nsee �a��~�~��. �t��°�� u�+a�� a��~� ��a��~��a��~��a�� °�� . After reviewing that map in our agenda materials (on page 19 of agenda item 7d), it is my understanding that the parcels in use tax value in the Rural Buffer would be the Agricultural areas and the other parcels would be the Rural Residential areas. St�ff res��nsee ��°��~�� a�� °�� +��°�� °�� ~�+a�� ~�� ~�� ~��"m��+�� ~�� ~��"m��°�� +��~� �� ~��. ��°�� ~�� ~��"m �+�� °��~��, �� ~�� °��~�� ~� �� r� �� °�� ~�� . ��°��~� �+�� °�� °��~��.� �� ~�� °�� ~ ��~�� ~�� ~��, ��~�� `"�� ~��, �� ~��, �.�� .��, �� .��~��r�� ~��°�� ~�� +�°��°� ��~� �� °�� . I would appreciate it if the planning staff and the county attorney would comment on my understanding of (A) and (B) above. Some of my understanding of these issues comes from my having helped develop the JPA plan and agreement when I served as chair of the Orange County Planning Board, but most of it comes from a recent review of relevant information. End of first email. Continued Staff Responses: issi r r is c rr ct t t st ff's r s I t c i t xisti ` r I si ti I' ` ric It r I' I s c t ri s, s t il i t i t I i � I 9 I� 6 6 � 6 6 �6 6 6 . �I � I 6 6 �I�6I I I6 I 6 I 6 I I � I 9 I� r r �I 6 I 6 9 I� I r � �I�6 6 I6 6 6 I I6 r � �6 6 6 fl I 9 r � r 6 �6r 6 �9 �� r 6 � 1 r I r 6I . r 6 6 �6 I 6 r 9 6 r 6 I� r � ��9 r ��I 6 I 9� I � �I�6 �� I6 6 6 I I6 r � �6 6 9 � str t s t ir r y is r is t f r . I rfrri t t fll i I ( i ic r rc i It �a errfr� tf�� fl�tf�r� �f b��I� r�err��fr��`�r �tf�r�, � l�r��er�� er �y w�� r��er�t��f tf�� ,��fr�t Pl�r�r�fr� r��m T"f�� er �y fr��f��t��tf�� l�r��r�� errr�r�tly fr� er�� `�r � rf�erltur�l�err��m T"f�f� fr��`�r �tf�r� w�� f�rr�tf��r��rffi��tf�r�er f� tf�� r�r� � C�err�ty T"�x f�� t� ��t�r fr�� tf�� f�r � wf�f�f� w�r� qer�lffi��r��lf�t��`�r er�� ler� t�x�ti�r��err��m t t I , s cific Ily 1 3 �3 ( � ( � r vi s iff r t ti s it r�sp�ct trs hrse� a� prrsp�rty rse�n�r `d�mrsnstra�t�s' th� prrsp�rty is a� fa�rm, sp�cifica�llye a. A farm sa/es tax exemption certificate issued by the Department of Revenue. b. A copy of the property tax listing showing that the property is eligible for participation in the present use value program pursuant to G.S. 105-277.3. c. A copy of the farm owner's or operator's Schedule F from the owner's or operator's most recent federal income tax return. d. A forest management plan. e. A Farm Identification Number issued by the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. rc I f r y I r s t list , r lify f r, t r s t s v I r r t c si r f r f r r r s s. s r vi sly i ic t t c i f r s s st ff is r si t c i t I s ct risit isa 1. y t t I f r s r I I y r . t ff s t I i v c v I it i t I ic c I i t r r t s li iti t ir I c ti i rsnly 1 la�nd us� ca�t�grsry. °This is e�hy such la�ngua�g� is b�ing �limina�t�d. . y c i i t I s c t ri s r s ri t r is iv rs I rst i t t fr is II tr t r cve yt I . 3. crr t it I i s s st r r r is iti t ` ric It r I' I s c t r vi s f It 7� ( tt c t � s cr t t t r st f t rr r r f I r is i r vi f r t 's ific ti . II t is s s r t v ri s f r s tr tt rl ffrt t r ft rs t s vl r r . Itis t fi itiv list9 f II f r r i s. It s I i y c str s ` r ' iv I t f t I r ( ss i issi r r is r f rri t t i t I i s I �. i t I i s , s r vi sly i ic t , s t s cific Ily li t y rc Is f r y s i I c t it i t ` ric It r I' I s c t Commissioner porosin referred to the proposal summary slide. He asked about the proposed change to the University Lake watershed. He asked if a current property owner with one house on 5 acres in the University watershed would be able to construct another dwelling, or divide that parcel. Michael Harvey said the ordinance establishes that any lot that legally existed prior to 1989, when the University Lake watershed density standards were adopted, receives a density bonus, where you can have up to 5 lots at a 2 acre density. He said, in the scenario presented by Commissioner porosin, if the lot was created in 1980 at 5 acres, the owner could create one additional lot at a 2 acre minimum lot size. He said if the lot was created in 2014, the owner will limited to one 5 acre lot. Commissioner porosin referred to the defacto density limit and asked for clarification on this. Michael Harvey said staff has interpreted the joint land use plan as establishing a defacto density because the language says that lots must be two acres or higher. He discussed the example of the Dunhill subdivision on Mount Sinai Road, which was not allowed to have a cluster model under the current plan, but would have been allowed as a cluster subdivision if these amendments were adopted. Commissioner Gordon referred to her email question regarding the combination of agricultural and rural residential categories. She wanted to understand the reason why these were combined. She said it has been established that there were planning reasons, not legal reasons to do this. . She said the reason for the amendments is to keep farmers farming. She referred to the Joint Planning Area (JPA) strategy map on page 73 and said it shows farms, although it does not show all of the farms. She said the Board just got a map of the use value farms in their packet, which shows where the use value parcels are. She said neither agricultural nor residential are categories on the map for the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. She said the category was Rural Buffer. She said the Joint Planning Area strategy map on page 73 shows farms, and the most recent map in the agenda materials shows use value parcels. Commissioner Gordon said it is important to know which parcels have farms, which is about 27 percent of the parcels. She is not sure that the intent was to make everything agricultural, and her understanding of the intent was to keep the farmers farming and give them more ways to make a living. Commissioner Gordon said the other point she wanted to make is that Carrboro is discussing this tonight, and Chapel Hill is discussing this on June 9. She questioned why Orange County is approving this tonight without waiting to hear from their partners. She said it would be more collegial to wait for feedback from the towns. Michael Talbert said staff is running out of time to move this forward. He said the towns will receive this as a unanimous recommendation from the planning board, and there is no reason to think that the towns would have any objections. He said if the towns make any major material changes to the document, the Board would have to start over anyway. Commissioner Gordon said it would depend on the changes made to the document. She said the deadline is a self imposed deadline, and there will be no money lost. She said agricultural support enterprises are not being discussed until the fall. She would like to hear what the towns say, and she is concerned about approving this tonight and then having to start all over again. Michael Harvey said if one of the towns makes a word or language change, this would have to be re-reviewed by the planning board and the Board, as well as the town. He said it is the position of staff that there will be no language change with either of these two items. Commissioner porosin said the Board should go ahead and vote. A motion was made by Commissioner porosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement; and 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 which approves the amendments to the Plan and JPA. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Gordon) d. Joint Planninq Land Use Plan and Aqreement Amendments —Aqricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification The Board considered amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to allow for the possibility of locating appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use classification. Michael Harvey noted that the Agricultural Support Enterprises conditional zoning and the construct for the Rural Buffer are slated to come back to the Board in September. He said the approval of this item would merely allow that discussion to continue, but this Board will ultimately have the final say in what the program will look like. Michael Talbert reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to Allow for the Possibility of Locating Appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification Item 7.d Purpose of Amendment • Amend Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to allow for the potential of locating appropriate agricultural support enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use classification Proposed Amendment � Add text to two pages of Joint Planning Land Use Plan and to one page of Agreement � Added text is shown in blue in Attachment 1 of agenda materials What are Appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises? � Agricultural support-related uses to be added to County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as permissible in the Rural Buffer zoning district and/or part of a new conditional zoning district that could be applied in the Rural Buffer � UDO amendments pertaining to the Rural Buffer can be adopted only if the three governing boards amend the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Unified Development Ordinance Amendment � The UDO amendment is not the subject of this text amendment. � UDO amendment package included as an informational attachment th � Red, blue, and green text was adopted on May 20 � Orange colored text pertains to the Rural Buffer and is not yet adopted � Proposed UDO amendments were heard at the County's February 24 quarterly public hearing � Adjourned to September 4, 2014 BOCC meeting for decision to allow time for decisions of Joint Planning documents Tonight's Amendment Topic • Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement ➢ Proposed amendments heard at March 27 joint public hearing (Orange County, Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro) ➢ County and Town Planning Boards have recommended approval to their respective governing boards ➢ Town of Carrboro considering tonight ➢ Town of Chapel Hill considering Monday, June 9 Recommendation for Tonight 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 1 which approves the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Commissioner Gordon noted that the Commissioners have an email at their places with her suggestion and staff responses. She is concerned about high intensity uses in the Rural Buffer. Commissioner Gordon said she suggested the addition of language to the JPA. She said the attorney said it was fine to add clarification, and planning staff said this was workable; however, this would have to go before the boards. Commissioner Gordon said this would only be a change to page 9 of the packet, in the blue sentence that is right before item C. She suggested adding language that refers to the agricultural support uses as "those allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted through the ASE-CZ." Michael Harvey said staff has provided a response. He said the joint planning land use plan is just a plan. He said the document spelling out allowable or unpermitted uses is the UDO, and the existing language achieves what Commissioner Gordon is looking for. He said the agricultural support enterprises conditional zoning district is a floating district, and it is only applied when someone makes application for it. He said there is a specific set of allowed uses, and if it not listed as permitted, then it is not noted as permitted in that particular district. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to modify the language to include "or those agricultural support uses allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted" to the end of the blue text on page 9 of the abstract. No second. Motion fails. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the Board to: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement, 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 1 which approves the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. Chair Jacobs referred to page 9, where the Rural Buffer is essentially defined. He said he is opposed to the definition of Rural Buffer as a "low-density area consisting of single-family homes." He said there are other uses that are specified, such as farms, resource conservation areas and natural areas. He feels the listed definition is oversimplified and inaccurate. Michael Harvey referred to page 57, which breaks the Rural Buffer into individual land use categories. He said the Rural Buffer is a generic term that refers to an area of the County that is composed of 7 or 8 individual land use categories that further define the Rural Buffer. He said the Rural Buffer is just a term, and it actually incorporates the University Lake Watershed area, the resource protection areas, and public/private open space areas. Chair Jacobs said the simple way to put it is that the Rural Buffer is the set, and those are all of the subsets. Michael Harvey said that is correct, and he referred to the map and said the specificity is spelled out on pages 57 through the land use plan. Chair Jacobs asked if this is only discussing that one land use. Michael Harvey said this is not really discussing any land use; this text amendment adds the agricultural support enterprises as being allowed in the rural buffer category. Chair Jacobs said he does not understand why the rural buffer is defined as single family residential at the top of page 6. Commissioner Pelissier said the issue is the first sentence, and she noted that the second sentence further defines the rural buffer. Michael Harvey said the rural buffer is the composition of many independent sub- categories that provide specificity. Chair Jacobs said he would be more satisfied if this said the rural buffer is in part defined, but he can live with Commissioner Pelissier's point. Chair Jacobs referred to page 95 and the definition of a commercial stable, which is prohibited in a lot of areas. He said there are no real numbers to define when stable becomes defined as commercial. He asked if there is a number for this. Michael Harvey said there is a riding stable land use that is permitted by right or by class b special use permitting. He said the goal was to provide a distinction from boarding horses on your property and someone who wants to board a large number of horses and what is acceptable in terms of capacity. Chair Jacobs said it would be nice to have clarification on the difference to make this self apparent. Michael Harvey said this can be defined in advance of the September 4th hearing. VOTE: 6 -1 (Commissioner Gordon) e. Proposal to Create a Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) The Board considered creating a multijurisdictional task force of one year's duration to articulate, investigate, and propose collaborative solutions for solid waste issues confronting Orange County; the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough; and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chair Jacobs said this was based on the Board's conversation at their work session. He said this lists some parameters as to what a group might discuss. He said there has been discussion of having the Commissioners volunteer at the next meeting to be on this group. He said the clerk would advertise for public positions if this is approved, and the elected officials and UNC participants would choose among the applicants. Chair Jacobs said he took this to the managers' breakfast on Friday, and two of the three said there was no problem with getting people appointed in June. He said the mayors were comfortable with moving forward. He said the purpose of this item was to consider things in context and with input from partners, moving expeditiously and having interconnected and well articulated short and long term goals. Commissioner Price asked about the number of representatives and whether this was weighted voting. Donna Baker said this was just the way the positions were listed and numbered, but there is no weighted voting. Commissioner Rich asked if Hillsborough and UNC had representatives on the original SWAB. Chair Jacobs said SWAB had a UNC position, but the university never appointed anyone and sent a staff person instead, so they were never officially a member. He does not remember if Hillsborough had one or not. Commissioner Rich said she attended some meetings years ago, and she did not remember any one from Hillsborough being there. She asked if Chair Jacobs has spoken with any at UNC about this. Chair Jacobs said no. He said he and Commissioner McKee were waiting for the new manager to set up a meeting with the new Chancellor. He said there has been discussion of taking the Chancellor on a tour of the County in the fall, to some of the places where there are joint projects and interests. He said this item was one of the topics planned for that meeting. Commissioner McKee noted, in response the Commissioner Price's question, that slot 10 and slot 12 are open. Dorosin proposed the addition of three more residents to the listing, to make it an even 15, with 5 Orange County residents. He feels the current proposal is weighted too heavily toward government representatives. He said the diverse interest and needs of the people around the County makes it reasonable to go up to 15. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bonnie Hauser thanked the Board for considering this work group. She loves the idea, but is confused by the purpose and scope. She thought the goal was to have a one year effort to clarify the current services and funding equity and to form the basis for a new interlocal agreement with the towns and an updated service and fee model. She said topics such as landfills, alternative technologies and handling bio solids are much more strategic and belong in a different group. She said these issues will take years to resolve and require specific skills and partnerships. She hoped this workgroup would work on services, costs, and funding for existing services, such as recycling, waste reduction, convenience centers, and possibly the siting of a local transfer station. She thought the goal was for a committed interlocal agreement with the towns and better service and equitable funding for the unincorporated parts of the County. She said recent testimony from residents revealed that services in the unincorporated area are broken. She said the County needs to clarify the needs of curbside users versus convenience center users. She said this suggests the need for at least 2 citizen participants from the unincorporated area to represent both types of users. She agrees with Commissioner porosin's comment regarding the inclusion of 5 citizens. She said residents remain concerned about the cost of service, transparency and equitable funding. She hopes the workgroup will be asked to benchmark services and costs versus other counties. She asked for a limited focus for the workgroup, to include a 5 year plan for current services. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not clear, looking at this list, what this group would actually accomplish. She said the Board has been asking the towns for years to be in this together. She would like to see a small group of elected officials come up with an interlocal agreement to define the process by which these issues are worked out. She suggested the inclusion of a focus on some of the immediate needs. She said the issue of how to pay for recycling has been deferred two times. She is afraid that a long list and a large group will prevent anything concrete from being accomplished by next budget cycle. Chair Jacobs clarified that this group is charged to come back to the Assembly of Governments (AOG) meeting in November, after sorting through these issues and prioritizing them into short and long term needs. He said the thinking was to allow the group to determine and define what was important in the short and long term plan. He said obviously the majority of these will not be resolved in a six month period, but it would be up to the group to make the decisions. He said there would be short stage and longer stage items, and these can be the same or different groups. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not sure that this can be done in the time frame of the AOG meeting. Commissioner McKee said he has the same concerns as Commissioner Pelissier. He said it is admirable to try and look at all of this, but it is overreaching to ask the group to do this on a short time basis. He said a group does need to be formed and the issues put into their hands, but this needs to be limited to the items that are really on the table — recycling, transfer station siting, and an interlocal agreement between the County and towns. He said the rest of this is good, but he would suggest that the Board pare this down to the priority issues. He said the County is the lead on most solid waste items and should act as the lead. He is open to the suggestion of having more than two residents, but he would suggest that the Board of County Commissioners appoint the residents, not the solid waste board itself. Commissioner porosin said he will not support any group that does not involve residents. He feels this is shortsighted and a mistake. He said the list of bullet points contains some items that are high priority, but he also thinks it would be a mistake to exclude some of the long term items. He said these options keep getting put off. He said there seems to be some consensus on having a broad strategy with different priority levels. He said the idea of a transfer station has been mentioned as a high priority, but treatment of communities impacted by the siting of facilities has not been listed as a high priority. He said these two priorities are linked. He said there are some immediate needs with virtually unanimous agreement; but the recognition of the need for a broader scope seems logical to him. He appreciates the concern with a broad list, but he thinks this group will be required to prioritize based on the timetable and the issues that are pressing. Commissioner Rich asked if one of the Commissioners would be the Chair of this group. Chair Jacobs said this is undefined as of yet. Commissioner Rich said she would like one of the Board of County Commissioners to be the Chair. She said she also agrees that there should be a larger representation of residents. She can see the benefits of both arguments being presented tonight. She said there needs to be a solid waste plan moving into the future. She thinks everything should be on the table, and the group should be allowed to decide on the pressing issues to be brought back. Commissioner Gordon said she agrees with the concerns expressed by Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Pelissier. She thinks there should perhaps be a short term task force. She said there need to be focused goals to include: recycling, interlocal agreement, and the transfer station site. She thinks that the Board of County Commissioners should make the resident appointments, and one of the Board of County Commissioners should be the Chair. She noted that the County will have the budgetary responsibility for this, so it is important to have financial constraint on the charge. She said she worked on a lot of agreements, and this list would take a long time to get through. She said an overall plan is needed, but there should be reasonable phasing with high priority items. Commissioner Pelissier said she would rather there be a work group to come up with a plan to proceed, including plans for what kind of the advisory board is needed to move forward. She would like to see the County work with the municipalities to create an interlocal agreement before doing a solid waste advisory group. She said perhaps this could include some of the immediate short term issues related to recycling. Commissioner McKee asked if Commissioner Pelissier is suggesting that they work on an interlocal agreement first. Commissioner Pelissier said yes. She said this would define the role of an advisory group, as well as short and long term goals. Chair Jacobs said the interlocal agreement was difficult to come up with at the staff level because some of these short term issues are not resolved. He said that is why this proposal was brought forward in the first place. Commissioner Price said this issue keeps coming up, and she likes the idea of coming up with an advisory group that begins to look at the entire picture. She agrees that there needs to be more citizen representation, and if there was a limit to the total number she would rather there be fewer government representatives to allow more citizen involvement. A motion was made by Commissioner porosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to: 1)consider creating a multijurisdictional task force of at least one year's duration to articulate, investigate, and propose collaborative solutions for solid waste issues confronting Orange County; the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough; and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 2) plan to make BOCC appointments to the task force at the Board's June 17, 2014 regular meeting; and 3) solicit other representatives from the other jurisdictions, the University and the public (5 at large positions) as soon as possible; and 4) this task force will prioritize the proposed issues listed in this agenda item (listed below for information purposes) for its consideration for analysis. The charge to the group at the outset is to define the nature, scope, and timing of the solid waste issues to be considered, including but not limited to: * an interlocal agreement on solid waste; * reducing solid waste that is not recycled; * recycling opportunities and services; * siting a transfer station or landfill within the county; * supporting public education on solid waste issues; * construction and demolition waste; * assuring long-term partnership of the entities involved through an interlocal agreement on waste handling and disposal; * addressing equitable funding and mechanisms for establishing fees and making future joint decisions; * future use of closed landfill sites; * investigation of partnership possibilities involving neighboring jurisdictions; * feasibility of innovative and cost-effective, environmentally-sound methods of disposal of solid waste beyond burial; * potential inclusion of biosolids in long-range disposal plans; * emergency storm debris planning * treatment of communities impacted by siting of any facilities either within Orange County or beyond its borders to receive shipments of our waste. Commissioner Pelissier asked if it should be designated that one of the Commissioners will be the Chair; and she asked if any other issues can be added to this list. Commissioner porosin said he thinks the committee should select its own Chair. Commissioner Price agreed. Commissioner Rich said she has a problem with that. She agrees with Commissioner Gordon that this is something that the Board is financially responsible for, and one of the Commissioners should chair the meetings. Commissioner Rich moved a substitute motion, seconded by Commissioner McKee to include everything in the original motion, with a designation that that member of the Board of County Commissioners should be the Chair of this committee. Commissioner porosin asked John Roberts, if the substitute motion fails and then the original motion fails, whether either motion can be raised again. John Roberts said an identical motion cannot be made again at the same meeting. He offered to verify this. John Roberts said rule 20 of the Board's rules of procedure states that a defeated motion may not be renewed at the same meeting. He said it can be brought back at a second meeting, on the 17tn Commissioner porosin suggested that Commissioner Rich withdraw the substitute motion to allow a vote on the original motion first. Chair Jacobs said there could be discussion about the designation of the Chair at the first committee meeting. Commissioner Rich questioned what will happen if one of the citizens wants to Chair the committee but has no experience. She said someone who is actively involved in meetings and has experience should be the Chair. Commissioner porosin said he puts his confidence in the group that is selected to choose a competent Chair. Commissioner McKee said Orange County is the lead agency and the responsible government unit proposing to set up this group. As such, he feels that the Board should accept the responsibility of having a Commissioner as the Chair. Commissioner Rich withdrew her substitute motion, and Commissioner McKee withdrew his second. VOTE (Original Motion): Ayes, 4 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner porosin, Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Gordon, and Commissioner McKee) A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee that one of the two Orange County Commissioners will be the Chair of the newly formed committee. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Price, and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and Commissioner porosin) Donna Baker clarified that these positions will be advertised and will be at-large residents. Chair Jacobs said yes. Michael Talbert asked if the Board wants to see a draft agreement prior to this work group approving an agreement first. He said his understanding is that this group will start with a draft and then come back with something. Commissioner Gordon questioned whether there needs to be some type of agreement with the towns. She said there is a draft that has not been passed, and it clarifies the contract with the towns for urban curbside recycling. Michael Talbert said this is being worked on, and staff is prepared to bring a draft as a starting point for the meeting on the 17th. He asked if this is a starting point that the Board wants to hand to the task force group to work on. Chair Jacobs said his understanding was that the Board wanted the managers to keep going, and if there was a draft proposal, it would be a good starting point to have some agreement to talk about. Michael Talbert said this can be brought forward on the 17tn Commissioner Gordon asked how the agreement with the towns will be handled. Michael Talbert said the next agenda item will determine that. He said the towns are currently planning to pay for urban curbside by levying a fee of$59 per resident that the County will collect. He said the County will administer the program, but the town has to levy the fee. Commissioner Gordon asked if an agreement or contract is needed for this. Michael Talbert said this program has operated without an agreement this past year, and all that is changing is the addition of a fee. He said ideally there would be an agreement, but there is not one. He said the County either moves forward with the assumption of going with this or other options can be considered in item 7f. Chair Jacobs noted that the County chose to invest in the roll carts without an agreement, but with an understanding that things were moving toward an interlocal agreement, and there was general support from the managers of the other governments. John Roberts said the old solid waste agreement is technically still effective for recycling. He said recycling was not detailed in the agreement, and the only part of the old agreement that is no longer effective is dealing with the landfill and municipal solid waste issues. He said there hasn't been any kind of detailed agreement between the County and towns regarding recycling for the length of time that the prior agreement has been in place. Commissioner Gordon asked that staff be directed to research this issue and provide some advice at the meeting on the 17th regarding what would be necessary to do the subset. f. Fundinq for Oranqe County's Rural Curbside Recyclinq Proqrams The Board considered approving a funding source for Orange County's Rural Curbside Recycling Program. Michael Talbert said this was last discussed on May 14, and direction was provided to staff to come back with 3 options. He said the Board confirmed their desire to continue the recycling in the rural curbside program for the existing 13,700 customers for the next year. He said the Chair/Vice chair wanted to add another option, which is listed as option 2 in the abstract. He reviewed the following 4 options as outlined in the abstract: 1. Fund Rural Curbside Recycling Program for Fiscal 2014/2015 with Landfill Reserves. To fund $728,260 from Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630 as of June 30, 2013. 2. Fund Rural and Urban Curbside Recycling Programs for Fiscal 2014/2015 with Landfill Reserves. To fund $2,090,526 from Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630 as of June 30, 2013. 3. Eliminate all Recycling and Convenience Center fees and raise the County's property tax rate. To replace all revenues from fees would equal $6,049,228 and require a property tax increase of 3.77 cents. 4. Increase the Solid Waste Convenience Center fees to cover all or part of the $1,856,543 transfer from the General Fund to Solid Waste to fund Convenience Center Operations. (See fee table in abstract) Michael Talbert said there are $18 million in funds available in solid waste. He said much of this money is reserved for specific purposes, but there is $3,082,630 of unrestricted reserve fund balance. He said option 2 would fund both rural and urban programs and would take 2/3 of the unrestricted reserves. He said this was in response to an equity issue with the towns, so there would be no fee for either one. Michael Talbert referred to the table of convenience center fees. He said the current fees are: $40 for rural; $20 for urban; $4 for multi-family. He said there are four scenarios that raise this from 33 percent of the $1.8 million to 50 percent, to 2/3, and up to 100 percent of the $1.8 million. He said if all of the fees were done in one year to raise the full amount of$1.8 million the rural fee would go from $40 to $102; the urban would go from $20 to $51; and the multi-family would go from $4 to $10. Michael Talbert said the manager's recommendation is option 1 as a way to move forward with minimal damage to the unrestricted reserves, while giving the proposed workgroup one year to work on this. Commissioner Gordon said the $728,260 amount for recycling used to be $630,000. She asked what caused it to go up. Gayle Wilson said about a year ago the budget number was estimated. He said the costs were then gathered for the roll carts and recycling trucks prior to the budget being prepared after the first of the year. He said these firm cost figures caused the number to evolve from $630,000 to the current number. He said the debt service annual payment also increased when the term was reduced from 10 to 5 years. He said the County started running a small deficit in the rural program about 3 years ago that was not resolved prior to the 3-R program ending. He said the new budget number came to light during the public hearing and discussion process, and staff did not want to switch the number in the midst of that discussion. He said the $728,000 is a firm budget number. Commissioner Gordon asked how many customers and roll carts are included in this budget number. Gayle Wilson said this number includes the 7000 roll carts and the ability to service the expanded service area. He said the cost to serve the 13,700 is the same as the expanded service because it uses the same staffing and equipment. Commissioner Gordon said she thought there was going to be a survey prior to the purchase of the roll carts. Gayle Wilson said once the urban program is implemented and if the Board approves the roll carts, staff will do outreach in the service area to determine who wants to use bins and who wants to use roll carts. Commissioner Gordon clarified that roll carts will not be purchased until this number is determined. Gayle Wilson said roll carts will not be purchased until there is a good idea of how many are needed. Commissioner Gordon asked if the $728,000 is an upper number. Gayle Wilson said this number includes the 7000 roll carts and the ability to service the expanded 1,500 households. Commissioner Gordon asked if staff will bring back an item for the Board to approve the number of roll carts that are really needed. Gayle Wilson said yes. Commissioner Gordon said there was a plan at one time to increase the amount being charged at the Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC), as the current fees only cover 25 percent of expenses. She said some of the expenses are paid for by the $1.8 million transfer from the general fund. She thought there was a plan independent of the recycling program to increase those fees until eventually there was no dependence on the general fund. She asked what happened to that plan. Gayle Wilson said in the 4 years that the fee has existed the Board has increased it 3 times. He said there was never a hard and fast schedule or even if this would get to 100 percent. He said there was a plan to increase the fee over an ill defined period of time, but the percentage was never firmly decided. Commissioner Gordon said it occurs to her that this is not an either or situation. She said with other departments fees are charged to cover the service. She said it makes sense to recoup more money for the services rendered at the convenience centers. She said there may be two separate issues. Gayle Wilson said that is a policy decision the Board can make. Commissioner Gordon said there are options within this to recoup expenses by charging fees that more proportionately cover the services provided. Commissioner porosin said option 3 lists replacement of all recycling charges and convenience center fees with a tax increase. He asked about the possibility of eliminating only the convenience center fees and paying for all of these costs out of the general fund. Michael Talbert said it would be 1.15 or 1.2 cents to raise the $1.8 million. Commissioner porosin asked if that would offset somewhat by eliminating the fees that people pay. Michael Talbert said yes. He said you would dedicate whatever level of tax to the solid waste fund to pay for the convenience centers and eliminate the fees. Commissioner porosin asked if this option could be added to the mix as option 3b - to fund recycling out of the solid waste reserves and fund the SWCC through the general fund. Michael Talbert said the current fee raises $1.2 million, so you will be raising $3 million to do away with this fee and raise the additional $1.8 million that is needed to come from the general fund. He said this equates to not quite 2 cents on the tax rate. Commissioner Gordon asked Commissioner porosin if he is suggesting the Board raise taxes 2 cents. Commissioner porosin said he is not interested in raising fees for the convenience center. He feels the Board should move toward funding all of it out of the general fund, as he feels this is the most equitable way of doing it. Commissioner Gordon asked if the proposal is to raise taxes by two cents. Commissioner porosin said his proposal is to add an option 5 to eliminate convenience center fees and raise the County property tax rate. Commissioner Price asked if the recycling funding would be for the entire County or just the arbitrary district that has been drawn. Commissioner porosin said either of these options can be discussed. He said option 1 and option 2 make a distinction between funding rural curbside and funding all recycling with reserves. Commissioner Price said the current rural recycling district does not include all of the rural areas. She asked if Commissioner porosin is suggesting that everyone would be eligible for the curbside recycling. Commissioner porosin said he is describing it as it is listed in option 1 or 2, to fund either the current or the expanded district. Michael Talbert clarified that Board agreed at their last meeting to continue the existing rural program as it is in place now, with no additional services or expansion. Commissioner porosin asked if this current discussion is envisioning what will happen on July 1 of 2014-15. Michael Talbert said that is correct. PUBLIC COMMENT Bonnie Hauser read from a letter the Board received from the Orange County Voice. Dear Commissioners: We are writing to voice our strong, shared support for full funding of schools and setting Orange County on a path to fiscal sustainability. Immediate priorities for teachers, schools and social safety nets will require more funding due to state budget cuts. Plus our aging schools are in disrepair, and will require increased funds and access to debt capacity for the next 5-10 years. The good news is the county's reserves are well funded which will help with short term funding needs. We believe that better planning, coordination with towns and schools, and improved transparency over spending and the county's reserves will help meet the county's short term funding needs, and prepare us for the future. Below are specific actions for you to consider in the current budget cycle and as you consider options for funding solid waste services. � Eliminate the general fund subsidy ($1.86 million) to Solid Waste and re-allocate these funds to schools and social safety nets. You are considering this idea with an offsetting increase in convenience center fees to fill the gap. After reading your agenda package for June 3�d, we believe that a better option is to cut solid waste spending and use solid waste reserves to fill any remaining gap. Cost saving ideas include: • Defer capital spending for rural curbside recycling trucks and roll carts, and for the Eubanks Convenience center (total $3.3 million) until there's a solid waste plan and a committed inter-local agreement with the towns. Consider co-locating the Eubanks Convenience Center with the Chapel Hill Transfer station. • Substantially cut the budget ($728,000) for rural curbside recycling by limiting service to existing users. As an alternative, consider outsourcing all or part of the program by inviting Waste Industries to extend their service area beyond town limits, and provide weekly service on a subscription basis. • Invite the department to further reduce costs without impacting service. • Use solid waste reserves ($3 million) to fill remaining funding shortfalls. For the long term, we could support eliminating solid waste fees and funding solid waste services out of the general fund if there were effective controls over spending and more transparency around costs. Public hearings would be needed as part of the decision-making process. � Place a hard moratorium on capital projects for county offices until there is a committed plan for all facilities, including consolidating offices and leasing or selling unused space. � Defer spending on new county parks in order to free up funds for schools, and align park planning with towns, OWASA and community resources. Orange County has an abundance of delightful parks and recreational facilities that are enjoyed by residents of all ages. However many of these assets are underutilized and better options may be available if the county: o Aligns its $50 million master plan with Chapel Hill's $50 million plan and park plans for Hillsborough and Carrboro. o Complements community-based assets such as Cane Creek Reservoir and White Cross Recreation as an alternative to building redundant county facilities (such as a standalone Bingham park). o Works with both school systems to co-locate future county parks with schools. � Use county reserves to meet short term school funding requirements that cannot be met through cost savings. For the long term, better policies are needed to provide transparency and to clarify priorities and controls over all reserves (general fund, school district reserves, solid waste enterprise fund, etc.). This will assure that priorities are adequately funded and that all operating agencies, including schools, have adequate reserves. Policies should address legal reserve requirements, and disclosure of reserve balances and changes. We encourage you to ask staff to find other opportunities to delay non-essential projects or spending in order to free up funding for schools in the short term. We believe that these actions and others will provide the funds needed to fully fund school requests and to help keep our community affordable. In the long term, we encourage you to invite educators and county professionals to work together to modernize policies for capital and per student funding, and to assure everyone that schools are funded adequately and that taxpayer monies are deployed to essential priorities. Thank you for your service to our community and for considering our view on this important topic. Terri Buckner encouraged the Board to adopt the manager's proposal to fund the rural curbside through the unreserved funds exclusively. She said a committee has just been appointed to look at these issues long term, so the Board should let them do their work. Commissioner McKee said he would support funding through option 1 or option 2. He said one of the items given to the new task force is to address equitable funding and mechanisms for establishing fees. He said fees could be interpreted as taxes. He supports option 1 or 2 as a stopgap measure to allow time for the workgroup to bring forward a comprehensive plan that makes sense in the future. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner McKee and said she is not in favor of a tax right now without this being fully vetted. She also has a problem with raising taxes, as people in the urban areas will pay more, and they do not use the convenience centers. She said she will move to support option 1. Commissioner Pelissier said she likes option 1, but with a caveat. She struggles with option 4, as it is not really a way to fund recycling. She said this is an issue of equity in the sense that urban residents do not use the convenience centers, as these are a rural service for recycling and solid waste. She would like to see the Board continue with the earlier goal of not having convenience centers funded from the general fund. She said this will mean less money to do option 1, but these are separate. She wants to do option 1, but she also wants to do option 4, though for a very different reason. Chair Jacobs gave some history on the current convenience center fee system, which was set up by recommendation from a past solid waste working group. He said the idea was that it was reasonable for urban residents to pay for these centers because they could use them, and it allowed for the potential of a pay-as-you-throw option in the future. He said the more options offered at the convenience centers, the more people who will use them. Chair Jacobs said there needs to be a discussion at their retreat about taxes. Commissioner Gordon said there are two issues here. She said the Board could first decide how to fund recycling and then as part of the budget, whether to raise the SWCC fees. She said this second part could be part of a budget session, and it does not have to be decided tonight. Commissioner porosin said he is happy to support option 1 tonight on the landfill reserves, but he feels it is a bad idea to talk about funding services based on who uses them. He said this undermines the idea of community and what is important collectively, and he feels it is not economically or socially progressive. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to fund the Rural Curbside Recycling Program by using $728,260 of Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves for Fiscal 2014/2015 (Option 1-- Fund Rural Curbside Recycling Program for Fiscal 2014/2015 with Landfill Reserves. To fund$728,260 from Solid Waste Unrestricted Reserves which were $3,082,630 as of June 30, 2013.) VOTE: UNANIMOUS g_ Oranqe County's Reprioritization of Transportation Proiects for the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planninq Orqanization and the Trianqle Area Rural Planninq Orqanization (9:45-10:00) The Board considered two (2) resolutions (Attachments 1 and 4) reconfiguring two (2) priority lists of transportation projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) planning areas for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Bret Martin said at the BOCC's November 19, 2013 meeting, the BOCC considered and approved two lists of priority transportation projects incorporating all modes to submit to TARPO and the DCHC MPO for the portion of Orange County within those organizations' respective planning areas. He said these lists were subsequently submitted to each transportation planning organization for submission to the State for scoring. It was determined at the November 19, 2013 meeting by the BOCC that the transportation priority lists for TARPO and the DCHC MPO should be revisited upon receipt of the State scores for each project to evaluate whether the projects should be reprioritized with the benefit of knowing their respective scores. He said these lists were meant for scoring by the State to be included in the STIP. Bret Martin said since the BOCC's approval of the priority lists in November 2013, both TARPO and DCHC MPO have developed and approved project ranking methodologies that prescribe how each organization's local input points will be assigned to projects. He said the DCHC MPO's project ranking policy is data-driven, but leaves open the possibility for the MPO board to make changes based on factors such as geographic equity, knowledge of local jurisdictional needs, public input, coordination with division engineers, and maximization of the MPO's opportunities for receiving funding. He said that the only thing that can change the output of the MPO scoring is if the MPO board acts on those considerations. He said there is a value in doing this, because it institutionalizes the County's project priorities moving forward. Bret Martin said the only DCHC MPO project that appears likely to be funded is the Orange Grove Road extension project from South Churton Street to US 70 Business. He said some other projects scored relatively well, but the funding constraints in their tier means there is not enough money to fund the entire project. He said the policy for TARPO was to submit the projects across all modes, and rank them in order, regardless of mode, and assign points based on how each jurisdiction ranks their projects. He said there aren't really any promising projects after receiving the state scores. He said it is possible that the NC54 widening project between Orange Grove Road and Old Fayetteville Road may receive some attention. He said it is eligible for funding at the regional tier, and it is also the highest scoring project using TARPO's scoring methodology; however it did not score well compared to other regional tier projects. Chair Jacobs said the Board had been encouraged to re-prioritize projects based on what was likely to be funded. He said part of this discussion involved moving Orange Grove Road ahead of South Churton Street. John Roberts agreed that this is a good idea, given the cost of the project and the availability of money in the division tier. Commissioner Pelissier said she is an alternate on the MPO and this has been the strategy recommended by all of the MPOs, as there is so little money available. She said this process is new and no one knows what the outcome will be. Commissioner Gordon agreed that this has been the strategy, and the list also reprioritizes by mode and is a much better list. She would enthusiastically support the new prioritization. Commissioner Price said she has served on TARPO, and this process is very difficult. She said the process seems to favor projects that link major economic districts to other major economic districts. She said this is about highways and less about connectivity within city or county. She said it would be good to get the 54 widening, but it is going to be difficult. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the resolutions (Attachments 1 and 4) as written, except to reconfigure the lists of priority transportation projects submitted to the TARPO and DCHC MPO, to prioritize Orange Grove extension as #1, and South Churton Street as #2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to also approve the related Attachments 2, 3, 5, and 6. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports-NONE 9. County Manaqer's Report Michael Talbert reminded the Board of the Morinaga groundbreaking event on June 5tn 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Chapel Hill Oranqe County Visitors Bureau —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Dr. Aaron Bachenheimer to a partial term (Position #4) UNC Chapel Hill with an ending term of 12/31/2015. He will be completing the term for Laura Hayes Morgan who recently resigned. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Hillsborouqh Board of Adiustment—Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Mr. Dave Remington to a first full term expiring 06/30/2017 for position # 3 - ETJ County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Ms. Grace White to a first full term (Position #4) At-Large with a term ending on 03/31/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Human Relations Commission —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Ms. Vanessa Soleil to a first partial term (Position #3) as an At-Large Representative with a term ending 09/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Ms. Andrea Jones to a first full term (Position #18) as a Town of Carrboro Special Representative with a term expiring 06/30/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Oranqe County Parks & Recreation Council —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Mr. Neal Bench to a second term (Position # 7) Chapel Hill Township, with a term expiring 03/31/2017 VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Mr. Joel Bulkley to a second term in Position # 4- Chapel Hill Township, with a term expiring of 03/31/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Mr. Allan Green to a second term in Position # 9-Bingham Township with an ending term of 03/31/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner porosin to appoint Rob English to Position #5-At Large. VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Price and Commissioner porosin); Nays, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner Pelissier) There was discussion regarding the need to clarify past service for applicants in the database. Donna Baker said this can be discussed with staff over the summer. Commissioner Gordon noted that the reason for her vote on Rob English is that this was brought up at the last minute. Commissioner McKee said he does not question Rob English's qualifications, but he questions making last minute appointments. Commissioner porosin questioned what the alternative is to the last minute appointment if any appointment not recommended by the advisory board is last minute unless a two stage process is proposed. Commissioner McKee said he would not mind nominating now and voting at the next meeting. He said his other concern was the amount of time the applicant has already served. He feels most comfortable having time to look at an applicant. Commissioner Price said she does not understand why the Board members think this is last minute since the packet has been available for days. Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner porosin and Commissioner Price, but he respects Commissioner McKee's comments. He suggested making nominations, and if seconded these will be placed on the consent agenda for the next meeting. He said this will be the policy moving forward, and it can be listed on the next consent agenda as an adaptation to the Board's existing policies. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to have the option to vote on these changes after the Board has further discussed the process. Chair Jacobs said the spirit of this is to broaden the pool of applicants, while not delaying too long before making a decision. He said if it doesn't work, it can be re-visited. 12. Board Comments Commissioner Pelissier said that two regional routes were approved at the last TTA board meeting as part of the half cent sales tax. She said service will start soon, and these routes are between Chapel Hill and Duke/downtown, and the other goes from Chapel Hill to Southpoint. She said the Hillsborough/Mebane/Duke Route has not been approved yet. She expects that when Chapel Hill Transit comes up with its local services out of the sales tax, the Board will get to know about it. Commissioner Gordon said the next DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee meeting will be held on June 11, and work will be continued on project prioritization and assigning of points. She said the Durham/Chapel Hill Work Group will be meeting on that same day. Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the routes she mentioned above already exist, but Saturday night and Sunday service is being added. Commissioner Price said she attended assembly day for NCACC, and one of the major thrusts is the funding for schools. She referred to the earlier discussion about appointments and said she feels it is the responsibility of the Commissioners to keep these boards full and to look at diversity on the boards. Chair Jacobs noted the employee appreciation luncheon being held on Friday. He said Preservation Chapel Hill, The Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, and the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission, with the assistance of the Visitors Bureau, hosted a symposium for two days about local history. He said it was a success and was well attended. He congratulated the Board for getting through a tough agenda tonight. 13. Information Items • May 20, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases and Refunds Under $100 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from May 8, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting • Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Status Report • Regional Partnership Workforce Development Board Annual Report—2012-2013 14. Closed Session 15. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board