Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080922 APPROVED 11/6/2008 Orange County Board of County Commissioners RE-CONVENED MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 WORK SESSION Monday, September 22, 2008 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a re-convened meeting/Work Session from the September 16, 2008 regular meeting on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE The meeting was called to order at 7:34 pm. Commissioner Gordon asked that item #4 be pushed up earlier (this item was not pushed up earlier). Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners got an email about the staff Attorney's position. Commissioner Nelson said that he keeps getting emails about the airport and some of them reference sites that the University has identified, but he has not seen a report about this. He asked staff to get a copy of the apparent report that is floating around. Chair Jacobs said that there still has not been any formal communication from the University to the County Commissioners. 1. Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board of Directors (OWASA) — New Appointment A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Chair Jacobs to appoint Joyce Presler to the OWASA Board of Directors to a term expiring June 30, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. 2. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs Chair Jacobs said that there have been two meetings where there has been public comment on this issue, so this is the first time for the County Commissioners to talk about this issue amongst themselves and staff. Commissioner Gordon said that this is a controversial item, the staff did a good job of presenting this abstract, and she felt that this item was well prepared. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced Irene Phipps, the Animal Control Manager, who was involved in the Tethering Committee and the Animal Services Advisory Board. He said that the proposed amendment is that the County's ordinance be amended such that the tethering of dogs be limited to no more than three hours within a 24-hour period, that there be very clear specification of the types of collars that are allowed with or for permissible tethering, that there be some exemptions or exceptions to the general rule for lawful activities such as field trials as well as some more ordinary activities such as agricultural pursuits, and that there be kennel sizes established for dogs of different sizes and different numbers. He said that, more recently, there has been an adoption of an ordinance of this kind in Durham County. This documentation was provided in the abstract. Commissioner Nelson said that he was the liaison for the Tethering Committee and the committee that looked at this issue studied it very thoroughly and interviewed professionals, and listened and incorporated community concerns. He said that the document is a compromise and it is safe to say that the members of the committee wanted more, but through the discussions, the compromise occurred. The compromise is the three hours. Commissioner Carey said that he serves on the ASAB and he commended staff and the Tethering Committee. He said that Orange County is not New Hanover County or Durham County. He said that the compromise was reasonable. Commissioner Gordon said that, when this was presented, there was going to be a 12- month education period and a six-month warning. Bob Marotto said that the commitment of staff and advisory boards remains to a period of implementation that spans 18 months as originally conceived. This would be broken into two segments — a 12-month period of outreach and education and then the first six months, there would be a warning system after the ordinance was enacted. Commissioner Gordon asked what happens if a person wants to comply but does not have the funds for a fence. Bob Marotto said that the intent is to do the kind of outreach from day one over the 12-month period so that people become aware of the new requirements and make decisions about how to manage their dogs. One option is to work with community organizations such as Unchain Your Dog. The County would probably not have enough resources to ensure that every person would be assisted. The enclosures are not actually required by the ordinance. If it were determined that an enclosure replaced the tethering, it was thought that a requirement be put on the size of it. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 7 and said that the wording is ambiguous. Bob Marotto said that this should be clarified. Commissioner Gordon said that the committee did a good job in explaining existing rules and how this would be used as a tool for proper enforcement. Bob Marotto said that this enforcement is going to produce community benefits that are not going to arise from the enforcement of the regulations in place. Commissioner Carey asked about the penalty for violation of the ordinance and if the Towns would have to adopt the same ordinance. Irene Phipps said that the penalty would be a $200 citation and Geof Gledhill said that the Towns would have to adopt this by resolution for it to be effective in the municipalities. He said that Hillsborough may be different and he will check and get back to the Board. Mebane is not included. Chair Jacobs said that he does not see data on animal cruelty complaints and Bob Marotto said that he could bring the count from the 2007-08 fiscal year. Chair Jacobs said that he would like a breakdown of what the cruelty was, because part of this is regulating humans, not dogs. Bob Marotto said that he does not have the 300+ complaints broken down into finer categories at this time. Irene Phipps said that when a call for animal cruelty comes in people are not being specific and the first assessment is looking to see if the animal is tethered. She said that this could be broken down, but it would take time because it would involve going through the hard files. Chair Jacobs said that one of the things that the County Commissioners have heard is if the County would just enforce the cruelty ordinance now, this ordinance would not be needed. Part of his question is how many of the cruelty complaints relate to this. Chair Jacobs asked how the size of enclosures relates to tethering. He said that the Tethering Committee did not recommend kennel sizes, but the ASAB did. He also noticed that the kennel sizes in Durham are required to be bigger. He is unclear on this. Bob Marotto said that the Tethering Committee recommended that the ordinance ultimately include or be accompanied by some enclosure requirements, but did not go through the process of the research to determine what those might be. When the ordinance went forward to the ASAB, the board indicated its strong feeling that it would be best to introduce the tethering amendment along with the enclosures themselves. He said that, generally, the assumption is that the pens need to provide a sufficient amount of space for animals that could spend an overwhelming majority of the time enclosed in those pens. Commissioner Nelson said that it was not in the original charge or expertise of the Tethering Committee to look at kennel sizes. Chair Jacobs said that he cannot imagine how the three-hour tethering limit can be enforced, especially in the rural part of the County. Bob Marotto said the basic method of enforcement is the same one used in St. Paul, Minnesota. This particular method was to respond to a complaint and go to the address and speak to someone present, which often resolves issues. If the issue is not resolved, the method is to post a notice that a complaint was received about tethering longer than allowed (when no one is home) and the notice is time stamped. An official then returns to the address three or more hours later to see if there have been any changes in circumstances. If not, the notice remains posted, the animals remain tethered, and this would be regarded as a sufficient basis to believe that there was a violation of the ordinance. There are other methods that could be used. There is some economy and advantage to having the method of enforcement depend upon the neutral party of the Animal Control Officer rather than the perceptions of others. He said that he believes that no tethering is easier to enforce than a time limit of tethering, but because of the strength of the preference that there be a compromise, it was decided to have the time limit. Chair Jacobs asked about the collars that are encouraged for those three hours. Bob Marotto said that the stipulation is that the kinds of collars used to tether were buckle collars, and/or body harnesses. The prohibited types of collars are choke chains, prong collars, and head halters. Chair Jacobs made reference to the previous public hearings about this and the issue about roosters crowing. He asked if there was a way to differentiate legally based on zoning. This has come up in an area that is zoned rural residential. He asked if there were any differences in zoning densities that apply with the ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that these are not land use regulations, but have to do with the safety of people and animals. He does not know whether it makes sense for exceptions to be made with respect to the safety of people and animals based on how densely people live. He said that the County land use regulations cannot regulate bona fide farm activities. Discussion ensued on how these regulations are not based on land use. Commissioner Nelson said that one of the things that is not clear in the ordinance is when someone is in and out of the house and the dog is tethered while the owner is there. He said that the intent of the committee was that if someone is gardening or doing other things in the yard and the dog is tethered, then that is acceptable. He suggested adding the following language in Section 7, #4: "when a tethered dog is in the visual range of the responsible party and the responsible party is located outside with the dog." Commissioner Nelson said that one of the things that was heard from professionals was that putting in place a tethering ban helped reduce the number of dog bites and also reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. Chair Jacobs asked the pleasure of the Board. Commissioner Nelson said that this should move forward before the new Board members come on. Chair Jacobs said that he hopes that staff would bring back information that was requested at a regular meeting before December. Geof Gledhill asked about allowing tethering at campgrounds where it is required and Bob Marotto said this would be very consistent with the other exception, which was to allow dogs that had been found to be tethered for up to seven days while their owners were sought. Commissioner Gordon said that there is no information about recreational areas and lawful dog activities. Bob Marotto said that this is similar to the exception for field trials, etc. Geof Gledhill agreed that the exception is comparable. Chair Jacobs asked about Durham County's ordinance, page 5, item g, and Irene Phipps said that the present ordinance does not require that citizens obtain a permit from the County to trap animals themselves. However, in trapping wildlife, there has to be a permit from the State Wildlife Association. Commissioner Carey asked about the cruelty information and it was answered that it would come back October 21St 3. Employee Pay and Benefits Update Human Resources Director Michael McGinnis said that he would provide the Pay and Benefits update and talk about the Archer update. Staff will be coming back on October 7th with benefit recommendations for 2009. He made a PowerPoint presentation. 2009 Pay and Benefits Update BOCC Work Session September 22, 2008 Purpose •Provide Update on Archer Pay Study •Provide Status of Current Benefit Plans •Discuss Options and Receive Feedback Update on Archer Pay and Classification Study •Archer Company approved by Board October 2007 •Archer Position Questionnaire developed and training held with employees November 2007 •Completed questionnaires reviewed by department management teams and Human Resources and sent to Archer Company May 2008 •Archer Company analyzed questionnaires and developed job descriptions August 2008 •By the end of September 2008 the Archer Group will present preliminary reports to HR staff on the County's: •Classification Structure •Pay Structure •Pay equity among current employees Update on Archer Pay and Classification Study •Human Resources will work with Archer Group to review any recommended changes to the County's pay system by January 2009 •Staff will present the recommended changes to the Board, with an implementation plan during the FY 2009-10 Budget Process Update on Benefits Status of Current Benefits Plans Contributory County Benefits •Life Insurance Plan (MetLife) •Dental Care Plan (Delta Dental of NC) •EAP (Magellan Behavioral Services) •Flexible Spending Account (Tucker Administrators) •Health Care Plan (NCACC/CIGNA) ■401(k) Supplemental Retirement (Prudential) Employee Paid County Benefits •Disability Insurance (Colonial/Occidental) •Optional Life Insurance (MetLife) ■401(k) & 457 Supplemental Retirement Group Life Vendor: MetLife Type of Plan: Basic Term w/AD&D Basic County Paid at Annual Salary up to $50,000 at cost of 22.5 cents per$1,000 of coverage Employee may purchase additional Basic Term w/AD&D coverage up to total $ at group age based rates No Change to current benefits Dental Plan Vendor: Delta Dental Type of Plan: Self Insured Monthly Premiums (No Change in 2009) County Employee Single $24.30 $0.00 Emp/Spouse $24.30 $35.18 Emp/Child/ren$24.30 $41.94 Family $24.30 $60.08 Enhancements: Adjust the Table of Allowances used to pay claims to reflect a higher maximum payable amount for preventive and diagnostic services Employee Assistance Program Vendor: Magellan Behavioral Health Type of Plan: Fully Insured EAP Cost: 2009 Increase from $1.54 to $1.61 per employee per month (Total increase $672) Enhancements: •Increase number of counseling sessions per incident/situation from 3 to 5 •Add Financial Consultation services to existing Legal Consultation services Flexible Compensation Plan Vendor: Tucker Administrators Type of Plan: •Tax Sheltering Premiums and Spending Accounts: Medical (max $2,600) and Dependent Spending Account (max $5,000) Enhancements: •Increase limit from $2,600/year to $3,000/year for Medical Spending Account •Implement a Debit Card for transactions to save employees the out of pocket costs associated with the plan. Current Health Care Plan Vendor: NCACC and CIGNA Administration Types of Plans: Two Fully Insured Plans •HMO In-Network Plan (100% coinsurance after deductible of $250) Office Visits $15/$30 Pharmacy $5/$15/$30 ER $150 •PPO In and Out of Network Plan (90% coinsurance after$250 deductible) Office Visits $15/$30 Pharmacy $5/$15/$30 ER $150 •2008 Cost County Employee Total $6,380,253 $1,190,056 $7,570,309 Renewal of Existing Plan Designs (chart) Renewal of Existing Plans —Keep the same plan design for both HMO and PPO plans Advantages: •No change to plan design •No cost for employees with employee only coverage •Begins to address the difference in value/cost of the separate plans •May shift employees with dependents to the PPO plan because cost of dependent coverage in PPO is less than HMO Disadvantages: .Continues to increase the cost to the County and to the 45% of employees with dependent coverage .Requires HMO participants with dependent coverage to pay higher premiums than in past. .Does not provide employees with plans that represent a significant difference in cost and benefit level. Option 1 Buy Up Plan (chart) Option 1 "Buy Up Plan" Employee pays monthly premium when choosing the higher level plan or selects core plan at no premium cost Advantages: •Addresses inequity between the cost of two plans ■Allows choice of plan best meeting employee needs •Controls claims by cost sharing (paying for a premium or co-insurance) because more attention is paid to out of pocket costs. Disadvantages: •Affects 877 HMO employees who must decide to pay, even for employee only coverage, or to receive the same benefits as the PPO at no cost •The County saves but the employees' benefits are reduced in the no-cost option. •Increases the costs for HMO dependents more than the renewal rate. Option 2 (One Plan) (chart) Option 2 "One Plan" Combines HMO and PPO into one PPO Plan. Advantages .No difference in cost of dependent coverage .PPO would have decrease in co-insurance from $1,000 to $500. .Cost increase to employees with dependents is the lowest of all options. ■877 HMO members would gain access to out of network providers. .Cost to County is lower than renewal rate. Disadvantages .Affects all employees. ■877 employees/retirees in HMO would have a 5% co-insurance to a maximum of $500 vs. current $0 co-insurance. This will affect members with medical claims other than office visits/prescriptions. (Projections indicate 10-14% of members would be affected.) .Cost to County is slightly higher than Option 1. 2009 Options--Health Care Calendar Year Costs County Employee Total Increase 2008 Current Plan $6,380,253 $1,190,056 $7,570,309 Renewal of Current Plan $6,877,746 $1,293,552 $8,171,324 7.9% Option 1 (Buy Up Plan) $6,604,372 $1,326,341 $7,930,710 4.8% Option 2 (One Plan--PPO) $6,776,097 $1,272,406 $8,048,503 6.3% Wellness Activities •Enhanced preventive services through County Health Plan (no cost to members) •Lunch `n Learn Wellness Presentations •Wellness Committee •Addition of Health Advisor program in 2009 Questions Commissioner Gordon asked about changes in vacation or leave and Michael McGinnis said that there is no change in vacation, leave, petty leave, or sick days. Commissioner Gordon asked why the HMO's no longer have gatekeepers anymore and Diane Shepherd said that the system has eroded over time. Commissioner Gordon asked how it is managed care. Diane Shepherd said that it is mainly the in-network versus the out-of-network benefit. There is no out-of-network benefit, so the users are restricted to the membership network. Commissioner Carey said that the paid claims have decreased by $85,000 over the prior year. He asked about the prior year. Michael McGinnis said that this is for the County's fiscal year. Commissioner Nelson asked how much feedback staff wanted about Option 1 versus Option 2. Michael McGinnis said that staff would be providing for October 71h a recommendation based on the input from the Board. Commissioner Nelson said that he is open to hearing from employees and other County Commissioners, but his preference at this point would be the Buy Up plan because it preserves two options. Chair Jacobs made reference to the dental plan. He said that this plan mostly covers things that are preventative and things like crowns and periodontal are barely covered. He suggested looking at this further. Diane Shepherd said that many of these services are covered at 50%. Chair Jacobs made reference to the Employee Assistance Program and said that he was glad counseling sessions were being increased from three to five. He said that, unless there is a crisis, this is just whetting someone's appetite for counseling. Michael McGinnis agreed and said that three is the lowest he had known and five is very inexpensive. He thinks that 12 visits would be reasonable. Diane Shepherd pointed out that the health insurance also covers mental health issues. Chair Jacobs asked about the co-pays on page 26. He said that if the increasing cost is hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe a less painful way to address the shortfall is to consider small changes in co-pays. A $5 change may make a significant difference across the board. Diane Shepherd said that co-pays were raised last year, so staff was reluctant to introduce another change. Commissioner Foushee said that she got a call from someone that had a dependent child and took their child for a doctor visit, and over the next six weeks, the child had to go back for follow-up visits, and each time, she had to pay a co-pay. This employee ended up paying almost $100. She said that this employee does not have a great salary. She said that increasing the co-pay again this year would not be the best way to resolve this issue, particularly for people with dependent children. Michael McGinnis said that, with medical costs skyrocketing, people will have to pay up front with premiums or in co-pays. He said that employees who do not go to see their doctors regularly will incur an expense when something really goes bad or they will go to the emergency room. He wants to encourage everyone to get preventative care. Chair Jacobs made reference to the wellness activities and asked if there has been any more planning for a wellness center. Michael McGinnis said that he has talked several times with staff from the Health Department. The input is that it would not be easy to implement because the departments are so spread out. Commissioner Carey said that it is worth it to have a wellness center. He said that organizations are doing this all over the country, and Orange County has not stepped up to the plate. The initial investment would be large, but the dividends come quickly and continue to grow. Chair Jacobs asked that the potential costs at least be shown to the Board for a wellness center. He would like to have this before December 1st. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to take up the offer to meet with the staff about the different health care plans. Michael McGinnis said that the least amount of change would be the renewal of the plan design and the continuation of the HMO and PPO. He said that all options have some change associated with them. Commissioner Carey asked how much the County was spending on group life insurance per year and it was answered $114,519 last year and the same is anticipated this year. It varies with the number of employees and their salaries. Commissioner Carey made reference to the buy up plan and if the employee wants the higher-cost option, he or she would have to pay the difference in the premiums. Michael McGinnis explained the buy up plan coverage and said that the monthly cost for employee and spouse would be $291.18. The County is picking up most of the cost. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about HMOs and PPOs and Michael McGinnis explained these. Chair Jacobs asked if screening new employees for certain things has been discussed or contemplated and Michael McGinnis said no. Michael McGinnis asked if the Board would like a recommendation with alternatives and the Board agreed. Commissioner Gordon asked that more information come back to the Board on the coinsurance, the amount per member, and the whole family for the HMO versus PPO. 4. Resolution Submitting Comments Regarding Alternatives for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln said that the purpose of this item is for the Board to endorse comments to submit to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding Orange County's preference about the Long Range Transportation Plan. 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Alternatives Analysis Presentation Outline •Purpose •Background •2035 Long Range Transportation Plan •Process •Alternatives Analysis •Next Steps •Orange Unified Transportation Board Recommendation Purpose To endorse comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding Orange County's preferences for mitigating traffic congestion in the region by 2035. DCHC MPO •Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Created as a part of the interstate Highway Act (1950s) - required for urban areas having population > 50,000 •Federal mandate - MPO is responsible for transportation planning and programs within its Metropolitan Planning Boundary (MAB) - must plan use of federal transportation funding: ➢ Comprehensive Transportation Plan ➢ Long Range Transportation Plan ➢ Planning Work Program (UPWP) ➢ Transportation Improvement Program •Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization -Durham County, and -Parts of Orange County and Chatham County. MPO Long Range Transportation Plan •Updated every 4 years to comply with Air Quality regulations •Minimum 20 year planning period •Fiscally constrained subset of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) •Includes a public involvement process •Projects must be in LRTP to receive state and federal funding (via Transportation Improvement Program -TIP) DCHC MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) •Based on transportation needs for future population and employment and land use. •Lists highway, transit and other transportation projects to address future transportation deficiencies through year 2035. •Lists anticipated revenues to cover anticipated project costs. •Used for local planning decisions -Reserve right-of-way for future highway and fixed guideway projects -Land use regulations that protect mobility of planned transportation system 2035 LRTP Process 1. Goals and Objectives 2. Socioeconomic Data (population and employment forecasts) 3. Deficiency Analysis 4. Alternative Analysis 5. Preferred Option (Oct-Dec 2008) 6. Draft LRTP (Dec 2008) 7. Air Quality Conformity (Jan-April 2009) 8. Federal Approval (by June 2009) What is Alternatives Analysis? •Starting point in developing final plan - proposed sets of projects/services to meet transportation deficiencies. •Indicates how project types and individual projects meet future transportation demand •Used to receive input from public, elected and local officials, transportation staff for analysis and evaluation of plan •Assists in understanding the public and local officials' preferences What are the Alternatives? (chart) Transportation System Alternatives Projects (chart) 2035 LRTP and CTP Land Use Scenarios (chart) Alternatives Analysis Report (map and chart) What's In the Alternatives Analysis Report? (map and charts) Congestion Maps Next Steps in the LRTP Process •Get public feedback on the Alternatives. •Develop the Preferred Option (release in October 2008) •Get public feedback on the Preferred Option (October through December 2008) •Approve draft 2035 LRTP (December 2008) Orange Unified Transportation Board Recommendations - Rail transportation including commuter rail service between Burlington and Raleigh that would serve Orange County; - Enhanced local bus and express bus service with shorter delays; - More investment in roadway "hotspots"/intersection improvements instead of overall roadway widening; and - Off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as roadway improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. - Integration with land use planning that channels development into high density mixed use development along transit corridors. - Transit service and transportation improvements that serve designated Economic Development Districts; and - Park and ride lots in fringe areas with enhanced transit services, as a congestion relief alternative Comments on the Regional Transit Vision Plan: - The rail vision plan should consider other possible existing rail corridors in the region as possible elements for expansion and to enhance the viability of the rail vision plan. - The rail vision plan should include direct service to the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. Commissioner Gordon said that the OUT Board met and made the specific recommendations, but it did not suggest any general statements concerning principles that should guide the Long Range Transportation Plan. These statements have been included in the resolution. She read the relevant language in the resolution, "give priority to projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and foster economic development in designated economic development districts." She also suggested listing the bicycle projects. Chair Jacobs made reference to commuter rail between Raleigh and Burlington and asked why a train station in Hillsborough was not mentioned. Karen Lincoln said that she could add this language. Chair Jacobs suggested the following language: "Rail transportation including commuter rail service between Burlington and Raleigh that would serve Orange County with a train stop in Hillsborough." A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the resolution as stated below, including the change made by Chair Jacobs. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING ALTERNATIVES FOR DEVELOPING THE 2035 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in regional transportation planning as a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing a Long-Range Transportation Plan, and has released the Alternatives Analysis of the DCHC 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for public comment; WHEREAS, Orange County seeks ample opportunities to review and comment on regional transportation plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Orange Unified Transportation Board has submitted comments regarding the Alternatives Analysis for the 2035 LRTP; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends to the Transportation Advisory Committee that the 2035 Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan give priority to projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and foster economic development in designated economic development districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends that the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan include the following as part of a multi-modal approach: Rail transportation including commuter rail service between Burlington and Raleigh that would serve Orange County with a train stop in Hillsborough; Enhanced local bus and express bus service with shorter delays; More investment in roadway "hotspots"/intersection improvements instead of overall roadway widening; Off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as roadway improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities; Integration with land use planning that channels development into high density mixed use development along transit corridors; Transit service and transportation improvements that serve designated Economic Development Districts; and Park and ride lots in fringe areas with enhanced transit services, as a congestion relief alternative; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends the following with respect to the bicycle component of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan: Include a list of the proposed bicycle projects; Provide a definition of what constitutes a "regional" bicycle facility versus an "on road" bicycle facility; Include the NCDOT Mountains to Sea Bicycle Trail as a regional bicycle facility; and Remove the proposed bicycle facility adjacent to Interstate 40. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Orange County submits the following comments regarding the Regional Transit Vision Plan as it relates to rail service: The rail vision plan should consider other possible existing rail corridors in the region as possible elements for expansion and to enhance the viability of the rail vision plan. The commuter rail service is not shown on maps depicting the Special Transit Advisory Commission's recommended rail vision plan, although the STAC report recognizes the need for coordination with other plans and initiatives for transportation options that might be extended to commuters from regions coming into the region along the North Carolina Railroad corridor. The Fixed Guideway Option includes all the STAC recommendations and the project tables in Section 4 list this commuter rail project as a STAC recommendation. The rail vision plan should include direct service to the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board