Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 111300 Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department P . O . Box 8181 F iUsbalrough, .NC 12117278 Phase : (91. )) 245 - 2591" POW Vk ►� Fax : (919) 644 -3002 "� }y lva. d ccraZU Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment From : Roy Fortmann. , Chair Date : November 3 , 2000 Re : November 13 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the Commission for the Environment , which is scheduled for : Monday, November 13, 2000 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC At this meeting we will adopt our recommendations for the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan , review the draft Alternative Fuel and Low - Emission Vehicles Report , have an extended breakout sessions ( primarily to discuss the February State of the Environment progress report ) . As you may recall, November is also the month in which we elect officers . Please come prepared to elect a chair and vice - chair for the upcoming year. If you have questions , or will be unable to attend , please contact Carol Crawford ( 245 - 2597 , ccrawfordCcbco . orange . nc . us ) by the Friday before the meeting . I look forward to seeing you on the 13t " IE 0EDMfF NOV 8 2000 AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment Monday, November 13 , 2000 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC Page # 7 : 30 I . Call to Order 7 : 30 II . Additions or Changes to Agenda 7 : 31 2 III . Approval of Minutes ( October 9 ) 7 : 3'2 IV . Election : of Chair and Vice -Chair 7 : 40 12 V. Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan Please see attached materials . The subject was referred to the Biological Resources Committee on October 9 , and that group will report its recommendations to the Commission . 8 : 10 14 VI . Draft AFLEV Report On November 21 , the Board of Commissioners will receive a report from the Alternative Fuel and Low Emission Vehicles (AFLEV) Work Group, and will consider authorizing a submittal to N . C . DENR for a Mobile Source Emission Reduction grant ( MSERG ) . Draft report is attached . Discussion purposes only . 8 : 30 24 VII . Updates • Sustainability • American Stone Quarry Special Use Permit • November 29 Timber Informational Session 8 : 40 VIII . Agenda Items for Next Meeting ( 11/ 13 ) MSERG update, Shaping Orange County's Future , 2001 State of - the Environment " Progress Report". 8 : 45 28 IX. Committee Breakout Sessions An extended breakout session for each committee will be provided . In addition to other discussion , each committee should begin thinking about the February State of the Environment Progress Report . A copy of the 2000 State of the Environment report is attached . 9 : 30 X. Adjournment ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT DRAFT Summary of Meeting October 9 , 2000 Held at Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill , NC Members Present : Roy Fortmann , Dan Okun , Laura Cotterman , Cara Crisler, Julie Tucker, Annette Jurgelski , Mark Smith , Lee Rafalow, Loraine Kohorn , Hervey McIver . Excused Absences : Richard Pratt, William Glaze . Guests : Tim Saunders , DCC MPO ; David Bonk, Chapel Hill Transportation Planner Staff Present : David Stancil , ERCD Director ; Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager; Karen Lincoln , Transportation Planner and Carol Crawford , ERCD Administrative Assistant , I . Call to Order . Fortmann called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p . m . II . Additions or Changes to Agenda . III . Approval of Minutes ( September 11 , 2000 ) . MOTION : Crisler made motion to approve the September 11 , 2000 minutes . Seconded by Kohorn . VOTE : Unanimous . IV. Regional Transportation Planning The CfE heard a presentation by Tim Saunders from the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization ( DCHC MPO ) , regarding the process for transportation planning and interaction among other entities that do regional transportation planning . Also present was David Bonk, Town of Chapel Hill Transportation Planner, who spoke about the Town 's transportation plan and to answer the CfE member's questions about the Mayor's initiative and also the Town 's position on transit in the Chapel Hill community . Saunders explained that he has been involved in transportation planning for 15 years , first working with Greensboro on their plan , and later coming to the DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 1 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIMOCT2000CFErevised by rich. doc 93 Triangle to develop a regional plan . He distributed a handout, which provided an overview of the MPO . MPO were created by the federal government in 1950s and follow a " 3 - C " process : Cooperative , Coordinating , and Continuing . They were formed for the transportation entities to coordinate their current and future activities . With the two recent authorization bills , " ISTEA " and "TEA 21 , " the cooperative process is more important because we now have a schedule of activities needing to be accomplished within a certain timeframe . Under the original legislation , MPOs were asked to create three products : Long - Range Transportation Plan ( LRTP ) : a 20 - year plan , which as result of ISTEA and TEA 21 has to be " multi - modal " including public transportation , rail , bikes , sidewalks , etc . The plan needs to show how much revenue will be generated and how it should be used . The long - range transportation LL . plan is the foundation for the overall regional pialIning . • Planning Work Program Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP ) Saunders explained that in order for a project to qualify for the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP ) , the project must be in the LRTP . Thus the importance of the LRTP was defined including enabling recognition of inefficiencies in the community . The LRTP has to be updated and reviewed every three years , which presents the opportunity to review assumptions for the forecasting 20 years out and to see if adjustments or changes are needed . For example , " Is the community growing at the proposed rates ? , " or ` Has the emphasis of the community or economics impacts shifted another way ? " The NC General Assembly recently adopted legislation , which recognized MPOs for the first time and included language about how MPOs could be merged or separated . The DCHC MPO is composed of two committees , the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC ) and the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC ) . The TAC is a policy body composed of representatives from whole counties or portions of counties that the census anticipates will be urbanized within 20 years . The TCC is made of staff from local . governments , NCDOT and the MPO . Tools used to accomplish goals include the a ) Prospectus , a document that spells out the duties of the MPO ; b ) Memorandum of Understanding , a legal document signed by each jurisdiction ; and c ) By- Laws , which describe the operation of the MPO , including officer elections , voting arrangements , etc . DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 2 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich . doc -Q 4 Fortmann asked about the funding for participation in the MPO . Saunders said the DCHC MPO operates with a federal grant and matching funds from the state and local jurisdictions . Members are Durham City, Durham County, part of Orange County , Chapel Hill , Carrboro , Hillsborough and part of Chatham County . Okun asked for explanation of TEA21 . Saunders replied that The Transportation Efficiency & Equity Act for the 21st Century is a seven -year funding program , the most recent legislation with funding for transportation . McIver asked if there are any plans to merge DCHC and Raleigh area MPOs . Saunders replied that interest in regional rail and associated issues has furthered the discussion of a possible merger . MPOs can be merged if there is an agreement by 75 % of the member populations of the represented jurisdictions . The process for merging is complicated . The same would apply if a jurisdiction wanted to leave another MPO to ' join this one . Approval by the State is also required . McIver asked about the pros and cons of merging . Saunders said a merger would have implications for the funding of projects . Bonk stated that the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO has been at the forefront at actively promoting solutions to transportation problems including rail , bike , and pedestrian activities . A merging of jurisdictions that do not share the same philosophy could jeopardize funding for those transportation alternatives . Rafalow asked if our MPO 's philosophy was motivation for other jurisdictions wanting to join this MPO . Saunders noted that he perceives a desire for outside jurisdictions to be more involved with transportation decisions affecting the RTP . Currently the RTP is split at the county line and there is interest in including all of the RTP into one MPO . Fortmann asked who uses the three products mentioned and asked if the MPO is strictly in an advisory role . Saunders responded that the Long - Range Transportation Plan is required by federal legislation in order to continue funding coming to this area . If we didn 't have a plan , if it lapsed , or if we were unable to meet air quality standards we would be at risk to loose federal funding related to transportation . Bonk noted that because all local governments within the MPO are party to the development of these plans , once it is approved at the policy level by the TAC, it is agreed that no federal funds may be expended by any transportation project that is not included in the plan . Conversely there is no need for local approval for a project to go forward that has been approved at the MPO level . There is a great deal of DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 3 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doe consideration given to the local prerogative in the development of the plan and subsequent funding . Fortmann asked where does NCDOT fit in . Bonk replied that NCDOT is a member of the MPO , the same as other jurisdictions . Saunders added that DOT concerns associated with the plan are air quality conformity , that the plan addresses a wide variety of deficiencies that are identified through the process of developing the plan , and fiscal constraints of the plan ( how state and federal dollars are being used ) . Outside of these items , the plan is mostly developed locally . Public involvement influences plan development . The current update to the 2025 plan is ongoing and there is a citizen advisory committee made up of people from all areas of the MPO . They are the body that is constantly reviewing the process . Every time a decision needs to be made , the information is put our rur public comment and a public hearing i5 held by -LHe MPO . Several of the member jurisdictions provide comments through their elected boards . The process is very open to the public . McIver asked how the MPO addresses endangered species and wildlife corridors . Saunders replied that those issues become more technical with specific projects . As a part plan development, environmental areas , hazardous materials sites , watersheds and other issues are identified through the member jurisdictions so that they are considered in the transportation project alternatives . The specific project identifies the proposed alignment or improvements , including an in - depth environmental study . Rafalow asked if the MPO has a contingency plan for funding if the Supreme Court sustains the EPA ruling related to air quality and whether funding might be lost in 2003 . Saunders responded that based on the known information , DCAC is not in trouble . The proposed plan is more aggressive in the transit features than our counterparts . Based on current leveling modeling , we are within attainment . Rafalow asked about the difference of air quality for Wake and surrounding counties . Bonk explained that the air quality is not assessed in terms of where you are at today , but rather some point in the future . Based on future growth levels , there is an assessment of where air quality will be at that point . If you stay within your budget allotment, you are fine . Part of the reason Wake County is in such trouble is that it has underestimated future growth , thereby going over its budget . DRAFT CFE 10/09 /00 Minutes Page 4 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIMOCT2000CFErevised by rich . doc Os Rafalow noted that the newspapers say we have the third worst air quality in the nation and that contradicts the response to his question . Bonk replied that based on the models that the federal government uses to assess the air quality, we are doing ok . In terms of the violations of the ozone standard , which occurs during the summer months , the last summer was rainy and cooler resulting in not as many violations as the previous year . Violations tend to be weather related . Most of the problems are occurring in Wake County where the population is greater and there is more traffic congestion . We are not sanctioned because of what exist today, we are sanctioned based on how well we are expected to we meet air quality standards in the future . Tucker asked if there was an ozone monitor in Orange County, and if not, are there are plans for one . She also asked if the MPO is actively involved in preparing state implementation plans . Bonk said there is no ozone monitor in Orange County and that the MPO reviews the plans . Saunders added that DENR is responsible for both items . Bonk noted that there is a monitor for particulate matter at UNC . Although Orange County would not be considered a non - attainment county, under the new regulations it would be classified as a non - attainment county based on monitoring results . That means that there is a higher level that we have to achieve . There are no sanctions imposed just from being classified as non - attainment as long as we have a plan that takes care of the future problems . Fortmann asked for more information on the Long Range Plan . Saunders noted that we have an adopted 2025 Long Range Plan and it conforms with all state and federal requirements . In the process of developing the plan , there are over 57 identified alternatives that we want to test on a model . Additional funds have been spent on model enhancement . In February, a federal certification team was were pleased , but pointed out areas that need more attention , such as the environmental justice issue . It is a plan that does not assume any additional funding in 20 + years , is conservative , and meets the attainment Issue . By having the three -year review process , continual matching of the plan with the local land use plan is an advantage to seeing the advantage of controlling sprawl in the community . Okun question how the DCHC and " CAMPO " ( Capital Area Metropolitan ) MPOs were established . Bonk explained that the MPOs are created by census areas defined as urbanized . In 1990 , according to census figures, there was fairly wide gap between Durham and Raleigh along US 70 and the RTP . In theory the 2000 census , if beginning from scratch , would include all in the same MPO . However, because we have existing MPOs , there is a grandfather clause that allows us to remain separate . DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 5 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doc p 07 Saunders said that one reason leading the charge from technical standpoint for a unification of MPOS is that we now have one regional model . In the 1980s each MPO had a separate model . Now we have one model that incorporates both MPOs . We have approximately 1 , 000 analysis groups that are called Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ ) in our urbanized area . In CAMPO they have about 2000 TAZs . All the pieces are necessary to create a realistic picture of what the public is doing . Certainly people aren 't stopping at the county line and not going to Raleigh . The regional model was encouraged to get the big picture . Saunders pointed out the diagram of forecasting model steps in the handout materials . Smith asked for information about the interface between the model and air quality process and Mobile 5 . Saunders explained that certain pieces of information come out of the model and go into Mobile 5 , too identify the best alternatives thatreach - the desired ` goals ., Performance standards , suc 41 as VMTs , Occupancy, and Air Quality are looked at to determine the best alternatives . Then focus is upon the alternatives that we want to take forward and do air quality testing . Bonk added that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a gross number , not broken into speed groups , because as the criteria that one alternative might have 100 , 000 another might have 75 , 000 , because the alternative with less VMTs should be better for air quality issues . Saunders continued with we have a two - step process of going through alternatives . The first step is looking at performance indicators and picking out the best alternatives that have the best indicators . Step two is when we do more analysis and environmental impacts , cost impacts , social impacts , to narrow it down to the best alternative by using the air quality factors . By using both citizen advisory groups , the policy board and technical board , we come up with numerical targets for different indicators . We 've identified goals and now we are trying to link those goals to performance indicators and come up with what is the acceptable level of indication . One idea is to go ahead and run the alternatives and see which one has the highest results . Another idea is to go ahead and establish those goals before the model is run . Saunders referred to a chart in the handout, which summarizes the Long - Range Plan and how the other steps are centered around the plan . Stancil asked about recent media reports on the " Mayors ' Initiative " and the issue of "Town / Rail " . Bonk reported that the mayors of Chapel Hill , Durham , Cary and Raleigh want a new plan that will enable local governments in this DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 6 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doc region to make the case to the public and General Assembly that current funding from state and federal sources is inadequate to meet future transportation needs . They want authority to generate tax funds for transportation projects in a similar way that Charlotte has done over the last year . The plan will take information from the existing Durham , Raleigh , Chapel Hill plans and package them together for the first time . It will identify regional facilities that are high - cost items and present them to the General Assembly in 2001 . A consultant was hired and a draft plan will be unveiled sometime in November . Saunders noted that Charlotte went through similar process that resulted in getting legislation enabling them to have referendum that passes 1/2 cent, which generates approximately a million dollars per year, enough to pay for development of their public bus and rail system . Bonk added that the Mayors ' report would include a menu of possible funding sources , what raising the gas tax by "x " would generate based on current sales and so forth to give people some options to look at . Saunders noted that it would take 20 or more years of funding to complete all the projects in the TIP . The second recent media item was described by Bonk as a Phase II study of the 15 - 501 corridor between Chapel Hill and Durham . Phase I was a " major investment study " and part of a federally mandated process . Phase I looked at both highway and rail transit options , but developed recommendations only for the highway issues , both for the Durham side and the Chapel Hill side . The report left unanswered some specific Issues related to transit — the transit fixed guideway corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill , In Phase II a consultant will look at different options and technologies for both a regional rail ( which is what the Triangle Transit is developing between Raleigh and Durham for Phase I of their system ) and a lighter rail technology (which is more flexible because it can operate on streets ) . A third technology is a bus - way, building a lane for buses either adjacent to the road or in separate corridor . The last alternative is a hybrid called bus - rapid transit, which provides a separate guide - way for buses in some areas . In areas where there are ROW or other problems, the buses would operate in street traffic . The consultant is looking at those four technologies and evaluating possible corridors for each that might someday link Duke University to UNC . In general , the corridor that is being looked at goes from Duke to South Square , parallels 15 - 501 on the south side through Patterson Place , cross I - 40 south of 15 - 501 to the Gateway property, then south parallel with I - 40 through DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 7 of 10 L:\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doc M 09 Ephesus Church Road area to Meadowmont, then to Mason Farm and the Friday Center area , south of 54 , across the bypass up to UNC , around Manning Drive and onto the hospital . Fortmann asked where the funding is coming from . Bonk reported that it is jointly funded by the State , Durham - Chapel Hill Triangle Transit Authority, and Duke and Chapel Hill universities . Fortmann asked that if there is regional transportation in this area is it the MPO that will do it or are there other organizations responsible ? Bonk replied that ultimately it is the MPO . The MIS is being done under the auspicious of the MPO . Fortmann wrapped up noting that the way for a citizen or commission to get input to the MPO is through our representative on the MPO . Bonk said that is correct and that Commissioner Alice Cordon 15 Orange County representative . Karen Lincoln is the County planning staff representative . Each municipality also has a representative . Saunders noted that all MPO meetings are open to the public and occur the second Wednesday of each month at 9 : 00 in the Durham Committee Meeting Room . He encouraged CfE members to contact him with any questions via email . VM Lands Legacy Action Plan 2001 = 2002 Stancil reviewed a memo to the CfE related to the 2001 - 02 action plan for the Lands Legacy program and CfE input for developing that plan . CfE members were asked to consider new land acquisition/ protection projects for the upcoming fiscal year . The focus areas for the CfE should be on natural areas , wildlife habitat , riparian corridors , parks , walking trails and other open space proposals . The CfE should adopt recommendations at the November meeting . The draft action plan will be provided to the BOCC mid - December for their annual retreat . It was suggested that since the Biological Resources Committee is most knowledgeable of priority conservation areas that they might come up with initial recommendations and report to the full CfE in November for discussion and adoption . CfE members approved of that process and discussed what areas of jurisdiction could be included , the possible purchase of floodplains and riparian buffers , recent conservation easements , available funds , and the preservation of parkland and natural areas . DRAFT CFE 10/09 /00 Minutes Page 8 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doc 10 VI . Timber Harvesting Session ( 11 / 28 ) Stancil reviewed the proposed agenda for November 28th Timber Harvesting Information Session , included as Page 36 of the agenda materials . CfE members discussed ideas for a press release , newspaper article , flyer, and direct mailings . Lee Rafalow agreed to draft a letter to the editors . Stancil reported on efforts to coordinate the CfE meeting with a similar meeting being proposed by the NC Forest Service . He reviewed a draft proposal from Don Watson of the NC Forest Service , included as Pages 37 - 40 of the agenda materials . Stancil said he had not yet heard back from the Forest Service on his offer to meet and make sure that the two meetings would complement each other rather than compete with one another . The CfE decided to move forward with its November 28 meeting as planned . Tucker and Cotterman volunteered to attend the proposed Forestry meeting as CfE representatives . VII . Updates Stancil reported that the AFLEV work group met recently and is reviewing a report for the BOCC . Staff is preparing a grant application for a low emission vehicles to replace some older County vehicles and a compressed natural gas vehicle fueling station . A report to the CfE will be available by November or December. The SOCF Sustainability Report is nearing completion by Pam McIntosh ( consultant) and will feature case studies using the indicators found in the SOCF report and an assessment of other indicators that are not measurable . VIII . Agenda Items for Next Meeting ( 11 / 13 ) a . 2001 - 02 Lands Legacy Action Plan b . AFLEV Work Group c . Sustainability Report d . 2001 State of the Environment "" Progress Report " e . Election of Officers for the CFE DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 9 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich . doc y � J► Stancil reminded the CfE that November is the time for official election of officers and asked members to be prepared at the next meeting . YX . Committee Breakout Sessions The Commission adjourned into its committees for a brief breakout session . X . Adjournment DRAFT CFE 10/09/00 Minutes Page 10 of 10 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\OCT2000CFErevised by rich. doe ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To . Commission for the Environment From : David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director Date : September 21 , 2000 Re . Lands Legacy — Annual Action Plan 2001 - 2002 At your October and November meetings , the CfE will be asked to discuss any projects you would like to recommend to the County Commissioners for inclusion in the Annual Action Plan for Lands Legacy for the upcoming 2001 - 2002 fiscal year ( July 1 , 2001 -June 30 , 2002 ) . A draft Annual Action Plan will be presented to the Board at their annual retreat in mid - December . Attached is the adopted process for developing the Annual Action Plan , as well as the current 2000 - 2001 Interim Action Plan . As you can see , each relevant advisory board will be making recommendations on projects for land acquisition , if any . These may include fee - simple acquisitions , conservation easement or other alternative acquisition methods ) . These recommended projects from each board will be compiled into a draft Annual Action Plan for the Commissioners . At your October meeting , please think about any land acquisitions for natural areas and wildlife habitat, wildlife or riparian corridors or other open space that you would like to recommend . You may wish to look at your adopted criteria for evaluating natural areas and wildlife habitat ( also attached ) . Feel free to identify projects that may offer multiple preservation goals ( a natural area contained within a larger park setting , for example ) . We will attempt to keep you abreast of what other advisory boards are considering in November . In the State of the Environment report , the following ideas were suggested as priorities ( please do not limit your discussion to these topics — these are provided only as a starting point) : • Lands surrounding Eno River State Park • Adjacent lands at Occonechee Mountain • Seven - Mile Creek area • Lands along Morgan Creek surrounding Mason Farm and N . C . Botanical Garden 13 • The Neuse/ Cape Fear Headwaters Forests and Monadnock Corridor (" Central County Forests , Hills and Corridor ") • New Hope Creek Corridor • Chestnut Ridge • Eno River and Little River corridors • Southwest Cedar Grove Forest • Pickard 's Mountain area Please feel free to call ( 245 - 2590 ) if you have any questions . cc : Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager tl 1J (f/7� 4 U"' RAFT f .. . a f �" Y x� �� 4al `uF�s + 4 �' 'k4s'9 7- ` -T iH x rr}r E� pr 14 Alternative Fuel 1 WA V 0- - ehic e �g �rj1 } Ptions is i1 . 6 _ aReport tothe Orange Coufl t e Board of commlsslona... ,. s i pi k. i A Alternative Fuel and Low Emission Vehicle Workgroup u; �r October 26 , 2000 t � r}-t�:,� -� , �` �' 1� -� ���; ,sg` � �', i �,• t - f�,y � �.. ,a yf '•! ' _ •9 • _ ' `z _� . •j i. � a 'a,e'Il.l i `a?'�- .T £�.. 4 {�•. . ice y 1 : 15 . ,� _Y ; 4 . ; . � _ , ! ; - ` . • tom_- � ' � . -, . :. �. _ • • . �+ ', . • Introduction Acknowledging that protection of the air quality in Orange County is essential for the well being of the County ' s residents , the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC ) passed three air quality resolutions in 1999 . These resolutions directed County employees to begin an Ozone Air Quality Action Plan, to investigate low emission and fuel - efficient vehicles , and to examine the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs ) as an option for county fleet emissions reduction . In response to these directives , the Alternative Fuels and . Low Emission Vehicles (AFLEV) Workgroup was established to lead the investigation of these latter issues and to propose an action plan which includes the potential purchase of a number of AFVs . This report summarizes the findings AFLEV Goals of this workgroup and offers a proposed action plan for the group Short- term : Research the advantages and disadvantages of the and for Orange County. A set of various alternative ficel vehicle options . Use that information to g3ul � ( ehcrt -terra , t�� n,� � ul �� } e, apply for a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source term , and long -term) has been Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with p1174chasing multiple AFVs din Aing fiscal year developed by the group , and is 2001 : listed in the box at the left . These goals are consistent with the series Intermediate Term : Explore the possibility of acquiring an of air quality resolutions passed by alternative ficel bzcs, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with the BOCC over the last year and a AFVs as appropriate, develop the educational component of the county 's AFV program, coordinate with other local bodies half and with the provisional goals through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program . still being finalized by the Shaping Orange County ' s Future ( SOCF) Long- term : Minimize emissions fi4oin the county 's vehicle fleet Task Force . Note : The and maximize the fleet 's ficel efficiency, recommendations herein involve complex technical issues that relate to the selection of alternative fuel vehicles . A reasonable amount of resource has been performed to evaluate the different options available , but it is important to note that only time will tell which alternatives prove the most- feasible options , Section 1 - Short- Term Goal Research the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternative fccel vehicle options. Use that information to apply for a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile S01174ce Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with purchasing multiple AFVs din 4ing fiscal year 2001 . Emissions and Performance : The alternative fuel options that have been considered by the workgroup are electric , compressed natural gas ( CNG) , and ethanol ( 85 % ethanol and 15 % gas , generally notated as "B85 " or simply " ethanol") , or bi - fuel combinations . Liquefied natural gas , and methanol have not been considered, and converted bi - fiiel systems (systems that run on either CNG or gasoline) have been discounted in favor of originally equipped bi - fuel vehicles because of safety and maintenance considerations . The primary assessment of these fuel options was based on the degree to which their use will contribute to lower emissions from County fleet vehicles . For example , solar and electric vehicles have outstanding technical issues with battery operation . a 'l IF i • • • A f • • ri • 1, • • • ! • . i f s A brief chart detailing the emissions comparisons of each of the fuels is listed below : Electricity CI 1 NG Ethanol . Carbon Monoxide (CO) No tailpipe emissions , but 30 - 74 % reduction` Up to 30 % reduction 40 % reduction when considering power plant IF I emissions ' ......... ........................... .. ......... . . ... _.............. . . ... .. .. . ..... ... . ..... .. . .. ... :.. ...... ... .. .... __._.. ............. ... ...... ........ ..... .I . . _. _ ... .... ........ . _....... .. . . ....... . ................. . ...... ..... ' "' ' ' ........... ..... ...... 'Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) No tail pipe emissions , 85 % reduction' No change reduction depends on efficiency of power plant ' .: . ... .. .. ......... .._..... ...... .... ..................... ...... ... .. . ....... ..... ....... ......... . . . . ... . .. .... .... ..... .. . . ... .. . _.... . ............... .......... . ...... . . 1.... ..I.. ..,.._. I . I . Reactive Hydrocarbons (HC) No tail pipe emissions , 70 % reduction A decrease in carcinogenic reduction depends on hydrocarbons and in CO23 IF I efficiency of power plant ' 1 : According to "ABCs of AFVs", (California Energy Commission , 11 /99 ) electricity from a grid source of power leads to a 90 % overall reduction in emissions from gasoline powered engines . If solar power is used , the reduction is 100 % . 2 : INC Division of Air Quality; 3 : http : //www. greenfuels . or.g/ethaair. html The greatest overall reductions come from electric vehicles , followed by CNG, and then ethanol . A decision based on this assessment alone would tend to favor the purchase of electric vehicles over gasoline vehicles and over any of the other AFVs . However, other factors are also important to the purchase decision . Travel range per fill -up is one of these factors and will vary from fuel to fuel . Generally, electric vehicles have the least range , while ethanol vehicles have the greatest . Bi - fuel vehicles can also have extensive ranges if both fuel tanks are used . The chart below compares the expected range of several types of vehicles . Vehicle make and type Fuel type Engine type IF I Expected range .per IF, up/charge Dodge Ram (Van) CNG dedicated V8 200-300 mi . Crown Victoria ( Car) CNG dedicated V8 100 - 175 mi . (extended range avail . ) Ford F250 (Truck) CNG dedicated V8 150 -200 mi . ( extended range avail . ) Ford Ranger 4x2 (Truck) Electric (PbA) 3 -phase AC motor 501me Chevrolet Cavalier ( Car) CNG/Gas Bi- fuel 4- cyl . 180 mi . Ford F150 (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi- fuel V8 1001111200mi (400 Ime if gasoline is also used) GMC Sierra (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi-fuel V8 550 mi . ( 150 on CNG/400 on Gas) Source OF www . afdc . doe . Qov 1 : There are multiple types of batteries in use . Each one allows for a different vehicle range. Lead Acid (PbA) batteries are more traditional and have a fairly low range . According to Bill Terry of Chapel Hill Public Works, only Lead Acid batteries are available in INC right now . FaIF+ . • T + $,Irk" . . .a. • _ +, s '► s 7 1 . IF I Flat Costs : In addition to emissions and vehicle performance , cost considerations must also be factored into a decision about the selection of AFV options . Although they are still more expensive than gasoline vehicles , AFVs are becoming more and more affordable . Greater scales of production, and new technology have decreased the costs of these vehicles substantially. If one compares the costs of the vehicles costs of the fuel and fuel facility; and maintenance costs , however, the purchase of many AFVs is not yet cost effective over the short-run . Long-run costs , though, are much closer, and if the monetary . value of improved air quality is included, some AFV options can be cost - effective . A complete cost-benefit analysis of individual options has not been completed, but information developed regarding the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining an AFV is given in the charts below . Fa 1 : State contract price is listed if there is/was a Sticker Price . State contract price IF contract for this car, difference ) 7ffQrp API otherwise sticker price asollne - vs ..AFV) difference is given . (gasoline vs , IF 2 : $549/month , 36 month N/A $ 4 , 000 CNG - dedicated . lease for 2001 Electric IF Ford Ranger (Family Ford in GA) ; South Lake N/A $ 3 , 600 a . Ford (GA) says to expect $ 650/mo . for new or $ 4 , 200 N/A $ 350/mo . for refurbished 1998 models . Cost of CNG/Gas regular Ford Ranger 36 $ 6 , 000 N/A month lease is about IF $ 350/mo . There are no $ 4 , 300 NC dealers who carry this Electric .: IF vehicle . 1504200 more per 3 : Force is only available ionth for new truck in electric . This price 6 m0 . lease, about N/A IF I difference is compared to ad a Honda Civic Sedan qual for used truck (gasoline) . Solectria 36 mo . leaseZ Force lists at about $ 1200 N/A $28 ,000 As mentioned before , the up - front cost of vehicle purchase is just one cost factor to be considered . At this stage of alternative- fuel vehicle development , it is not possible to know what energy markets will look like in five or 10 years . There are also general operating cost considerations and one -time fuel infrastructure costs to be evaluated . The chart below lists estimates of some fuel costs and refueling facility/equipment costs . In general , maintenance costs are lower for both electric and CNG vehicles when compared to gasoline vehicles . However, it should be noted that the future price and supply of these fuels can fluctuate and are sometimes unpredictable . ,. t up _ . Wilk 4 Fuel Price Notes Gasoline $ 1 . 12 County ' s price per gallon - off of State bulk purchase (The price varies . This is an average of last two tanker orders : $ 1 . 03 and $ 1 . 21 ) . Refueling facility : no additional costs Ethanol $ 1 . 30 State Is price per gallon, we would need to negotiate our own contract with the supplier. Refueling facility : Cheaper than natural gas . Would require purchase of fuel storage tank and some type of pumping mechanism. Natural Gas $ 0 . 85 Per gasoline gallon equivalent . This is an average cost . Reported range is between $ 0 . 70 and $ 0 . 90 . Refueling facility : Very expensive but will serve many vehicles . A 50 - efm ( cubic feet per minute) compressor and its necessary storage , dispenser and accounting components , which can handle 15 -20 vehicles , costs approximately $ 160 , 000 , Electric Solar $ 1 . 40 Per gasoline gallon equivalent . Assuming 5 charges/week, 50 miles per charge , for 10 years . $ 7000 initial investment for a 1 . 5 kw system. Grid $ 0 . 25 Per gasoline gallon equivalent . Based on $ 0 . 50 for full charge , 50 miles of travel per charge . Chargers range from $ 600 or so to $ 2 , 500 for a single car . Fast chargers , which can significantly reduce the time involved in charging a car, are much more expensive (etvi . org) 1 : Electric vehicles can use either a photovoltaic panel ( solar) or the electric current from the power plant ( grid) for recharging . The Electric Transit Vehicle Institute , ( www . etvi . org) , says charge costs for an electric car using the grid are about i /3rd the cost of gasoline . 2 . A reaswiaule esLunate according to NC Solar Center at NC ' U Final Evaluations (Electric) : In working through the options and maintaining an awareness of the goals , three key considerations have been found to be most important to the AFLEV Workgroup . They are 1 ) lowering emissions ; 2 ) acquiring reliable and versatile vehicles ; and 3 ) developing regional collaboration . Electric vehicles are the best option for emissions reduction . Additionally, the fuel facility development costs are likely to be the least for electric vehicles because charging/refueling equipment can be purchased for only one or two vehicles and can be easily upgraded later on , while fuel infrastructure for CNG and ethanol vehicles would be designed for many vehicles , which leads to larger up - front costs . The major drawback for electric vehicles is their short driving range . This has been a major concern of the group . Even with their other emissions and fuel cost advantages , if they cannot offer a similar performance to gasoline vehicles , they may not be the best choice at this point . Some final concerns are 1 ) Electric vehicles are often for sale only by small , lesser-known companies . This means they produce relatively few of them, which can keep the cost high . 2 ) The electric vehicles that use the latest and best technology are often only available in certain regions ( generally California and the northeast) . 3 ) Often electric vehicles must be leased ( ex : Ford Ranger) , and servicing must take place at dealerships in other states , which could lead to significant down-time in the case of needed repairs . In the short-term then, we could assume that the disadvantages of electric vehicles outweigh the advantages . Final Evaluations ( CNG and Ethanol) : All gasoline -powered vehicles manufactured since 1970 can run 10 % ethanol fuel ( 90 % gasoline and Methanol) on their production engines . While this does lead to lower emissions , it is not considered a low emission fuel . To get to that category, the mixture must include at least 85 % ethanol (E85 ) . Most vehicles are not equipped to run on that at this point in time . However the Ford Taurus and Ford Ranger are built ready to run on either gasoline or E85 . For example , new Rangers received in the last several years will automatically run on E85 if there is access to this fuel . The State of North Carolina now has about 1 , 000 vehicles that will t - i • • • • i t • • , . . run on E85 , but they are only using ethanol with about 100 of them (all in Raleigh) because the state does not yet have+ facilities set up to dispense this fuel . According to State DOT Equipment manager John Burns , there is no commercially available ethanol fuel available in North Carolina at this time , but plans are underway to make it so , Burns suggested that if the County wanted to run some of our vehicles on Ethanol , an arrangement could be worked out with the state . To do so , the County would only need a storage tank and a pump . This allows the County to immediately lower emissions on vehicles already owned, with limited up - front costs , It is important to note , though, that ethanol emissions , while lower than pure gasoline , are still not nearly as low as CNG emissions . Additionally, CNG engines (unlike ethanol) are available in many different horsepowers , so CNG could be used to run other equipment or vehicles in the future - making an initial investment in a CNG refueling facility a potentially good long-range decision , Another benefit of ethanol is that both UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill are interested in using ethanol fuel . . The fact that E85 cars are already available locally and that the fuel is available locally is also very positive . However, there are very few of these cars around now . If we could cL C11CL�JUl i 111 dilU L11C TClliVulS1Cy to commit sonic, Iuso al LU U lldllUl , 11 1111g111 be VVUllil ll LU look into setting up this system as an intermediate goal . The ethanol storage location is a problem . The public works facility does not now have an extra tank that could be converted to Ethanol storage , A new tank and pump mechanism would have to be added , A final determination of which AFV options are best for Orange County includes a comparison of all the data presented so far . In order to provide a simple overview of all of the earlier charts and tables , each of the characteristics and considerations have been combined loosely together in the following advantage/disadvantage table , Fuel Type Advantages Disadvantages Electric Grid Lower emissions than the other AFV options . Very limited range . Longer refueling time . Not Lower maintenance costs than gasoline powered available locally. Must be leased and serviced from vehicles , much cheaper re-fueling, less initial out-of--state dealer. Less powerful . Limited network capital outlay for refueling equipment than of refueling options . CNG option . Smooth and quiet Solar Zero emissions . Completely renewable power High upfront start up costs . Very limited range . source . Free charging after initial investment in Longer charging/refueling time . Not available solar equipment . " Refueling center is moveable locally. Must be leased and serviced from out- of- and easily added to for larger fleets . state dealer . Less powerful . Limited network of refueling options , CNG Dedicated . Lower emissions than both ethanol and Range of vehicle reduced . Limited network of gasoline . Cheaper fuel . Less vehicle refueling centers . Still a nonrenewable fuel source. maintenance cost. Still a reasonable travel Expensive up-front costs for refueling facility, range for many county vehicles . CNG fuel and vehicles becoming increasingly popular (Town of Chapel Hill has several vehicles and is raining their mechanics to work on them) . Similar power to gasoline engine . i- fuel Same as dedicated CNG, but added convenience Users may choose to use gasoline often and of being able to use gasoline when CNG is not therefore , no real air quality benefits come from available . No loss of range . owning this vehicle . . :: .. AOL AL y g 20Ethanol ( E85 ) A renewable resource fuel . May be available for Because ethanol adsorbs water, it can only be stored purchase from breweries . Lower emissions than for a short time . This means we can only buy small gasoline . As powerful as a gasoline engine . amounts and may not get the best price . In fact, it Some cars can run on it right now with no may not be any cheaper than gasoline . Finally, it adjustments necessary (Ford Ranger, Taurus) . has higher emissions than other alternative fuels . Chapel Hill and UNC interested in Ethanol . Based on all the above information ( and the factors that are important - low emissions ; reliable , versatile vehicles ; regional collaboration) , it seems that CNG and CNG bi - fuel vehicles are the best option at this point . These vehicles have sufficient range , very low emissions , and a readily available and stable fuel supply . However, it should be that the supply and cost variables may be subject to change Also , CNG- fueled vehicles have already been partially funded in Chapel Hill and other nearby areas through earlier NCDAQ Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants , the 5 same - funding source the County is hoping to access . Ethanol could be a good option to explore further as part of the workgroup ' s intermediate goal if we can decide how to set up the refueling infrastructure and if we are willing to settle for only slightly reduced emissions . Electric vehicles should become a more viable option in the near future and should also . remain on our options shortlist . Proposed Plan : The N . C . Division of Air Quality ' s primary goal for the MSERG grants in fiscal year 2001 is to reduce nitorus oxides (NOx) by funding increased infrastructure for alternative fueled vehicles . The County ' s optimal goal may be replacing conventional vehicles that are already due for replacement with AFVs , where practical . As such, the following list is a compilation of vehicles identified with the Public Works Department which are scheduled for replacement in fiscal year 2001 and would be a candidate for AFV ' s . Each new vehicle would be either a dedicated CNG or bi - fiiel CNG/gasoline . In order to refuel these vehicles it would be necessary to also purchase and assemble a CNG re- fueling station at the Orange County Public Works office in Hillsborough . The County could enter an agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill to use their refueling center at the Chapel Hill public works office , and the Town has expressed an interest in such an arrangement , thereby enhancing both Town and County efficiency. This would provide a "northern Orange" and " southern Orange " distribution facility for CNG vehicles . As previously stated , providing such infrastructure is a stated goal for the MSERG grants this year, and a decision will be needed on pursuit of this arrangement ( along with any needed County matching funds) before the County submits its application for funding assistance to NCDAQ in December . The County has a computerized monitoring system in place that will enable staff to measure and track the fuel efficiency and cost-benefit of AFV ' s . Documentation for each of the replacement AFV ' s will allow the County to monitor and evaluate the vehicles (what are the maintenance costs , are the AFV ' s tougher on tires , what are the annual cost savings as opposed to emissiones reductions , for example) , and after an appropriate period of time , perform cost-benefit analysis on the AFV ' s versus conventional gasoline vehicles . These new AFV ' s , in particular the electric and gasoline hybrid suggested on the following page , would be a demonstration project for the County . As shown is the following text , we would propose pursuing a demonstration project with three different types of vehicles , consistent with the type of vehicles on the market and projected effectiveness . These would include four CNG vehicles , two CNG/gasoline hybrid vehicles , and two electric/gasoline hybrid vehicles . 40 40 JL Orange County Fleet Vehicles Suitable for Replacement by AFVs in FY 2001 Vehicle Replacement Veh . ID Year 'Make.. Model Description : Type Dept . Date To be replaced with Electric/gas hybrid car , ( 610 miles per ill up ) , $ 20 , 000 vs . $ 13 , 705 ( sticker Passenger price ) or Honda Civic GX ( CNG ) , 220 174 1989 Chevrolet Cavalier car Compact Motor Pool 4 / 19 / 99 miles per fill u Chevy Cavalier ($ 18 , 161 , CNG ) , 180 miles per fill up , $ 19 , 640 vs . $ 13 , 705 Passenger ( sticker price ) or Honda Civic GX 180 1989 Chevrolet Cavalier car Compact DSS 4 / 1 / 99 CNG , 220 miles perfill u Ford Crown Victoria (CNG ) , 100 - 175 mile per fill up (extended distance Passenger available ) , $ 19 , 425 vs . $ 15 , 800 (state 185 1989 Chevrolet Impala car Full - size Finance 5 / 30 / 06 contract rice Electric/gas hybrid car , ( 610 miles per ill up ) , $ 20 , 000 vs . $ 13 , 705 (sticker Passenger price ) or Honda Civic GX ( CNG ) , 220 192 1990 Chevrolet Cavalier car Compact Motor Pool 2 / 4 / 00 miles per fill u Ford Crown Victoria ( CNG ) , 100 - 175 mile per fill up (extended distance Passenger Central available ) , $ 19 , 425 vs . $ 15 , 800 (state . 212 1990 Chevrolet Caprice car Full - size Services 6 / 29 / 00 contract rice Bldng & Ford E350 ( CNG ) , 150-275 mi per fill 32 1986 Ford E 350 Van Grnds 1 / 27 / 97 up , Cost? ? Ford 17 - 150 ( CNG/gas ) , 100 -200mi per CNG fill up (400 miles with gasoline Pickup also ) , $ 20 , 147 vs . $ 15 , 800 state 440 1999 Ford Ranger 1 truck Compact ERCD 8 / 17 / 09 contract price Ford F- 150 ( CNG/gas ) , 100 -200mi per CNG fill up (400 miles with gasoline Pickup also ) , $ 20 , 147 vs . $ 15 , 800 state 81 119881 Dodge IRam 1501 truck I I Motor Pool 1 5 / 9 / 98 Icontract price This chart lists the vehicles that could be replaced by Alternative fuel vehicles in Fiscal year 2001 . They were selected according to their use hisiory and compatibility with the specifications of their alternative fuel vehicle replacements . At the end of each row is a brief description of the Alternative fuel vehicle that would be used as a replacement. Not all of these vehicles are due for immediate replacement. Both the ERCD and Finance Department vehicle could be replaced , with the existing vehicle being reassigned or sold . Section 2 - Intermediate Goals Explore the possibility of acquiring an alternative fuel bits, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with AFVs as appropriate, develop the educational component of the county 's AFV program, coordinate with other local bodies through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program . Once the County has "dipped its toes in the water" , we can continue our immersion into the Alternative Fuels area by exploring the purchase of additional AFVs (perhaps an electric or CNG bus for use as a shuttle between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough) and by coordinating with local high schools and technical education centers to develop repair and maintenance personnel to service the county ' s alternative fuel vehicles locally . Researchers are designing and creating new batteries that should dramatically improve the range of electric vehicles in the near term . Part of the intermediate goals can be to explore the possibilities - of using solar power to recharge subsequent electric vehicles . Further research into the use of ethanol should also be undertaken . Perhaps through involvement with the Clean Cities Program , we could discuss the development of an ethanol network among interested entities (private and public ) , within the county. Another possible issue for further study is electric school buses . The County may be able to secure grant money through the Clean Cities program or as an environmental education project ( air quality education and the role of alternative fuel vehicles ) for this sort of initiative . To realize these goals , a workgroup should be assigned to the exploration of these intermediate projects so that we can begin formulating a -long- term plan for Orange County and take a lead role in formulating an alternative fuels network in the area . In this effort , attention should be given to coordinating with the private needs and preferences for alternative fuel options . ,Section 3 - Long- Term Goals Minimize emissions fi•ona the county 's vehicle fleet and maximize the fleet 's f tel efficiency. From 1950 to 1990 Orange County ' s population increased 173 % and is expected to have IF increased another 20 % from 1990 to 1998 ( Orange County Profile ,. ERCD , 1 /99 ) . With all these I IMP new . residents come additional vehicles , and additional air-polluting emissions . As a proactive measure , the BOCC has determined that the County should take a leadership position in minimizing the negative impact the County fleet has on local air quality. One of the best ways to do this is to simultaneously minimize fleet emissions and maximize fleet fuel efficiency . By beginning a process of slowly replacing less fuel efficient vehicles with newer more fuel efficient ones and substituting AFVs for gasoline powered vehicles whenever possible , the County is taking important steps in realizing that goal . Through continued purchase of AFVs and development of an alternative fuel infrastructure network , the County is also making it easier and cheaper for the County ' s private businesses and individual County residents to also make the shift from traditionally fueled vehicles to alternatively fueled ones . This initial AFV leadership will lead to . clean air for Orange County long into the future . Potential areas of emphasis in the long- term for AFV ' s might include . • Promote solar-powered bicycles and other pedestrian-powered vehicles . • Promote solar-powered lawnmowers and encourage local high schools to continue to explore demonstration projects in this area . • Look at electric . buses as a future means of transit in the County . • Look at other options that will serve to reduce the number of vehicle miles driven and reduce ground- level ozone . Conclusions As directed by the BOCC , the Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Low Emissions Workgroup has . made assessments of the alternative fuel vehicles currently available and in consideration of Orange County " s unique circumstances and needs has offered this report which includes our three main goals and recommended action strategy. These goals are . Short- ternz , Research the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternative fuel vehicle options. Use that itzformation to apply for a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with purchasing multiple AFVs during fiscal year 2001 . :' t _ * - ` ~ • Y ,., � • . . tIF •' . :. t �. . i i • . , ice .; • - Intermediate Term : Explore the possibility of acquiring an alternative fitel bits, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with AFVs as appropriate, develop the edttcational component of the coitnty 's AFV program , coordinate with other local bodies through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program . Lon , - term : Minimize emissions from the county 's vehicle fleet and maximize the fleet 's fitel efficiency . FF The action strategy is to start acquiring a number of dedicated or bi - fuel Compressed Natural Gas vehicles which will replace some of the traditionally fueled vehicles that are due for replacement in the next fiscal year . Options for replacement vehicles include two bi - fuel ( CNG/gas ) Chevrolet Cavaliers , four dedicated CNG Ford Crown Victorias , one bi - fuel ( electric/ gas) Ford F = 150 truck , and one dedicated CNG Ford E350 van . Each would replace a similar gasoline4ueled vehicle in either the motor pool , or departments of Social Service , Finance , Central Services , Public Works , or Environment and Resource Conservation . A CNG refueling facility will also have to be constructed, and arrangements to refuel at the existing Town of Chapel Hill facility will need to be finalized , In order to cover some of the additional costs of this initiative , the County should apply for a Mcbilc vvurcc �'�,rrlissions Reduction Grant tro111' t lc vtatc of �vrtu Carolina; Di `vi :ii ii �ii: Quality. That application is due at the end of December . To facilitate that application process , we should continue our cooperation and collaboration with the Triangle J Clean Cities Program . The MSERG grants will Rind the purchase price differential between a conventional vehicle and an AFV , and will also fund a significant portion of the refueling facility ( although a County match of 30 - 40 % may be required) . We anticipate that the grant request will thus need to include $ 120 , 000 for the CNG refueling station (with a probably County match of around $ 65 , 000) and approximately $ 48 , 000 for the cost differential for vehicle purchases , for a total grant application of $ 168 ,000 . During this application process and afterwards , options for AFV purchases during the following fiscal year should continue to be examined , with consideration given to the feasibility of acquiring an electric or CNG bus for potential use as a . shuttle bus between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, including discussions on which agency would provide the service . A five -year strategic plan should be developed to allow for review and evaluation of changing technology and options , with an annual review . While one technology may be the most effective use of resources at the present , we should not limit thoughts and opportunities for future options . By continuing to evaluate new AFV acquisition options and developing a practice of replacing some of our higher emission , less fuel efficient vehicles with these new alternatively fueled vehicles every year, the County will demonstrate a proactive stance toward addressing ground- level ozone and the impending non- attainment designation for air quality. We will also be working toward our long term goal of protecting the health of Orange County ' s residents and resources , Members of the AFLEV Work Group : Roy Fortmann, Julie Tucker and Mark Smith ( Commission for the Environment) ; Marty Mandell ( solar and electric energy activist) , Wilbert McAdoo (Public Works) , David Cannell (Purchasing) ; Paul Thames ( County Engineer) ; Karen Lincoln (Planning) ; Marc deBree and David Stancil ( ERCD ) . Thanks to Bill Terry, Chapel Hill Public Works , . Qw 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : . November 1 , 2000 Action Agenda Item No . - SUBJECT : Legal Advertisement for November 27 , 2000 Public Hearing 5 DEPARTMENT : Planning and Inspections. PUBLIC HEARING : (Y/N ) FRO ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT : Craig Benedict , Planning Director, ext 2592 Legal Advertisement Robert P . Davis , Planner 111 , ext 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough 732m8181 Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688 =7331 Mebane 338 -227 -2031 PURPOSE . Authorization to submit Legal Advertisement for publication . BACKGROUND : The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for November 27 , 2000 . A summary of each item proposed for public hearing is provided . The text of specific changes will be sent to the BOCC approximately November 13 , 2000 and staff will be available for questions prior to the public hearing . Requests : • 1 . American Stone and Orange Water and Sewer Authoritv Planned Development Light Industrial ( PD - l - 1,} Rezoning and Class A Spegial Use Permit for Extraction of Earth Products ( Quarry/ Reservoir) • At intersection of NC 54 and Bethel Hickory Grove , Church Road • Rezone from RB to PD4 1 (Quarry/ Reservoir) with a Class A Special Use Permit . • 180 Acres • 2 . Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Evaluation of Impact Fees for both Orange County and Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Districts to determine if the rate structure ( increase and/or decrease ) is appropriate for different types of housing • 3 . Consideration of School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance To receive citizen ' s comments on the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO ) 25 • 4 . OLD 86 AND NEW 86 Economic Development District ( EDD ) Amendments To review EDD Districts including locations , expansions , retractions , uses and processes : • 5 . The Preserve Planned Development Mixed Use ( PD - MU ) Rezoning and Class A Special UseoPermit • Adjacent to and north of Pathways school site between NC 86 and NC 57 • Rezone from AR to PD- MU with Class A Special Use Permit • 470 acres • Uses include single-family , multiple family , limited commercial , public / institutional and ' open space. • Water and sewer was extended from Hillsborough for Pathways. School 6 . a mmercial/ Industrial Subdivision Amendment _ This amendment requires that subdivision of commercial/industrial property follow the ; Major Subdivision Process to include minimum lot size , access considerations and public e road requirements . FINANCIAL IMPACT : There is no financial impact associated with this decision . Advertisement costs are included in the departmental budget . RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : Administration recommends APPROVAL of the items for the November 27 , 2000 Quarterly Public Hearing y 26 c 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A public hearing will be held in the Judge F . Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse , 106 E . Margaret Lane , Hillsborough , North Carolina , on Monday , November 27 , 2000 , at 7 : 30 p . m . for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items : '0 . AMERICAN STONE COMPANY AND ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA ) and American Stone Company to rezone from RB to PD - Light Industrial ( PD- 1 � 1 ) and Class A Special Use Permit property located in the Bingham Township at the NC 54/ Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road intersection ( SR 1104 ) and being further identified on the Orange County Tax Maps as 6 . 28 . . 9B ; 6 . 28 . . 9C ; 6 . 28 . . 9E and part of 6 . 28 . . 8A and containing 180 . 5 acres more or less . ( PDmlm1 - 02 ) This request is to rezone the property to Planned Development Light Industrial ( PD - l - 1 ) with a Class A Special Use Permit that modifies and expands the area currently used for Extraction of Earth Products at the existing quarry operation . The proposal is to expand east across existing Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road . This expansion will require relocating , to the east , the portion of Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road adjoining this petition . Included within the request is the intent to convert the quarry to an OWASA- maintained reservoir at the end of the quarry operations , in 2030 . The site plan is on file in the Orange County Planning Department located at 306 - F Revere Road in Hillsborough . 2 . EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE The impact fee ordinance is under review with regards to the fee amount and the differentiation in impact that may be found based on a variety of housing types. I CONSIDERATION OF SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE An ordinance requiring that the adequacy of school public facilities based on a level ere of service standard in schools be considd in the approval process of residential development so that development and , capital investment planning can be synchronized with a more effective regulatory mechanism . 4 4 . NC 8611w85 AND I401OLD NC 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENTS These areas are presently subject to a moratorium and have been under review with regard to type and intensity of uses , development standards and approval processes . 5 . THE PRESERVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT Ed Bedford , attorney for 1st American Land , J . Michael and Rose Edwards , Apex Northwest Partnership and Natelli Communities , to rezone from AR to PD - Mixed Use ( PD4U ) and a Class A Special Use Permit property located in the Hillsborough Township north of the Town of Hillsborough between NC n :o � p ! �•. _ r_ � � _ .-, s, ... tl-. .— tom, ' aa � 1 ..4 .._ 1C"9 .� _ sa UU CII IC1 IV �.i :.71 , I i��iil ( Cg�. II UI ittage O 1 Ll 1a auutf I oluC VI r 1 + 61P .3 I -Nuc2u , ut;;iiIg further identified on Orange County Tax Maps as 4 . 13 27.; 4 . 2 . . 2 ; 4 . 3 . . 14 and 4 . 3 . . 1413 and containing 470 . 87 acres more or less . ( PDWU - 01 ) This project is composed of single -family , multi -family , commercial and public/ institutional uses . The land use plan in . the area permits the overall density . There is also ' a proposed dedication of open space to Orange County and a right-of4ay dedication for a portion of I the Hillsborough Northern Bypass . The site plan is on file in the Orange County Planning Department located at 306- F Revere Road in Hillsborough . The property is not located within a State Classified Water Supply Watershed , but is located within the Neuse River Basin , 6 . COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT This amendment requires that subdivision of commercial/ industrial/office property follow the Major Subdivision Process and to set minimum lot sizes depending on access consideration and/or master planning techniques . Changes may be made in the advertised proposals that reflect debate , objections and discussion at the hearing . . COMPLIANCE WITH THE "AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT" interpreter services and/or special sound equipment are available with prior notice . If you need this assistance , call the County Clerk's . office at 2454130 . If you are disabled and need assistance , contact the ADA Coordinator at 245 -2300 or TDD # 644 -3045 . Orange County does not discriminate on the basis of race , sec , color, age , national . origin , religion or disability in , its employment opportunities , programs , services or activities .