HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 051115AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
May 11, 2015
7:30 p.m.
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility (Room 250)
300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III.
Approval of Minutes — April 13 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV.
Proposed Amendments to Impervious Surface Rules
The CFE will review the April presentation and discussion of draft amendments to the County's
rules that limit the amount of impervious surfaces on a property, and consider submitting
comments to the Planning Board and BOCC. (Attachments 2 -3)
8:15 V.
Environmental Justice
Sharon Beard and Chip Hughes (both with National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
will provide an overview of environmental justice issues for CFE consideration and for potential
future inclusion in the State of the Environment report. (Attachments 4 -5)
9:00 VI.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ Earth Evening (Attachment 6)
➢ CFE news article — Hydrilla in the Eno River (Attachment 7)
➢ Hydrilla management in the Eno River (Attachment 8)
➢ Solid waste recycling program funding plan (Attachment 9)
➢ Orange County solar development initiative (Attachment 10)
➢ Potential County bond referendum (Attachment 11)
➢ Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools awarded a Green Ribbon (Attachment 12)
➢ Regulatory Reform Act of 2015 — HB 760 (Attachment 13)
➢ The Nature of Orange photo contest (Attachment 14)
➢ Environmental Summit Keynote Presentation by Norm Christensen (Attachment 15)
9:20 VII. Adjournment
Nextmeeting; June 8 (Solid Waste Admin. Building — Chapel Hill)
- Green building incentives
July (No Meeting)
CFE Charge: to advise the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on matters
affecting the environment, with particular emphasis on environmental
protection and enhancement.
Other duties include:
* Perform special studies /projects on environmental issues as requested by BOCC
* Recommend environmental initiatives to BOCC, especially of local importance
* Study changes in environmental science and environmental regulations in the
pursuit of the CFE's duties
* Educate the public and local officials on environmental issues
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2015:
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Convene an Energy Task Force (or equivalent work group) to improve the County's
ability to foster local sustainable energy production and energy efficiency strategies
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal
• Help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
• Collaborate with NC Botanical Garden and others to identify significant roadside
habitat for native plants; ask NCDOT and other utilities to protect those roadside
habitats [authorized by BOCC June 2012]
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in DEAPR's annual Earth Day event
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2015:
• The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food waste
pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new
construction [January 2012 memo to Planning Board]
• The CFE will strive to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment 2014 report
• The CFE will follow closely the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how to improve
the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will advocate for better long-
term solutions
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related to water
resources in Orange County and will continue to increase public awareness and
understanding of water supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be undertaken
to maintain or improve the quantity and quality of Orange County water supply resources
• The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for Orange
County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment report, which include
potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and animal species; b) reductions
in State -led collection of water resources data; c) potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep
River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and
appropriately -sited renewable energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate
change
Attachment 1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
April 13, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Tom Eisenhart, Lynne Gronback,
Loren Hintz, David Neal, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders, Sheila
Thomas, Lydia Wegman and David Welch
ABSENT: Donna Lee Jones
STAFF: Tom Davis, Rich Shaw, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: John Richardson, Jesse Freedman, Michael Harvey, Craig Benedict
Call to Order — Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — None.
III. Minutes — Sassaman asked for comments on the March 9 meeting summary. Saunders
motioned to approve as written: seconded by Welch. Approved unanimously.
IV. Welcome New Member — Sassaman introduced Lynn Gronback, noting that she is a
candidate for appointment to the CFE.
V. Chapel Hill's Green Building Incentives — John Richardson (Planning Manager for
Sustainability) and Jesse Freedman (Energy Management Specialist) presented an
overview of the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot program of providing financial incentives for
sustainable (or "green building ") design. Richardson noted that this pilot program
applies only for development within the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
Freedman said the Town's objective is to incentivize developers to build high -
performance buildings with better energy and water conservation performance than the
75th percentile of similar buildings. He noted that prior to this program the incentive was
to build the worst energy and water efficient buildings allowed by law.
Freedman described the Town's process of choosing a green building standard for
energy use from among many options, including LEED certification, Energy Star, 2030
Challenge, and others. The Town chose the Energy Star program, which the staff
considers a neutral standard. The Town chose the State water performance standard.
Freedman said the intent was to create standard that are rigorous and achievable.
Freedman said in this pilot phase the financial incentive for builders is up to a 35%
reduction in their development permit fees. He reviewed the benefits of green building
versus conventional building in terms of energy use and water consumption. He noted
the tendencies for higher rental rates (+ 2% — 17 %), greater resale value (+ 5.8% -
35 %), higher market value (+ 13.5 %), and lower operating expenses (- 30 %) for green
buildings on average.
Attachment 1
Richardson said the rebate could result in a potential total maximum reduction in
revenue from permit fees of about $600,000; however that level of activity is highly
unlikely. He said there have been only two applicants to date. Richardson said Town
staff will try to verify performance measures, likely through periodic field inspections.
Freedman and Richardson responded to questions from CFE members:
• O'Connor asked if there were incentives for sustainable design of the outside
portions of the buildings, such as green roofs, xeriscaping, onsite water retention.
Richardson said yes, there are standards for the outside as well.
• Neal asked if Chapel Hill had looked at examples of like programs in other
jurisdictions, such as Catawba County. Richardson said they consulted NC
State's DESIRE database for suitable examples and found that Charlotte's
program was most effective. The others reported low levels of effectiveness.
• Sassaman asked if the Town used other incentives in addition to the permit fee
rebate. Richardson said the State has authorized the rebate incentive. For
buildings and development outside of the Ephesus Church / Fordham district the
Town uses other standards and requirements for approving special use permits.
• Sassaman asked if the Town applies these standards to its public buildings.
Richardson said the Town has, by ordinance, a LEED Silver minimum for all
buildings. For example, the Chapel Hill Library was built to LEED Silver standard.
• Neal asked if these standards applied to single - family residential development,
and might the Town consider expanding the incentives to other parts of the town.
Richardson said it is only intended for commercial and multifamily residential,
and said the council has not discussed imposing these standards elsewhere.
• Hintz asked how much less might the cost of utilities be for buildings in the
Ephesus Church / Fordham district than in other parts of the town. Richardson
said it would depend on the building type; the staff has run some calculations.
Richardson said the Town of Chapel Hill will reassess the pilot program at the end of the
first year and the staff will work with the town council on making adjustments if needed.
Neal noted the CFE has recommended to the BOCC and the Planninq Board that
Orange County consider adopting similar incentives for sustainable development, but
thus far nothing has resulted from those discussions.
The CFE thanked Richardson and Freedman for their presentation.
VI. Proposed Amendment to Impervious Surface Rules — Michael Harvey (Current
Planning Supervisor, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department) provided an
overview of proposed amendments to Orange County's rules that limit the amount of
impervious surfaces for new development. Harvey said he was directed to initiate a
process to amend the ordinance to include additional opportunities for residents to
modify established impervious surface limits.
Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing impervious
surface thresholds to be modified: 1) approval of a variance request (only one has been
approved in the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the allowable impervious surface area
from an adjacent property by way of a conservation easement.
2
Attachment 1
Harvey said under certain circumstances the State of North Carolina allows a larger area
of impervious surfaces on a property through the installation and continued maintenance
of on -site stormwater retention measures, such as permeable pavement. Such a device
would be designed to capture runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil. Harvey said
permeable pavement is not counted as totally impervious, which translates to an
allowance for installing additional "impervious surface area."
Harvey said the board of county commissioners has directed Planning staff to evaluate
how the County might incorporate language similar to what the State uses for the
treatment of permeable pavement in its impervious surface calculations. He said the
County considers gravel, asphalt, and concrete, along with more impenetrable building
surfaces (roofs, etc.), within its current definition of impervious surfaces.
Harvey said the proposed amendment to County rules would allow permeable concrete
and some other permeable surfaces to be counted as 50 percent toward the impervious
surface area. The County would require an engineer to certify there would be no net
increase in the stormwater runoff leaving the property. The County would also require an
operations agreement be signed and recorded at the Orange County Registry. The
County would also require there be annual inspections and reporting of maintenance.
Finally, Harvey said the County would obtain a permanent access easement to the
property in order for staff to monitor and enforce the UDO standards.
Harvey said it is his impression that a property with 8% impervious cover that includes
certain best management practices would result in less stormwater runoff than a
property with 6% impervious cover.
Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning Director) noted that the current watershed
overlay districts were established in 1994 and in many areas of the county the standards
are more stringent that the State guidelines for watershed protection areas. He agreed
with Harvey that the intent of the rule change was for there to be no net increase in
stormwater runoff from any permitted site.
Harvey and Benedict responded to questions from CFE members
• Hintz noted that such devices always fail at some point. Harvey said the County
would require a binding operations and maintenance agreement, and possibly
also a letter of credit with no expiration date.
• Davis asked what would happen if a device failed after 10 years. Harvey said the
County would issue a notice of violation. If the landowner did not take corrective
action the County would remediate the site at the owners' expense.
• Welch asked what difference do 6% and 12% impervious limits have on water
quality. Harvey said he feels the proposed allowance of increased impervious
surfaces in the form of permeable concrete would not harm water quality.
Benedict added that Orange County is the most restrictive in the state in terms of
watershed protection.
• Becker asked what motivated the County is pursuing this amendment. Benedict
said many residents had complained that the rules are too stringent in some
watersheds, notably the University Lake, Little River, and Cane Creek overlay
districts. He explained how quickly 6% of a property could be covered with
impervious surfaces — especially if roads and driveways are included. Benedict
said he did not expect a lot of extra staff time would be required to implement the
proposed rule change.
3
Attachment 1
• Neal asked if the rule applies to commercial developments, such as shopping
centers. Harvey said such developments are allowed up to 70% impervious
surfaces as long as there are stormwater BMPs installed to hold the runoff.
Benedict noted that his staff is also considering developing some variation of a transfer
of development rights program —or in this case a transfer of impervious surfaces.
• Sassaman said he is aware of a product ( "Ecoraster') used for construction of
roads and driveways that requires little maintenance over 20 years. He showed a
small prototype model of the product. Harvey said he is familiar with "GeoWeb"
and other products that could be used if they were certified by an engineer.
• Gronback asked what incentive would landowners and developers have to use
pervious concrete or similar products. Harvey said they would be permitted to
develop more parts of their property than would otherwise be allowed. He said
this rule change would provide landowners with more options. Harvey said the
intent is not to provide incentives to do the right thing for protecting water quality.
Harvey said Planning staff would be making similar presentations to OWASA and the
towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. They plan to take the draft rule change to the May
26 quarterly public hearing, then back to the Planning Board in June or July, and finally
back to the board of county commissioners for consideration and potential approval.
Harvey said he and the Planning staff would welcome comments from the CFE.
Sassaman asked staff to prepare a summary of this presentation and discussion for CFE
consideration and development of potential comments at the May meeting.
The CFE thanked Harvey and Benedict for their presentation.
VII. Public Outreach — CFE members reviewed plans to share information from State of
Environment report with the general public. Shaw reported that he had sent the initial
article about hydrilla in the Eno River to the Chapel Hill News and to The News of
Orange County. Shaw noted that the calendar (Attachment 10) was incorrect because
CFE had decided to change the subject of the May article from solar energy projects to
the County's new electric vehicle fast charger stations. Sassaman asked staff to update
the calendar. Bouma said he will provide a draft of the article for review and approval.
VIII. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were highlighted for discussion: a) BOCC
response to CFE annual report and work plan, b) Earth Evening (April 24, Hillsborough),
c) hydrilla in the Eno River public meeting (April), d) The Nature of Orange photo
contest, e) solid waste recycling program fee options, f) Governor McCrory's budget
request for NCDENR, and g) new research on nutrient pollution damage to streams.
IX. Adjournment — Sassaman adjourned at approximately 9:20 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
E
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To:
Commission for the Environment
From:
Rich Shaw
Date:
May 6, 2015
Subject:
Proposed Changes to Orange County Rules that Limit Impervious Surfaces
At your April 13 meeting the CFE received a presentation on proposed changes to the County's
rules that limit construction of impervious surfaces on properties in water supply watersheds.
CFE asked many questions as part of its discussion with the Planning staff (Michael Harvey and
Craig Benedict). The CFE decided to reconsider the matter in May and decide whether to
formulate comments for the Planning Board and BOCC consideration.
On April 23, 2015 the OWASA Board of Directors received a similar presentation from the
Orange County Planning staff. According to the OWASA's meeting summary, OWASA's
comments on the proposed changes will be submitted by letter to the County, and they will
include the need for the County to have adequate technical resources and enforcement.
The following is a summary of the discussion at the CFE April 13 meeting:
Michael Harvey (Current Planning Supervisor, Orange Co. Planning Est Inspections Dept.) provided an
overview of proposed amendments to Orange County's rules that limit the amount of impervious surfaces
for new development. Harvey said staff was directed to initiate a process to amend the ordinance to
include additional opportunities for residents to modify established impervious surface limits.
Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing changes to impervious surface
thresholds: 1) approval of a variance request (only one approved in the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the
allowable impervious surface area from an adjacent property by way of a conservation easement.
Harvey said under certain circumstances the State of North Carolina allows a larger area of impervious
surfaces on a property through the installation and continued maintenance of on -site stormwater
retention measures, such as permeable pavement. Such a device would be designed to capture runoff and
allow it to infiltrate the soil. Harvey said permeable pavement is not counted as totally impervious,
which translates to an allowance for installing additional "impervious surface area."
Harvey said the board of county commissioners has directed Planning staff to evaluate how the County
might incorporate language similar to what the State uses for the treatment of permeable pavement in its
impervious surface calculations. He said the County considers gravel, asphalt, and concrete, along with
more impenetrable building surfaces (roofs, etc.), within its current definition of impervious surfaces.
Harvey said the proposed amendment to County rules would allow permeable concrete and some other
permeable surfaces to be counted as 50 percent toward the impervious surface area. The County would
require an engineer to certify there would be no net increase in the stormwater runoff leaving the
property. The County would also require an operations agreement be signed and recorded at the Orange
County Registry. The County would also require there be annual inspections and reporting of
maintenance. Finally, Harvey said the County would obtain a permanent access easement to the
property in order for staff to monitor and enforce the UDO standards.
Harvey said it is his impression that a property with S% impervious cover that includes certain best
management practices would result in less stormwater runoff than a property with 6010 impervious cover.
Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning Director) noted that the current watershed overlay districts
were established in 1994 and in many areas of the county the standards are more stringent that the State
guidelines for watershed protection areas. He agreed with Harvey that the intent of the rule change was
for there to be no net increase in stormwater runoff from any permitted site.
Harvey and Benedict responded to questions from CFE members:
• Hintz noted that such devices always fail at some point. Harvey said the County would
require a binding operations and maintenance agreement, and possibly also a letter of credit
with no expiration date.
• Davis asked what would happen if a device failed after 10 years. Harvey said the County
would issue a notice of violation. If the landowner did not take corrective action the County
would remediate the site at the owners' expense.
• Welch asked what difference do 6010 and 120/o impervious limits have on water quality.
Harvey said he feels the proposed allowance of increased impervious surfaces in the form of
permeable concrete would not harm water quality. Benedict added that Orange County is
the most restrictive in the state in terms of watershed protection.
• Becker asked what's motivating the County to change the rules. Benedict said many
residents had complained that the rules are too stringent in some watersheds, notably the
University Lake, Little River, and Cane Creek districts. He explained how quickly 6010 of a
property could be covered with impervious surfaces especially if roads and driveways are
included. Benedict said he did not expect a lot of extra staff time would be required to
implement the proposed rule change.
• Neal asked if the rule applies to commercial developments, such as shopping centers. Harvey
said such developments are allowed up to 700/o impervious surfaces as long as there are
stormwater BMPs installed to hold the runoff.
Benedict noted that his staff is also considering developing some variation of a transfer of development
rights program or in this case a transfer of impervious surfaces.
• Sassaman said he is aware of a product ( "Ecoraster ") used for construction of roads and
driveways that requires little maintenance over 20 years. He showed a small prototype model
of the product. Harvey said he is familiar with "GeoWeb" and other products that could be
used if they were certified by an engineer.
• Gronback asked what incentive would landowners and developers have to use pervious
concrete or similar products. Harvey said they would be permitted to develop more parts of
their property than would otherwise be allowed. He said this rule change would provide
landowners with more options. Harvey said the intent is not to provide incentives to do the
right thing for protecting water quality.
Harvey said the Planning staff would be making similar presentations to OWASA and the towns of
Carrboro and Chapel Hill. They plan to take the draft rule change to the May 26 quarterly public
hearing, then back to the Planning Board in June or July, and finally back to the board of county
commissioners for consideration and potential approval.
Harvey said he and the Planning staff would welcome comments from the CFE. Sassaman asked staff to
prepare a summary of this presentation and discussion for CFE consideration and development of
potential comments at the May meeting.
The CFE thanked Harvey and Benedict for their presentation.
LIM.— .
May 6, 2015
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
A public, non-profit agency providing water, sewer and reclaimed water services
to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill community.
Chair Earl McKee
Board of County Commissioners
County of Orange
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
SUBJECT: OWASA Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the Unified
Development Ordinance Regarding Impervious Surface Limits in Water
Supply Watersheds
Dear Chair McKee:
Michael Harvey presented Orange County's draft changes to its unified development ordinance
(UDO) to modify the impervious surface thresholds in water supply watersheds at the April 23,
2015 OWASA Board of Directors meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
consideration to amend the UDO. OWASA and its customers have long benefitted from the
progressive watershed protection requirements implemented by Orange County and Carrboro in
the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds. Those efforts have been guided by the
technical evaluations and recommendations from local watershed management studies funded by
OWASA. Orange County has planning and zoning control over about 90% of the University Lake
and Cane Creek watersheds; therefore, the County's requirements will be a primary factor
affecting the long -term quality of our community's existing drinking water supplies.
We commend the County's protection standards for our two watersheds as set forth in the County's
UDO, as we recognize those include some of the most restrictive development densities, riparian
buffer requirements, and impervious surface limits in the State. They far exceed the State's
minimum statewide watershed protection requirements established under North Carolina General
Statute 143 -214.5 and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources'
(DENR) regulations at 15A NCAC 02B .0214.
It is our understanding that the County's UDO allows landowners to exceed their impervious
surface requirements through a variance process or by transferring allowable impervious surface
requirements from a neighboring property through the establishment of a conservation easement.
The County is proposing to add a third option to modify the impervious surface limits in response
to citizen requests to allow modest increases in the allowable limits.
As we understand it, this third potential process — if approved — would generally increase the
allowable impervious surface limit for the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds
from the current 6% limit to as much as 9 %, provided that the property owner:
400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer Voice (919) 968 -4421
Carrboro, NC 27510 -2001 Printed on Recycled Paper uvuvuv.ou- asa.org
OWASA's Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the UDO Regarding Impervious
Surface Limits in Water Supply Watersheds
May 6, 2015
Page 2
a) implement an infiltration best management practice (BMP) approved by DENR;
b) hire an engineer to evaluate the infiltration capacity of the soil and design the BMP in
accordance with the State's stormwater manual;
c) complete a stormwater operation and maintenance agreement and have the document
recorded with the Register of Deeds; and
d) assume all financial and legal responsibility for the BMP.
The County staff s draft amendments also include an increase in the allowable impervious surface
limit for non - residential development within the Protected Watershed area in the University Lake
watershed, which would make such requirements uniform for both the Cane Creek Reservoir and
University Lake watersheds.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE UDO
OWASA does not believe the County's consideration to amend the UDO as currently drafted
will result in "backsliding" from current water supply protection efforts. We believe the draft
changes are consistent with early recommendations from watershed management studies for
the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds, and meet the Cane Creek
Watershed Management Study's two highest goals which are protecting public health, and
minimizing impacts on County residents who are not OWASA customers. This conclusion is
predicated on the assumption that development densities and riparian buffer requirements are
not relaxed. The draft amendments would limit impervious surface at thresholds higher than
currently allowed only with an infiltration BMP that would mimic the existing hydrology of
the land. This combination of strategies could be as protective of water quality in the water
supply reservoirs as current requirements assuming the BMP is properly designed, constructed,
and maintained. Since the draft ordinance revision requires an engineer to design the BMP, it
is likely that the associated BMP would be designed properly.
2. While the draft UDO requires the landowner to develop a maintenance agreement and record
it with the Register of Deeds, it is critical to ensure that the required annual inspections occur.
We strongly recommend that Orange County implement an ongoing program and provide the
funding and staff resources necessary to ensure that the mandatory inspections and
maintenance of such BMPs will occur. The program should include a process that would occur
if a BMP no longer functioned properly and the owner decided not to repair or replace the
BMP. We also recommend that the County evaluate staffing and funding periodically to
possibly include a landowner- funded inspection program; more landowners may enroll in the
program over time, and more BMPs may require repairs or replacement.
3. We recommend that 4.2.8(C)(3) clarify that a licensed engineer be required to design the BMP.
This would help ensure that a professional engineer with expertise in stormwater management
would design the BMP and sign and seal the design.
4. We commend Orange County for including both a protective density requirement and stringent
impervious surface requirement, and believe both should remain. The density /minimum lot
size provisions are the foundation of our successful local water supply protection program.
OWASA's Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the UDO Regarding Impervious
Surface Limits in Water Supply Watersheds
May 6, 2015
Page 3
5. We agree that if the County moves forward with this proposal, it should credit only infiltration
BMPs, as proposed, that mimic the existing hydrology of the site.
6. We strongly support Orange County's approach that allows only low- density development
options in our water supply watersheds. We believe this helps protect water quality as well as
maintain the rural character of the County. We oppose the high - density options allowed by
state regulations, other than those currently allowed for fire stations and the solid waste
collection center.
7. We support the proposal to make the University Lake impervious surface limitation for non-
residential development consistent with that for the Cane Creek Reservoir watershed.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed UDO changes as well as the
County's ongoing efforts to protect our drinking water supplies. Please let me know if OWASA
can provide additional information. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact
Ruth Rouse, OWASA's Planning and Development Manager, at 919 -537 -4214 or at
rrousegowasa.org.
Sincerely,
J A. Young, Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
c: Ms. Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager
Mr. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Mr. Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning Supervisor
Ms. Lydia Lavelle, Mayor, Town of Carrboro
Mr. David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro
Mr. Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill
Mr. Roger Stancil, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill
Mr. Tom Stevens, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
Mr. Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough
OWASA Board of Directors
Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director
Robert Epting, OWASA General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Justice
Basic Information
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair
treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and
commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have
an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment
and /or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision;
(3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision
makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.
How Did the Environmental Justice Movement Arise? The environmental justice
movement was started by individuals, primarily people of color, who sought to address the
inequity of environmental protection in their communities. Grounded in the struggles of the
1960's Civil Rights Movement, this movement sounded the alarm about the public health
dangers for their families, their communities and themselves.
Early in 1990, the Congressional Black Caucus, a bipartisan coalition of academic, social
scientists and political activists met with EPA officials to discuss their findings that
environmental risk was higher for minority and low- income populations. They alleged that
EPA's inspections were not addressing their communities' needs. In response, the EPA
Administrator created the Environmental Equity Workgroup in July 1990 to address the
allegation that "racial minority and low- income populations bear a higher environmental risk
burden than the general population."
The Workgroup produced a report, "Reducing Risk in All Communities ", in June 1992 that
supported the allegation and made ten recommendations for addressing the problem. One
of the recommendations was to create an office to address these inequities. Thus, the Office
of Environmental Equity was established November 1992. The name was changed to Office
of Environmental Justice (OEJ) in 1994.
On Feb 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations'; to
focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and
low- income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all
communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice
strategies to help federal agencies address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and low- income populations.
The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect
human health and the environment. It aims to provide minority and low- income
http: / /www.epa.gov /environmentaljustice /basics /ejbackground.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
communities access to public information and public participation in matters relating to
human health and the environment. The Presidential Memorandum accompanying the order
underscores certain provisions of existing law that can help ensure that all communities and
persons across the nation live in a safe and healthy environment.
The executive order established an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on environmental
justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and comprised of the heads of 11 departments or
agencies and several White House offices. These include the EPA, the Departments of
Justice, Defense, Energy, Labor, Interior, Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and Urban
Development, Commerce, and Health and Human Services, the Council on Environmental
Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the Domestic Policy Council, and the Council of Economic Advisors. The IWG meets on a
monthly basis to continue the collaborative projects. Fifteen demonstration projects, along
with additional projects to be selected each year, have been chosen to depict the provision.
The statutes that EPA implements provide the Agency with authority to consider and
address environmental justice concerns. These laws encompass the breadth of the Agency's
activities including setting standards, permitting facilities, making grants, issuing licenses or
regulations, and reviewing proposed actions of other federal agencies. These laws often
require the Agency to consider a variety of factors that generally include one or more of the
following: public health; cumulative impacts; social costs; and welfare impacts. Moreover,
some statutory provisions, such as under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA),
explicitly direct the Agency to target low- income populations for assistance. Other statutes
direct the Agency to consider vulnerable populations in setting standards. In all cases, the
way in which the Agency chooses to implement and enforce its authority can have
substantial effects on the achievement of environmental justice for all communities.
Since OEJ was created, there have been significant efforts across EPA to integrate
environmental justice into the Agency's day -to -day operations. Information on these
activities can be found throughout the Agency. Every regional and headquarter office has an
environmental justice coordinator to serve as a focal point within the organization. This
network of individuals provides outreach and educational opportunities to external as well as
internal individuals and organizations.
http: / /www.epa.gov /environmentaljustice /basics /ejbackground.html
1 lilt e lid e s e a Ir,c fill 11 Ir II a Iru g e lid e s b Iru II s U..0 Iru d e Ir" g o II Iru g a
IG=u Ir o fo u..0 Iru d dernogr,aphdc t Ir a Iru sfu:u Ir Irn a t u:u Iru„ 1--low
the Ire liOlru IrespOruds WHI sl gruliiiir arutly
IIruflu..ueIruce fuutu.uIre IG.uIrosIGaeIrIIt. , IPeuuIGaIIe ofr::u:uIIoIr
increasingly drive the Iregion's IpopuIulluut61On
j.gu,owthi. lfmu:uday, uu uluuulrte�r Off' the Iregion's
seIrubIrs aIr "e peop e of cc IIoIr, as coIrnpaIred to
n e illy Ih u u ff' Off. the Iregoo n' youth.
EInsu..uIritIin tIhiat r:oIrTiIrTiuuIruitites ofr:oIIoIr uuIre fu..uIIII
uuIred active pafticipants ini the Iregion's
ecoIruoIrny Its or"IIUca to tiie Inext geIrueIr "atbIru of
Iro tIhu uuIrud er:oIruoIruaitc dev IIoprneIrut. 1Ih
region's ecOnOlrny m,uld Ih have beeni about
$ 2 :11.8 bit II II itu.uIn st.ru.uIn g e Ir, iIn 2 O l 2 its thieIre we Ire
no ecoIruoIruaIIc dII1C1CeIreIruu es by race. Illy
dev lIolpitlru g good lobs uulrud Ipat.lhus to flllrualrucituull
s e c U..0 Ir" II t yfo Ir" a 11, c Ir i"' a t II in g o p p o Ir. t U..0 in II t y a c Ir c) s s
t ie Ire sbIru aIrud str "eIru gtiieIruIIIru g edUucatbIru fIr "oIrn
orade to caIreeIr, lideseaIr "ci11 11IrIIaIru g e leader's
can Iput uuIIII IreAeIruts on thie IGuuuthi toward
r�ea (: Ihr i in g t, Ihr e i Ir� fu II II Ip ot,e in t,i a II a 6;u e(: u Ir�i in g, a
b Ir it g 1hi t e Ir f u u t u..0 Ir e for, t hie e Iru U Ir e Ir e g it u:u Iru
Foreword
The Research Triangle Region has a long tradition of growth and
change, as its research universities and technologically
sophisticated businesses have served markets and attracted
people from across the United States and around the world.
From the city cores of Raleigh and Durham to small towns and
rural areas throughout the region, the communities that make
up the Research Triangle have a common goal of seeing that all
its people have pathways to success.
Over the past two years, both the Triangle J Council of
Governments and the Kerr -Tar Council of Governments — the
regional councils serving the greater Triangle region — have
worked with diverse groups of stakeholders to identify and
prioritize strategies we can pursue to sustain the region's
prosperity and address its economic challenges. These
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) are
blueprints for cooperative action to improve economic
outcomes for all of our citizens.
For these strategies to succeed, we know we need to prepare
for the region we will be, not the region we are today. That is
why we partnered with PolicyLink and the USC Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) to produce this
Equitable Growth Profile. It provides an excellent evidence -
based foundation for understanding the challenges and
opportunities of our region's shifting demographics. It can help
our region's diverse communities focus on the resources and
opportunities they need to participate and prosper. We hope
that this profile is widely used by business, government,
academic, philanthropic and civic leaders working to create a
stronger, more engaged, and more resilient region.
Jennifer Robinson Elic Senter
Chair Chair
Triangle] COG Kerr -Tar COG
IIIcy Lire k
__`
Pr_ Rs
IIIIIIIIII � °p {� /Ad �n III IIIU -�Nvl9 UIIIIp�����" ,,yyrrAgpl
I Nuul mNd rcm, end��k� mtl HaNNR
����N�� IIIIU �AN�Q ��. �e � III IIIU I�m4 Q
Niyrra fiau rcm,
��� �� o �dG�� % ��
IIIUIIy/� �'U'U'1���1�1 �((�,�° j N'U'I
puu�l �����m �r � mlllllml ����� r�"p � "7/ � m�ul lutes , mU�6
fiau VIII HpNNR �lllll nM� HpNNR
IIIIIIU m4 111111
JJryy��` /��„�A mry /�fal/� (Vy /�y�.,�A �'�v mm IV /y�y�,,ri���u Ay
V�. NNF�I b�NANttrv� '��llypN �RV ��Id /� VIII '��IIILIIIIGi III
�i10,rd��I
Illlllf �IIPI
mm �'�v o�J!/ >'W rE G /ry�j,�/„,��Ap
VIII VIII ��Id /� VIII VIII ��II� ""'/'NNFIIV
IIIIIIU ��nl
� ,�A�7p >'W���R ,ew /y�� o�J!/
IUUI� �IIIIV ��Ilr�llu' VIII Illli "� VIII VIII
'��llljjJJ JJ
TRIANGLE d COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Kerr -Tar
Summary
Regional Council
Of Gov 1=ncs
1 lilt e lid e s e a Ir,c fill 11 Ir II a Iru g e lid e s b Iru II s U..0 Iru d e Ir" g o II Iru g a
IG=u Ir o fo u..0 Iru d dernogr,aphdc t Ir a Iru sfu:u Ir Irn a t u:u Iru„ 1--low
the Ire liOlru IrespOruds WHI sl gruliiiir arutly
IIruflu..ueIruce fuutu.uIre IG.uIrosIGaeIrIIt. , IPeuuIGaIIe ofr::u:uIIoIr
increasingly drive the Iregion's IpopuIulluut61On
j.gu,owthi. lfmu:uday, uu uluuulrte�r Off' the Iregion's
seIrubIrs aIr "e peop e of cc IIoIr, as coIrnpaIred to
n e illy Ih u u ff' Off. the Iregoo n' youth.
EInsu..uIritIin tIhiat r:oIrTiIrTiuuIruitites ofr:oIIoIr uuIre fu..uIIII
uuIred active pafticipants ini the Iregion's
ecoIruoIrny Its or"IIUca to tiie Inext geIrueIr "atbIru of
Iro tIhu uuIrud er:oIruoIruaitc dev IIoprneIrut. 1Ih
region's ecOnOlrny m,uld Ih have beeni about
$ 2 :11.8 bit II II itu.uIn st.ru.uIn g e Ir, iIn 2 O l 2 its thieIre we Ire
no ecoIruoIruaIIc dII1C1CeIreIruu es by race. Illy
dev lIolpitlru g good lobs uulrud Ipat.lhus to flllrualrucituull
s e c U..0 Ir" II t yfo Ir" a 11, c Ir i"' a t II in g o p p o Ir. t U..0 in II t y a c Ir c) s s
t ie Ire sbIru aIrud str "eIru gtiieIruIIIru g edUucatbIru fIr "oIrn
orade to caIreeIr, lideseaIr "ci11 11IrIIaIru g e leader's
can Iput uuIIII IreAeIruts on thie IGuuuthi toward
r�ea (: Ihr i in g t, Ihr e i Ir� fu II II Ip ot,e in t,i a II a 6;u e(: u Ir�i in g, a
b Ir it g 1hi t e Ir f u u t u..0 Ir e for, t hie e Iru U Ir e Ir e g it u:u Iru
Foreword
The Research Triangle Region has a long tradition of growth and
change, as its research universities and technologically
sophisticated businesses have served markets and attracted
people from across the United States and around the world.
From the city cores of Raleigh and Durham to small towns and
rural areas throughout the region, the communities that make
up the Research Triangle have a common goal of seeing that all
its people have pathways to success.
Over the past two years, both the Triangle J Council of
Governments and the Kerr -Tar Council of Governments — the
regional councils serving the greater Triangle region — have
worked with diverse groups of stakeholders to identify and
prioritize strategies we can pursue to sustain the region's
prosperity and address its economic challenges. These
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) are
blueprints for cooperative action to improve economic
outcomes for all of our citizens.
For these strategies to succeed, we know we need to prepare
for the region we will be, not the region we are today. That is
why we partnered with PolicyLink and the USC Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) to produce this
Equitable Growth Profile. It provides an excellent evidence -
based foundation for understanding the challenges and
opportunities of our region's shifting demographics. It can help
our region's diverse communities focus on the resources and
opportunities they need to participate and prosper. We hope
that this profile is widely used by business, government,
academic, philanthropic and civic leaders working to create a
stronger, more engaged, and more resilient region.
Jennifer Robinson Elic Senter
Chair Chair
Triangle] COG Kerr -Tar COG
I qulIabIE t_rc wt17 1'id1ik c]f t1'7c 1R s airch I'iiiang� Ie II e&n
Overview
Across the country, communities are striving to put plans,
policies, and programs in place that build healthier, more
prosperous regions that provide opportunities for all of their
residents to participate and thrive.
11c]hcyl iid<urid III 1:1
neighborhoods providing few of those elements. The goal of
regional equity is to ensure that all neighborhoods throughout
the region are communities of opportunity that provide their
residents with the tools they need to thrive.
The Equitable Growth Profile of the Research Triangle Region
Equity — full inclusion of all residents in the economic, social, examines demographic trends and indicators of equitable
and political life of the region, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, growth, highlighting strengths and areas of vulnerability in
gender, neighborhood of residence, or other characteristics — is
essential for regional prosperity. As the nation undergoes a
profound demographic transformation in which people of color
are quickly becoming the majority, ensuring that people of all
races and ethnicities can participate and reach their full
potential is more than just the right thing to do, it is an
economic imperative.
In the past, equity and growth have often been pursued on
separate paths, now it is becoming increasingly clear that they
must be pursued together. The latest research on national and
regional economic growth, from economists working at
institutions including the International Monetary Fund and
Standard and Poor's, finds that inequality hinders economic
growth and prosperity, while greater economic and racial
inclusion fosters greater economic mobility and more robust
and sustained growth.'
Embedding equity into local and regional development
strategies is particularly important given the history of
metropolitan development in the United States. America's
regions are highly segregated by race and income, and these
patterns of exclusion were created and maintained by public
policies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. In the
decades after World War II, housing and transportation policies
incentivized the growth of suburbs while redlining practices and
racially restrictive covenants systematically prevented African
Americans and other people of color from buying homes in new
developments while starving older urban neighborhoods of
needed reinvestment. Many other factors — continued racial
discrimination in housing and employment, exclusionary land
use practices that prevent construction of affordable
multifamily homes in more affluent neighborhoods, and political
fragmentation — have reinforced geographic, racial, and class
inequities.
Today, America's regions are patchworks of concentrated
advantage and disadvantage, with some neighborhoods home
to good schools, bustling commercial districts, services, parks,
and other crucial ingredients for economic success, and other
relation to the goal of building a strong, resilient economy. It
was developed by PolicyLink and the Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) to help the Triangle J
and Kerr -Tar councils of governments, advocacy groups, elected
officials, planners, business leaders, funders, and others working
to build a stronger region.
This summary document highlights key findings from the profile
along with policy and planning implications.
Equitable Growth Indicators
This profile draws from a unique Equitable Growth Indicators
Database developed by PolicyLink and PERE. This database
incorporates hundreds of data points from public and private
data sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. The
database includes data for the 150 largest metropolitan regions
and all 50 states, and includes historical data going back to
1980 for many economic indicators as well as demographic
projections through 2040. It enables comparative regional and
state analyses as well as tracking change over time.
Defining the Research Triangle Region
For the purposes of this profile, we define the region as the 13-
county area shown below. All data in the profile use this
regional boundary, exceptions where lack of data are noted in
the "Data and methods" section of the full profile.
I (IUiI<1Idk' f "IOWIlI 1'r01- HO01 -1Y l0 11�eSe l- Valle i 1 Ill g11l 11�e&ll
Profile Highlights
The region is undergoing a major demographic
shift
The Research Triangle is a growing region whose demographics
are quickly diversifying. Since 1980, its population has more
than doubled, from 900,000 to over 2 million. During the same
time period, the share of residents who are people of color has
risen from 29 to 39 percent. By 2044, when the nation is
projected to become majority people of color, more than 50
percent of the region's population will be people of color.
Communities of color — especially Latinos, Asians, and people of
mixed racial backgrounds — are driving population growth and
contributed 56 percent of net population growth over the last
decade. Latinos were the fastest growing group, increasing 127
percent and gaining nearly 120,000 residents, followed by
Asians, with a 107 percent growth rate and net gain of more
than 38,000 residents. The region's large Black population will
remain about a fourth of the population for the foreseeable
future.
The region's demographic shift is taking place throughout all of
its 13 counties. By 2040, five counties will be majority people of
11 he -r share of l:re ol:rle -r of color Is l:)roje -rc Ie d Lo Increase 0—irough 2040
Wi yl irik Baru{ P1 1�1 3
color, and every county except for Moore County will be at least
one -third people of color.
Youth are at the forefront of the region's changing
demographics, and the Research Triangle's young residents are
much more diverse than its seniors. Today, 48 percent of youth
are people of color, compared with 23 percent of seniors. This
25 percentage point racial generation gap between young and
old has risen very quickly, nearly tripling since 1980. This gap
presents a potential economic risk for the region because a
large racial generation gap often corresponds with lower
investments in the educational systems and community
infrastructure needed to support the economic participation of
youth.z
Stronger and more inclusive growth is the key to
the region's future prosperity
The Research Triangle region has struggled to recover from the
Great Recession, and while its GDP and job growth are
comparable to national averages, it is growing at less than half
its pre- recession rate. Additionally, growth seems to be
occurring unequally throughout the region and has been
concentrated in the metropolitan areas of Raleigh -Cary and
Racial /Ethnic Composition,
1980 -2040
U.S. % White
Other
1 % 1 % 0
2%
3%
4%
5%
IIIIIIIIIII Native American
27% 25 % 6%
4%
10%
5%
6%
%
7 7%
Asian /Pacific Islander
24%
11%
1 2%
11111111 Latino
23%
ill Black
24%
25%
„White
71% 72 °�
26%
66 %ra
61%
58%
1111111111151%
0
._r 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Woods &
Poole Economics, Inc.
Projectedl
I quil:ul)IE Grc]wffi II ()f'iI( ()F I'rc 111 smirch i'iiizu °ngle11111e& n
Durham (to a lesser extent). From 2009 to 2012, jobs and GDP
in Wake County grew at a rate more than double the average
for the rest of the region.
In addition to these trends of slow and geographically
asymmetrical growth in jobs and economic activity, the region
faces several other challenges to long -term growth and
prosperity. The region's middle class is shrinking, as the
economy is becoming bifurcated into low -and high -wage jobs.
Inequality is on the rise and racial gaps in education,
employment, income, and opportunity are wide and persistent.
As the region grows more diverse, these inequities become
even more serious threats to economic strength and
competitiveness. Below are several key challenges the region
will need to address to ensure a strong economy and a better
shot at returning to the high growth seen prior to the recession
Lower levels of higher education for communities of color
A strong education is central to labor market competitiveness in
today's knowledge- and technology- driven economy, but a
growing segment of the Research Triangle's workforce lacks the
education needed for the jobs of the future. According to the
Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce, 42
percent of all jobs in North Carolina will require an associate's
degree or higher by 2020. Today, only 33 percent of Blacks and
37 percent of U.S. -born Latinos — the region's fastest - growing
group — have that level of education. The achievement gap has
deep roots in public education systems, and looking at the share
of working -age adults without a high school diploma in the
region, we see that African American, Native American, and all
11(fli y4 sill <aiid III 1:1
Latinos (but especially immigrants), are much less likely to have
high school degrees than Whites.
The middle class is being squeezed
A strong middle class is the foundation for a strong regional
economy, but the Research Triangle region's middle class is
being squeezed while inequality is on the rise. Since 1990,
middle -wage jobs in the region have not kept pace with
population growth, and grew less than half the rate of low- and
high -wage jobs. Additionally, a disproportionate share of
middle -class job gains have been concentrated in urban areas,
with Durham County contributing 37 percent of the increase in
middle -class jobs but only 10 percent of the increase in the
region's population. And while wages for low -wage jobs have
increased 17 percent over the past two decades, that is less
than half the rate of increase for high- and middle -class jobs in
the same time period. This also has a disproportionately
negative impact on people of color since they are more likely to
work in low -wage jobs. The increasing diversity of the middle
class is a more promising indicator. Though the middle class
does not yet fully represent the region's demographic diversity,
its diversification does provide some evidence for the economic
inclusion of emerging Latino and Asian populations.
Racial economic gaps
Across a host of indicators including employment, wages,
poverty, working poor rates, and access to "high- opportunity"
occupations, people of color fare worse in the Research Triangle
labor market than their White counterparts. These racial
economic gaps remain even after controlling for education,
Raiis i ng edlucad:iioiir nr -ill ad:d:a i nirmnei nt airmnoirng the ire ^giia)irn's coirmnirmnu irnud ues serf colk)ir Is ciriid:ii4 to Ibu llaJHi ng a Ipirepaired workforce
Share of Working -Age Population
with an Associate's Degree or
Higher by Race /Ethnicity and
Nativity, 2012, and Projected
Share of jobs that Require an
Associate's Degree or Higher,
2020
Sources: Georgetown Center for Education
and the Workforce; IPUMS. Universe for
education levels of workers includes all
persons ages 25 through 64. Note: Data for
2012 by race /ethnicity /nativity represent a
2008 through 2012 average and are at the
regional level; data on jobs in 2020 is at the
state level for North Carolina. API refers to
Asians and Pacific Islanders.
83%
Latino, Black Latino, Native Other White API, API, U.S.- jobs in
Immigrant U.S. -born American Immigrant born 2020
I qul IabIE t_ i owt17 1'I (:)f'iI( ()F I 'rc 111eseairclh i'li iang� e 1I1e7n n
which reveals the persistence of racial barriers to economic
opportunity — including overt discrimination as well as more
subtle forms of exclusion that are embedded into institutions
and systems. However, not all people of color are equally
affected, and many barriers seem to disproportionately affect
Blacks and Latinos.
While overall unemployment in the Research Triangle region is
lower than the national average, Latinos, people of other and
mixed races, and especially African Americans have much
higher rates of unemployment. The region's African American
workers face higher unemployment rates than their White and
Latino counterparts at every education level, and both Black
and Latino residents earn lower wages than Whites at every
education level. Wage disparities persist even among highly
educated workers, with college- educated Blacks and Latinos
earning $7 /hour and $11 /hour less than their White and Asian
counterparts, respectively.
Poverty and the challenge of a growing number of people who
are among the working poor (defined here as working full -time
for an income below 200 percent of the poverty level) are both
on the rise in the region and are most severe for communities of
color. One in three Latinos and one in five African Americans
11c]hcyl IIII <aiid III 1:1
now live below the poverty level, compared to less than one in
ten Whites. Latinos in the region are more than six times as
likely to be working poor than Whites. Poverty is also becoming
entrenched in rural and inner city areas, leaving those at the
fringes and the heart of the region most vulnerable.
Disconnected youth
The region's future quite literally depends on the ability of its
youth to power its economy in the years to come. Although the
fact that more of the region's youth are getting high school
degrees than in the past is a positive sign, the number of
"disconnected youth" who are neither in school nor working is
also on the rise. In the region, 30,000 youth are currently
disconnected, nearly 60 percent of whom are Black and Latino.
On the positive side, dropout rates have improved significantly
over the past decade for Blacks and Latinos, although nearly
half of Latino immigrant youth still drop out of high school.
An uneven geography of opportunity and prosperity
While the Research Triangle is experiencing renewed growth,
prosperity is not distributed evenly in the region. Many rural
and inner city areas suffer from a lack of car access and limited
transportation choices, with Warren and Vance counties having
at least 10 percent of households without a vehicle. Poverty is
1111me Iregilarlrn's African Americans ai nd II. ad:illrnos earlrn ow Wages ai nd afire Irrioire Ililllk(flly to be Wolrlldi ng ai nd Ipoor
Working Poor Rate by Race /Ethnicity, 2012
1111111111 All
Im White
u[ Black
111111 Latino
Asian /Pacific Islander
111111111 Native American
Other
0000l000000i 27.7%
um }uuuuum 13.2%
uuuuuuuuVUUUUiuuuuuuII 12.1°/
0' 9.1%
uuuuuuumuuuuuuumu
8.5%
6.8%
4.5%
2012
Median Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment and
Race /Ethnicity, 2012
White
111111111 Black
su Latino
Asian /Pacific Islander
Other
,t')
Less than a HS Diploma, More than HS BA Degree
HS Diploma no College Diploma but less or higher
than BA Degree
Source: IPUMS. Universe includes civilian noninstitutional full -time wage and salary workers ages
Source: IPUMS. Universe includes the civilian non - institutional population 25 through 64. Note: Wages for Asians and Others with a HS diploma or less are excluded due to
ages 25 through 64. Note: Data represent a 2008 through 2012 average. small sample size. Data represent a 2008 through 2012 average. Dollar values are in 2010 dollars.
I rlui l:ulrIE G rc wfl'7 1'i (:)f'ik ()F I '7c 1Re »eairc r I'ii ieu °rglle lRe&n
also highest in major cities and on the outer northeast edges of
the region. And while rent burden (households spending 30
percent or more of income on rent) is persistent throughout the
region, it is more prevalent in these same areas. Not
coincidentally, communities of color are highly concentrated in
these same outer fringes and inner boroughs. Blacks and
Latinos stand out as having significant obstacles to economic
success, even once adjusted for education. Among those with a
bachelor's degree, only 59 percent of Blacks and 46 percent of
Latino immigrants have access to "high-opportunity" jobs that
offer good prospects for future growth, while nearly three -
quarters of Whites and over 80 percent of Asians have access to
those same jobs.
Racial economic inclusion would strengthen the
economy
Rising inequality and racial gaps in the region are not only bad
for communities of color — they also hinder the whole region's
economic growth and prosperity. According to our analysis, if
there were no racial disparities in income, the region's GDP
would have been $21.8 billion higher in 2012. Unless racial gaps
are closed, the costs of inequity will grow as the Research
Triangle becomes more diverse.
Implications
The Research Triangle region's growing, diverse population is a
major economic asset that will help the region compete in the
11(fli y4 silk acid III 1:1
global economy — if its leaders invest in ensuring all residents
can connect to good jobs and contribute their talent and
creativity to building a strong next economy. Our data analysis
suggests focusing on the following goals to spur more equitable
growth in the region. Below we describe each goal and share
strategies that regional leaders might pursue to advance them.
Grow good jobs and create pathways into them for workers
facing barriers to employment
The region's higher levels of unemployment and lower levels of
educational attainment for many members of its communities
of color call for a strong focus on creating on -ramps to good,
family- supporting careers for these populations. A robust
strategy for growing new good jobs and connecting workers to
them is critical for the region's future economic prosperity.
Local economic and workforce development efforts should be
focused on the sectors and occupations that show signs of
strength and pay living wages. This can help create the " Inigh-
opportunity" jobs that anchor a broad middle class. There are
several promising approaches to building pathways, including
the following:
• Implement sectoral workforce strategies that connect
workers with low education levels to high - quality training
programs that lead to gainful employment in growing
sectors of the economy. Such approaches are a win -win for
employers who need access to skilled workers as well as
workers seeking employment.'
11'1° e IResearch lhriiangllr IIRegiia)irn s C3II:)II =" wokfld 1have Ibeei n $21.8 biilllliion higher in 2012 if b° ere were no r ciiell diisp riilies in iincor�ne.
Actual GDP and Estimated GDP
without Racial Gaps in Income,
2012
„GDP in 2012 (billions)
ill GDP if racial gaps in income
were eliminated (billions)
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis; IPUMS.
Note: Data for 2012 represent a 2008 through 2012
average.
$160
$140
$12.0
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
`0
quity
lividend:
21.8 billion
I quit:ubIE t_rc wtl7 1'i c: 1k c]Y tl'7c 1R eairc h I'iiiang� Ie Re &n 11c]licyl iiil <urid III NI
Target spending and investments to support regional equity
initiatives of local governments, school districts, nonprofits,
and businesses. Focus on providing affordable housing and
well- connected transit systems to link residents —
particularly in rural counties — to employment centers. Take
measures to prevent better - connected low- income
households in central cities from displacement.
Connect underrepresented workers to good jobs and careers
household incomes and spending. At $7.25 per hour, North
Carolina's minimum wage is the same as the federal minimum,
and conservative estimates suggest that North Carolina families
need more than twice that much to make ends meet. North
Carolina's local governments have passed living wage laws to
ensure that city and county governments pay their employees
enough to cover their basic expenses, and seven localities have
done s0.4 Durham's law, for example, sets the minimum wage at
through targeted local hiring strategies, apprenticeship 7.5 percent above the poverty level, currently $12.17 per hour.'
programs, and post- secondary job- training programs. Certification is another approach: just Economics runs a Living
• Remove barriers and implement strategies to help minority- Wage Certification Program that has identified and promoted
owned businesses expand. This can create employment
pathways for people who are jobless because these firms
tend to hire more employees of color and people living in the
in the community.
• Leverage the economic power of large anchor institutions,
like hospitals and universities, for community economic
development. These anchors can develop intentional
strategies to hire jobseekers facing barriers to employment,
create on- the -job training opportunities, and purchase more
goods and services from local- and minority -owned
businesses who provide local jobs, as Cleveland's anchor
effort has done.
Support policies that expand job opportunities for formerly
incarcerated individuals, such as Durham's successful
campaign to Ban the Box (see below). These policies remove
questions about criminal convictions and incarceration at
initial stages of the hiring process, so that employers first
get an opportunity to learn about a candidate's experience
rather than automatically ruling the person out.
Raise wages and increase financial security
Policies that ensure strong and rising wages, especially for low -
wage earners, can reduce working poverty and increase
financial security, while bolstering the economy by increasing
more than 300 companies that pay at least $12.50 an hour.
Portland, Oregon, has promoted the growth of Certified B
Corporations: companies that meet standards of social and
environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.6
Outside of North Carolina, some jurisdictions have incentivized
living wages in their criteria for government contracts or
economic development subsidies.
Municipalities in the region should consider these tools to raise
the floor for its low -wage workers and ensure employers it does
business with are providing good jobs. Additionally, there are
several other tools to boost financial security, such as providing
children's savings accounts that give low- income children a way
to save for college or retirement, or ensuring all families have
access to a mainstream bank account. Municipalities should
also make strides in addressing wealth gaps by creating
programs to save or invest their earned income tax credits
(EITC), similar to the Save USA program in New York City, which
allows qualifying recipients the opportunity to save and earn
returns on their savings. 7 Finally, tax policies should be
reformed to shift away from reliance on regressive sales tax and
more toward progressive income taxes.
Build communities of opportunity throughout the region
All neighborhoods throughout the region should provide their
residents with the ingredients they need to thrive, and also
open up opportunities for low- income people and people of
color to live in neighborhoods that are rich in opportunity (and
from which they've historically been excluded). Coordinating
transportation, housing, and economic development
investments in ways that expand opportunity for struggling
urban neighborhoods and rural areas is an important strategy to
address geographic disparities in the region. Counties
throughout the region — particularly those facing the highest
rates of rent burden — need to provide much more affordable
rental housing in order to provide low -wage workers with an
opportunity to live near work and reduce their commute time
I quil:ulrIE t_rc wt17 1'id1ik c]f t1'7c 1R s airch I'iiiang� Ie II e&n
and associated costs. Similarly, making transportation
investments that increase mobility and access to jobs for low -
income, transit - dependent residents addresses a critical barrier
to employment for workers and expands employers' access to
workers. Addressing lingering racially discriminatory housing
and lending practices and enforcing fair housing laws are also
critical to expanding opportunity for all.
Ensure education and career pathways for all youth
Ensuring that all youth in the region, including African
Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and youth with
mixed racial backgrounds can access a good education that
leads to a career is critical to developing the human capital to
power the Research Triangle's economy in the future. Policies
and investments to strengthen public preK -12 education are
particularly important given the region's quickly growing racial
generation gap and the need for a productive, healthy
workforce to support the growing senior population. In
addition, the Triangle's rising number of disconnected youth
and high share of immigrant youth without high school degrees
signal the need for intentional strategies to ensure all youth can
successfully complete high school and enter college or another
job- training program. Key strategies include the following:
• Strengthen the preK -12 public school system by ensuring
sufficient and equitable funding for schools attended by
lower- income students.
• Implement universal preschool for all three- and four -year-
olds. Studies show that high - quality preschool increases
lifetime earnings, boosts high school graduation rates, and
decreases incarceration.I
• Invest in "cradle -to- career" efforts (such as Promise
Neighborhoods) that provide children and families living in
low- income neighborhoods with education, health, and
11c]hcyl iid<urid III 1:1
social supports from birth to college to career. 9
• Replace overly harsh "zero tolerance" school discipline
policies with strategies focused on positive behavior support
and restorative justice to lower suspension and expulsion
rates and reduce the number of disconnected youth.
• Create high - quality after school and youth development
activities that provide learning opportunities outside of the
school day.
• Increase the availability of apprenticeships, career
academies, college scholarships, and other education and
training supports that provide work experience and
connections to keep more youth on the track to graduation,
college, and careers.
Bridge the racial generation gap
Bridging the racial generation gap between youth of color and a
predominantly White senior population will be critical to the
region's future success. In addition to ensuring a strong public
education system, the region will need to prepare for a growing
aging population (both from aging and migration) in ways that
advance the shared interests and needs of both generations.
Opportunities include the following:
• Strengthen the elder care sector and ensure seniors can age
with dignity by securing living wages, benefits, and adequate
training and standards for care workers.
• Plan for multigenerational communities that allow the
elderly to age in place while providing safe and healthy
environments for families to raise children.
• Invest in multigenerational community facilities and public
spaces (for example, schools that include facilities for
seniors) to encourage social interactions across generations.
I qulIabIE t_iowt17 1I d1k c]f I'7c 1R s airclh I'iriangIe Region
• Build intergenerational alliances, coalitions, and campaigns
(like the Caring Across Generations campaign) to move
forward these efforts.
• Support measures that ensure that employees have the
opportunity to take time off from work to care for
themselves or their families without the risk of losing their
jobs, so that they can balance work and family obligations.
Ensure diverse civic participation and leadership
Given the region's rapid demographic shifts that are being
driven by the increasing diversity of the youth population, it is
important for regional leaders in every sector to proactively
take steps to ensure opportunities for communities of color to
participate in decision making and leadership. Strategies to
build diverse leadership include the following:
• Create a durable regional equity network or collaborative of
leaders across race, age, issue areas, and geography to
advance equitable growth strategies and policies.
• Facilitate active engagement by all racial and ethnic
communities in local and regional planning processes by
implementing best practices for multicultural engagement
(e.g., translation services, provision of child care during
meetings, etc.).
• Support leadership development programs (such as the
Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute), including
youth- focused programs, to help neighborhood,
organizational, and civic leaders build their leadership and
capacity to serve in government and on decision - making
bodies.
11c]hcyl iiil<aiid III 1:1
Conclusion
Across the region, leaders in the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors are already taking steps to connect its more vulnerable
communities to educational and economic opportunities. To
secure a bright future, the Research Triangle region needs to
implement a growth model that is driven by equity — just and
fair inclusion into a society in which everyone can participate
and prosper. Through concerted investments and proactive
policies, the region can leverage its rising diversity as an
economic asset, and prepare all of its workers to lead it into the
next economy.
'Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, Inequality and Unsustainable Growth:
Two Sides of the Same Coin ?, Staff Discussion Note (Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund, 2011)
http: / /www.imf.orR /external /pubs /ft /sdn /2011 /sdn1108.pdf;Jonathan D.
Ostry, Andrew Berg, and Charalambos G. Tsangarides, Redistribution, Inequality,
and Growth, Staff Discussion Note (Washington, DC: International Monetary
Fund, 2014) http: / /www.imf.orR /external /pubs /ft /sdn /2014 /sdnl402.pdf;Joe
Maguire, How Increasing Inequality is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, and
Possible Ways to Change the Tide (New York, NY: Standard & Poor's Financial
Services LLC, 2014)
https: // www. Rlobalcreditportal. com /ratinRsdirect /renderArticle.do ?articleld =l3
51366 &SctArtld = 255732 &from= CM &nsl code= LIME &sourceObiectld = 874103
3 &sourceRevld =l &fee ind =N &exp date= 20240804-19.41.13; Manuel Pastor,
Cohesion and Competitiveness: Business Leadership for Regional Growth and Social
Equity, OECD Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy,
Organisation For Economic Co- Operation And Development (OECD), 2006;
Manuel Pastor and Chris Benner, "Been Down So Long: Weak- Market Cities and
Regional Equity," in Retooling for Growth: Building a 21s' Century Economy in
America's Older Industrial Areas (New York, NY: American Assembly and
Columbia University, 2008); Randall Eberts, George Erickcek, and Jack Kleinhenz,
Dashboard Indicators for the Northeast Ohio Economy, prepared for the Fund for
Our Economic Future (Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2006),
http: / /www.clevela ndfed .ore /Research /worl<la per /2006 /wp06- 05.pdf.
I qulIaI)IE t_iowt17 1'I c: 1k c]Y I'7c IRe»eairclh I'Iriaingd elRe icin 11c]Ilcyl Ilil <aiid III NI 10
z David N. Figlio and Deborah Fletcher, Suburbanization, Demographic Change
and the Consequences for School Finance, working paper (Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010),
http://www.nber.orR/lDaiDers/wl6l37.pdf.
3 Sheila Maguire, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, and Deena
Schwartz, Tuning in to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral
Employment Impact Study (New York, NY: Public/ Private Ventures, 2010),
http: / /www.issuelab.orR /resource /tuninR in to local labor markets findings fr
om the sectoral employment impact study; Lea Cathryn, BEST Benefits:
Employer Perspectives Research and Evaluation Brief (Boston, MA:
Commonwealth Corporation, 2004),
http: / /www.insiRhtcced.orR/ulDloads /nnsp/ BEST %20Benefits %20 %2OEmployer
%20Perspectives.pdf; Industry Partnerships in Pennsylvania, "Industry
Partnership" (booklet, Pennsylvania Workforce Development, April, 2009)
http: / /www.portal.state.pa.us /portal /server.pt ?open= 514 &ob!ID = 575072 &mod
e =2.
° North Carolina Justice Center, What Local Governments Can Do to Support
Living Wages and job Qualityin NC, fact sheet (Raleigh, INC: North Carolina
Justice Center, 2014),
http: / /www.nciustice.orR/ sites / default /files /NCIC %2OFactsheet preemption
May %202014.pdf.
5 Durham People's Alliance, "A Living Wage," presentation, February 6, 2014,
http: / /www.slideshare. net /Rarrettbdixon /pa- living -wage- presentation -1-
3014mlI
6 Baker, Linda, "B Corps grow in Oregon," Oregon Business, September 22,
2011, http: / /www.ore2onbusiness.com /articles /104 - october- 2011/5930 -b-
corps- grow -i n- oregon.
7 "SaveUSA New York City," Department of Consumer Affairs, Office of Financial
Empowerment,
http: / /www.nyc.Rov /html /ofe /html /lDolicv and programs /saveusa.shtml.
8 Weiss, Elaine, "Pre -K's Potential as Part of a Comprehensive Pro - Children
Strategy," Huffington Post, November 30, 2014,
http: / /www. huff ingtonpost. cam / elaine- Weiss /prel<s- potential- as -part-
o b 5902318.html.
9 America's Promise Alliance, Every Child Every Promise: Turning Failure Into
Action (Washington, DC: America's Promise Alliance, 2006),
http: / /www.americaspromise.orR/ sites /default /files /Every %20Child %2OEvery
%20 Prom ise %20 - %20 Fu 11 %20 Report. pdf.
10 Mitchell, Corey, "Promise Neighborhood program faces questions,"
Minneapolis StarTribune,June 20, 2014,
http: // www. startribune. com / local /minneapolis /264068911.html.
1UHd, Ir` l,an"')V'fii , n"') ` 11 r"', Aff 1 'iIOCJLI C '1 0 A �iY'flirylCiil "�i
V"/ 11 C/ I11 <tiI1t'ri 'Y(0 11',1111'CrrY V /II "rrr�rl�ry 'fcd
11 1,1rr1i:dl �111'f wa'f 'f ir`: 1,.11 1 /r "IC.H"y o` S0U'f I 1- 1i f ,I1����rnlw,,
I iri v1r`V1C r " /I I' r", CJ Ili f "i CJ C U11rdl i' I t, io", r)'` ,('JI1cy1 111k
1ot,11 rrrC.;- i111yIr; err ":r`11't, io r`o IIlaingIe
rira;l rJCl,ae /rY Iirdlif .:;rd,,Kr "YYraI "''r`�',IJI "ir 1.J11i�
rr /ri11 1 "I 1 r` 11 ,r
�. rr'91 /1- I1, "0 O 15 11 r y 1 111 G ri,'`t :, '' „ / ,,, Y11, "i'f: rrd. r 1 /ecl,
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To:
Commission for the Environment
From:
Rich Shaw
Date:
May 6, 2015
Subject:
Earth Evening 2015
The Commission for the Environment participated in the annual Earth Evening event at River
Park in downtown Hillsborough this past Sunday (April 24).
This was the third year that DEAPR has organized this event, but the first CFE booth to help
educate citizens about such things as land conservation, surface and ground water protection,
air quality, and Things You Can Do to Improve the natural environment in our community. There
were display copies of the CFE's State of the Environment report along with cards listing the
web address for accessing the report.
Thanks to Lydia Wegman and Lynne Gronback and her Cedar Ridge High School students
for volunteering their time to engage the public and communicate this information.
One of many hands -on activities for children A young boy navigates through the Hydrilla "Tunnel of Terror"
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
PO Box 8181 /306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2510
ou
in the
riverl
Environment
Rich Shaw
Editor's note: This is the
first in a series by the Orange
County Commission for the
Environment, a volunteer
advisory board to the Board
of County Commissioners.
For more information see the
Orange County State of the
Environment 2014 report at
nando.com/17s
Problems caused by non-
native, invasive aquatic plant
species that flourish in many
rivers and lakes in the south-
ern United States are in-
creasing.
Many invasive plants were
originally brought to the
United States for use in
household aquariums or or-
namental ponds; they were
then introduced to the envi-
ronment when the aquar-
iums were cleaned, or when
flooding occurred at aquatic
plant nurseries, ornamental
ponds, or water gardens. In
some cases, aquatic invasive
plants have been intentional-
ly introduced in a mistaken
attempt to improve fish hab-
itat. They can spread via
boats, wind, aquatic birds,
and through the natural
movement of water.
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticil-
lata) is an invasive, sub-
merged aquatic weed that is
native to Asia. It reproduces
and spreads through a varie-
ty of methods including the
rooting of vegetative frag-
ments, tubers (formed at the
end of root masses), winter
buds, and seeds. Tubers can
remain viable for seven years
or longer. It is illegal to trans-
port, grow, or sell hydrilla in
North Carolina.
A
2 2
Invasive aquatic plants in
Orange County include hy-
drilla, parrot feather, creep-
ing water primrose, brittle
naiad, and alligator weed.
The presence of hydrilla in
the Eno River is the first doc-
umented occurrence of this
invasive plant in a free-flow-
ing river system within
North Carolina. The Eno is
considered one of the most
important rivers in the state,
with at least 16 special-status
aquatic plant and animal spe-
cies. Many of those species
are now threatened.
Hydrilla was first noted in
the Eno River State Park in
2005. Since then, it has
spread so dramatically that
park staff considers it the
main management problem
in the park. Hydrilla can im-
pair fish communities, out-
compete native aquatic vege-
tation, and impede swim-
ming, boating and fishing.
Hydrilla has also been linked
to Avian Vacuolar Myelino-
pathy, a syndrome that is fa-
tal for waterfowl, including
birds of prey such as bald ea-
gles that feed on AVM-affect-
ed waterfowl.
Hydrilla was detected in
the West Fork Eno Reservoir
in 2008 and even earlier in
Lake Orange along the East
Fork Eno River. Repeated
management efforts have
been undertaken to control
this plant. The Orange Ala-
mance Water System has
found both hydrilla and par-
rot feather in Corporation
Lake, and has also taken
steps to control the spread of
these plants. The Orange Wa-
ter and Sewer Authorityhas
detected alligator weed and
brittle naiad in Cane Creek
Reservoir, as well as creeping
water primrose in University
Lalke.
Rich Shaw is Orange County's
land conservation manager.
Project will take on
invasive river plant
Hydrilla, is a nua n I fla meeting ,
for boaters, swimmers The Eno River Hydrilla Ma'nage-
HYDRILLA
A
M
SUBMI TILL) PHU I U
Straffing- 919-829-4739;
Twitter: @Ntraffing
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 21, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
1
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Program Fee Recommendation - Solid Waste Advisory Group
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Memorandum from Town and
County Staff
2) Funding Option Detail Sheets
3) Solid Waste Funding Options
Spreadsheet
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bonnie Hammersley, 919-245-2300
Gayle Wilson, 919-968-2885
John Roberts, 919-245-2318
PURPOSE: To receive the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) recommendation on the
funding mechanism for solid waste/recycling programs and consider endorsing the fee, to then
be communicated to the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners created a Solid Waste Advisory Group
at its June 3, 2014 meeting. This multi jurisdictional Group held its first meeting on August 25,
2014 and has been meeting regularly from that time forward. Subsequently, one representative
each from UNC-CH and UNC-Healthcare were added to the Group.
The SWAG has been focusing on a new interlocal agreement for Solid Waste Management,
with most of the meetings addressing recycling/convenience center funding options that will
represent a major component of any subsequent interlocal agreement. Another area of
discussion has been how and when to establish a citizens advisory role to the solid waste
planning function. Additional focus has been on how to incorporate UNC-CH and UNC-
Healthcare into an agreement and exploring opportunities for cooperation. Staffs from the
towns and County have also conducted several meetings and communications throughout with
regard to SWAG funding options and processes.
The County Attorney has spoken to the SWAG and has indicated that the options under
consideration are consistent with state statutes. Each Town would be required to authorize the
County to impose the fee within the municipalities.
A preliminary progress report by the SWAG was made at the November 20, 2014 Assembly of
Governments meeting. At the SWAG's March 6, 2015 meeting, a consensus was reached to
forward two funding alternatives for discussion by each of the Town elected boards and the
K
Board of County Commissioners. The SWAG requested that each of the Town and County
governing boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared to discuss making a
final decision from among the two options at the March 26, 2015 Assembly of Governments
meeting. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Orange County Board of Commissioners
discussed the issue at their March 17, 2015 meetings. The Chapel Hill Town Council discussed
the issue at its March 18, 2015 meeting, and the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners is
scheduled to discuss the issue at its March 23, 2015 meeting.
The Towns and County conducted substantive discussion of the options at the March 26, 2015
Assembly of Governments meeting. It was agreed that the individual governing boards would
discuss the two options further among their boards and attempt to reach a consensus on one
option by the end of April 2015.
At the Solid Waste Advisory Group's April 1, 2015 meeting, the SWAG endorsed Option #2 —
Single County-wide Solid Waste Programs Fee. Each jurisdiction member agreed to deliver this
recommendation to their respective governing board for consideration within the month of April,
seeking endorsement of Option #2. If all four governing boards endorse Option #2, the Orange
County Manager will proceed to incorporate this revenue mechanism into the County's Fiscal
2015116 Budget Recommendation. The Towns of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners and
Chapel Hill Town Council approved Option #2 earlier this month. The Town of Carrboro Board
of Aldermen is scheduled to address the item at its April 21, 2015 meeting.
Approval of the fee will also allow County Tax Administration and Solid Waste Management
Departments to complete the various preparations necessary to meet the 2015 tax billing
schedule. Approval of the fee will also allow Solid Waste Management to proceed with planning
for the three year phased implementation of the rural curbside recycling program.
The attached memorandum and attachments provide additional detail regarding the two
proposed funding options.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of Option #2 — Single County-wide Solid Waste Programs Fee
will result in a fee rate being proposed in the Manager's proposed Fiscal 2015116 annual
budget. It is expected that the total annual revenue generated by this fee will exceed
$6,200,000. The fee will be assessed via the annual property tax bill to all improved properties
in Orange County, including those properties within the Town of Mebane located in Orange
County and those properties within the Town of Chapel Hill located in Durham County.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1 ) receive the Solid Waste Advisory Group funding recommendation - Solid Waste Programs
Fee (single county-wide annual fee);
2) endorse the fee recommendation and direct the County Manager to incorporate the fee into
the proposed Fiscal 2015116 Annual Budget; and
3) direct the County Manager to communicate the BOCC decision to the Carrboro, Chapel Hill
and Hillsborough Town Managers and request that the Towns prepare to incorporate
County authorization to assess the Solid Waste Programs Fee into their Fiscal 2015116
Budget Ordinances.
9
Attachment I
Memorandum
• • ` �* �
Chapel Hill Town Council
Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director
Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director
Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director
Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director
Subject: Solid Waste Advisory Group — Recycling Fee Recommendations
Date: March 6, 2015
The Board of County Commissioners created a Solid Waste Advisory Group at its June
3, 2014 meeting. The Group is comprised of two members each from the elected
boards of the Towns and County. Additionally, there are one representative each from
UNC-CH and UNC-Healthcare. This multi jurisdictional Group held its first meeting on
August 25, 2014 and has been meeting regularly from that time forward.
The SWAG has been focusing on a new interlocal agreement for recycling and solid
waste services currently provided by Orange County, with most of the meetings
addressing recycling/convenience center funding options. Another area of discussion
has been the future role of the SWAG. Additional focus has been on how to incorporate
UNC-CH and UNC-Healthcare into an agreement and exploring opportunities for
cooperation. Town's and county staffs have also conducted several meetings and
discussions with regard to SWAG funding options and processes.
The County Attorney has spoken to the SWAG and has indicated that the options under
consideration are consistent with state statutes. Each Town would be required to
authorize the county to impose the fee within the municipality.
A preliminary progress report by the SWAG was made at the November 20, 2014,
Assembly of Governments meeting. At the SWAG's March 6 meeting a consensus was
reached to forward two funding alternatives for discussion by each of the Town elected
boards and the Board of County Commissioners. The SWAG requested that each of
the Town and County boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared
to discuss making a final decision among the two options at a joint meeting of the
Towns and County scheduled for March 26.
Option 1.is a two part annual fee; One Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all
Municipal Units - $941year (based on FY 14115 budget revenue requirement), and One
E
Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all Rural units - $1181year (based on FY
14115 budget revenue requirement).
Option 1 would establish an urban fee and a rural fee that would be applied to each
developed property and multi-family units throughout the county, including tax exempt
properties, except for UNC-CH properties that are served by the University's separate
recycling program. Option 1 would incorporate an approximate 33% solid waste
convenience center costs into the Urban fee component and an approximate 66% solid
waste convenience center costs into the Rural fee component.
Option 2 is a Single Comprehensive Fee - $1031year (based on FY-14115 budget
revenue requirement) that would be applied equally to all developed properties and
multi-family units throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except for
UNC-CH properties that are served by the University's separate recycling program.
Option 2 would evenly distribute solid waste convenience center costs across all
sectors.
Further details of the two options are provided in the attachments.
It is important that a funding decision be made in a timely manner given that such
funding would have to be incorporated into the Fiscal 2015116 budget currently being
crafted, and in order for County Tax Administration and Solid Waste Management
Departments to complete the various preparations necessary to meet the 2015 tax
billing schedule. The SWAG, based on recommendations by staff, has indicated that a
final decision should be reached by the end of April to allow time for implementation into
the budget process and for the fee to be ready for billing on the 2015 property tax bills.
Town and County SWAG representatives requested that each elected board discuss
and fully consider each option prior to the March 26 joint meeting. Town and County
staffs are available to explain the fee options and to respond to questions.
Attachment 2 FUNDING OPTION 1
• Simplified fee structure
• Easy tD administer, manage, and explain
• Includes phased expansion Df rural curbside service,
increasing recycling and waste reduction rate
• Flexibility in providing services without being
constrained by rigid C8t8gDri8S
o Example: |f8 bUSin8SS is |DC8t8d on 8 residential
route (urban Dr rural) and generates r8CyC|8b|8Sin
quantities similar tD8 residence, it can b8assigned
tD8 residential route without concern that there iS
not 8n appropriate fee category.
10i
Key Factors
• Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three year period,
equalizing services by the fourth year.
o The rural fee will increase incrementally over phasing period.
• Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented over time
by improving service efficiencies and availability ofservices.
• Single family, multi-family and developed non-residential property owners in the rural sector pay $24
more than property owners in the urban sector.
Universal Elements for Both Options
• Undeveloped properties do not pay afee.
• All developed properties including tax-exempt properties pay afee.
• The fee structure is stable and predictable.
• Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily determined and
made available for elected boards toconsider.
• Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no fee for rural
or urban curbside service or multi-family service has been assessed for the past two years.
• Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015-16 Budget may lead to
suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post-closure reserves
account.
• Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low-income residents who are
unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 parcels were provided assistance
through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program.
• Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014-15 budget revenue requirements. For FY 2015-16, minor
fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015-16 budget revenue requirements.
• Most simplified fee structure
• Easiest option toadminister, manage, and explain
• Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service,
increasing recycling and waste reduction rate
• Flexibility in providing services without being
constrained by rigid categories ismaximized.
o Example: |f8 business is located on 8 residential
route (urban or rural) and generates recycl8blesin
quantities similar to8 residence, it can beassigned
to residential route without regard tochanging
categories or fee rates.
n.
Key Factors
• Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three year period,
equalizing services by the fourth year.
o The program fee will increase incrementally over phasing period.
• All developed properties pay the same amount, although eligibility for services may vary between
jurisdictions and sectors.
• Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented over time
by improving service efficiencies and availability ofservices.
• This option presents a new funding paradigm and new way of viewing solid waste program funding by
offering singular fee. This holistic approach to funding eliminates any division between rural and urban
boundaries, creating a truly integrated and comprehensive approach to program funding county-wide.
Universal Elements for Both Options
• Undeveloped properties do not pay afee.
• All developed properties including tax-exempt properties pay afee.
• The fee structure is stable and predictable.
• Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily determined and
made available for elected boards toconsider.
• Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no fee for rural
or urban curbside service or multi-family service has been assessed for the past two years.
• Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015-16 Budget may lead to
suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post-closure reserves
account.
• Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low-income residents who are
unable to pay for solid waste program fees. |n20l4, approximately 700 parcels were provided assistance
through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program.
• Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014-15 budget revenue requirements. For FY 2015-16, minor
fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015-16 budget revenue requirements.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -b
SUBJECT: Orange County Solar Development Initiatives Update
DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks &
Recreation
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Solar Development Model Illustration Brennan Bouma, 919 - 245 -2626
Jeff Thompson, 919 - 245 -2658
David Stancil, 919 - 245 -2522
PURPOSE: To:
1) receive an update and provide feedback on the County's discussions to further educate
and develop solar energy initiatives (rooftop photovoltaic, ground- mounted solar arrays,
solar power storage technology, etc.) within Orange County in alignment with the 2015
"Solarize" Campaigns organized by NextClimate (Orange County, Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
and Hillsborough);
2) endorse the development of a pilot solar photovoltaic system within County facilities,
beginning with the Rogers Road Community Center; and
3) include this proposed pilot within the 2015 Orange County "Solarize" campaigns.
BACKGROUND: Orange County is a leader in North Carolina (among both the public and
private sectors) in successfully developing and delivering alternative and more sustainable
energy for County facilities and assets. The success of the geothermal ground source heat
pump technology within the Hillsborough east campus of public facilities is a prime example.
The Board may recall that Asset Management Services has been studying the economics of
solar energy for several years and has reserved recommendation to the Board for solar
photovoltaic ( "PV") alternative energy investment until the economics of this technology made
sense as more reasonable material and development cost structures emerged. After an initial
County facility solar energy assessment and the market acceptance of new financing models,
staff recommends the Board endorse pilot phase of solar energy development within County
facilities. The attachment, "Solar Development Model Illustration ", provides a basic guide to a
solar development project using these market - accepted models.
Staff analysis has identified principles to help guide County solar infrastructure deployment.
Staff recommends that the development model be piloted with County facilities with new or
recently replaced roofing, adequate structural integrity to carry the panels, little or no shade, and
good exposure to the South where incoming solar energy is the strongest. Pilot projects should
be kept to a smaller scale for management, learning, and in order to be facilitated through Board
appropriated "Energy Bank" funds. Staff has employed the "PVWatts" calculator from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assist in modeling, sizing, and prioritizing solar
photovoltaic infrastructure investments ( http;// pvwatts.nrel._gov/pvwatts.php).
In parallel with this analysis, a team of interested residents and solar experts approached
Orange County about the feasibility of installing solar panels on the Rogers Road Community
Center for the benefit of the Rogers- Eubanks community. Brennan Bouma, Orange County
Sustainability Coordinator, has been working closely with this group to assess the feasibility and
benefits of this project as a potential pilot solar project for Orange County.
After specifically considering this location, staff recommends the Rogers Road Community
Center to benefit from being the County's first pilot solar photovoltaic supported facility.
Together with Rob Pinder, Executive Director of NextClimate, Brennan will present an update of
the solar initiative collaboration for the Board's comment and feedback.
Background on local "Solarize" campaigns (http: / /www.solarizenc.org /)
The intent of these "Solarize" campaigns is to lower the cost of rooftop photovoltaic systems
through pulling together interested households and commercial users into a group - purchasing
deal. NextClimate, a local 501c (3) non - profit organizes the four Solarize campaigns that are
active in Orange County (Orange County, Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro).
In 2014, NextClimate brought together two solar installation companies (Yes! Solar Solutions
and Southern Energy Management), and two financing organizations (Admiral's Bank and Self
Help Credit Union) with the mission to bring affordable solar power to the people of Orange
County, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. Their efforts resulted in new solar installations
on 90 homes and small businesses across Orange County in 2014.
In 2015, NextClimate is expanding its reach to create Solarize Research Triangle, bringing solar
investment and benefits to RTP workplaces.
NC WARN is also running a series of "Solarize" campaigns in the Triad, Western Wake,
Chatham, and Durham Counties, and there are other organizations running similar "Solarize"
programs in the city of Charlotte as well as the Sandhills and Western NC regions.
Next Steps
Should the Board agree with the Manager's recommendation, staff will move forward with the
solar pilot project as a part of the 2015 Orange County "Solarize" campaigns, pursue both solar
investors and development partners through the appropriate statutory procurement processes,
and provide ongoing progress reports to the Board. Staff projects that the initial pilot project will
be completed and operational no later than December of 2015, and that this could be the first of
many facility photovoltaic solar systems providing renewable energy in lieu of less sustainable
energy sources.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The development model contemplates an investor development partner
to contribute the entire installation cost for the system (see attachment, "Solar Development
Model Illustration ") after acquiring the leasehold /licensing property right to install on County
property. Once the initial investment has been recouped by the investor partner, the significant
utility savings provided by the system would be passed on to the County to be distributed
according to a Board - adopted operating budget.
At such time that the development tax credits and other financial incentives are exhausted by
the development partner(s), the County may choose to purchase the depreciated asset at its
negotiated fair market value with appropriated Energy Bank funds.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1) receive an update and provide feedback on the County's discussions to further educate
and develop solar energy initiatives (rooftop photovoltaic, ground- mounted solar arrays,
solar power storage technology, etc.) within Orange County in alignment with the 2015
"Solarize" Campaigns organized by NextClimate (Orange County, Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
and Hillsborough);
2) endorse the development of a pilot solar photovoltaic system within its County facilities,
beginning with the Rogers Road Community Center; and
3) include this proposed pilot within the 2015 Orange County "Solarize" campaigns.
Developir"ner"i't Mod Illustratilan
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 21, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -d
SUBJECT: Additional Discussion on Funding School and County Capital Needs with a
Potential November 2016 Bond Referendum
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Decision Points
2) February 17, 2015 Agenda Abstract and
Attachments
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bonnie Hammersley, 245 -2300
Greg Wilder, 245 -2300
PURPOSE: To further discuss potentially addressing County and School capital needs with a
November 2016 Bond Referendum and provide direction to staff on next steps.
BACKGROUND: In several meetings during the past year, the Board of Commissioners has
discussed the possible scheduling of a bond referendum to address County and School capital
needs. At the Board's January 30, 2015 Retreat, the Board directed staff to develop materials
for Board consideration regarding the Board formally expressing its intent to schedule a
November 2016 Bond Referendum, including a total bond amount of approximately $125
million. The Board also directed staff to move forward with development of a process for a
November 2016 Bond Referendum similar to the process utilized during the County's 2001
:s 0 =-I
At the Board's February 17, 2015 regular meeting, staff shared information from the 2001 Bond
Referendum. One of the first actions taken by the Board of Commissioners for the 2001 Bond
Referendum occurred in late 2000 /early 2001 with the establishment and appointment of
members to a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force was to
review County and School capital needs and provide advice to the Board concerning the
elements of a proposed November 2001 Orange County bond referendum.
In preparation for a November 2016 Bond Referendum, staff proposed that the Board consider
approving the creation of a 2015 Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. Items recommended to
the County for inclusion in a 2016 Bond Referendum would be referred to the Task Force for
review and prioritization along with other proposed recommendations.
Staff drafted 1) a possible plan for the size and membership of the 2015 Capital Needs Advisory
Task Force, and 2) a proposed charge to the proposed Task Force.
2
A suggested composition of the Task Force was:
• Two members nominated by the Orange County Schools Board of Education;
• Two members nominated by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of
Education;
• One member nominated by the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council;
• One member nominated by the Commission for the Environment;
• One member nominated by the Affordable Housing Advisory Board
• One non-elected member nominated by the Partnership to End Homelessness;
• One member nominated by the Advisory Board on Aging; and
• Six-Eight members appointed at-large by the Board of Commissioners.
In addition, staff suggested the Board of Commissioners 1) consider the appointment of one
elected official each from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, the Town of
Hillsborough, and (possibly) the City of Mebane and 2) select the Chair (or Co-Chairs) for the
Task Force.
As part of the Task Force's activities, the Board would direct that the Task Force focus on
specific criteria and utilize current policies and documents to guide its work. These parameters
for Task Force work were detailed in the proposed charge (attached). Staff suggested the
Board also add to, or otherwise modify the suggested elements of the charge.
The Board discussed the information from staff and ultimately determined to not take any action
pending the submission of priority older school renovation projects by Orange County Schools,
which is expected in May 2015.
The Chair and Vice Chair recently discussed this issue again with the Manager and suggested
staff bring this item forward at this time, without the OCS priority information, to allow for further
Board discussion and consideration.
Staff is proposing that the Board of Commissioners discuss the attached Decision Points and
determine the Board's interests in a potential November 2016 Bond Referendum, its
component(s), and the County's next steps.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact related to the Board determining
a direction regarding a potential November 2016 Bond Referendum, its component(s), and the
County's next steps. It should be noted that bonds approved by voters receive more favorable
interest rates if tax funds are dedicated to the payments.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board further discuss potentially
addressing County and School capital needs with a November 2016 Bond Referendum and
provide direction to staff on next steps.
ATTACHMENT 1
DECISION POINTS
How SHOULD ORANGE COUNTY FUND SCHOOL AND COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS?
POTENTIAL NOVEMBER 2016 BOND REFERENDUM ? ??
Does the Board want to schedule a bond referendum?
If there is a bond referendum, when should the bond referendum occur?
■ May 2016 or November 2016
If there is a bond referendum, should it address one need, or multiple needs?
If there is a bond referendum, what process will be followed? And does the number of
needs on the referendum affect the process?
Will there be a Bond Referendum Advisory Committee /Capital Needs Advisory Task
Force? Does this change if there is only one need addressed via the referendum?
If YES, what will be the:
• Composition
• Appointment process for Advisory Committee members
• Process for interest groups to request funds
• Process for Community Input
• Public outreach responsibilities
If NO, what will be the process the County pursues?
If there is a bond referendum, will there be a Bond Education Committee? Does this
change if there is only one need addressed via the referendum?
If YES, what will be the:
• Composition
• Appointment process for Education Committee members
• Public outreach responsibilities
If NO, what will be the process the County pursues?
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
12
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-e
SUBJECT: Potential Notice • Board's Intent to Schedule a November 2016 Bond
Referendum and Discussion on Proposed Creation of a Capital Needs
Advisory Task Force
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Proposed Task Force Charge Bonnie Hammersley, 245-2300
2) Draft General Task Force Schedule Greg Wilder, 245-2300
3) Draft Recruitment Notice for Potential
Task Force Appointees
PURPOSE: To:
1) Consider formally expressing the Board's intent to schedule a November 2016 Bond
Referendum to address County and School capital needs;
2) Discuss the proposed creation of, structure, and charge for a proposed 2015 Capital
Needs Advisory Task Force that would provide recommendations to the Board regarding
the elements to be included in the referendum and consider approval; and
3) Direct the County Manager to arrange for the services of a qualified facilitator for the
Task Force.
BACKGROUND: In several meetings during the past year, the Board of Commissioners has
discussed the possible scheduling of a bond referendum to address County and School capital
needs. At the Board's January 30, 2015 Retreat, the Board directed staff to develop materials
for Board consideration regarding the Board formally expressing its intent to schedule a
November 2016 Bond Referendum, including a total bond amount of approximately $125
million. The Board also directed staff to move forward with development of a process for a
November 2016 Bond Referendum similar to the process utilized during the County's 2001
Bond Referendum.
One of the first actions taken by the Board of Commissioners for the 2001 Bond Referendum
occurred in late 2000/early 2001 with the establishment and appointment of members to a
Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force was to review County and
School capital needs and provide advice to the Board concerning the elements of a proposed
November 2001 Orange County bond referendum.
In preparation for a November 2016 Bond Referendum, staff proposes that the Board discuss
and consider approving the creation • a 2015 Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. Items
5
recommended to the County for inclusion in a 2016 Bond Referendum would be referred to the
Task Force for review and prioritization along with other proposed recommendations.
StafV has drafted possible plan for and membership of i 15 Capital Needs
Advisory Task Force, and 2) a proposed charge to the proposed Task Force.
A suggested composition of the Task Force is:
• Two members nominated by the Orange County Schools Board of Education;
• Two members nominated by the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board of
Education;
• One member nominated by the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council;
• One member nominated by the Commission for the Environment;
• One member nominated by the Affordable Housing Advisory Board
• One non - elected member nominated by the Partnership to End Homelessness;
• One member nominated by the Advisory Board on Aging; and
• Six -Eight members appointed at -large by the Board of Commissioners.
In addition, the Board of Commissioners may want to consider the appointment of one elected
official each from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Hillsborough, and
(possibly) the City of Mebane.
The Board of Commissioners will select the Chair (or Co- Chairs) for the Task Force.
As part of the Task Force's activities, the Board would direct that the Task Force focus on
specific criteria and utilize current policies and documents to guide its work. These parameters
for Task Force work are detailed in the proposed charge, which is attached. The Board may
wish to add to, or otherwise modify the suggested elements of the charge.
Upon approval of the charge and appointment of the Task Force members, the charge would be
delivered to the members so that they can begin reviewing the necessary information, applying
the criteria, and formulating proposed recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. The
Task Force would consider all recommendations and submit a prioritized list to the Board of
Commissioners for consideration for bond issue.
Staff proposes that the Board of Commissioners discuss and consider approval of the proposed
composition and charge for the Task Force. The Board could also provide feedback to staff and
staff could subsequently present updated materials for Board approval at the March 3, 2015
regular meeting. Upon approval, the Clerk to the Board would 1) move forward with contacting
the groups represented on the Task Force to solicit nominations; and 2) begin advertising for
potential appointees to serve in the at large and any other positions established by the Board.
All potential nominees /appointees from groups, at large or otherwise would be required to
submit an application to the Clerk's Office to be eligible for appointment, with the application
period being open for approximately 30 days.
Base on the timeframe outlined above, the Board could likely appoint Task Force members at its
April 7 and/or April 21, 2015 Board meetings. This would permit the Task Force to hold its initial
meeting in May and continue meeting in May, June and through the summer break. Staff's
initial proposal is that the Task Force be directed to complete its work and provide its
9
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners by October 6, 2015, if not before. The Board
of Commissioners would then consider establishing potential bond categories and amounts and
consider the County Finance and Administrative Service Department's initial estimate of the
potential tax rate impacts from the debt service of approximately $125 million for the total bond
package.
Although not pursued in 2001, the Board of County Commissioners may also want to consider
creating sub-Committees of the Task Force to review specific areas associated with a bond
issue. The sub-Committees could be classified into the areas such as Schools, Public
Buildings, and Parks and Open Space Facilities. The sub-Committees could be limited to
twelve (12) each plus staff.
As was the case in 2001, the Board may also wish to consider retaining the services of an
external facilitator to assist the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. The Task Force could
receive assistance from the Dispute Settlement Center, the UNC School of Government or other
resources that may be worthwhile again for the 2016 process.
Two related documents are attached for informational purposes only. They are: 1) a general
schedule for the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force; 2) a copy of the draft recruitment notice for
potential Capital Needs Advisory Task Force appointees.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact related to this item. Costs for
administrative, logistical, and facilitator support for the Task Force would likely not exceed
$20,000 and could be substantially less depending on the size and structure of the Task Force
and the number of meetings required.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1 ) Express its intent to schedule a November 2016 Bond Referendum to address County
and School capital needs;
2) Discuss the proposed creation of, structure, and charge for a proposed Capital Needs
Advisory Task Force that would provide recommendations to the Board regarding the
elements to be included in the referendum and consider approval; and
3) Direct the County Manager to arrange for the services of a qualified facilitator for the
Task Force.
7
DRAFT
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY NOVEMBER 2016 BOND REFERENDUM
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHARGE TO
THE CAPITAL NEEDS ADVISORY TASK FORCE
The Orange County Board of Commissioners has initially indicated its
intention to appoint a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force to review
school and County capital needs and provide advice to the Board
concerning the composition of a proposed November 2016 Orange
County bond referendum. Items recommended to the County for
inclusion in this possible bond issue will be referred to the Task Force
for review and prioritization along with other proposed
recommendations. As part of the Task Force's appointment and its
efforts, the Board directs that the Task Force focus on specific criteria
and utilize current policies and documents to guide its work. These
parameters for Task Force work are detailed in the charge below.
Upon approval of the charge, it will be delivered to the Task Force so
that the members can begin reviewing the necessary information,
applying the criteria, and formulating proposed recommendations to
the Board of Commissioners. The Task Force will consider all
recommendations and submit a prioritized list to the Board of
Commissioners for consideration for bond issue. In its deliberations,
the Board of Commissioners will consider the County's Finance and
Administrative Services Department's initial estimate of the potential
tax rate impacts from the debt service of approximately $125 million
for the total bond package.
The Capital Needs Advisory Task Force will be charged with the
following:
• Review the capital needs for new and older schools as identified
by the Orange County and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
• Review the capital needs identified by County departments in
requests submitted for the 2015 -2020 Capital Investment Plan
• Familiarize itself with long range school capital funding policies as
adopted by the Board of Commissioners
• Familiarize itself with the Lands Legacy Program and future
recommendations and plans
• Confirm the need for, and timing of, new school construction
projects, considering current and projected student populations
• Provide recommendations on the possible elements of a
November 2016 bond referendum with the items listed in order of
importance from most important to less important
• Provide recommended sizes and estimated costs for each bond
referendum element recommended by the Task Force as well as
any portion of the costs shared by the proposing /recommending
entities
• Ensure that each recommended element complies with the
appropriate adopted policies of Orange County for Joint Capital
Facilities Development, the Orange County Debt Management
Policy, and the Orange County Capital Funding Policy as well as
all other relevant adopted policies of the County
• Ensure that all elements are accessible to and serve residents
throughout Orange County
• Complete its work by October 2015
The Board of Commissioners will consider creation of the Capital
Needs Advisory Task Force in February /March 2015. The Board will
consider appointment of Task Force members at regular Board
meetings in April and possibly May 2015. This will permit the Task
Force to hold its initial meeting in May and provide adequate time for
the meetings that may be necessary for the Task Force to complete
its work by October 2015.
A suggested composition of the Task Force is: two members
nominated by the Orange County Schools Board of Education; two
members nominated by the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board
0
of Education; one member nominated by the Orange County Parks &
Recreation Advisory Council; one member nominated by the
Commission for the Environment; one member nominated by the
Advisory Board on Aging; one non - elected member nominated by the
Partnership to End Homelessness; one member nominated by
Affordable Housing Advisory Board; and 6 -8 members appointed at-
large by the Board of Commissioners.
In addition, the Board of Commissioners may consider the
appointment of one elected official each from the Town of Chapel Hill,
the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Hillsborough, and (possibly) the
City of Mebane.
The Board of Commissioners will select the Chair (or Co- Chairs) for
the Task Force.
The Board of County Commissioners may also create sub -
Committees of the Task Force to review specific areas associated
with a bond issue. The sub - Committees proposed are: Schools,
Public Buildings, and Parks and Open Space Facilities. The sub -
Committees will be limited to twelve (12) each plus staff.
All potential nominees /appointees from groups, at large or otherwise
would be required to submit an application to the Clerk's Office to be
eligible for appointment.
0
DRAFT Attachment 2
ORANGE COUNTY NOVEMBER 2016 BOND REFERENDUM
Schedule for Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
a)
BOCC Advertises for Task Force Volunteers
March 2015
b)
BOCC reviews applications, appoints volunteers to Task Force,
April to Early May 2015
and designates Chair/Co-Chairs for the Task Force
c)
Organizational Meeting of Task Force
Mid to late May 2015
d)
Task Force & Subcommittee Meetings
May-September 2015
e)
Task Force Recommendations to BOCC
First Board of Commissioners
Regular Meeting in October
2015 (October 6, 2015) or
Before
f)
BOCC Discussion of Task Force Recommendations
October and November 2015
11
DRAFT
Attachment 3
VOLUNTEERSNEEDED
CAPITAL NEEDS ADVISORY TASK FORCE
PROPOSED NOVEMBER 2016 BOND REFERENDUM
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IS
RECRUITING RESIDENTS TO SERVE ON A TASK FORCE
WHICH WILL BE CHARGED WITH, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
• Review the capital needs for new and older schools as identified by the Orange
County and Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools
• Review the capital needs identified by County departments in requests
submitted for the 2015 -2020 Capital Investment Plan
• Familiarize itself with long -range school capital funding policies as adopted by
the Board of Commissioners
• Familiarize itself with the Lands Legacy Program and future recommendations
and plans
• The Task Force will be divided into subcommittees to address specific areas
associated with the bond issue
• Confirm the need for, and timing of, new school construction projects,
considering current and projected student populations
• Provide recommendations on the possible elements of a November 2016 bond
referendum with the items listed in order of importance from most important to
less important
• Provide recommended sizes and estimated costs for each bond referendum
element recommended by the Task Force as well as any portion of the costs
shared by the proposing /recommending entities
• Ensure that each recommended element complies with the appropriate adopted
policies of Orange County for Joint Capital Facilities Development, the Orange
County Debt Management Policy, and the Orange County Capital Funding
Policy as well as all other relevant adopted policies of the County
• Ensure that all elements are accessible to and serve residents throughout Orange
County
• Complete this work by October 2015
The Board of Commissioners will consider creation of the Capital Needs Advisory
Task Force in February /March 2015. The Board will consider appointment of
Task Force members at regular Board meetings in April and possibly May 2015.
12
Therefore, please submit applications for the Task Force by 12:00 noon, March 27,
2015.
The Task Force will hold its initial meeting in May and provide adequate time for
the meetings that may be necessary for the Task Force to complete its work by
October 2015.
You may complete or download an application online at the Orange County web
site at www .oratteconttc. Gov. You can also contact the office of the Clerk to
the Board at (919) 245 -2125 or 245 -2130 or by email
ffreeman(d),oratigecout t u c guru for more information or to request an application.
E HAPEL HILL-
ORO
a%i�P1m��,I 1 lf�- `v° S C� H 0 0 L.
April 22, 2015
For Immediate Release
Jeff Nash
Office of Community Relations
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
inashchccs.kl2.nc.us
919 - 412 -7947
U.S. Secretary of Education Names CHCCS
a 2015 Green Ribbon School District
Chapel Hill, NC — Managing Director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Christy Goldfuss
joined U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to announce that Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools is
among the 2015 U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools District Sustainability Awardees.
CHCCS was nominated by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. The entire application can
be found here. The district was selected due in large part to its waste reduction, energy conservation and
sustainability education integration.
"We are very pleased to be awarded the Green Ribbon as a school district," said Superintendent Tom
Forcella. "It is the direct result of much creativity, collaboration and hard work of many people — all under
the leadership of Dan Schnitzer, our Sustainability Coordinator."
In total, across the country, 58 schools and 14 districts were honored for their exemplary efforts to reduce
environmental impact and utility costs, promote better health, and ensure effective environmental
education, including civics and green career pathways. In addition, nine colleges and universities were
honored for the Postsecondary Sustainability Award. One other North Carolina school district, Cherokee
County Schools, was selected as a Green Ribbon school district. Duncan and Goldfuss made the
announcement at the U.S. Department of Education, in Washington, DC.
"These honorees are compelling examples of the ways schools can help children build real -world skillsets,
cut school costs, and provide healthy learning environments," Duncan said. "U.S. Department of Education
Green Ribbon Schools are an inspiration and deserve the spotlight for embodying strong examples of
innovative learning and civic engagement. We also are thrilled to add institutions of higher education to the
list of honorees this year for the first time in the award's history."
Regarding the local efforts of Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools, Sustainability Coordinator Dan Schnitzer
commented that while the school district has seen a significant reduction in energy costs, from day one it
has been about much more than saving money. "Our goal is to help students create a sustainable paradigm
that includes healthy habits and lifelong sustainability skills that benefit their health, their community and
the environment."
The schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions were confirmed from a pool of candidates voluntarily
nominated by 30 state education agencies, with honorees selected from 28 jurisdictions. Forty -seven
percent of the 2015 honorees serve a disadvantaged student body, 22 percent are rural, and one -third of
the postsecondary institutions are community colleges.
For more information about sustainability efforts in Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools, please contact Dan
Schnitzer at dschnitzer@chccs.kl2.nc.us or by phone at 919 - 967 -8211 (ext. 28322).
444
Chapel Bill- Carrboro City Schools Community Relations
Jeff Nash, Executive Director of Community Relations I jnash)chccs.M nc.us 1 919- 967 -8211 x2$227 I http /Aviviv.chccs.kl2.nc.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2015
H 1
HOUSE BILL 760
Short Title: Regulatory Reform Act of 2015. (Public)
Sponsors: Representatives Millis, J. Bell, and Riddell (Primary Sponsors).
For a complete list of Sponsors, refer to the North Carolina General Assembly Web Site.
Referred to: Environment, if favorable, Regulatory Reform.
April 15, 2015
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER REGULATORY RELIEF TO THE CITIZENS OF
NORTH CAROLINA BY PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS, BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN UNNECESSARY OR OUTDATED
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND MODERNIZING OR SIMPLIFYING
CUMBERSOME OR OUTDATED REGULATIONS, AND BY MAKING VARIOUS
OTHER STATUTORY CHANGES.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART L BUSINESS REGULATION
MANUFACTURED HOME LICENSE /CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK
SECTION 1.1. G. S. 143- 143.10A(b) reads as rewritten:
"§ 143- 143.10A. Criminal history checks of applicants for licensure.
(a) Definitions. — The following definitions shall apply in this section:
(1) Applicant. — A person applying for initial licensure as a manufactured home
,salesperson or set -up contractor.
(b) All applicants for initial licensure shall consent to a criminal history record check.
Refusal to consent to a criminal history record check may constitute grounds for the Board to
deny licensure to an applicant. The Board shall ensure that the State and national criminal
history of an applicant is checked. Applicants shall obtain criminal record reports from one or
more reporting services designated by the Board to provide criminal record reports. Each
applicant is required to pay the designated service for the cost of the criminal record report. In
the alternative, the Board may provide to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety the
fingerprints of the applicant to be checked, a form signed by the applicant consenting to the
criminal record check and the use of fingerprints and other identifying information required by
the State or National Repositories of Criminal Histories, and any additional information
required by the Department of Public Safety. The Board shall keep all information obtained
pursuant to this section confidential.
AMEND FOOD PUSHCART REQUIREMENT
SECTION 1.2. G.S. 130A- 248(cl) reads as rewritten:
"(cl) The Commission shall adopt rules governing the sanitation of pushcarts and mobile
food units. Ape tt€ Festattf,,nt v seimirr__Etty' shall sen,e as a base of opefartions of a
11111111111111111111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
A pushcart or mobile food unit shall meet all of the sanitation requirements of a
permitted commissary or shall have a permitted restaurant or commissary that serves as its base
of operation."
PART II. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION
ZONING DENSITY CREDITS
SECTION 2.1. G.S. 160A- 381(a) reads as rewritten:
"(a) For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the
community, any city may adopt zoning and development regulation ordinances. These
ordinances may be adopted as part of a unified development ordinance or as a separate
ordinance. A zoning ordinance may regulate and restrict the height, number of stories and size
of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards,
courts and other open spaces, the density of population, the location and use of buildings,
structures and land. The ordinance ffffitshall provide density credits or severable development
rights for dedicated rights -of -way pursuant to G.S. 136 -66.10 or G.S. 136 - 66.11."
NO FISCAL NOTE REQUIRED FOR LESS STRINGENT RULES
SECTION 2.2.(a) G.S. 150B- 21.3A(d) reads as rewritten:
"(d) Timetable. — The Commission shall establish a schedule for the review and
readoption of existing rules in accordance with this section on a decennial basis as follows:
(2) With regard to the readoption of rules as required by sub - subdivision (c)(2)g.
of this section, once the final determination report becomes effective, the
Commission shall establish a date by which the agency must readopt the
rules. The Commission shall consult with the agency and shall consider the
agency's rule- making priorities in establishing the readoption date. The
agency may amend a rule as part of the readoption process. If a rule is
readopted without substantive change or if the rule is amended to
impose a less stringent burden on regulated persons, the agency is not
required to prepare a fiscal note as provided by G.S. 15013- 21.4."
SECTION 2.2.(b) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to
periodic review of existing rules occurring pursuant to G.S. 15013-21.3A on or after that date.
APO TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARD
CHANGES
SECTION 2.3. Pursuant to G.S. 120-70.101(3a), the Joint Legislative
Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee (APO) shall review the recommendations
contained in the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee's report, entitled
"Occupational Licensing Agencies Should Not be Centralized, but Stronger Oversight is
Needed" to determine the best way to accomplish the recommendations contained in the report
and to improve oversight of occupational licensing boards. In conducting the review, APO shall
consult with occupational licensing boards, licensees, associations representing licensees, the
Department of Commerce, and other interested parties. The APO cochairs may establish
subcommittees to assist with various parts of the review, including determining whether
licensing authority should be continued for the 12 boards identified in the report. The APO
shall propose legislation to the 2016 Session of the 2015 General Assembly.
PART III. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE REGULATION
AMEND ISOLATED WETLANDS LAW
SECTION 31.(a) For the purposes of implementing Section .1300 of Subchapter
2H of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (Discharges to
Page 2 H760 [Edition 1 ]
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
1 Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters), the isolated wetlands provisions of Section .1300 shall
2 apply only to a Basin Wetland or Bog and no other wetland types as described in the North
3 Carolina Wetland Assessment User Manual prepared by the North Carolina Wetland
4 Functional Assessment Team, version 4.1 October, 2010, that are not jurisdictional wetlands
5 under the federal Clean Water Act. The isolated wetlands provisions of Section .1300 shall not
6 apply to an isolated man -made ditch or pond constructed for stormwater management purposes,
7 any other man -made isolated pond, or any other type of isolated wetland, and the Department
8 of Environment and Natural Resources shall not regulate such water bodies under Section
9 .1300.
10 SECTION 3.1.(b) The Environmental Management Commission may adopt rules
11 to amend Section .1300 of Subchapter 2H of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina
12 Administrative Code consistent with Section 3.1(a).
13 SECTION 3.1.(c) Section 54 of S.L. 2014 -120 reads as rewritten:
14 "SECTION 54.(a) Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the
15 Environmental Management Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 54(c) of this
16 act, the Commission and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall
17 implement 15A NCAC 02H .1305 (Review of Applications) as provided in Section 54(b) of
18 this act.
19 "SECTION 54.(b) Notwithstanding 15A NCAC 02H.1305 (Review of Applications), all
20 of the following shall apply to the implementation of 15A NCAC 02H.1305:
21 (1) The amount of impacts of isolated wetlands under 15A NCAC 02H
22 .1305(4)(2) shall be less than or equal to one acre of isolated wetlands east
23 of I -95 for the entire project and less than or equal to 1/3 acre of isolated
24 wetlands west of I -95 for the entire project.
25 (2) Mitigation requirements for impacts to isolated wetlands shall only aply to
26 the amount of impact that exceeds the thresholds set out in subdivision (1) of
27 this section. The mitigation ratio for impacts of great— than ene
28 Etefeexceeding the thresholds for the entire project under 15A NCAC 02H
29 .1305(g)(6) shall be 1:1 and may be located on the same parcel.
30 (--3-) "
31 Basin Alert•,r -et: Bog as deset4bed in the Ar,,,-tt, Ca ;,,., Aletia
32
33 Faactiel Assessment Team, zors 01 -4�n ot e2010, that e t
�oz
34
35 We ANd" d6cS HE)ti-zifielttde —an isolated man made ite upend eenstmeted
36
37 (4) Impacts to isolated wetlands shall not be combined with the project impacts
38 to 404 jurisdictional wetlands or streams for the purpose of determining
39 when impact thresholds that trigger a mitigation requirement are met.
40 "SECTION 54.(c) The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt rules to
41 amend 15A NCAC 02H.1300 through 15A NCAC 02H.1305 consistent with Section 54(b) of
42 this act. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B- 19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this
43 subsection shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 54(b) of this act. Rules
44 adopted pursuant to this subsection are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of
45 the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall become effective as
46 provided in G.S. 150B- 21.3(bl) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as
47 provided by G.S. 150B- 21.3(b2).
48 "SECTION 54.(d) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall study (i)
49 how the term "isolated wetland" has been previously defined in State law and whether the term
50 should be clarified in order to provide greater certainty in identifying isolated wetlands; (ii) the
51 surface area thresholds for the regulation of mountain bog isolated wetlands, including whether
H760 [Edition 1 ] Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
mountain bog isolated wetlands should have surface area regulatory thresholds different from
other types of isolated wetlands; and (iii) whether impacts to isolated wetlands should be
combined with the project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or streams for the purpose of
determining when impact thresholds that trigger a mitigation requirement are met. The
Department shall report its findings and recommendations to the Environmental Review
Commission on or before November 1, 2014.
"SECTION 54.(e) This section is effective when it becomes law. Section 54(b) of this act
expires on the date that rules adopted pursuant to Section 54(c) of this act become effective."
AMEND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LAW
SECTION 3.2.(a) Section 3 of S.L. 2013 -82 reads as rewritten:
"SECTION 3. The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt rules
implementing Section 2 of this act no later than Rtly 1, 2016- November 1, 2016."
SECTION 3.2.(b) G.S. 143 -214.7 reads as rewritten:
"§ 143 - 214.7. Stormwater runoff rules and programs.
(b2) For purposes of implementing ,State stormwater programs and
local stormwater programs approved pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, all of the
following shall apply:
"btlilt ttpefl "Built -upon area" means impervious surface and partially
impervious surface to the extent that the partially impervious surface does
not allow water to infiltrate through the surface and into the subsoil.
"Built -upon area" does not include a slatted deck or the water area of a
swimming pool.
Vegetative buffers adjacent to intermittent streams shall be measured from
the center of the stream bed.
The volume, velocity, and discharge rates of water associated with the
one -year, 24 -hour storm and the difference in stormwater runoff from the
predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions for the one -year, 24 -hour
storm shall be calculated using any acceptable engineering hydrologic and
hydraulic methods.
Development may occur within a vegetative buffer if the stormwater runoff
from the development is discharged outside of the vegetative buffer and is
managed so that it otherwise complies with all applicable State and federal
stormwater management requirements.
The requirements that apply to development activities within one -half mile
of and draining to Class SA waters or within one -half mile of Class SA
waters and draining to unnamed freshwater tributaries shall not apply to
development activities and associated stormwater discharges that do not
occur within one -half mile of and draining to Class SA waters or are not
within one -half mile of Class SA waters and draining to unnamed freshwater
trihntariec "
(d) The Commission shall review each stormwater management program submitted by
a State agency or unit of local government and shall notify the State agency or unit of local
government that submitted the program that the program has been approved, approved with
modifications, or disapproved. The Commission shall approve a program only if it finds that
the standards of the program equal those of the model program adopted by the
Commission pursuant to this section.
Page 4 H760 [Edition 1 ]
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
1 SECTION 3.2.(c) No later than January 1, 2016, a State agency or local
2 government that implements a stormwater management program approved pursuant to
3 subsection (d) of G.S. 143 -214.7 shall submit its current stormwater management program or a
4 revised stormwater management program to the Environmental Management Commission. No
5 later than July 1, 2016, the Environmental Management Commission shall review and act on
6 each of the submitted stormwater management programs in accordance with subsection (d) of
7 G.S. 143- 214.7, as amended by this section.
8 SECTION 3.2.(d) The Environmental Review Commission, with the assistance of
9 the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, shall review the current status of State
10 statutes, session laws, rules, and guidance documents related to the management of stormwater
11 in the State. The Commission shall specifically examine whether State statutes, session laws,
12 rules, and guidance documents related to the management of stormwater in the State should be
13 recodified or reorganized in order to clarify State law for the management of stormwater. The
14 Commission shall submit legislative recommendations, if any, to the 2016 Regular Session of
15 the 2015 General Assembly.
16
17 RIPARIAN BUFFER REFORM
18 SECTION 3.3.(a) G.S. 143- 214.23 reads as rewritten:
19 "§ 143 - 214.23. Riparian Buffer Protection Program: Delegation of riparian buffer
20 protection requirements to local governments.
21 (a) Delegation Permitted. — The Commission may delegate responsibility for the
22 implementation and enforcement of the State's riparian buffer protection requirements to units
23 of local government that have the power to regulate land use. A delegation under this section
24 shall not affect the jurisdiction of the Commission over State agencies and units of local
25 government. Any unit of local government that has the power to regulate land use may request
26 that responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the State's riparian buffer
27 protection requirements be delegated to the unit of local government. To this end, units of local
28 government may adopt ordinances and regulations necessary to establish and enforce the State's
29 riparian buffer protection requirements.
30 (b) Procedures. — Within 90 days after the Commission receives a complete application
31 requesting delegation of responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the State's
32 riparian buffer protection requirement, the Commission shall review the application and notify
33 the unit of local government that submitted the application whether the application has been
34 approved, approved with modifications, or disapproved. The Commission shall not approve a
35 delegation unless the Commission finds that local implementation and enforcement of the
36 State's riparian buffer protection requirements will equal implementation and enforcement by
37 the State.
38 (b 1) Deviations from Minimum State Requirements. — The Commission may approve a
39 delegation application proposing a riparian buffer width that deviates from that required by the
40 State for the type of surface body of water and the river basin or basins in which the unit of
41 local government is located only in accordance with the procedures of this section:
42 Units of local government may request deviations in riparian buffer widths
43 from the Commission when submitting an application under subsection (b)
44 of this section. Deviations in buffer width enforced by units of local
45 government under an existing local ordinance may not be enforced after
46 February 1, 2016, unless the unit of local government has either received
47 approval for a deviation under the procedures set forth in this subsection or
48 has an application for deviation pending with the Commission. Under no
49 circumstances shall any existing local ordinance be enforced after June 1,
50 2016, unless the Commission has approved the deviation. For purposes of
51 this subdivision, an "existing local ordinance" is a local ordinance approved
H760 [Edition 1 ] Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
prior to August 1, 2015, that includes a deviation in riparian buffer width
from that required by the State.
The Commission may consider a request for a deviation in riparian buffer
width only if the request is accompanied by a scientific study prepared by or
on behalf of the unit of local government that provides a justification for the
deviation based on the topography, soils, hydrology, and environmental
impacts within the jurisdiction of the unit of local government. The
Commission may also require that the study include any other information it
finds necessary to evaluate the request for deviation.
The Commission shall grant the request for deviation only if it finds that the
need for a deviation in riparian buffer width is established by the scientific
evidence presented by the unit of local government requesting the deviation
in order to meet the nutrient reduction goal set by the Commission for the
basin subject to the riparian buffer rule.
(c) Local Program Deficiencies. — If the Commission determines that a unit of local
government is failing to implement or enforce the State's riparian buffer protection
requirements, the Commission shall notify the unit of local government in writing and shall
specify the deficiencies in implementation and enforcement. If the local government has not
corrected the deficiencies within 90 days after the unit of local government receives the
notification, the Commission shall rescind delegation and shall implement and enforce the
State's riparian buffer protection program. If the unit of local government indicates that it is
willing and able to resume implementation and enforcement of the State's riparian buffer
protection requirements, the unit of local government may reapply for delegation under this
section.
(d) Technical Assistance. — The Department shall provide technical assistance to units
of local government in the development, implementation, and enforcement of the State's
riparian buffer protection requirements.
(e) Training. — The Department shall provide a stream identification training program to
train individuals to determine the existence of surface water for purposes of rules adopted by
the Commission for the protection and maintenance of riparian buffers. The Department may
charge a fee to cover the full cost of the training program. No fee shall be charged to an
employee of the State who attends the training program in connection with the employee's
official duties.
(el) Restriction on Treatment of Buffer by State and Local Governments. — Units of
local government shall not treat the land within a riparian buffer as if the land is the property of
the State or any of its subdivisions unless the land or an interest therein has been acquired by
the State or its subdivisions by a conveyance or by eminent domain. Land within a riparian
buffer in which neither the State nor its subdivisions holds any property interest may be used to
satisfy any other development- related regulatory requirements based on property size.
e2 Recordation of Common Area Buffers. — When riparian buffers are included within
a lot, units of local governments shall require that the buffer area be denominated on the
recorded plat. When riparian buffers are (i) placed outside of lots in portions of a subdivision
that are designated as common areas or open space, and (ii) neither the State nor its
subdivisions holds any property interest in that riparian buffer area, the unit of local
government shall attribute to each lot abutting the riparian buffer area a proportionate share
based on the area of all lots abutting the riparian buffer area for purposes of
development- related regulatory requirements based on property size.
Le3j Limitation on Local Government Riparian Area Restrictions. — Units of local
government may impose restrictions upon the use of riparian areas as defined in 15A NCAC
02B .0202 only within river basins where riparian buffers are required by the State. Units of
local government may impose restrictions upon riparian areas to satisfy State riparian buffer
Page 6 H760 [Edition 1 ]
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
1 requirements by means of. a zoning district, subdivision or development regulation,
2 comprehensive plan, policy, resolution, or any other act carrying the effect of law. The width of
3 the restricted area and the body of water to which the restrictions apply shall not deviate from
4 State requirements unless the deviation has been approved under subsection (b1) of this section.
5 For purposes of this subsection, the terms "riparian areas" and "riparian buffer areas" shall have
6 the same meaning.
7 e4 Exception. — Neither the restrictions in subsection (e3) of this section nor the
8 riparian buffer deviation approval procedures of subsection (bl) of this section shall apply to
9 any local ordinance initially adopted prior to July 22, 1997, and any subsequent modifications
10 that have the followiniz characteristics:
11 (1) The ordinance includes findings that the setbacks from surface water bodies
12 are imposed for purposes that include the protection of aesthetics, fish and
13 wildlife habitat and recreational use by maintaining water temperature,
14 healthy tree canopy and understory, and the protection of the natural
15 shoreline through minimization of erosion and potential chemical pollution
16 in addition to the protection of water quality and the prevention of excess
17 nutrient runoff.
18 The ordinance includes provisions to permit under certain circumstances (i)
19 small or temporary structures within 50 feet of the water body and (ii) docks
20 and piers within and along the he edge of the water bodes
21 e5 Definition. — For purposes of this section, "development- related regulatory
22 requirements based on property size" means requirements that forbid or require particular uses,
23 activities, or practices for some percentage of the area of a lot or for lots above or below a
24 particular size, including, but not limited to, perimeter buffers, maximum residential density,
25 tree conservation ordinances, minimum lot size requirements, or nonresidential floor area ratio
26 requirements.
27 (f) Rules. — The Commission may adopt rules to implement this section."
28 SECTION 3.3.(b) Part 1 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is
29 amended by adding two new sections to read:
30 143 - 214.18. Exemption to riparian buffer requirements for certain private properties.
31 (a) Definition. — For purposes of this section, "aplicable buffer rule" refers to any of
32 the following rules that are applicable to a tract of land:
33 (1) Neuse River Basin. — 15A NCAC 02B .0233, effective August 1, 2000.
34 Tar - Pamlico River Basin. — 15A NCAC 02B .0259, effective August 1,
35 2000.
36 Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed. — 15A NCAC 02B .0250,
37 effective June 1, 2010.
38 Catawba River Basin. — 15A NCAC 02B .0243, effective August 1, 2004.
39 (55,) Jordan Water Suply Nutrient Strategy. — 15A NCAC 02B .0268, effective
40 September 1, 2011.
41 (66,) Goose Creek Watershed of the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. — 15A NCAC
42 02B .0605 and 02B .0607. effective February 1. 2009.
43 (b) Exemption. — Absent a requirement of federal law or an imminent threat to public
44 health or safety, an applicable buffer rule shall not apply to any tract of land that meets all of
45 the following criteria:
46 With the exception set forth in subsection (c) of this section, the tract was
47 platted and recorded in the register of deeds in the county where the tract is
48 located prior to the effective date of the applicable buffer rule.
49 (2) Other than the aplicable buffer rule, the use of the tract complies with either
50 of the following:
H760 [Edition 1 ] Page 7
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
1 a. The rules and other laws regulating _ _ and nd applicable to that tract on the
2 effective date for the aplicable buffer rule set out in subsection (a)
3 of this section.
4 b. The current rules, if the application of those rules to the tract was
5 initiated after the effective date for the aplicable buffer rule by the
6 unit of local government with jurisdiction over the tract and not at the
7 request of the property owner.
8 (c) If a tract of land described in subsection (b) of this section is converted to a use that
9 does not comply with subdivision (b)(2) of this section, then the aplicable buffer rule shall
10 apply.
11 (d) The tract of land shall retain an exemption under subsection (b) of this section if
12 either of the following applies:
13 (1) The tract has been replatted and rerecorded after the effective date for the
14 applicable buffer rule as a result of an eminent domain action and the tract
15 continues to comply with subdivision (b)(2) of this section.
16 The tract is a recombination exempt from the definition of subdivision under
17 G.S. 160A -376 or G.S. 153A -33 and recorded after the effective date of the
18 applicable buffer rule_ and the recombination consists of all_ or Dortions o£
19 parcels meeting the requirements for exemption from the aplicable buffer
20 rule set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
21 (e) For purposes of meeting the requirements of subdivision (b)(2) of this section, the
22 following shall be interpreted to be "complying with the rules and other laws regulating _ and
23 applicable to that property on the effective date for the aplicable buffer rule ":
24 The conversion of a tract of land that was undeveloped prior to the effective
25 date of the aplicable buffer rule to a use that was permitted under
26 applicable local ordinances in effect Drior to the effective date of the
27 applicable buffer rule, even if the conversion is aproved after the effective
28 date of the applicable buffer rule.
29 (2) The conversion of the tract of land to a use permitted under aplicable local
30 rules or ordinances that have been applied to the property since the effective
31 date of the aplicable buffer rule as a result of either (i) a change in
32 regulations applied by the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the
33 tract, or (ii) a change in the unit of local government having jurisdiction over
34 the tract which results in the application of regulations to the tract after the
35 effective date of the aplicable buffer rule.
36f An exemption to an applicable buffer rule under this section runs with the land, if
37 notice of the exemption is recorded with the register of deeds at or prior to the next conveyance
38 of the tract or portion of the tract."
39 143 - 214.19. Delineation of protective riparian buffers for coastal wetlands in the Neuse
40 River and Tar - Pamlico River Basins.
41 (a) The following definitions aply in this section:
42 Coastal wetlands. — Any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or
43 occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the
44 tidewaters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial
45 watercourses), provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm
46 tides.
47 (2) Marshlands. — The term has the same meaning as G.S. 113- 229(n).
48 (12) If State law requires a protective riparian buffer for coastal wetlands in either the
49 Neuse River Basin or the Tar - Pamlico River Basin, the coastal wetlands and marshlands shall
50 not be treated as part of the surface waters but instead shall be included in the measurement of
51 the protective riparian buffer. The protective riparian buffer for any of the coastal wetlands or
Page 8 H760 [Edition 1 ]
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
1 marshlands in the Neuse River Basin or the Tar - Pamlico River Basin shall be delineated as
2 follows:
3 If the coastal wetlands or marshlands extend less than 50 feet from the high
4 normal water level or normal water level, as appropriate, and therefore
5 would not encompass a 50 -foot area beyond the appropriate water level, then
6 the protective riparian buffer shall include all of the coastal wetlands and
7 marshlands and enough of the upland footage to equal a total of 50 feet from
8 the appropriate normal high water level or the normal water level measured
9 horizontally on a line perpendicular to the surface water.
10 If the coastal wetlands or marshlands extend 50 feet or more from the
11 normal high water level or normal water level, as appropriate, then the
12 protective riparian buffer shall be the full width of the marshlands or coastal
13 wetlands up to the landward limit of the marshlands or coastal wetlands but
14 shall not extend beyond the landward limit of the marshlands or coastal
15 wetlands."
16 SECTION 3.3.(c) Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is amended by
17 adding a new section to read:
18 "§ 143 - 214.27 Riparian Buffer Conditions in Environmental Permits.
19 (a) Except as set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the Department may not impose
20 as a condition of any permit issued under this Article riparian buffer requirements that exceed
21 established standards for the river basin within which the activity or facility receiving the
22 permit is located. If no riparian buffer standards have been established for the river basin within
23 which the activity or facility receiving the permit is located, then the Department shall not
24 impose a buffer standard as a condition for a permit that exceeds the standard for the Neuse
25 River Basin set forth in 15A NCAC 02B .0233.
26 (11) The Department may impose as a condition of any permit issued under this Article a
27 more restrictive riparian buffer requirement than that established for the river basin within
28 which the activity or facility receiving the permit is located, or a riparian buffer requirement in
29 a river basin where no riparian buffer standards have been established as set forth in this
30 subsection. Prior to imposing the he riparian buffer permit condition, the Commission must make
31 a finding that the condition is necessary in order to meet the nutrient reduction goals for the
32 river basin within which the activity or facility receiving the permit is located, based on
33 basin - specific evidence compiled through a scientific study prepared by or on behalf of the
34 Department that provides a justification for the permit condition based on the topes aphy, soils,
35 or hydrology of the river basin, the environmental impacts of the activity or facility, and any
36 other information the Commission finds necessary to evaluate the need for the riparian buffer
37 _permit condition."
38 SECTION 3.3.(d) This section becomes effective August 1, 2015.
39
40 WILDLIFE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
41 SECTION 3.4.(a) G.S. 113- 136(k) reads as rewritten:
42 "(k) It is unlawful to refuse to exhibit upon request by any inspector, protector, or other
43 law enforcement officer any item required to be carried by any law or rule as to which
44 inspectors or protectors have enforcement jurisdiction. The items that must be exhibited include
45 boating safety or other equipment or any license, permit, tax receipt, certificate, or
46 identification. It is unlawful to refuse to allow inspectors, protectors, or other law enforcement
47 officers to inspect weapons, equipment, fish, or wildlifeif the officer reasonably believes
48 them to be possessed incident to an activity regulated by any law or rule as to which inspectors
49 and protectors have enforcement jtti4sdiotien. -jurisdiction and the officer has a reasonable
50 suspicion that a violation has been committed. Except as authorized by G.S. 113 -137, nothing
51 in this section gives an inspector, protector, or other law enforcement officer the authority to
H760 [Edition 1 ] Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2015
inspect weapons, equipment, fish, or wildlife in the absence of a person in apparent control of
the item to be inspected."
SECTION 3.4.(b) The Wildlife Resources Commission shall report to the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety by March 1, 2017, and annually
thereafter, on the number of complaints received against Commission law enforcement officers,
the subject matter of the complaints, and the geographic areas in which the complaints were
filed.
SECTION 3.4.(c) Section 3.4(a) of this section becomes effective December 1,
2015, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. The remainder of this section is
effective when it becomes law.
STUDY FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 3.5. The Department of Insurance, the Building Code Council, and the
Coastal Resources Commission shall jointly study how flood elevations and building heights
for structures are established and measured in the coastal region of the State. The Department,
Council, and Commission shall specifically consider how flood elevations and coastal building
height requirements affect flood insurance rates and how height calculation methods might be
made more consistent and uniform in order to provide flood insurance rate relief. In conducting
this study, the Department, Council, and Commission shall engage a broad group of
stakeholders, including property owners, local governments, and representatives of the
development industry. No later than January 1, 2016, the Department, Council, and
Commission shall jointly submit the results of their study, including any legislative
recommendations, to the 2015 General Assembly.
PART IV. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 41. If any section or provision of this act is declared unconstitutional or
invalid by the courts, it does not affect the validity of this act as a whole or any part other than
the part declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
SECTION 4.2. Except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes
law.
Page 10 H760 [Edition 1 ]
C
O
C
O
i
C
W
W
O
41
C
L
c�
a
dl
dl
s
H
Y
OC
Q
LL a
O F LLi
�Zo Z
w
fZ�O
�O�Q
CL
w Z w
a Lu I=
C
O
dl
i
V
y�
W
c�
ti
i
7
V
is
cp
aQ h
C �
O o
O
N t
L CL-
SO
� O
t =
T O
C a) v U C
V a) L a)
b,O U ^ ° D ago
ro
.V O ro •L
L V1
L O N L C a)
C', O ro > ro O 0 i
o F L 3
LI�il Vi L V o
0 Z) O
a
0 =1-0 V Q
N ro " O w
3 u s ro u
� •3 'e
a ro Q ro V a)
Q v ro " O
—co —co
W u i v V
S a ro U
t'+
d
m
d
J
a
i
C
3
-'o
d
a
-o
e
N
• •
GO%
W
whw''
W
� I �
ro T ro
V � V
O T
s U s
s
L
O O N
� N 7
V a) V
o E
O O
V
o
ro O ro
L 00
a) �
ro
E s
° o •3
ao
3
v
ro
a
s
v
cli
N
7
O
V
D
i
i
00
i
c
3
Q
0
N
d)
Z�
O
t
a0
O
a
ryry�
P-4
3
ro
a)
a) O
O
w
�
o Z)
co
0 bp a)
`
^
O
V
D
i
i
00
i
c
3
Q
0
N
i
O
t
a0
O
a
T
3
ro
a)
a) O
O
w
�
o Z)
co
0 bp a)
`
^
O
C d,0
LLLLLJW77
o f Z
vi
U L
L
p v
U
N Ln
C 0��1
T
N
Z
ul (n
M
V
0
boo
-
�
N4
y�
�U
O Co
OL
m `o
ro )
a) X
Q 3
0, C�
L
a
go Q m
0
-0
c a`
0 ro
ro
�M O
-
O
a
O
2
d LL
L w
i
t
E N L
O
T
3
-
a) O
O
w
of L
V
"
LL O
C co
o f Z
vi
U L
i
C
O
a)
N
�. '�
V O s
L O —
O ro
N 4
s
U
0
a
w
:� D 0 0
Q 3
s
0
N
" ro
O
" O
O
E j �
�
�o O
L
°
'0 O a) O
O
L
O
N N
O
b-0 a
L
N L
O
0 0�
O U a� O
O
�ao
dV
wF
a)
O
-
X
s
O O
O N 0
=
a
O
co
Q
cO
L
a V
d
a) bi
N d
0
.
Z W
d W
co N ro
LU
p
ro
O
O
N
}'
a)
0 3 u O
•� ro Q Z
4�, co
~ 3
L •�
N >`
7
•> E
N
�'
a�
N
O C
�-
fn
v +'T
C O U ro
a.i
a� NO E s s
1:
w 0 0
s ro 0
N
O
O •},
L
O
ro s Z
p a) 0 ao V
Z V CO
0
E
U
-
U r� 0 s
O
J O
aO
O O
aO
N
a) V
a
C',
O L
O oC O
d CO
O
O
O
bOX
a
—
O1
E
� -
O d-0
�L
o
a)
Z)
o Q
s a
L
O ?
w"0
O T
U
0
>
s w E
amp E 0 2:
N
w
D0Wc4
a
s
—
N
rn
T
Ln
10
—
N
7
Q
a
C
N
O
N
L
ids
N
C
C
S
A
ai
V
C
C
a)
7
E
O
O
U
O
L
a7
O
LU C
+'
0
ro
w 0
L
a7
•
p
L
O ro
S
V
•>
C
O
V
aL7 ao
V
O s
o
a,
E
V
O
U
C
CN
a,
a,
Z
ro
L
__
�_ V
0
V ro
E
D Y
U
a
"
O
bO
Gl L
o
�
O
O
Y a
O
U 5
U
E
U
O
ro
y,
a)
ao
ao
O
ao
V
C
L
C
ro 'L
ro
•>
ro
E
ro
N
0 Q
0
w
0
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
L C
O o �
O 9�
E
blo
z $
CD
t CA
i
s
O
C
V
S
3
O
aE
O
N
H
Z
w
F
Z
ca
Z
W
LL
Oa
�w
�Z
LUJO
�Uw
a U
W l7 W
oar
a
w
D
o N
O
U
aO
CQ
L �
0°
O
b-0
L (1
ro �
7
bpo bbO
o � �
T L
N w O
LO M
NM s
bO V
j i ±'
- o
s ro a E
d U- L w u
7 L a) U
> a) L L >� 0 � w a) N L yj O
w o m a) 0 O ro u i N O_ .� a 0
.L N :d
O 'a a O 3 p a C ed O E N 3 '> �_ E
3 L O E
O •� L d i ro N 3 N L L a) N
()
E ro ro T 7 -p a� Q O L t r
s O 0- etl 3 O o O ro ro N co
ro .� a C, ^ — C: i w U U s i
O E 2 pp a L O ro '> ro O
D a0o ro N O N U 0 -C ro T Q a�+ boo U O s 4) V > <� ro ro
N 7 L O 7 ro m 'p 3 �' N U t " L
s ro s C 0 aroi > Gl bA t t L O L ro 0 ro O ro
H d a H ro ro a a) D Q• • d n 0' O 2 V) d d L V -o LL C
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
O
0
0
�
ro
•
O
S
O
•>
a) OO
0 3
aL7 ao
L O
O s
o
a,
-C
a
V
O
U
C
,�
._
a,
a,
Z
ro ~
-C L a)
__
�_ V
•�, N C
s
V ro
E
L
a7
"
O
bO
Gl L
o
�
C°
—� i a7
a)
E
Y a
-
ro
a)
W
d
O
ro
y,
a)
'�
Y
O C
ro
a7
E 7 N
O .N
O ro
N 'rop ro
N
V 7
a�
E
ro
N
L E
EA �
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
bC-0
}'
_
_
U N
p
N-C
N a
a� V
i° i
L
d a0
m
a
O i�
s u
0 0
O p a�
D O
N L
L •
p
ro>
s E
V 7
7
N 3
3 s
s
a
0
V
-
w
L a)
b
ro L
E
L-
ro
C
O
ro
v>
v 3
o
0
O
L
4b 0
o
C', U
O
41 /
p
L
C 0
p
d
qO
V C
C O
O
a
O a
O
bo
s
V
a
O
0 O
— d
N
0 q
3
w O
ro
d ro
T
b-0 �
X 0
0
w
E u
O
T
O
c ro
O
ao ro N
.aE
E
d
7
L'
3 v
0 �
LL
C
.
�s �
E E v '
s
O�v v
aaroi
t
C
•ro
s
N
a7
a7
" O
>.
�
O
V
N O
a,
bq ro 0
�, vi
L
L O
v
a) '
•bo
L
ro
a)
3
d
L
Lo
L "
O
i
.. 1
V
u V
0- L O
0
ro
"
a)
C
O
b-0
d
a)
L
O
d S
0
C
w
a)
W
V
o-C
Q ._ -
-o •3
,� O C
H ro
N tea),
s t;
C
'ao
L
ro
C
C
a)
�+
a +'
Q a) L L
v -C
y, ro -O
a)
v
O
-
>
v
—
>
C a)
i
i
LL O
w N a)
C
0-
v E
O O
D
a)
0
—_
3
L
a)
a)
V
0
C ro
°_ a O
i ro
s
n
0
N
v
c
bA
c .ro
a i
a)
Gl
N
ao
"')
O
c
3 O
U-
a
�_
o ro s O
•E u
bA
> s
a)
L
bA
o L
g O-
H +,
c
ao
3
0
ro
i
ro
0
C
O
a)
s
'C
=
E O —W
u 0 0
s a) ao
v O
0
U
ao
0
0
ao
a
0-
.E
ID u
ro
ct:
U a" ro
�° � ro
I
U
> a) L L >� 0 � w a) N L yj O
w o m a) 0 O ro u i N O_ .� a 0
.L N :d
O 'a a O 3 p a C ed O E N 3 '> �_ E
3 L O E
O •� L d i ro N 3 N L L a) N
()
E ro ro T 7 -p a� Q O L t r
s O 0- etl 3 O o O ro ro N co
ro .� a C, ^ — C: i w U U s i
O E 2 pp a L O ro '> ro O
D a0o ro N O N U 0 -C ro T Q a�+ boo U O s 4) V > <� ro ro
N 7 L O 7 ro m 'p 3 �' N U t " L
s ro s C 0 aroi > Gl bA t t L O L ro 0 ro O ro
H d a H ro ro a a) D Q• • d n 0' O 2 V) d d L V -o LL C
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
J S
S
? p
p r
ro L
L O
O s
s L
L a
a• N
N r
ro ~
~ 0
0 a
a >
>_
v �
�, L
L V
Gl L
V Y
Y a
a L
Ln s
s V
V= N
N r
ro
'L O
7 O
O C
C 7
7 G
V 7
L L
L E
EA �
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
}'
Q a
O U
U N
V r
N N
N a
a� V
i° i
s
ro a
a) L
L N
N L
L •
p
ro>
s E
V 7
7
N 3
3 s
s >
> v
3° V
V
a C
O a
C V
V N
L C
v 3
C', U
O
41 /
/
y
L
C 0
-O ro3
N r
qO
V C
7 r
C O
O a
O
U O
O —
O
0 O
— d
N
0 q
p w
w O
O o
a U
X 0
0
C E
E u
O
S
S 0
d
7
O C
3 v
v i
i O
O
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
y favorite Duke Forest walk
savanna. y
i MO
Five thousand years later larger
begins at Gate 23 on Mt. Sinai
when they
Road and descends to the
were fores
wooden bridge that crosses New Hope
by the anti
Creek. Seeing the large oaks and pines,
generation
many who walk this heavily traveled
Early on
trail probably assume that the woods
neighbors
that surround them are truly ancient,
"`agriculture
maybe even primeval. But travelers on
ecariomy. l
this road 150 years ago were surrounded
heeds Witt
by abandoned and eroded farm fields —a
towns;for't
landscape reminiscent °of some of the
themselves
most deforested and impoverished places
perhaps,, w
on our planet.
givrr lima;
The history of change that produced
rese
that 1865 landscape and the one we
rrtfiyara
see today has much to teach us about,
a�tiiat:
sustainable land stewardship.
A Mr. John Patterson was the first
th
person to have fo "rhr�I tftle to this land
C areC
(more than 1,p00 acres; laving received
In to are
it as a, gran fxom ocalonial governor
lit
re vetta
in tithe as "b means the
plant sped
--A I
mammals ',to,extinction arld MO rd much nu or�1
Jo1�, i
i,
forest land with their delioerater�� ofiJre i
i MO
Five thousand years later larger
i r: jt
.A"_.
,r one
I f
Y
O
T
a
c
0
0
U
O
O
O
L
a
as sediment pouuteci cree s ano rivers,
filled in mill ponds and caused the closure
of water-drven milis=on all but the largest
streams.
Sustainability is "6ftren'Ilk6ned to a three-
legged stool, with the.legs representing
social, economic and environmental
systems and the seat representing
the inescapable linkages among these
systems.' Surely, the changes for the
,Robs,ns and their contemporaries, the
inexorable downward spiral of dependence
on slavery, the diminished production
and polluted waterways, and the ever
increasing fragility of the economic
validate this tripartite metaphor.
The Civil War and the Reconstruction
that followed brought new changes to the
land and inaugurated a period of regional
economic depression that would extend
up to World War II. The Robson land, like
that of so many neighbors, was put into
foreclosure. Although tenant farming and
sharecropping continued in some places,
much land was simply abandoned.
Most of the land along the Wooden
Bridge trail was abandoned between 1870
and 1910, and that fallow succession was
repeated once again. Old field weeds were
soon replaced with dog -hair thickets of
pines. Through time, these pine thickets
thinned to respectable forests. When Duke
Forest was formally established in 1931,
pine stands were about 40 to 60 years old
,,and broadleaved trees —oaks, sweetgums,
n aples and hickories —were prominent
beneath them.
The waters of New Hope Creek that
flowed beneath the Wooden Bridge in
1870 were red with sediment, and flash
floods were common. But within a couple
decades, the roots of regrowing forest
trees and shrubs stabilized fragile soils
and mitigated flows. Today, at least at
that location, New Hope Creek runs clear
and supports a diverse array of aquatic
life. The fact that ecosystem change has
repaired some of the impacts of those
many years of unsustainable land use is
reason for hope; but it is also true that no
vestige of old- growth forest remains and
that it will take many more decades, even
centuries, to restore soils to their former
productivity.
DU,KENVIRONMENT 18
;10 `0
//i Om
0
,
"change continues on this
i 1 "
,""1" � Once rurol laihd i$ „rapidly
b ,pfnJ,n`4urban Forest is being replaced
by ompldx, imperljious surfaces like roof
tops, "parking; lots and roads that greatly
alt°o'r local climate, the quality, quantity
and timing of water flows, and wildlife
habitat. Is all of this change sustainable?
The word "sustainability" is tricky. "To
sustain” is defined in many dictionaries
as "to keep in existence, to maintain." To
some this implies an idealistic sustainable
endpoint —a destination. But if history
tells us anything, it is that sustainability
is a journey, not a destination, and that
journey always occurs in the context of
three kinds of change.
First, the world is changing. The
capacity for ecosystems to change is
essential to their persistence. Forested
landscapes and watersheds are
constantly being disturbed and constantly
undergoing change. Over the long term,
change is essential to adaptation and
survival.
Second, we are changing. Each
generation of human beings brings
new technologies and values to the
land. My interests and values are very
different from those of my parents and
grandparents, and the interests and values
of my children and grandchildren are no
less different from mine. And third, we
are changing the world. This has always
been true, but today there are more
than 7 billion of us, and our individual
effects on Earth's ecosystems are
disproportionately magnified by the power
of the technologies we employ to garner
the things we need or think we need.
We are today agents of unprecedented
change. And we are hopeful that nature's
change processes will mitigate our impacts,
too. But history provides no guarantee that
that will be the case. Our human population
has increased over eightfold since the
Robsons abandoned their land, and each
of us individually consumes 10 times more
energy and resources than did the Robsons
and their peers. Furthermore, many of our
insults to our planet's ecosystems have no
precedent in either historic or prehistoric
times.
Sustainability, I would argue, is an
inherently anthropocentric concept.
For millions and millions of years,
Earth's myriad ecosystems functioned
wonderfully in our absence. It may be
humbling, but it is good to remember
that we are not an essential element
to any of Earth's ecosystems. No other
single organism has changed our planet
to the extent that we have. But, were
we to disappear tomorrow, ecosystems
would continue to change and life would
continue to evolve. Eventually, our portion
of Earth's history would be reduced to a
thin, albeit messy, layer in its geologic
strata.
I have a favorite Gary Larson cartoon.
A stegosaurus stands at a lectern before
an audience of other dinosaurs and says,
"Friends the picture is bleak; climates
are changing, mammals are on the rise,
and here we sit with brains the size
of a walnut." Dinosaurs are, unfairly I
think, often depicted as the exemplar of
unsustainability — unable to adapt, they
were a cul de sac in the history of life.
But, these remarkable beasts dominated
Earth's ecosystems for a remarkable span
of time -150 million years.
Humankind has been around for about
1 /1,000th of that amount of time, yet
many seem to think that the entire history
of life that preceded us occurred solely Z
for our benefit. That view has encouraged
the widespread belief that we cannot
severely damage Earth's capacity to
sustain us or our children. But ttv j if ory
of our interactions: with the land teiI's us
We are fond of calling attention to two
of
human features, inteilrgence ars, ;-
awareness, that set us apart from all the
rest of creation; we have, afterail, brains
the size of a grapefruit. We are hopeful
that these traits will lead us on a more
sustainable path, although there is not
much evidence in our history to support
that hope. But I believe our future will
hinge much more on two other traits —the
empathy to care for the well-being of
others living now and in the future, and
the humility to understand our proper
place in the world and our dependence on
the health and diversity of its ecosystems.
Norman L. Christensen is founding de
the Nicholas School and professor eme .
in the Division of Environmental Sciet
and Policy.